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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract limitations that fall under the mental process/ organized human activity groupings. For example, claim l 1 recites a charging control method, but no practical application of a charging control is applied, but instead the limitations are drawn to differences being obtained (routine data gathering) of generic computer components (batteries). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it is merely mental steps/ organized human activity of determining whether to connect based on mental observations/ routine data gathering. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it is merely reciting generic computer components. There is no positive recitations of controlling current flow such as those with low SOC or low voltage in comparison to the other batteries. The dependent claims are rejected for similar reasons and based on their dependency, and determining steps are merely mental steps/ math Connecting or not connecting is merely applying the abstract idea to the environment and is not a practical application.
Appropriate correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims recite performing charging control, but no charging is recited in the claims, thus rendering the claims indefinite/ unclear, and additionally it is not clarified in which way the difference in SOC and voltage influences charging control, and thus it appears that the claim comprises the option to charge the batteries with low SOC or voltage with less current than others which would increase the difference, thus rendering the claims vague/ indefinite as this does not appear to be supported by the specification and be in accordance with what is known in the art.
Additionally, the dependent claims are vague/ indefinite as it is unclear which features are now and which correspond to those of higher ranking claims. For example, claims 5 and 6 both depend on claim 4, are the same yet the end of claim 5 recites connecting and the end of claim 6 recites not connecting. Therefore, it is unclear how different results are obtained from same circumstances, and such examples apply to the other dependent claims as well. The Examiner suggests clarifying the problem attempting to be corrected by the various dependent claims.
Further, claims 3 and 12 recite “high voltage” which is not defined and it is unclear if this refers to voltage levels of batteries in parallel, or those not connected, and what “high” is in reference to.
Further, claim 3 depends on claim 2 which recites two possible conditions, and thus the scope of claim 3 is unclear since claim 2 involves optional steps.
The Examiner notes that given the dependency and optionality of the limitations as set forth in claim 1, the scope of the claims is unclear because it is unclear which limitations of various charging controls are required/ optional, especially as the chain of dependent claims extends further from claim 3.
The dependent claims are rejected at least based on their dependency.
Appropriate clarification/ correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Zhong Di et al. (US 20220123576).
Re claim 1, Zhong Di et al. teaches:
a charging control method for battery system, characterized in that the battery system comprises N batteries, N being a positive integer greater than 1, and the charging control method comprises: (paragraph [0002] states the application relates to the technical field of a power supply, and in particular, to a method for managing charging and discharging of a parallel-connected battery pack, an electronic device, and an electrical system)
performing charging control on the battery system based on a difference between a SOC of a first battery in M batteries, not yet connected in parallel to the battery system, of the N batteries and a SOC of a second battery in K batteries already connected in parallel to the battery system, (paragraph [0008] states an embodiment of this application provides a method for managing charging and discharging of a parallel-connected battery pack. The method for managing charging and discharging of a parallel-connected battery pack includes: obtaining a voltage value and a state of charge of a plurality of battery packs; comparing the state of charge of each of the battery packs with a reference state of charge; and managing charging and discharging of the plurality of battery packs based on a comparison result)
under a condition that a battery with a smallest SOC in the N batteries has been connected in parallel to the battery system, (paragraph [0012] states according to some embodiments of this application, the reference state of charge may also be obtained by: using a minimum value of states of charge of battery packs already connected to a power bus as the reference state of charge when a battery pack is already connected to the power bus),
wherein the first battery is any one of the M batteries, and the second battery is a battery with a smallest SOC in the K batteries; (see the above cited paragraphs)
or
performing charging control on the battery system based on a difference between 1000 a voltage of a third battery in the M batteries and 1000 a voltage of a fourth battery in the K batteries, (see paragraph [0008] which states an embodiment of this application provides a method for managing charging and discharging of a parallel-connected battery pack. The method for managing charging and discharging of a parallel-connected battery pack includes: obtaining a voltage value and a state of charge of a plurality of battery packs; comparing the voltage value of each of the battery packs with a reference voltage value and managing charging and discharging of the plurality of battery packs based on a comparison result),
under a condition that the battery with the smallest SOC in the N batteries has not been connected in parallel to the battery system, (see paragraph [0009] which states according to some embodiments of this application, the reference voltage value may be obtained by: using a minimum value of voltage values of the plurality of battery packs as the reference voltage value when none of the plurality of battery packs is connected to a power bus),
wherein the third battery is any one of the M batteries and the fourth battery is a battery with a smallest voltage in the K batteries; wherein both M and K are positive integers and N=M+K (see passages cited above).
The Examiner notes that the measurement of a SOC does not exclude to measure the voltage and the other way round, nor does the determination of the SOC exclude that the SOC is determined from a voltage measurement. Therefore, prior art that determines SOC of a battery by means of its voltage will match the claimed method for both of the claimed cases - i.e. battery with smallest SOC connected and battery with smallest SOC not connected. Further as there is normally the known correlation of voltage and SOC the difference in SOC between a first and second battery corresponds to a difference in voltage between a third and fourth battery i.e. first, third and second, fourth battery may be the same. As a conclusion of this the discrimination of a situation with the battery with the smallest SOC connected or not connected has no consequence as a difference of SOC and a difference in voltage result in the same technical situation - i.e. a difference of the charging situation of the two batteries which are compared. Thus, any prior art which is based on a correspondence of voltage and SOC will cover the feature of SOC difference and voltage difference as long as one of both is determined. In order to establish a difference in this aspect the claim has to comprise the limitation to cases in which there is no strict correlation between SOC and voltage. The final consequence is that there is no difference of the charging control in the two cases (connected / not connected). The subject-matter broadens to a method which performs charging control of batteries (intended to operate in parallel) on the basis of voltage differences. Even further, only one of the performing is required by claim 1, as the recitation of “or” renders one recited charging control as optional.
Re claim 16, the limitations have been discussed above, re claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 2-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong Di et al., as discussed above.
Re claim 2, the Examiner notes that paragraph [0018]+ teaches connecting if the difference between SOC and threshold SOC is less, thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have the claimed limitations for control of charging based on the values. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the claim limitations provide two options and that either one can be options based on whether the first or second conditional are options if the first conditional performing charging control method of claim 1 is performed.
Re claim 3, paragraph [0063]+ teaches minimum values of SOC and voltages, wherein the Examiner notes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to determine connection of the smallest SOC if the smallest voltage has been connected, as the Examiner notes the smallest voltage can be the smallest SOC for example (see paragraph [0083]+) to control charging/ discharging.
Re claims 4-15 the Examiner notes that though silent to explicitly reciting the limitations of the various scenarios/ conditions, that Zhong et al. generally teaches making charging and discharging of parallel batteries based on values of the SOC and voltage, and that changes in specific conditions relating the SOC and voltage for determining connectivity and discharging involves only routine skill in the art as the general conditions are taught and optimizing values/ ranges would only produce expected results, especially as FIG. 5 teaches connecting or not connecting. Therefore, the various conditions/ scenarios recited by the claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, in order to control charging based on the SOC and voltage levels. The Examiner notes that re claim 15, a battery being the lowest voltage has been discussed above re minimum values of voltages and state of charges (paragraph [0009]+).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/DANIEL I. WALSH/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights