DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a first Office Action on the merits.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 3, and 15-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 7, please amend “under the control of” to recite “under control of”;
In claim 2, line 2, please amend “the operation of” to recite “operation of”;
In claim 3, line 4, please amend “the operation of” to recite “operation of”;
In claim 15, lines 7-8, please amend “estimation of its state of health” to eliminate recitation of “its”;
In claim 16, line 3, please amend “in its normal state” to recite “in a normal state”;
In claim 17, line 3, please amend “at the start of operation” to recite “at a start of operation”;
In claim 17, line 6, please amend “estimation of its state of health” to eliminate recitation of “its”;
In claim 17, line 12, please amend “in its normal state” to recite “in a normal state”;
In claim 18, line 8, please amend “its state of charge” to elimination recitation of “its”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-6, 8-10, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REMBOSKI et al, US 2019/0148952 in view of COOPER et al, US 2019/0181656.
Re claim 1:
REMBOSKI teaches a battery system comprising a plurality of rechargeable cells (22) connectable in series along a power line, each cell being packaged with:
A corresponding controller (42) [0047]-[0048] [Figure 1];
A corresponding memory (implicit);
A corresponding communications interface (i.e., each cell interfaces with shared control line 48 [0055]);
Wherein each cell is arranged to be bypassable under control of said corresponding controller, said corresponding controller being adapted to:
Bypass the corresponding cell by means of a corresponding bypass circuit (i.e., switching circuit 30 [0041] [Figure 1]);
Carry out diagnostics on said corresponding cell when bypassed, under power of said corresponding cell (i.e., measurements carried out in the bypassed state [0048]);
Communicate with at least one other controller by means of said corresponding communications interface (i.e. cell controller 42 communicates with module controller 40 [Figure 3A]), and
Store information relating to said diagnostics in said corresponding memory (i.e., storage of information is implicit to the disclosure. In step 120 of Figure 3B, a measured value of the given one of the cell parameters is compared to the parameter threshold value corresponding to the given one of the cell parameters. In order for the comparison to be carried out, both measured value and threshold value need to be stored by the controller).
REMBOSKI does not teach each cell being individually packaged with the corresponding controller, corresponding memory, and corresponding communications interface.
COOPER teaches a multi-cell battery system, comprising a plurality of cells (battery cells 22 and 24) connectable in series along a power line [Figure 1], each cell being individually packaged with: a corresponding controller (MCU 38/40), a corresponding memory, and a corresponding communications interface (PLC 30/32) [0028] [0030] [Figure 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further incorporate the teachings of COOPER in the system of REMBOSKI such that each cell is individually packaged with the corresponding controller, memory, and communications interface. Individually packaging cells with controllers, memory, and communication interfaces is merely an alternative means of packaging battery cells and associated components together.
Re claim 2:
REMBOSKI, in view of COOPER, teaches the battery system according to claim 1, further comprising a central controller (40) adapted to coordinate operation of said corresponding controllers and in communication with said corresponding controllers (i.e., module controller 40, connected to individual cell controllers 42 via shared control line 48, may provide for management of the battery module 20 as a whole [0044] [0055] [0056]).
Re claim 3:
REMBOSKI, in view of COOPER, teaches the battery system according to claim 1, arranged such that one controller packaged with a cell in said battery system acts as master controller to coordinate operation of said corresponding controllers, or such that corresponding controllers are arranged to coordinate the operation of said corresponding controllers by distributed processing (i.e., distributing processing [0026]).
Re claim 4:
REMBOSKI, in view of COOPER, teaches the battery system according to claim 1, as discussed above. REMBOSKI does not specify that said corresponding communications interface is adapted to communicate with said at least one other controller via at least one of: powerline communication; infrared communication; wireless communication; however,
COOPER teaches corresponding communications interfaces (PLC) communicate with at least one other controller (BMS) via powerline communication [0025].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the corresponding communications interface to communicate with said at least other controller via at least powerline communication as powerline communication is merely one common communication method known in the art for exchanging data (COOPER [0029]).
Re claim 5:
REMBOSKI, in view of COOPER, teaches the battery system according to claim 1, wherein said corresponding bypass circuit comprises a first transistor and a second transistor arranged to direct current from a first connection terminal to said corresponding cell or to a second connection terminal under control of said corresponding controller depending on an output of said corresponding controller [0042] [Figures 1-2].
Re claim 6:
REMBOSKI, in view of COOPER, teaches the battery system according to claim 5, wherein said corresponding bypass circuit further comprises a switching circuit arranged such that, when said output of said corresponding controller changes state, said transistor which is in a conducting state is switched to a non-conducting state prior to the transistor which is in a non-conducting state being switched to a conducting state [0040]-[0042] [Figure 2].
Re claim 8:
REMBOSKI, in view of COOPER, teaches the battery system according to claim 1, wherein said corresponding controller is arranged to measure a voltage across said corresponding cell [0048].
Re claim 9:
REMBOSKI, in view of COOPER, teaches the battery system according to claim 1, further comprising at least one sensor arranged to measure a parameter of said corresponding cell [0047].
Re claim 10:
REMBOSKI, in view of COOPER, teaches the battery system according to claim 1, wherein a method of operation of the battery system comprises steps of:
Bypassing at least one predetermined cell [0047] [0048];
Carrying out diagnostics on said predetermined cell by means of said corresponding controller (i.e., measurements carried out in the bypass state [0048]);
Storing information relating to said diagnostics in said corresponding controller ((i.e., storage of information is implicit to the disclosure. In step 120 of Figure 3B, a measured value of the given one of the cell parameters is compared to the parameter threshold value corresponding to the given one of the cell parameters. In order for the comparison to be carried out, both measured value and threshold value need to be stored by the controller);
Communicating said information relating to said diagnostics to at least one other controller (i.e. cell controller 42 communicates with module controller 40 [0056] [Figure 3A]);
Coordinating said cell bypassing to optimize at least one battery system lifetime and charge balancing between cells [0048] [0056]-[0058] [0069] [Figure 3A-3C].
Re claim 13:
REMBOSKI, in view of COOPER, teaches the method according to claim 10, wherein said coordination is carried out by one of:
A central controller (40); a controller corresponding to a given cell; by a plurality of said controllers corresponding to said cells by distributed processing (i.e., module controller 40 and cell controllers 42 coordinate with each other to achieve balancing of battery cells).
Re claim 14:
REMBOSKI, in view of COOPER, teaches the method according to claim 10, further comprising optimizing at least one of state of health, state of charge and state of power of said cells by at least one of:
Bypassing certain cells for relatively longer times than others in function of the state of health of said cells;
Bypassing certain cells for relatively longer times than others in function of the state of charge of said cells [0047];
Bypassing certain cells for relatively longer times than others in function of the state of power of said cells.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 11, 12, and 15-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
NAMUDURI et al, US 2022/0190395, teaches a battery system comprising a plurality of rechargeable cells connectable in series along a power line, each cell packaged with a corresponding controller, corresponding memory, and corresponding communications interface [Figure 1].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA A GUDORF whose telephone number is (571)270-7607. If the Examiner cannot be reached by telephone, she can be reached through the following e-mail address: laura.gudorf@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 6:00-4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Lee, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-2398. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/LAURA A GUDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights