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 § 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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Applicant claims in Claim 8 “a first battery module in the first plurality of battery modules is identical to a second battery module in the second plurality of battery modules,”.
In claim 9, applicant claims the “the second discharge profile being at least five times greater than the first discharge profile”.
Applicant has not defined “discharge profile” nor the meaning of “identical”, and thus these two limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation represent an instance where it is improperly unclear whether the modules are actually identical. Absent disclosure or clear term of art definition in the prior art, Claim 9 is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, as long as the batteries are capable of discharging differently, it will meet the requirements of Claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)&(a)(2) as being anticipated by Livingston et al (USPGPN 20210380019; hereinafter Livi).
Independent Claim 1, Livi discloses a microgrid charging system (Figs. [1-12, esp. 1, 12]; noted that applicant did not explicitly define “microgrid”, where US department of energy [https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/2024-01-18%20Microgrid%20Overview%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf] defines a microgrid as “A microgrid is a group of interconnected loads and distributed energy resources within clearly defined electrical boundaries that acts as a single controllable entity with respect to the grid. A microgrid can operate in either grid-connected or in island mode, including entirely off-grid applications”;
Thus, as Fig. 12 demonstrates 250 has connection to power supply and batteries internal to the unit, it is capable of providing power when a potential external power supply [PSU], and as 270 is a charger circuit, 250 [10 of Fig. 1] is understood to be equivalent to the claimed microgrid charging system, and), comprising:
a battery system comprising a first plurality of battery modules (38, 36, 39, 278);
a battery management system including a controller (252) in operable communication with the first plurality of battery modules (lines to 252 in Fig. 12), the controller operable to:
receive battery data for each of the first plurality of battery modules including at least one of a discharge frequency, shock and vibration data, battery capacity data (¶’s [66, 88], where any sensed data to a potential external BECS management system is routed through 252);
compare the battery data for each of the first plurality of battery modules to an airworthiness standard (¶[88]); and
determine whether each of the first plurality of battery modules is airworthy based on the airworthiness standard (¶[88]).
Dependent Claim 2, Livi discloses the microgrid charging system is configured to charge an aircraft battery system (each of the batteries [38, 36, 39, 278] are understood to be aircraft battery systems since they are used in aircraft, esp. as applicant has not defined in the claim that this system in part of the aircraft when being charged ¶[02]).
Dependent Claim 3, Livi discloses each of the first plurality of battery modules are cross compatible with each of a second plurality of battery modules in the aircraft battery system (see at least abstract, ¶[31]).
Dependent Claim 4, Livi discloses an aircraft battery management system configured to operably couple to the battery management system of the microgrid charging system (¶[67] describes 264 which is in communication with 252, where when battery 228 is inside of the drone and in communication with 222 means 252 is an aircraft battery management system).
Dependent Claim 6, Livi discloses the aircraft battery system comprises a second plurality of battery modules (¶[38] defines multiple 25 being used in a system of drones, i.e. a plurality of second battery modules), and
a first battery module in the first plurality of battery modules is cross compatible with a second battery module in the second plurality of battery modules (¶’s [31, 38]).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)&(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang (USPGPN 20150353206)
Independent Claim 15, Wang discloses a method (¶’s [162-165, 175-177] in light of ¶’s [159, 237] on at least structure of Fig. 1), comprising:
installing a first battery module in a microgrid (vehicle 120 of at least Fig. 1, see ¶’s [92-99, esp. 94] where the vehicle has a battery and an engine, and thus meets the requirement of a microgrid) charging system, the microgrid charging system configured to charge an aircraft propulsion battery system (¶’s [159, 162-165, 175-177, esp. 159, 165], describes both exchanging a battery with an aircraft and charging the aircraft);
determining a second battery module in the aircraft propulsion battery system no longer meets an airworthiness standard (¶’s [159, 165, 237], where ¶[165] describes why a battery may need to be charged/swapped by inspection, while ¶’s [159, 237] gives context that this level means it is not meeting the airworthiness standard);
determining the first battery module is airworthy based on the airworthiness standard (as described above in the previous stanza, ¶[165] describes the battery being fully charged, i.e. a fully charged battery is higher than at least ¶[237] levels); and
swapping the first battery module with the second battery module (¶[165]).
Dependent Claim 16, Wang discloses replacing the second battery module with the first battery module (¶’s [162-165, 175-177, esp. 165]).
Dependent Claim 17, Wang discloses determining whether the first battery module is airworthy based on the airworthiness standard further comprises comparing at least one of: a battery capacity of the second battery module to a threshold battery capacity (¶’s [159, 165, 237] describes the remaining charge and/or state/level of charge is used, where this ratio is determined by determining a battery capacity and the remaining capacity, and the remaining capacity is compared against a threshold);
a number of flight cycles of the second battery module to a threshold number of flight cycles; and a number of hours of the second battery module to a threshold number of hours.
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.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livingston et al (USPGPN 20210380019; hereinafter Livi) in view of Suzuki (USPGPN 20210001744)
Dependent Claim 5, Livi teaches an airworthiness status for each battery module of the aircraft battery system in the form of state of charge (as described above)
Livi is silent to a craft battery monitoring system including a second controller operable to: receive, from the craft battery management system, the battery data for the second plurality of battery modules in the craft battery system in response to electrically coupling the craft battery management system to the battery system for charging; and
determine whether one of the second plurality of battery modules no longer meets the worthiness standard.
Suzuki teaches a craft battery monitoring system (4) including a second controller (40, of Figs [1-6, esp. 4]) operable to: receive, from the craft battery management system (10, 20, Fig. 2), the battery data for the second plurality of battery modules in the craft battery system in response to electrically coupling the craft battery management system to the battery system for charging (Figs. [1-6, esp. 6], ¶’s [67, 68] demonstrates the receipt of battery data); and
determine whether one of the second plurality of battery modules no longer meets the worthiness standard (Figs. [4, 6-10, esp. 6], ¶[74] describes a state E where battery no longer is useful [i.e. is discarded]). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that when a battery becomes too deteriorated/damaged, further use of it can be both inefficient [as the capacity is so low, putting power into it can be wasted as heat, and also power is not retained much if at all] and unsafe [very damaged/old batteries can explode/inflame/overheat/gas-emitter, etc.]. Thus, by determining a battery is unworthy to be used, it can improve safety and efficiency.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Livi with Suzuki to provide improved efficiency and safety.
Dependent Claim 7, Livi teaches an airworthiness status for each battery module of the aircraft battery system in the form of state of charge (as described above)
Livi is silent to the controller is further operable to send a readiness/state-of-charge status for each battery module in the first plurality of battery modules to a display device in response to coupling the battery management system to an onboard battery management system of the craft battery system.
Suzuki teaches the controller is further operable to send a readiness/state-of-charge status for each battery module in the first plurality of battery modules to a display device in response to coupling the battery management system to an onboard battery management system of the craft battery system (Figs. [1-6], where Fig. 6 shows state-of-charge status for each battery is sent to a user device having display device 54 in light of ¶’s [88, 95], where Figs. [2, 3] shows the controllers in each of the battery exchange station and the vehicle). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by displaying information on the display, it would provide improved convenience for a user so they understand the state of the various batteries.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Livi with Suzuki to provide improved convenience for a user.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livingston et al (USPGPN 20210380019; hereinafter Livi) in view of Freeman (USPGPN 20100193261).
Dependent Claim 8, Livi teaches a battery ecosystem, comprising:
the microgrid charging system of claim 1, the microgrid charging system including a first discharge profile (inherent that a battery will have a discharge profile to it);
an aircraft propulsion battery system comprising a second plurality of battery modules (¶[38] defines multiple 25 being used in a system of drones, i.e. a plurality of second battery modules), the aircraft propulsion battery system including a second discharge profile (inherent that a battery will have a discharge profile to it), wherein:
a first battery module in the first plurality of battery modules is identical to a second battery module in the second plurality of battery modules (¶’s [12, 13, 31, 32, 49, 50] describes the batteries similar, while Figs. [1, 7] shows them having identical shapes;
to be used in the drones, the batteries would be understood to one of ordinary skill that the batteries would need to fit inside the drones 14/220),
the first battery module is adaptable to replace the second battery module, and the second battery module is adaptable to replace the first battery module (abstract ¶’s [31, 38]).
Livi fails to explicitly describe the battery modules are identical (noted that while Livi states the batteries are similar, and they appear to have identical shapes as shown in Figs. [1, 7]).
Freeman teaches an analogous system with battery exchange in which the batteries are explicitly described as identical (¶[82]). Official notice taken that by using an identical battery, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would understand it would improve the ease with which the new battery is installed, ease of manufacture of the battery holder for the drone, ease of maintaining the battery in the vehicle (if you have different battery modules with different size), reduced complexity of the control system (do not have to adjust to different types of batteries, store extra data related to different battery types), and improved costs (buying the same battery in bulk often allows for reduced cost per unit, rather than a plurality of different batteries; e.g. Costco’s business model).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Livi with Freeman to provide improved costs, ease, and simplicity.
Dependent Claim 9, Livi teaches a the second discharge profile being at least five times greater than the first discharge profile (noted that this limitation is an intended use, and in light of the 112[b] interpretation, Livi’s batteries are able to meet this definition;
Furthermore, Livi does not explicitly have the batteries of the exchange station discharging [even though they are certainly capable of doing so], so it could be interpreted as almost 0, while the batteries in the aerial vehicle are the main power source, so just based upon those ratios, it would be understood to one of ordinary skill in the art to be greater than 5 times).
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livingston et al (USPGPN 20210380019; hereinafter Livi) in view of Freeman (USPGPN 20100193261), further in view of Suzuki (USPGPN 20210001744)
Dependent Claim 10, Livi teaches an airworthiness status for each battery module of the aircraft battery system in the form of state of charge (as described above)
Livi fails to explicitly to teach a worthiness commissioning module configured to determine a worthiness status for each of the first plurality of battery modules and the second plurality of battery modules.
Suzuki teaches a worthiness commissioning module configured to determine a worthiness status for each of the first plurality of battery modules and the second plurality of battery modules (42 & 40 of 4 in Figs. [1-6] takes a worthiness standard for each battery, see ¶’s [67, 68], where Fig. 4 shows degree of deterioration representing standard for airworthiness or not). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that when a battery becomes too deteriorated/damaged, further use of it can be both inefficient [as the capacity is so low, putting power into it can be wasted as heat, and also power is not retained much if at all] and unsafe [very damaged/old batteries can explode/inflame/overheat/gas-emitter, etc.]. Thus, by determining a battery is unworthy to be used, it can improve safety and efficiency.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Livi in view of Freeman with Suzuki to provide improved efficiency and safety.
Dependent Claim 11, the combination of Livi, Freeman, and Suzuki teaches the first battery module in the first plurality of battery modules is configured to replace the second battery module in the second plurality of battery modules in response to the first battery module having a first airworthiness status that is airworthy and the second battery module having a second airworthiness status that is non-airworthy, and wherein the second battery module in the second plurality of battery modules is configured to replace the first battery module in the first plurality of battery modules (for each of the references in the combination, as explained above, see further Figs. [7-10] of Suzuki).
Dependent Claim 12, the combination of Livi, Freeman, and Suzuki teaches the aircraft propulsion battery system includes an aircraft battery management system ([224, 222, 230] of Fig. 12 in Livi, corresponds to [10, 20] in Fig. 2 of Suzuki), and
the aircraft battery management system is configured to operably couple to an aircraft battery monitoring system of the microgrid charging system (Fig. 12 shows the communication connections in Livi highlighted by 264, Suzuki is best shown by Fig. 6).
Dependent Claim 13, the combination of Livi, Freeman, and Suzuki teaches the microgrid charging system further comprises a microgrid monitoring system configured to monitor the first plurality of battery modules (Livi ¶’s [10, 66, 88] describes a BECS management system or Master Control centre; Suzuki has server elements of Figs. [4, 6]).
Dependent Claim 14, the combination of Livi, Freeman, and Suzuki teaches a vehicle battery monitoring system and a commissioning module, the vehicle battery monitoring system and the microgrid monitoring system in operable communication with the commissioning module (Livi ¶’s [10, 66, 88] describes a BECS management system or Master Control centre; Suzuki has server elements of Figs. [4, 6];
Noted that while the applicant has claimed these components, they have not been described as distinct from the earlier components;
Noted that due to lacking a showing of criticality, the these elements represent either a functional limitation of the servers of Livi and Suzuki and/or a simple duplication of parts which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the benefit of reduced complexity of the central unit by having a plurality of simpler/redundant controllers separately performing different tasks rather than a more complex central unit).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (USPGPN 20150353206) in view of Suzuki (USPGPN 20210001744)
Independent Claim 18, Wang teaches a method (¶’s [163-165, 175-177] in light of ¶’s [159, 237] on at least structure of Fig. 1) comprising:
receiving, via a processor (¶’s [107, 221, 242, 278, 291, 347, 348, esp. 107, 278] describes a processor on the vehicle/microgrid 120) and through a microgrid (see ¶’s [92-99, esp. 94] where the vehicle has a battery and an engine, and thus meets the requirement of a microgrid) monitoring system (¶’s [159, 165, 237] describes determination of state of charge, i.e. monitoring), an airworthiness status of each battery module in a first plurality of battery modules in a microgrid battery system (¶’s [159, 165, 237], where ¶[165] describes why a battery may need to be charged/swapped by inspection, while ¶’s [159, 237] gives context that this level means it is not meeting the airworthiness standard);
determining, the airworthiness status of each of a second plurality of battery modules in an aircraft battery system (¶’s [159, 165, 237], where ¶[165] describes why a battery may need to be charged/swapped by inspection, while ¶’s [159, 237] gives context that this level means it is not meeting the airworthiness standard); and
determining, via the processor, a first battery module in the first plurality of battery modules to replace a second battery module in the second plurality of battery modules in response to the second battery module having a first airworthiness status that is non-airworthy and the first battery module having a second airworthiness status that is airworthy (as described above in the previous stanza, ¶[165] describes the battery being fully charged, i.e. a fully charged battery is higher than at least ¶[237] levels).
Wang is silent to receiving, via the processor and through a craft battery monitoring system, the state of charge level (Wang’s SOC level is equivalent to airworthiness, as explained above for Wang).
Suzuki teaches receiving, via the processor and through a craft battery monitoring system, the state of charge level ([21, 20] represent the craft battery monitoring system in Fig. 2, see ¶[44] where the communication of the SOC/remaining-amount is sent to both/either of the server in Fig. 4 or the base station processor of Fig. 3, overall structure of Fig. 1). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by communicating the SOC, rather than having to measure the battery level after the battery is received, it can all for less processing power to be required on the vehicle requiring the battery swap, and thus reduces costs (i.e. if decisions on needing replacement can be processed on the external server or base station for a plurality of vehicles, the equipment on the vehicle deciding things can be cheaper since it does not need to execute as complex decisions than if it decided it on its own, while the exchange system and/or server can be centralized for a plurality of vehicles).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang with Suzuki to provide reduced costs.
Dependent Claim 19, the combination of Wang and Suzuki teaches determining via the processor, the second battery module can replace the first battery module in the microgrid battery system (Wang: ¶’s [163-165, 175-177], Suzuki Figs. [7, 9]).
Dependent Claim 20, Wang teaches the airworthiness status is determined by comparing at least one of: a battery capacity of the second battery module to a threshold battery capacity (¶’s [159, 165, 237] describes the remaining charge and/or state/level of charge is used, where this ratio is determined by determining a battery capacity and the remaining capacity, and the remaining capacity is compared against a threshold);
a number of flight cycles of the second battery module to a threshold number of flight cycles; and a number of hours of the second battery module to a threshold number of hours.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. 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 5712722312. 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.
/JOHN T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights