DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims Status
Claims 1-7 are currently pending and are original.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BHASME et al. (US 2023/0356625 A1, BHASME) in view of THOMAS et al. (US 10,826,304 B1, hereinafter THOMAS).
Regarding claims 1 and 6 (Claim 1 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), BHASME discloses a power storage system comprising a bi-directional direct-current/direct-current (DC/DC) converter, wherein the system allows the use of a battery with an inverter/charger (See Figs.2A-2C, disclose a vehicle system comprising a bi-directional DC-DC converter 212. Fig.2B, discloses the DC-DC converter operable in a direction to discharge the battery 204 to inverter/charger systems 208-1 and 208-2. Fig.2C, discloses the converter operating in a second direction to charge the battery 204 from inverter/charger system 208-1 and 208-2).
However, BHASME does not disclose a protocol translator, wherein the battery is ordinarily incompatible with the inverter/charger with respect to voltage.
THOMAS discloses a vehicle electrical system comprising a protocol translator (See Fig. 2, Items#209+202 and Fig.3 which discloses the structure of battery capacitor translator “lead acid output emulator” 209. See Col.10, line 36 to Col.11, lines 49, disclose the battery capacity translator converts the measurement parameter of the battery 201 and converts it to data that is readable and understood by the external charger 208), wherein the battery is ordinarily incompatible with the inverter/charger with respect to voltage (See Col.9, lines 31-39, disclose the battery capacity translator tricks any device that uses sense line 105 [i.e. external charger 208] to think that a lithium based battery [incompatible] is a lead-acid battery [compatible]).
BHASME and THOMAS are analogous art since they both deal with vehicle electrical systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by BHASME with the teaching of THOMAS by adding the protocol translator for the benefit of increasing efficiency by allowing the system to replace a lead-acid battery with a lithium-based battery (See THOMAS, Col.3, lines 9-15 and Col.13, line 60 to Col.14, line 2).
Regarding claim 6, the claim includes all limitations of claim 1 except the bi-directional DC/DC converter. The limitations of claim 6 are met by the rejection of claim 1 as discussed above.
Regarding claim 2, BHASME and THOMAS disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein battery voltages and currents are changed within the protocol translator by a specific ratio or a specific procedure to make the battery appear to the inverter/charger to be the correct voltage and current for the inverter/charger (See THOMAS, Col.10, line 36 to Col.11, lines 49, disclose the battery capacity translator converts the measurement parameter of the battery 201 and converts it to data that is readable and understood by the external charger 208. Col.11, table 1 also discloses measurements of lithium-based cells and the corresponding lead acid terminal voltage and the battery translator outputs a voltage which represents the lithium-based battery as a lead-acid battery).
Regarding claim 3, BHASME and THOMAS disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the protocol translator performs at least one basic function of battery balancing by acting directly on reported voltages and currents, rather than translating them first (See THOMAS, Fig.2, Item#202 and Col.8, lines 38-47, disclose the control circuit balances the charge of the battery cells based on the direct voltage measurement as the circuit directly measures the voltage of the cells of battery 201).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by BHASME and THOMAS with the further teachings of THOAMAS by performing battery balancing by acting directly on reported voltages and currents, rather than translating them first for the benefit of reducing the balancing time by acting on the direct voltage measurement data instead of translating it first.
Regarding claim 4, BHASME and THOMAS disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the battery voltage is transformed by the bidirectional, fixed-ratio converter in order to allow normal operation of the inverter/charger (See BHASME, Fig.2A, Item#212 and Par.44, disclose the DC-DC converter 212 converts the DC voltage from the battery 204 to the voltage of the drivetrain components 208-1, 208-2).
Regarding claims 5 and 7, BHASME and THOMAS disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the protocol translator converts at least one unique report of the battery to a universal format (See THOMAS, Col.10, line 36 to Col.11, lines 49 and Col.6, lines 5-10, discloses converted data is transmitted on a serial bus, parallel bus, wireless or other type of communication i.e. universal format understood by an external device).
The examiner further explains that if the applicant disagrees with the examiner’s interpretation that data transmitted on a serial bus or wireless communication is universal format, that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by BHASME and THOMAS by converting the measurements into universal format for the benefit of allowing any external device to understand the translated data.
References considered but not relied upon:
HASLER (US 2022/0405222 A1): discloses battery data translator which translates battery data and output it into a different format that is used/understood by a power system of a machine.
AMARASEKARA et al. (US 2017/0110901 A1): discloses a battery power translator which allows an incompatible battery to be used with an existing device by converting the battery voltage to a compatible voltage and perform logical interface with the device.
COLAVITO et al. (US 11,003,876 B2): discloses an apparatus comprising a universal power interface that allows the device to receive power and communicate with a plurality of different types of batteries.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED H OMAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7165. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am -7:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AHMED H OMAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights