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
Claims 1, 17, & 18 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3 should recite “a plurality of direct current converters”.
Claims 17 & 18 each recite “an battery cluster” on lines 3 & 5 instead of “a battery cluster”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claims 17 & 18 be found allowable, claim 18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-10, 17, & 18 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.
Claim 1 fails to define the relationship between the energy storage system and the plurality of battery clusters. It is unclear if the plurality of battery clusters is included in the energy storage system or separate from the energy storage system.
Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1 and therefore inherit its deficiencies.
Claims 17 & 18 recite the limitation "the accumulated running time" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is the first recitation of the term accumulated running time and so it is unclear what this recitation is referring to, if it is intended to introduce a new limitation or if the claim should depend from claim 16. For the purpose of this examination, examiner interprets this claim to depend from claim 16 to match the dependency chain of claim 15.
Claims 17 & 18 recite the limitation "the accumulated non-running time" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is the first recitation of the term accumulated non-running time and so it is unclear what this recitation is referring to, if it is intended to introduce a new limitation or if the claim should depend from claim 16. For the purpose of this examination, examiner interprets this claim to depend from claim 16 to match the dependency chain of claim 15.
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 5-8 and 14-18 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) “determining, based on Tr and Td, that the first battery cluster needs to be calibrated” which is a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because data gathering steps required to make the determination do not add a meaningful limitation to the method. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there is no following step which acts in response to the determination step.
Claim 6 does not remedy the deficiencies of claim 7 and is therefore rejected for the same reason above.
Claim 7 is 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) “determining, based on Tr and Td, that the first battery cluster needs to be calibrated” which is a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because data gathering steps required to make the determination do not add a meaningful limitation to the method. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there is no following step which acts in response to the determination step.
Claim 8 does not remedy the deficiencies of claim 7 and is therefore rejected for the same reason above.
Claim 14 is 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) “the controller is configured to determine, based on Tr and Td, that the first battery cluster needs to be calibrated” which is a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there is no following step which acts in response to the determination step.
Claim 15 does not remedy the deficiencies of claim 7 and is therefore rejected for the same reason above.
Claim 16 is 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) “the controller is configured to determine, based on Tr and Td, that the first battery cluster needs to be calibrated” which is a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there is no following step which acts in response to the determination step.
Claims 17 & 18 (in view of the 112b rejection above) do not remedy the deficiencies of claim 16 and are therefore rejected for the same reason above.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9-12 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Beaston (USPGPN 2021/0083505 – filed 2019).
Regarding Claim 1, Beaston (Figs.9 & 10A) teaches a method for controlling an energy storage system (900a-900n), the method comprising:
determining a first battery cluster (302a1-302n1) in a plurality of battery clusters to be calibrated (¶0250: calibration is controlled which includes a determination), the plurality of battery clusters being in a one-to-one correspondence with a plurality of direct current converters (902); and
controlling, based on a state of charge (SOC) of the first battery cluster and a current charging or discharging state of the energy storage system (¶0253: Criteria 4 & 5 involve SOC and charging/discharging state), the first battery cluster to be charged or discharged (¶0256-257: calibration charge and discharge) or to be in a standby state, so that the first battery cluster satisfies a SOC calibration condition.
Regarding Claim 2, Beaston further teaches if the SOC of the first battery cluster is greater than or equal to a first threshold, when the energy storage system is in a charging state, controlling the first battery cluster to be charged, and when the energy storage system is in a discharging state, controlling the first battery cluster to be in a standby state until the energy storage system is in a charging state; and
if the SOC of the first battery cluster is less than the first threshold, when the energy storage system is in a discharging state, controlling the first battery cluster to be discharged, and when the energy storage system is in a charging state, controlling the first battery cluster to be in a standby state until the energy storage system is in a discharging state.
Examiner’s Note: With the use of conditional “if” statements, the limitations are not required to occur and therefore claim 2 is rejectable for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, Beaston further teaches when the first battery cluster satisfies the SOC calibration condition (¶0253: Criteria 1-5), indicating a battery management system (BMS) of the energy storage system to perform SOC calibration on the first battery cluster (¶0140: Battery calibration manager handles calibration of the battery cluster).
Regarding Claim 10, Beaston further teaches receiving a notification that is sent by a battery management system (BMS) and that indicates that the SOC calibration performed on the first battery cluster is completed (¶0258: normal operation; Examiner’s note: for the system to switch between a normal operation and a calibration operation, communication must be present indicating the calibration operation has completed); and controlling the first battery cluster to be charged or discharged or to be in a standby state in the normal working mode of the energy storage system, wherein the normal working mode is a mode in which the energy storage system performs power allocation based on the SOCs of the plurality of battery clusters (¶0258: normal charging operations keep the batteries from being overcharged based on the SOC).
Regarding Claim 11, Beaston (Figs. 9 & 10B) teaches an energy storage system (1050), comprising:
a plurality of battery clusters (302a1-302n1 & 302an-302nn),
a plurality of direct current converters (902, provided per cluster),
a controller (802),
a battery management system (BMS) (Battery Pack ECU),
wherein the plurality of battery clusters are in a one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of direct current converters, so that the controller individually controls each of the plurality of battery clusters (Fig.9: an inverter 902 is provided per battery cluster 302a-302n); and
the BMS is configured to: obtain states of charge SOCs of the plurality of battery clusters (¶0153: battery pack controller measures battery voltage; ¶0198: battery controllers 414 maintain proper SOC so therefore an SOC is determined), and send the SOCs of the plurality of battery clusters to the controller (¶0247: embedded CPU 802 obtains data of the batteries including SOC); and
the controller is configured to: determine that a first battery cluster in the plurality of battery clusters needs to be calibrated (¶0259: set the recalibration flag), and control, based on a SOC of the first battery cluster and a current charging or discharging state (¶0253: Criteria 4 & 5 involve SOC and charging/discharging state) of the energy storage system, the first battery cluster to be charged or discharged (¶0256-257: calibration charge and discharge) or to be in a standby state, so that the first battery cluster satisfies a SOC calibration condition.
Regarding Claim 12, Beaston further teaches if the SOC of the first battery cluster is greater than or equal to a first threshold, when the energy storage system is in a charging state, control the first battery cluster to be charged, and when the energy storage system is in a discharging state, control the first battery cluster to be in a standby state until the energy storage system is in a charging state; and
if the SOC of the first battery cluster is less than the first threshold, when the energy storage system is in a discharging state, control the first battery cluster to be discharged, and when the energy storage system is in a charging state, control the first battery cluster to be in a standby state until the energy storage system is in a discharging state.
Examiner’s Note: With the use of conditional “if” statements, the limitations are not required to occur and therefore claim 2 is rejectable for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 20, Beaston further teaches wherein the BMS is further configured to: send to the controller, a notification that indicates that the SOC calibration performed on the first battery cluster is completed (¶0258: normal operation; Examiner’s note: for the system to switch between a normal operation and a calibration operation, communication must be present indicating the calibration operation has completed); and
the controller is further configured to: receive the notification that is sent by the BMS and that indicates that the SOC calibration performed on the first battery cluster is completed, and control the first battery cluster to be charged or discharged or to be in a standby state in the normal working mode of the energy storage system, wherein the normal working mode is a mode in which the energy storage system performs power allocation based on the SOCs of the plurality of battery clusters (¶0258: normal charging operations keep the batteries from being overcharged based on the SOC).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaston, in view of Ryu (US Patent 6,100,666 – issued 2000).
Regarding Claim 3, Beaston fails to explicitly teach wherein:
the controlling the first battery cluster to be charged comprises:
controlling the first battery cluster to be charged with a charging power greater than a charging power in a normal working mode of the energy storage system, wherein the charging power in the normal working mode is a charging power used when the energy storage system performs power allocation based on SOCs of the plurality of battery clusters; or
the controlling the first battery cluster to be discharged comprises:
controlling the first battery cluster to be discharged with a discharging power greater than a discharging power in a normal working mode of the energy storage system, wherein the discharging power in the normal working mode is a discharging power used when the energy storage system performs power allocation based on SOCs of the plurality of battery clusters.
However, Ryu teaches a system which controls a battery to be discharge with a maximum power greater than a discharging power in a normal working mode of the system (Fig.3B, S270: system power consumption is set to a maximum power consumption).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Beaston with Ryu to include a control stage of setting the discharge power to a maximum discharging power greater than a normal working mode discharging power. Doing so allows the system to calibrate a capacity of a rechargeable battery at a fast rate.
Regarding Claim 4, Beaston fails to explicitly teach wherein:
the controlling the first battery cluster to be charged comprises:
controlling the first battery cluster to be charged with a maximum charging power of the energy storage system, wherein the maximum charging power is greater than the charging power in the normal working mode and is a maximum power calculated by a battery management system (BMS); or
the controlling the first battery cluster to be discharged comprises:
controlling the first battery cluster to be discharged with a maximum discharging power of the energy storage system, wherein the maximum discharging power is greater than the discharging power in the normal working mode and is a maximum power calculated by a battery management system (BMS).
However, Ryu teaches a system which controls a battery to be discharge with a maximum power greater than a discharging power in a normal working mode of the system (Fig.3B, S270: system power consumption is set to a maximum power consumption) determined by a BMS system (Fig.2, 140).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Beaston with Ryu to include a control stage of setting the discharge power to a maximum discharging power greater than a normal working mode discharging power. Doing so allows the system to calibrate a capacity of a rechargeable battery at a fast rate.
Regarding Claim 13, Beaston fails to explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to:
control the first battery cluster to be charged with a charging power greater than a charging power in a normal working mode of the energy storage system, wherein the charging power in the normal working mode is a charging power used when the energy storage system performs power allocation based on the SOCs of the plurality of battery clusters; or
control the first battery cluster to be discharged with a discharging power greater than a discharging power in a normal working mode of the energy storage system, wherein the discharging power in the normal working mode is a discharging power used when the energy storage system performs power allocation based on the SOCs of the plurality of battery clusters.
However, Ryu teaches a system which controls a battery to be discharge with a maximum power greater than a discharging power in a normal working mode of the system (Fig.3B, S270: system power consumption is set to a maximum power consumption).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Beaston with Ryu to include a control stage of setting the discharge power to a maximum discharging power greater than a normal working mode discharging power. Doing so allows the system to calibrate a capacity of a rechargeable battery at a fast rate.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaston, in view of Williams (USPGPN 2008/0007219).
Regarding Claim 19, Beaston fails to explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to: when a plurality of battery clusters are battery clusters that need to be calibrated, determine, based on a priority sequence, that the first battery cluster needs to be calibrated.
However, Williams teaches a battery calibration system which determines a priority order in which a battery is calibrated when two or more batteries require calibration (¶0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Beaston with Williams to include determining based on a priority sequence, the first battery cluster needs to be calibrated when a plurality of battery clusters need to be calibrated. Doing so helps maintain the integrity of the system by ensuring a single battery is calibrated at a time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P ONDRASIK whose telephone number is (703)756-1963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at (571) 272-2147. 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 P ONDRASIK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights