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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Remboski et al. (US 20190148952).
Re claim 1, Remboski et al. teaches:
A method of battery management (abstract), said method comprising providing a number of cells (22) interconnectable to form a battery pack (20), said number of cells comprising at least one set of cells that are interconnectable in series to form a battery (FIG. 1) in which each cell has a state of health and a state of charge,
said method comprising measuring parameters relating to the state of health (SoH) of each cell of said number of cells (paragraph [0086]+ “… determine the condition or healthy of the battery cells 22” and paragraph [0043]+ which teaches providing parameter threshold values including heat, current, stage of charge, voltage, etc. of the cells within the module),
comparing the state of health of each cell in said set of cells (FIG. 3A+ parameters being measured and comparing vs a threshold and paragraph [0086]+ teaching the health of the battery cells being determined, such as per the state of charge values), and
identifying in said set of cells at least one cell having a poorer state of health than the remainder of the cells and at least one cell having a better state of health than the remainder of the cells (see step 120 in FIG. 3B and paragraph [0086]+),
selectively disconnecting (bypass circuit 30) said at least one cell having a better state of health during a charging cycle if a maximum state of charge (SoCmax) threshold has been reached for that cell and/or selectively disconnecting said at least one cell having a poorer state of health during discharging cycle if a minimum state of charge SoCmin threshold has been reached for that cell (pee paragraphs [0039]+, [0047]+, and [0088]+).
Re claim 2, Remboski et al. teaches a method according to claim 1, further comprising the measurement of parameters indicative of the state of charge (SoC) of each of said cells so as to determine whether said maximum state of charge (SoCmax) threshold and/or said a minimum state of charge (SoCmin) threshold has been reached (see paragraph [0043]+).
Re claim 5, the limitations have been discussed above, also noting paragraph [0058]+ and
FIG. 1+, wherein a computer control and topology are implicit in the teachings.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by McLean et al. (US 20220029431).
Mclean et al. teaches the limitations of a series of batteries (abstract) with a battery management system. Based on the health of the batteries, they are selectively disconnected (claim 1, paragraph [0120]+), which reads on the claimed limitations. Specifically, re claim 1,
McLean et al. teaches method of battery management (abstract+), said method comprising providing a number of cells (such as module 206) interconnectable to form a battery pack (such as 204/202), said number of cells comprising at least one set of cells that are interconnectable in series to form a battery (FIG. 2A+) in which each cell has a state of health and a state of charge (the state of charge can determine the state of health),
said method comprising measuring parameters relating to the state of health (SoH) of each cell of said number of cells (paragraph [0094]+ which teaches sensors in the battery system obtained information to determine the state of charge, state of health, etc.),
comparing the state of health of each cell in said set of cells (FIG. 3A+ parameters being measured and comparing vs a threshold and paragraph [0086]+ teaching the health of the battery cells being determined, such as per the state of charge values), and
identifying in said set of cells at least one cell having a poorer state of health than the remainder of the cells and at least one cell having a better state of health than the remainder of the cells (paragraph [0104]+ teaches switching in our out a battery module to remove a defective module)
selectively disconnecting (switches 238) said at least one cell having a better state of health during a charging cycle if a maximum state of charge (SoCmax) threshold has been reached for that cell and/or selectively disconnecting said at least one cell having a poorer state of health during discharging cycle if a minimum state of charge SoCmin threshold has been reached for that cell (battery switches 238 such as per FIG. 2e+ which are able to disconnect modules, paragraph [0006]+ which teaches disconnecting as a function for state of health, state of charge, power demands, etc. , paragraph [0089]+ which teaches the sensors monitor the health and operating parameters of each module 206, and paragraph [0094]+ which teaches that state of health and state of charge are monitored, and the Examiner notes that based on those sensor measurements , the state of health can be measured such as by looking at the state of charge and/ or other measurements for example, and cells are disconnected or connected in series accordingly).
Re claim 5, a computer and topology are implicit in the teachings.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Remboski et al., as discussed above.
The teachings of Remboski et al. have been discussed above but is silent to wherein according to a predetermined scheme each cell is furthermore disconnected for performance of measurements of said parameters relating to the state of health during one of a charging cycle and a discharging cycle (re claim 3) and wherein the measured parameters relating to the state of health comprise one or more of cell voltage, current, or temperature (re claim 4). Rembowski et al. teaches cell parameters can include heat flux, current, state of charge, temperature, and a voltage. Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that voltages and current and temperatures are taught above as parameters, using such measured parameters to disconnect based on the sensors values a part of a scheme, would have been an obvious expedient in order to perform disconnecting on specified measurements in order to control the health of the battery such that performance is ideal for the applications.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Remboski et al., as discussed above, in view of Katsuya (WO 2012/157747).
The teachings of Remboski et al. have been discussed above but is silent to wherein according to a predetermined scheme each cell is furthermore disconnected for performance of measurements of said parameters relating to the state of health during one of a charging cycle and a discharging cycle (re claim 3) and wherein the measured parameters relating to the state of health comprise one or more of cell voltage, current, or temperature (re claim 4). Rembowski et al. teaches cell parameters can include heat flux, current, state of charge, temperature, and a voltage but is silent to specifically reciting a scheme for disconnecting.
Katsuya teaches such limitations (FIG. 1-3 and paragraph [0035]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings in order to effectively measure the necessary parameters related to health of the battery to allow a determination.
Measuring these parameters at and during disconnection of cells allows a determination of the state of health of the individual cells.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Re the Applicants argument that McLean et al. does not teach cells, the Examiner has interpreted the modules 206 as cells, absent a more explicit definition recited in the claims.
Re the Applicants argument that Rembowski does not teach individual cells, the abstract+ teaches switching and sensing of each cell.
The Examiner notes that the state of the health can be intpereted as based on the state of charge or any of a plurality of parameters that are sensed by the prior art to disconnect cells as taught 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 7-9pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/DANIEL I WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights