DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Claims 1 – 15 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig 4 and Fig 5 label element 10, 210, 310, and 410 as “genertor”. This is interpreted as a misspelling of “generator”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The term “electric mobility” is vague and not descriptive. The examiner suggests a term such as ”electric bicycle” as used in paragraph [0002].
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
paragraphs [0004] and [005] refer to an “electric vehicle”, which is not used at any other point in the instant specification. The examiner interprets this as “electric mobility” as used throughout the instant specification.
the term “ePedal” is used in 14 places within the specification, but is not defined by the specification
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4, 5, 7 – 10, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term “substantially identical” in claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 14, and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially identical” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In each claim, the comparison of the state of charge of the first battery to the state of charge of the second battery is indefinite. For the purpose of the instant examination, the Examiner interprets this as state of charge of the first battery is within 1% of the state of charge of the second battery, as in ((1 - SOCA / SOCB) < 0.01).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims include the element/step “supplying power from the first battery to a generator”. As best understood by the Examiner, a generator produces electrical power, and a battery stores electrical power. While a generator can supply power to charge a battery, and both a generator and a battery can provide power to a motor, it is not clear how a battery supplies power to a device that creates power, such as a generator. For the purpose of the instant examination, the Examiner interprets this as “supplying power from the first battery
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 – 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vezzini et al. (hereinafter 'Vezzini')
Regarding claim 1: Vezzini teaches a method for battery management of an electric mobility ([0016]: teaches a “monitoring and balancing device for multicell batteries” that is used for scooters, e-bikes, and other vehicles) the method comprising:
receiving information on states of charge (SOCs) of a plurality of batteries included in the electric mobility ([0009, 0016, 0019, 0025, 0043, 0052; Fig. 3]: teaches a battery monitoring system that receives measured cell voltages, or state of charge values, from all of the cells in the battery used for scooters, e-bikes, and other vehicles (interpreted as equivalent to “electric mobility”));
determining whether a difference between a SOC of a first battery having a highest SOC and a SOC of a second battery having a lowest SOC among the plurality of batteries exceeds a predetermined threshold value ([0018, 0034-0036, 0048]: teaches comparing the state of charge of each cell in the battery to a predefined “balancing threshold voltage difference” that is ”proportional to a certain amount of imbalance” to determine if a cell or set of cells needs to be rebalanced); and
controlling charge and/or discharge of at least one of the plurality of batteries by controlling power flow of at least one converter among a plurality of converters connected to the plurality of batteries ([0025]: teaches the use of a switched-mode DC/DC convertors as one of several options that can be used to balance the batteries in the system, where the balancing procedure happens in either the charging or the discharging of the batteries).
Regarding claim 2: Vezzini teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the plurality of converters are bidirectional converters, and the plurality of converters include a first bidirectional converter connected to the first battery and a second bidirectional converter connected to the second battery ([0025]: teaches the use of switched-mode DC/DC convertors as one of several options that can be used to balance the batteries in the system).
Regarding claim 3: Vezzini teaches the method of claim 2, as discussed above, wherein the controlling of the charge and/or the discharge of at least one of the plurality of batteries comprises, if the difference between the SOC of the first battery and the SOC of the second battery exceeds the predetermined threshold value, controlling charge or discharge of the first battery and the second battery by controlling power flows of the first bidirectional converter and the second bidirectional converter ([0025, 0037, 0041]: teaches the use of a switched-mode DC/DC convertors as one of several options that can be used to balance the batteries in the system, when a cell is determined to require rebalancing as compared to the other cells in the battery).
Regarding claim 7: Vezzini teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, further comprising:
after the controlling of the charge and/or the discharge of at least one of the plurality of batteries, determining whether all of the SOCs of the plurality of batteries are substantially identical to each other ([0039]: teaches that the balancing process performs a repeated loop over the cells in the battery as long as the cells are not in balance),
wherein the controlling of the charge and/or the discharge of at least one of the plurality of batteries is performed until all of the SOCs of the plurality of batteries become substantially identical to each other ([0042]: teaches that when all of the cells are within the desired voltage band, then rebalancing is not performed).
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.
Claims 4 – 6 and 11 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vezzini in view of Hendey et al., US 2016/0303961 (hereinafter 'Hendey').
Regarding claim 4: Vezzini teaches the method of claim 2, as discussed above, wherein the controlling of the charge and/or the discharge of at least one of the plurality of batteries comprises, if the difference between the SOC of the first battery and the SOC of the second battery does not exceed the predetermined threshold value, charging the second battery having the lowest SOC by supplying power … to the second battery by controlling only power flow of the second bidirectional converter until the SOC of the first battery and the SOC of the second battery become substantially identical to each other ( [0025, 0034-0039]: teaches the use of a switched-mode DC/DC convertors as one of several options that can be used to balance the batteries in the system, where the balancing procedure happens in either the charging or the discharging of the batteries. As the process loops over each cell in the system, cells that are in balance are removed from the balancing process (step 17b), so that only the unbalanced cells are supplied power. In the case of only two batteries, then the second battery would be the only battery charged).
Vezzini is silent with regard to supplying power from a generator.
Hendey teaches an electric power system with a set of batteries used for a bicycle ([Abstract]) that includes
supplying power from a generator ([0047, 0048]: discloses that the bicycle gains power from either regenerative braking or by the rider providing enough torque to generate excess power for the battery).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Vezzini in view of Hendey to reclaim power from the vehicle during braking and storing this charge in the batteries to avoid wasting power as heat.
Regarding claim 5: Vezzini in view of Hendey teaches the method of claim 3, as discussed above, wherein the controlling of the charge and/or the discharge of at least one of the plurality of batteries includes discharging the first battery having the highest SOC by supplying power from the first battery
Regarding claim 6: Vezzini in view of Hendey teaches the method of claim 3, as discussed above, wherein the controlling of the charge and/or the discharge of at least one of the plurality of batteries includes discharging the first battery having the highest SOC by supplying power from the first battery predetermined threshold value ([0025, 0026]: teaches the use of a switched-mode DC/DC convertors as one of several options that can be used to balance the batteries in the system, where the balancing procedure happens in either the charging or the discharging of the batteries. The cell with the lowest SOC, or “weakest cell” is identified and is then charged using energy from cells with higher states of charge).
Regarding claim 11: Vezzini teaches a system for battery management of an electric mobility ([0016]: teaches a “monitoring and balancing device for multicell batteries” that is used for scooters, e-bikes, and other vehicles), the system comprising:
a plurality of batteries ([0009]: discloses “a plurality of at least two batteries or cells of a multicell battery”);
a plurality of converters configured to convert voltages of the plurality of batteries ([0025]: teaches the use of switched-mode DC/DC convertors as one of several options that can be used to balance the batteries in the system).; and
a controller configured to receive information on states of charge (SOCs) of the plurality of batteries ([0009, 0016, 0019, 0025, 0043, 0052; Fig. 3]: teaches a battery monitoring system that receives measured cell voltages, or state of charge values, from all of the cells in the battery used for scooters, e-bikes, and other vehicles (interpreted as equivalent to “electric mobility”)), determine whether a difference between a SOC of a first battery having a highest SOC and a SOC of a second battery having a lowest SOC among the plurality of batteries exceeds a predetermined threshold value ([0018, 0034-0036, 0048]: teaches comparing the state of charge of each cell in the battery to a predefined “balancing threshold voltage difference” that is ”proportional to a certain amount of imbalance” to determine if a cell or set of cells needs to be rebalanced);, and control charge or discharge of at least one of the plurality of batteries by controlling power flow of at least one of the plurality of converters ([0025]: teaches the use of a switched-mode DC/DC convertors as one of several options that can be used to balance the batteries in the system, where the balancing procedure happens in either the charging or the discharging of the batteries).
Vezzini is silent with regard to
a generator configured to generate voltage by drive of a pedal;
a plurality of motors operably connected to at least one of wheels of the electric mobility to provide rotational force to at least one of the wheels;
Hendey teaches an electric power system with a set of batteries used for a bicycle ([Abstract]) that includes
a generator configured to generate voltage by drive of a pedal ([0047, 0048]: discloses that the bicycle gains power from either regenerative braking or by the rider providing enough torque to generate excess power for the battery);
a plurality of motors operably connected to at least one of wheels of the electric mobility to provide rotational force to at least one of the wheels ([0043]: discloses that the rear wheel of the bicycle comprises an outer spindle that is connected to the electric motor 300 and drive system 200 via a chain, belt, shaft, or other transmission means 870).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Vezzini in view of Hendey to reclaim power from the vehicle during braking and storing this charge in the batteries to avoid wasting power as heat.
Regarding claim 12: Vezzini in view of Hendey teaches the system of claim 11, as discussed above, wherein the plurality of converters are bidirectional converters, and the plurality of converters include a first bidirectional converter connected to the first battery and a second bidirectional converter connected to the second battery other (Vezzini: [0025, 0026]: teaches the use of a switched-mode DC/DC convertors as one of several options that can be used to balance the batteries in the system).
Regarding claim 13: Vezzini in view of Hendey teaches the system of claim 12, as discussed above, wherein the controller is configured to, if the difference between the SOC of the first battery and the SOC of the second battery exceeds the predetermined threshold value, control power flows of the first bidirectional converter and the second bidirectional converter to control charge and/or discharge of the first battery and the second battery (Vezzini: [0025, 0037, 0041]: teaches the use of a switched-mode DC/DC convertors as one of several options that can be used to balance the batteries in the system, when a cell is determined to require rebalancing as compared to the other cells in the battery).
Regarding claim 14: Vezzini in view of Hendey teaches the system of claim 12, as discussed above, wherein the controller is configured to, if the difference between the SOC of the first battery and the SOC of the second battery does not exceed the predetermined threshold value, charging the second battery having the lowest SOC by supplying power … to the second battery by controlling only power flow of the second bidirectional converter until the SOC of the first battery and the SOC of the second battery become substantially identical to each other ([0025, 0034-0039]: teaches the use of a switched-mode DC/DC convertors as one of several options that can be used to balance the batteries in the system, where the balancing procedure happens in either the charging or the discharging of the batteries. As the process loops over each cell in the system, cells that are in balance are removed from the balancing process (step 17b), so that only the unbalanced cells are supplied power. In the case of only two batteries, then the second battery would be the only battery charged).
Vezzini is silent with regard to supplying power from a generator.
Hendey teaches an electric power system with a set of batteries used for a bicycle ([Abstract]) that includes
supplying power from a generator ([0047, 0048]: discloses that the bicycle gains power from either regenerative braking or by the rider providing enough torque to generate excess power for the battery).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Vezzini in view of Hendey to reclaim power from the vehicle during braking and storing this charge in the batteries to avoid wasting power as heat.
Claims 8 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vezzini in view of Kikuchi et al., US 2012/0025769 (hereinafter 'Kikuchi')
Regarding claim 8: Vezzini teaches the method of claim 7, as discussed above, further comprising:
determining whether all of the SOCs of the plurality of batteries are substantially identical to each other ([0041. 0042]: discloses that the balancing process does not occur when the cell voltages are all within a determined band)
Vezzini is silent with respect to
determining whether a system for the battery management of the electric mobility is normal or abnormal.
Kikuch teaches an electric power system for a vehicle that balances charge between a set of batteries ([0005]) that includes
determining whether a system for the battery management of the [vehicle] is normal or abnormal ([0355, 0356, 0373]: discloses comparing the values of the drain voltages of the balancing switches to known voltage values to detect either a short circuit or a switch stuck open, and using that to determine if there is a fault with the balancing circuit).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Vezzini in view of Kikuchi to detect an abnormal condition of the circuit and allow for quick diagnosis and reaction to a detected error state ([0063 – 0065]).
Regarding claim 9: Vezzini in view of Kikuchi teaches the method of claim 8, as discussed above.
Vezzini is silent with respect to wherein
the determining of whether the system for the battery management of the electric mobility is normal or abnormal includes determining that the system for the battery management of the electric mobility is abnormal when a current generated by a generator is overcurrent, when a voltage of at least one of the plurality of batteries is out of a predetermined range of a usable voltage, or when a temperature of at least one component of the system for the battery management of the electric mobility is out of an operatable temperature range.
Kikuch teaches an electric power system for a vehicle that balances charge between a set of batteries ([0005]) that includes the determining of whether the system for the battery management of the electric mobility is normal or abnormal includes
determining that the system for the battery management of the electric mobility is abnormal when a current generated by a generator is overcurrent ([0077, 0159]: discloses the detection over-charge or over-discharge of a battery cell as well as detection of leakage currents),
when a voltage of at least one of the plurality of batteries is out of a predetermined range of a usable voltage ([0309]: discloses detecting disconnected lines by detecting a voltage value above a threshold), or
when a temperature of at least one component of the system for the battery management of the electric mobility is out of an operatable temperature range (([0077, 0159]: discloses the detection of abnormal battery cell temperature).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Vezzini in view of Kikuchi to detect an abnormal condition of the balancing circuit in terms of voltage values, current values, or temperature values using known techniques to improve a similar device in the same way.
Regarding claim 10: Vezzini in view of Kikuchi teaches the method of claim 8, as discussed above.
Vezzini is silent with respect to further comprising,
if it is determined that the system for the battery management of the electric mobility is abnormal, outputting a warning for notifying abnormality of the system for the battery management of the electric mobility to a driver.
Kikuch teaches an electric power system for a vehicle that balances charge between a set of batteries ([0005]) that includes
if it is determined that the system for the battery management of the electric mobility is abnormal, outputting a warning for notifying abnormality of the system for the battery management of the electric mobility to a driver ([0375, 0376]: discloses that a fault in the balancing circuitry is determined, then that fault is communicated from the battery controller, allowing the user to be notified so that it “becomes easy for the user to perform repairs”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Vezzini in view of Kikuchi to inform the user of the vehicle of a fault condition in the battery balancing circuits, so that the user knows to repair the vehicle.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vezzini in view of Hendey in view of Kikuchi.
Regarding claim 15: Vezzini in view of Hendey teaches the system of claim 11, as discussed above, wherein the controller is configured to:
control the charge and/or the discharge of at least one of the plurality of batteries until all of the SOCs of the plurality of batteries become substantially identical to each other (Vezzini: [0042]: teaches that when all of the cells are within the desired voltage band, then rebalancing is not performed).
Vezzini in view of Hendey is silent with respect to
if all of the SOCs of the plurality of batteries are substantially identical to each other, determine whether the system is normal or abnormal, and
if it is determined that the system is abnormal, output a warning for notifying abnormality of the system through an interface.
Kikuch teaches an electric power system for a vehicle that balances charge between a set of batteries ([0005]) that includes
determining whether a system for the battery management of the [vehicle] is normal or abnormal ([0355, 0356, 0373]: discloses comparing the values of the drain voltages of the balancing switches to known voltage values to detect either a short circuit or a switch stuck open, and using that to determine if there is a fault with the balancing circuit).
if it is determined that the system for the battery management of the electric mobility is abnormal, outputting a warning for notifying abnormality of the system for the battery management of the electric mobility to a driver ([0375, 0376]: discloses that a fault in the balancing circuitry is determined, then that fault is communicated from the battery controller, allowing the user to be notified so that it “becomes easy for the user to perform repairs”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Vezzini in view of Hendey in view of Kikuchi to detect an abnormal condition of the circuit and allow for quick diagnosis and reaction to a detected error state ([0063 – 0065]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Chang, US 2023/0187949, discloses balancing a set of battery packs based on the state of charge of the battery packs ([Abstract])
Books, US 2021/0226267, discloses “selectively charging or discharging a system with multiple battery packs connected in parallel when at least one of the battery packs has a significantly different voltage or states of charge ([Abstract])”
Quinn et al., US 20250330028, discloses balancing individual cells within a battery pack ([Abstract])
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brent A Fairbanks whose telephone number is (408)918-7532. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 5:30PM PDT.
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, Brent A Fairbanks can be reached at (408) 918-7532. 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.
/Brent A. Fairbanks/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights