DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 05/18/2026 to claims are accepted. In this amendment, regarding claims 1,5-6: amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described in claims, specifically claims 1 and 5-6, e.g. “calculating a SOC calibration value by comparing an SOC average value, which is based on the SOC of the first battery module, with the SOC of the second battery module”, the disclosure disclose “by using a charge/discharge current command value corresponding to the SOC calibration value based on the calculated SOC calibration value. For example, the controller 300 may compare a SOC average value of the SOC of the first battery module 11 and the SOC of the second battery module 13 with the SOC of the n-th battery module 15 to calculate the SOC calibration value”, see [0050] of current application PgPub. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed, i.e. about to fail. See MPEP §§ 2163.02 and 2181, subsection IV.".
The remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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) 1, 3-6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai et al. (2002/0167291) in views of Sung et al.( US 2019/0356025), Takemura et al. (US 2017/0012445), Scolari et al. (US 2019/0263274) and Duan et al. (US 2020/0055405).
Regarding Claims 1 and 5-6. Imai teaches a method of calibrating (equalize: abstract; apparatus: [009]; fig. 2; The controller 22A includes, for example, a microcomputer having a combination of an input/output circuit, a CPU, a ROM: [0093] ) a state of charge (SOC) of a first battery module(121: fig.2; [0012]) and a SOC of a second battery module that are serially connected to each other(122: fig.2; [0012]), the method comprising(fig. 2):
calculating the SOC of the first battery module (SOC (state of charge) of the lower battery block: [0012]);
calculating the SOC of the second battery module(SOC of the higher battery block: [0012]); and
based on the SOC of the first battery module (SOC (state of charge) of the lower battery block: [0012]) and the SOC of the second battery module(SOC of the higher battery block: [0012]), using a direct-current-to-direct-current (DC-to-DC) converter (18: fig.2) that is electrically connected in parallel with the second battery module (122: fig.2) to calibrate the SOC of the second battery module ([0058]) by:
controlling a charge/discharge current from a storage unit as power supply (17: fig. 2 (alternator/generator)) to the second battery module([0060]), the storage unit (17) being connected in parallel with the second battery module(122) and the DC-to-DC converter(18: fi. 2.
Imai silent about controlling a charge/discharge current from the second battery module to the storage unit, which is configured store power,
wherein the storage unit being is connected in parallel with the second battery module and the DC-to-DC converter.
However, Sung teaches controlling a charge/discharge current between from a storage unit (400: fig. 8) to the second battery module(10: fig.8); and
controlling a charge/discharge current from the second battery module(10: fig. 9) to the storage unit(400: fig.9) , which is configured store power([0067]-[0070]),
wherein the storage unit (400: fig. 8-9)being is connected in parallel with the second battery module (10: fig. 8-9) and the DC-to-DC converter(160: fig. 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Imai, controlling a charge/discharge current from the second battery module to the storage unit, which is configured store power, wherein the storage unit being is connected in parallel with the second battery module and the DC-to-DC converter, as taught by Sung, so as to charging/ discharging battery module by the battery module equalization apparatus in compact and inexpensive way.
The modified Imai silent about wherein the storage unit is connected in parallel with the second battery module and the DC-to-DC converter such that a terminal of the second battery module and a terminal of the DC-to-DC converter are directly connected to each other.
However, Takemura teaches wherein the storage unit (U1: fig. 1) is connected in parallel with the second battery module and the DC-to-DC converter (3: fig. 1) such that a terminal of the second battery module (U2: fig. 1) and a terminal of the DC-to-DC converter (3: fig. 1) are directly connected to each other (fig. 1; [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of Imai, wherein the storage unit is connected in parallel with the second battery module and the DC-to-DC converter such that a terminal of the second battery module and a terminal of the DC-to-DC converter are directly connected to each other, as taught by Takemura, so as to control an electrical energy moved to electrical storage apparatus from other electrical storage apparatus.
The modified Imai silent about controlling the DC-to-DC converter by using a charge/discharge current command value corresponding to the SOC calibration value; and wherein the second battery module is a heterogeneous battery module havinq a different capacity from the first battery module.
However, Scolari teaches controlling the DC-to-DC converter by using a charge/discharge current command value corresponding to the SOC calibration value(control: fig. 4; [0029]-[0030], [0037]); and wherein the second battery module is a heterogeneous battery module having a different capacity from the first battery module( 36V, 12 V: fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of Imai, controlling the DC-to-DC converter by using a charge/discharge current command value corresponding to the SOC calibration value; and wherein the second battery module is a heterogeneous battery module havinq a different capacity from the first battery module, as taught by Scolari, so as to system utilizes a volt power supply to significantly improve performances of hybrid vehicles or of vehicles provided with start and stop systems and remarkably reduces currents absorbed by on board electric loads, thus improving at same time electric efficiency. The system allows manufacturers to significantly reduce costs of electric power system.
The modified Imai further silent about calculating a SOC calibration value by comparing an SOC average value, which is based on the SOC of the first battery module, with the SOC of the second battery module.
However, Duan teaches calculating a SOC calibration value by comparing an SOC average value, which is based on the SOC of the first battery module, with the SOC of the second battery module(In order to balance the battery state of charge, for example, a reference SOC for the entire battery pack is subtracted from an SOC for each battery unit. The reference SOC may be an average SOC of all the monitored battery units [..]the state of charge difference (dSOC) may gradually become increasingly negative until it falls below lower threshold[..]; examiner considered reference OC to be “calibration value”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of Imai, calculating a SOC calibration value by comparing an SOC average value, which is based on the SOC of the first battery module, with the SOC of the second battery module, as taught by Duan, so as to quickly balance the cell units with extremely low or high states to improve overall performance of the battery pack and to protect any weaker battery cells.
Regarding Claims 3 and 8. Imai further teaches the controlling of the DC-to-DC converter comprises controlling the charge/discharge current, which is for charging the storage unit, from the second battery module to the storage unit based on the SOC calibration value at which the SOC of the first battery module and the SOC of the second battery module have equal values (equalizing voltages across the cells: [0010], [0055]).
Regarding Claims 4 and 9. Imai further teaches the controlling of the DC-to-DC converter comprises controlling the charge/discharge current, which is for discharging the storage unit, from the storage unit to the second battery module based on the SOC calibration value at which the SOC of the first battery module and the SOC of the second battery module have equal values (equalizing voltages across the cells: [0055]-[0057]).
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect 103 rejection, specially claims 1, 9 and 17 have been considered but are moot because a new ground of rejection made over amended limitation based on newly cited prior art, see the updated rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Petrak et al. (US2023/0035894) disclose Batteries may be charged by various methods. For example, a constant current-constant voltage (CC-CV) charging method may charge a battery with CC and charge the battery at a constant voltage when a voltage of the battery reaches a preset level. For example, a varying current decay charging method may charge a battery at a low state of charge (SOC) with high current and gradually reduce the currents when the battery has a preset SOC by the charging. In addition to the described methods, a multi-step charging method may charge a battery with CC, and a pulse charging method may charge a battery by repeatedly applying pulse currents at short time intervals. The first battery cell and the second battery cell are heterogeneous.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights