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 Objections
2. Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9, 16-18, 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 13, “a respective battery connector” should be – the respective battery connector—
Claim 1, line 19-20, “a respective battery connector” should be – the respective battery connector—
Claim 2, line 8, “a first predetermined period of time” should be – the predetermined period of time—
Claim 2, line 8-9, “a predetermined number of top-up cycles” should be—the predetermined number of top-up cycles—
Claim 4, line 3, “user input” should be –a user input—
Claim 6, line 2, “within the range” should be – within a range—
Claim 9, line 3, “user input” should be –a user input—
Claim 15, line 6, line 12-13, “a respective battery connector” should be – the respective battery connector—
Claim 16, line7, “a predetermined period of time” should be – the first predetermined period of time—
Claim 16, line 7-8, “a predetermined number of top-up cycles” should be—the predetermined number of top-up cycles—
Claim 18, line 3, “user input” should be –a user input—
Claim 20, line 7, “a respective battery connector” should be – the respective battery connector—
Claim 20, line 13, “ a respective battery connector” should be – the respective battery connector—
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
3. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: active cooling element in claim 13.
The active cooling element is interpretated under 112(f) as Peltier element based on para 0017 of specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
4.Claims 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “determine a first number of rechargeable battery packs of a plurality of rechargeable battery packs removably coupled to a respective battery connector that comprise a respective charged battery;” which renders the limitation vague and indefinite. It is unclear which item comprise a respective charged battery. Is it rechargeable battery packs, a plurality of rechargeable battery packs or a respective battery connector? And it is unclear how could rechargeable battery packs, or a plurality of rechargeable battery packs only comprises a respective charged battery, because both of rechargeable battery packs, and a plurality of rechargeable battery packs includes battery packs. For examination purpose, the limitation has been interpretated as determine a first number of rechargeable battery packs of a plurality of rechargeable battery packs removably coupled to a respective battery connector and each of the plurality of rechargeable battery packs comprises a respective charged battery.
Claim 2-14 are rejected for the same reason above because they depend on claim 1.
Claim 15, claim 20 recites “determine/determining a first number of rechargeable battery packs of a plurality of rechargeable battery packs removably coupled to a respective battery connector of a plurality of battery connectors of a battery management system that comprise a respective charged battery” which renders the limitation vague and indefinite. It is unclear which item comprise a respective charged battery. Is it rechargeable battery packs, a plurality of rechargeable battery packs or a respective battery connector? And it is unclear how could rechargeable battery packs, or a plurality of rechargeable battery packs only comprises a respective charged battery, because both of rechargeable battery packs, and a plurality of rechargeable battery packs includes battery packs. For examination purpose, the limitation has been interpretated as determine/determining a first number of rechargeable battery packs of a plurality of rechargeable battery packs removably coupled to a respective battery connector of a plurality of battery connectors of a battery management system, and each of the plurality of rechargeable battery packs comprises a respective charged battery.
Claim 16-19 are rejected for the same reason above because they depend on claim 15
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 of this title, 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.
5. Claims 1, 4, 15, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okino (US20210265850A1) in view of Uehara (US 20140017528 A1)
With regard to claim 1, Okino teaches a battery management system comprising:
a plurality of battery connections(connection between 10 to 120, Fig. 1), each battery connection of the plurality of battery connections configured to removably connect to a respective rechargeable battery pack ( 120,Fig. 3 see [0086] the 120 can be excluded of the facilities 100, which means 120 can be removed from 100, therefore the connection between 10 and 120 can be removed) and to removably couple the respective rechargeable battery pack with a power source ( 10, Fig. 1);
a memory ( 210, Fig. 4) configured to store a charged battery threshold ( [0072]the selection unit 232 may set the predetermined threshold value to ensure that the number of the storage battery apparatuses permitted charge and discharge control by the control server 300 out of the under managed storage battery apparatus 120 is equal to or more than a certain number ) .and a storage mode threshold( [0072] the number of excluded storage battery) ( [0061] 210 stores data regarding to 120 under control of 230, means the control data of 210 is stored in 210, Fig. 4); and
processing circuitry ( 230, Fig. 4)coupled to the memory ( 210, Fig. 4) and the plurality of battery connections ( Fig. 2, 230 are part of 200, and 200 connects to the connection of 10 and 120 through 120, Fig. 2), the processing circuitry being configured to:
determine a first number of rechargeable battery packs of a plurality of rechargeable battery packs removably coupled to a respective battery connection that comprise a respective charged battery ( 121, Fig. 3) ( the number of the storage battery apparatus permitted charge and discharge control by the control server out of the under managed storage battery apparatus is equal or more than a certain number [0072]) ;
determine a second number of rechargeable battery packs of the plurality of rechargeable battery packs removably coupled to a respective battery connection that are in a storage mode( [0072] the number of excluded storage battery);
determine that the first number meets the charged battery threshold (0072)(the selection unit 232 may set the predetermined threshold value to ensure that the number of the storage battery apparatuses permitted charge and discharge control by the control server 300 out of the under managed storage battery apparatus 120 is equal to or more than a certain number.);
determine that the second number does not meet the storage mode threshold ( 232 maintains the number of excluded storage apparatus less than a predetermined threshold, [0071]); and
based at least in part on the first number meeting the charged battery threshold and the second number not meeting the storage mode threshold, place a first rechargeable battery pack of the plurality of rechargeable battery packs removably coupled to a respective battery connection in the storage mode. ( the number of the excluded storage battery apparatus becomes equal to or less than a predetermined threshold value, and may select at least one excluded storage battery apparatus out of the under managed storage battery apparatus 120 [0071])
Okino does not explicitly teach about battery connector (configured to removably connect to a respective chargeable battery and to removably couple the respective rechargeable battery pack with a power source )
However, Uehara teaches battery connector (configured to removably connect to a respective chargeable battery and to removably couple the respective rechargeable battery pack with a power source ) ( see 3, Fig. 4. upon placement or removal of a battery pack, the output terminals and the input terminals can be extremely easily attached to or detached from each other by attaching or detaching the detachable connectors to/from each other. In addition, there is another feature that by performing attachment or detachment through the detachable connectors,[0018]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Okino, to use the battery connector, as taught by Uehara, in order to securely detect placement or removal in/from a rack main body with an extremely simple circuit configuration, wasteful cell consumption can be reduced [0014]
With regard to claim 4, the combination of Okino and Uehara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 , Okino further teaches all the limitations of claim 1, Okino further teaches the processing circuitry is further configured to place a second rechargeable battery pack of the plurality of rechargeable battery packs in the storage mode based on at least one of user input or programmed parameters ( where the number of under managed storage battery apparatus 120 is defined as “1000” and the number of or ratio of the storage battery apparatus permitted the charge and discharge control by the control server 300 is defined as “80” is assumed. In this case, the number or ratio possible to select as the excluded storage battery apparatus is “20”[0072] the control server control ratio related to the excluded battery based on program)
With regard to claim 15, Okino teaches a method of battery management comprising:
determining a first number of rechargeable battery packs of a plurality of rechargeable battery packs ( e.g.,120,Fig. 1) removably coupled to a respective battery connection of a plurality of battery connections (connection between 10 to 120, Fig. 1), of a battery management system that comprise a respective charged battery( the number of the storage battery apparatus permitted charge and discharge control by the control server out of the under managed storage battery apparatus is equal or more than a certain number [0072]);
determining a second number of rechargeable battery packs of the plurality of rechargeable battery packs removably coupled to a respective battery connection of the plurality of battery connections of the battery management system that are in a storage mode( [0072] the number of excluded storage battery);
determining that the first number meets a charged battery threshold(0072)(the selection unit 232 may set the predetermined threshold value to ensure that the number of the storage battery apparatuses permitted charge and discharge control by the control server 300 out of the under managed storage battery apparatus 120 is equal to or more than a certain number.);
determining that the second number does not meet a storage mode threshold ( 232 maintains the number of excluded storage apparatus less than a predetermined threshold, [0071]); and
based at least in part on the first number meeting the charged battery threshold and the second number not meeting the storage mode threshold, placing a first rechargeable battery pack of the plurality of rechargeable battery packs removably coupled to a respective battery connection of the plurality of battery connections of the battery management system in the storage mode ( the number of the excluded storage battery apparatus becomes equal to or less than a predetermined threshold value, and may select at least one excluded storage battery apparatus out of the under managed storage battery apparatus 120 [0071]).
Okino does not explicitly teach about battery connector (configured to removably connect to a respective chargeable battery )
However, Uehara teaches battery connector (configured to removably connect to a respective chargeable battery ) ( see 3, Fig. 4. upon placement or removal of a battery pack, the output terminals and the input terminals can be extremely easily attached to or detached from each other by attaching or detaching the detachable connectors to/from each other. In addition, there is another feature that by performing attachment or detachment through the detachable connectors,[0018]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Okino, to use the battery connector, as taught by Uehara, in order to securely detect placement or removal in/from a rack main body with an extremely simple circuit configuration, wasteful cell consumption can be reduced [0014]
With regard to claim 18, the combination of Okino and Uehara teaches all the limitations of claim 15, Okino further teaches placing a second rechargeable battery pack of the plurality of rechargeable battery packs in the storage mode based on at least one of user input or programmed parameters ( where the number of under managed storage battery apparatus 120 is defined as “1000” and the number of or ratio of the storage battery apparatus permitted the charge and discharge control by the control server 300 is defined as “80” is assumed. In this case, the number or ratio possible to select as the excluded storage battery apparatus is “20”[0072] the control server control ratio related to the excluded battery based on program).
With regard to claim 20, Okino teaches a non-transitory storage medium ( e.g., 210, Fig. 4) comprising instructions that when executed by one or more processors ( e.g., 230, Fig. 4) cause the one or more processors to:
determine a first number of rechargeable battery packs of a plurality of rechargeable battery packs ( 120, Fig. 1) removably coupled to a respective battery connection ( connection between 10 and 120, Fig. 1) of a plurality of battery connections of a battery management system that comprise a respective charged battery( 120, Fig. 1) ( the number of the storage battery apparatus permitted charge and discharge control by the control server out of the under managed storage battery apparatus is equal or more than a certain number [0072]); ;
determine a second number of rechargeable battery packs of the plurality of rechargeable battery packs removably coupled to a respective battery connection of the plurality of battery connections( connection between 10 and 120 of the battery management system that are in a storage mode( [0072] the number of excluded storage battery);
determine that the first number meets a charged battery threshold( the number of the storage battery apparatus permitted charge and discharge control by the control server out of the under managed storage battery apparatus is equal or more than a certain number [0072]);;
determine that the second number does not meet a storage mode threshold ( the number of excluded storage apparatus less than a predetermined threshold, [0071]) and
based at least in part on the first number meeting the charged battery threshold and the second number not meeting the storage mode threshold, place a first rechargeable battery pack of the plurality of rechargeable battery packs removably coupled to a respective battery connection in the storage mode ( the number of the excluded storage battery apparatus becomes equal to or less than a predetermined threshold value, and may select at least one excluded storage battery apparatus out of the under managed storage battery apparatus 120 [0071]).
Okino does not teach battery connector (configured to removably connect to a respective chargeable battery )
However, Uehara teaches battery connector (configured to removably connect to a respective chargeable battery ) ( see 3, Fig. 4. upon placement or removal of a battery pack, the output terminals and the input terminals can be extremely easily attached to or detached from each other by attaching or detaching the detachable connectors to/from each other. In addition, there is another feature that by performing attachment or detachment through the detachable connectors,[0018]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Okino, to use the battery connector, as taught by Uehara, in order to securely detect placement or removal in/from a rack main body with an extremely simple circuit configuration, wasteful cell consumption can be reduced [0014]
6. Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okino (US20210265850A1) in view of Uehara (US 20140017528 A1)in further view of Thomsen (EP0807826A2)
With regard to claim 2, the combination of Okino and Howard teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but not the processing circuitry is further configured to:
prior to placing the first rechargeable battery pack in the storage mode, determine that the first rechargeable battery pack has been removably coupled to the respective battery connector for at least a predetermined period of time or at least a predetermined number of charging top-up cycles; and based on the first rechargeable battery pack being removably coupled to the respective battery connector for at least a first predetermined period of time or at least a predetermined number of top-up cycles, perform a maintenance check on the first rechargeable battery pack,
wherein placing the first rechargeable battery pack in the storage mode is further based on results of the maintenance check.
However, Thomsen teaches the processing circuitry is further configured to:
prior to placing the first rechargeable battery pack in the storage mode, determine that the first rechargeable battery pack has been removably coupled to the respective battery connector for at least a predetermined period of time or at least a predetermined number of charging top-up cycles ( claim 5 of Thomsen, before measurement, the storage battery has to be in a rest or inactive state for a predetermined time); and
based on the first rechargeable battery pack being removably coupled to the respective battery connector for at least a first predetermined period of time or at least a predetermined number of top-up cycles, perform a maintenance check on the first rechargeable battery pack ( measurement claim 5 of Thomsen, before measurement, the storage battery has to be in a rest or inactive state for a predetermined time),
wherein placing the first rechargeable battery pack in the storage mode is further based on results of the maintenance check ( Okino teaches check the deterioration degree of storage battery by checking to exclude/remove it, and deterioration parameter includes stage of charge see [0057], [0005] of Thomsen teaches to measure the cell/s remaining charge capacity of battery, the combination of Okino and Thomsen teaches the placing the battery in storage mode is based on the measurement/maintenance check)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 1, to prior to place the first rechargeable battery pack in the storage mode, determine that the first rechargeable battery pack has been removably coupled to the respective battery connector for at least a predetermined period of time or at least a predetermined number of charging top-up cycles; and
based on the first rechargeable battery pack being removably coupled to the respective battery connector for at least a first predetermined period of time or at least a predetermined number of top-up cycles, perform a maintenance check on the first rechargeable battery pack,
wherein placing the first rechargeable battery pack in the storage mode is further based on results of the maintenance check, l, as taught by Thomsen, in order to improve the measurement/maintenance check [0010]
With regard to claim 16, the combination of Okino and Howard teaches all the limitations of claim 15, but not prior to placing the first rechargeable battery pack in the storage mode, determining that the first rechargeable battery pack has been removably coupled to the respective battery connector for at least a first predetermined period of time or at least a predetermined number of charging top-up cycles; and
based on the first rechargeable battery pack being removably coupled to the respective battery connector for at least a predetermined period of time or at least a predetermined number of top-up cycles, performing a maintenance check on the first rechargeable battery pack,
wherein placing the first rechargeable battery pack in the storage mode is further based on results of the maintenance check.
. However, Thomsen teaches prior to placing the first rechargeable battery pack in the storage mode, determine that the first rechargeable battery pack has been removably coupled to the respective battery connector for at least a predetermined period of time or at least a predetermined number of charging top-up cycles ( claim 5 of Thomsen, before measurement, the storage battery has to be in a rest or inactive state for a predetermined time); and
based on the first rechargeable battery pack being removably coupled to the respective battery connector for at least a first predetermined period of time or at least a predetermined number of top-up cycles, perform a maintenance check on the first rechargeable battery pack ( measurement claim 5 of Thomsen),wherein placing the first rechargeable battery pack in the storage mode is further based on results of the maintenance check ( Okino teaches check the deterioration degree of storage battery by checking to exclude/remove it, and deterioration parameter includes stage of charge see [0057], [0005] of Thomsen teaches to measure the cell/s remaining charge capacity of battery, the combination of Okino and Thomsen teaches the placing the battery in storage mode is based on the measurement/maintenance check
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 15, to prior to place the first rechargeable battery pack in the storage mode, determine that the first rechargeable battery pack has been removably coupled to the respective battery connector for at least a predetermined period of time or at least a predetermined number of charging top-up cycles; and
based on the first rechargeable battery pack being removably coupled to the respective battery connector for at least a first predetermined period of time or at least a predetermined number of top-up cycles, perform a maintenance check on the first rechargeable battery pack,
wherein placing the first rechargeable battery pack in the storage mode is further based on results of the maintenance check, as taught by Thomsen, in order to improve the measurement/maintenance check 9[0010]
7. Claims 3, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okino (US20210265850A1) in view of Uehara (US 20140017528 A1) and Thomsen (EP0807826A2) in further view of Wu(CN 103579696 A)
With regard to claim 3, the combination of Okino, Uehara and Thomsen teaches all the limitations of claim 2, Okino further teaches determining, via a logic check, that the first rechargeable battery pack should be placed into the storage mode ([0071] the number of the excluded storage battery apparatus becomes equal to or less than a predetermined threshold value, and may select at least one excluded storage battery apparatus out of the under managed storage battery apparatus 120.).
, but not wherein the maintenance check comprises:
discharging a battery of the first rechargeable battery pack to at least a predetermined depth of discharge;
waiting a second predetermined period of time;
charging the battery to at least a predetermined state of charge;
However, Wu teaches discharging a battery of the first rechargeable battery pack to at least a predetermined depth of discharge ( [0053], discharge to cut off voltage, Note that Okino teaches about a deterioration of 20% of battery capacity [0066] which equal to discharge depth 20%, so the combination of Okino and Wu teaches about discharging to a predetermined depth );
waiting a second predetermined period of time ([0053] rest for 1 hour);
charging the battery to at least a predetermined state of charge (charged to an upper limit of voltage, [0053] , [0049] of Okino teaches charge the battery to a certain SOC, the combination of Okino and wu teaches about charging to a predetermined SOC); and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 2, to discharge a battery of the first rechargeable battery pack to at least a predetermined depth of discharge; wait a second predetermined period of time; charge the battery to at least a predetermined state of charge;
as taught by Wu, in order to maintain the storage battery at matching quality/capacity and make easy to operation, [0006]
With regard to claim 17, the combination of Okino, Uehara, and Thomsen teaches all the limitations of claim 15, Okino further teaches determining, via a logic check, that the first rechargeable battery pack should be placed into the storage mode ([0071] the number of the excluded storage battery apparatus becomes equal to or less than a predetermined threshold value, and may select at least one excluded storage battery apparatus out of the under managed storage battery apparatus 120.), but not discharging a battery of the first rechargeable battery pack to at least a predetermined depth of discharge;
waiting a second predetermined period of time;
charging the battery to at least a predetermined state of charge; and
However, Wu teaches discharging a battery of the first rechargeable battery pack to at least a predetermined depth of discharge ( [0053], discharge to cut off voltage, Note that Okino teaches about a deterioration of 20% of battery capacity [0066] which equal to discharge depth 20%, so the combination of Okino and Wu teaches about discharging to a predetermined depth );
waiting a second predetermined period of time ([0053] rest for 1 hour);
charging the battery to at least a predetermined state of charge (charged to an upper limit of voltage, [0053] , [0049] of Okino teaches charge the battery to a certain SOC, the combination of Okino and wu teaches about charging to a predetermined SOC); and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 15, to discharge a battery of the first rechargeable battery pack to at least a predetermined depth of discharge; wait a second predetermined period of time; charge the battery to at least a predetermined state of charge;
as taught by Wu, in order to maintain the storage battery at matching quality/capacity and make easy to operation, [0006]
8. Claims 5-6, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okino (US20210265850A1) and Uehara (US 20140017528 A1)in view of Utsugi (US20040043300A1)
With regard to claim 5, the combination of Okino and Uehara teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but not as part of placing the first rechargeable battery pack in the storage mode, the processing circuitry is configured to discharge the battery to an intermediate depth of discharge.
However, Utsugi teaches as part of placing the first rechargeable battery pack in the storage mode, the processing circuitry is configured to discharge the battery to an intermediate depth of discharge (the discharging operation was conducted to achieve 50% in the discharging depth, the secondary batteries were left or stored at 55 degree. C. for 7 days, 28 days, 56 days and 84 days.[0135]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 1, to as part of placing the first rechargeable battery pack in the storage mode, the processing circuitry is configured to discharge the battery to an intermediate depth of discharge; as taught by Utsugi, in order to improve the battery capacity recovery [0135]
With regard to claim 6, the combination of Okino and Uehara and Utsugi teaches all the limitations of claim 5, Utsugi furterh teaches wherein the intermediate depth of discharge is within the range of 30%-70%, inclusive. (the discharging operation was conducted to achieve 50% in the discharging depth, the secondary batteries were left or stored at 55 degree. C. for 7 days, 28 days, 56 days and 84 days.[0135]
With regard to claim 19 the combination of Okino and Uehara teaches all the limitations of claim 15, but not placing the first rechargeable battery pack in the storage mode comprises discharging the battery to an intermediate depth of discharge
However, Utsugi teaches placing the first rechargeable battery pack in the storage mode comprises discharging the battery to an intermediate depth of discharge (the discharging operation was conducted to achieve 50% in the discharging depth, the secondary batteries were left or stored at 55 degree. C. for 7 days, 28 days, 56 days and 84 days.[0135]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 15, to place the first rechargeable battery pack in the storage mode comprising discharging the battery to an intermediate depth of discharge; as taught by Utsugi, in order to improve the battery capacity recovery [0135]
9. Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okino (US20210265850A1) and Uehara (US 20140017528 A1)in view of Zhu( WO2023284039A1)
With regard to claim 7, the combination of Okino and Uehara teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but not wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to, based on the first rechargeable battery pack being in the storage mode, perform periodic maintenance on the battery.
However, Zhu teaches the processing circuitry is further configured to, based on the first rechargeable battery pack being in the storage mode, perform periodic maintenance on the battery (see Fig. 2, and [n0062] multiple diagnostic cycles can be executed in preset time period to detect the abnormal battery pack)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 1, to based on the first rechargeable battery pack being in the storage mode, perform periodic maintenance on the battery, as taught by ZHu, in order to achieve accurate diagnostic results.
With regard to claim 8, the combination of Okino, Uehara and Zhu teaches all the limitations of claim 7, Okino does not teach performing periodic maintenance comprises applying at least one of Green's function, a Fast Fourier Transform function , or synchronous detection.
However, Zhu teaches performing periodic maintenance comprises applying at least one of Green's function, a Fast Fourier Transform function ( n0072)[n0053] a fast Fourier transform filter) , or synchronous detection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 7, to apply at least one of Green's function, a Fast Fourier Transform function , or synchronous detection, as taught by ZHu, in order to smooth the voltage of cell and eliminate of random error of a single measurement.
10. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okino (US20210265850A1) and Uehara (US 20140017528 A1)in view of ISAAC (WO 2022119591 A1)
With regard to claim 9, the combination of Okino and Uehara teaches all the limitations of claim 1, Okino further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to remove the first rechargeable battery pack from the storage mode and charge the battery (In this case, the notification unit 233 may set outside control prohibition set information (“permission”) to the storage battery apparatus 120 which selection as the excluded storage battery apparatus is released. The outside control prohibition set information (“permission”) indicates that the charge and discharge control is permitted by the control server 300.[0074])
Okino does not teach charge the battery based on user input.
However, Issac teaches charge the battery based on user input. ( claim 10 of Issac, the BMS receiving user input to DC charge the battery)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 1, to charge the battery based on user input. , as taught by Issac, in order to operate as the user’s desire and change default situation based on user’s request ( claim 10 of Issac)
11 Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okino (US20210265850A1) and Uehara (US 20140017528 A1)in view of Kim( US20220285986A1)
With regard to claim 10, the combination of Okino and Uehara teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but not the processing circuitry is further configured to output an indication for display that the first rechargeable battery pack is in the storage mode.
However, Kim teaches he processing circuitry is further configured to output an indication for display that the first rechargeable battery pack is in the storage mode ( display has an indicator to inform the user when the battery is removed [0040] means inform the user battery is no longer in charge/discharge mode, which is storage mode)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 1, to output an indication for display that the first rechargeable battery pack is in the storage mode, as taught by Kim, in order to inform the user about the status of the battery ( [0040]
With regard to claim 11, the combination of Okino and Uehara teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but not the processing circuitry is further configured to output, for display, a battery status of the battery.
However, Kim teaches the processing circuitry is further configured to output, for display, a battery status of the battery ( [0040]the display device 201 may have a function of an indicator to notify the time to replace the battery 215 when the life of the battery 215 has expired, and may inform, through the indicator, a user of a case when the battery 215 has been removed
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 1, to output, for display, a battery status of the battery., as taught by Kim, in order to inform the user about the status of the battery ( [0040]
12. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okino (US20210265850A1) and Uehara (US 20140017528 A1)in view of Reade (US20150302723A1)
With regard to claim 12, the combination of Okino and Uehara teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but not wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to, in response to a user battery parameter request, output for display at least one battery parameter of the battery.
However, Reade teaches the processing circuitry is further configured to, in response to a user battery parameter request, output for display at least one battery parameter of the battery.( the step of requesting input from a user of a battery capacity on the remote display to facilitate calculation of a battery capacity remaining.[0050]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 1, to in response to a user battery parameter request, output for display at least one battery parameter of the battery, as taught by Reade, in order to facilitate calculation of a battery capacity remaining [0050]. And inform user the status of the battery.
13. Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okino (US20210265850A1)and Uehara (US 20140017528 A1)in view of Howard (US 20130278204 A1)
With regard to claim 13, the combination of Okino and Uehara teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but not a thermal management system, does not teach wherein the thermal management system comprises at least one of an active cooling element or a fan.
However , Howard teaches wherein the thermal management system comprises at least one of an active cooling element or a fan ( claim 5, [0021).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 1, to configure the thermal management system comprises at least one of an active cooling element or a fan, as taught by Howard, in order to keep the temperature below the thermal charging limits.
With regard to claim 14, the combination of Okino and Uehara and Howard teaches all the limitations of claim 13, Howard further teaches wherein the active cooling element comprises a Peltier element ( [0021].)
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Roka (US 20120115451 A1) teaches about device turned off based on user input.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PINPING SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-1284. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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.
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.
/PINPING SUN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights