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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract must be as concise as the disclosure permits, not to exceed 150 words in length . A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the method steps of figures 3 and 4 only provide blank boxes. The empty boxes should be provided with descriptive text labels to clearly indicate the steps/decisions being illustrated.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the slope/shape of the active balancing time function of the curve/graph of claim 5. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
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.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 claim recites determining a health indication based on a “slope” and a “shape” of a curve. It is unclear from the disclosure how the “slope” or “shape” is presented and evaluated to trigger an indication or maintenance function and what specific “slope” or “curve” constitutes a failing module/unit vs a normal one.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beaston US 20170040646 (hereinafter Beast).
With regards to claims 1, 10, and 15 Beast discloses, a system comprising:
a plurality of energy storage units [fig 2 battery module], each energy storage unit being capable of selectively being charged with electrical energy supplied to the energy storage unit and to discharge electrical energy stored in the energy storage unit [abstract discloses charging and discharging], each energy storage unit being associated with a threshold voltage level;
at least one sensing unit [fig 4 voltage test resistor 415] configured to sense a voltage of each of the energy storage units;
at least one voltage balancing unit [fig 1c balancing charger 132] each voltage balancing unit being associated with at least one of the energy storage units, the at least one voltage balancing unit being connected to the energy storage units [figs 1-2] and when activated is configured to, on a condition that the voltage of at least one of the energy storage units associated with the at least one voltage balancing unit exceeds the threshold voltage level, reduce the voltage of at least the one(s) of the energy storage units having a voltage that exceeds the threshold voltage level so as to become equal to or smaller than the threshold voltage level [¶27 balance voltage to a target voltage]; and
at least one control and/or processing unit [fig 1c controller 134/fig 2 controller 210/fig 4 processor 405] configured to, if the at least one voltage balancing unit is activated and the voltage of at least one of the plurality of energy storage unit(s) associated with the at least one voltage balancing unit exceeds the threshold voltage level, monitor an amount of time during which the at least one voltage balancing unit is or has been activated [abstract and ¶70].
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 1 above, a detailed discussion is avoided for brevity.
With regards to claim 2 and 11 Beast discloses, a system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one control and/or processing unit is configured to, for each voltage balancing unit, provide an indication that the at least one of the energy storage units with which the voltage balancing unit is associated requires maintenance or replacement based at least on the amount of time during which the voltage balancing unit has been activated [¶71 maintenance/replacement based on operating time].
Claim 11 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 2 above, a detailed discussion is avoided for brevity.
With regards to claim 3 Beast discloses, a system according to claim 2, wherein the at least one control and/or processing unit is configured to, for each voltage balancing unit, provide the indication based on at least one of:
a determination that the amount of time during which the voltage balancing unit has been activated exceeds a threshold amount of time [¶68-¶71 discloses the balancing time being exceeded]; and
a comparison between the amount of time during which the voltage balancing unit has been activated and the amount of time during which at least one of the other voltage balancing unit has been activated [¶68-71 discloses time that the balancing has been activated between the different battery modules].
With regards to claim 4 Beast discloses, a system according to claim 2, wherein the at least one control and/or processing unit is configured to, for each voltage balancing unit:
determine a difference between the amount of time during which the voltage balancing unit has been activated and the amount of time during which at least one other voltage balancing unit has been activated [¶68-71 reasonably discloses the timing of the balancing of the modules];
determine whether the difference exceeds a threshold difference [¶70-71 discloses the timing threshold]; and
provide the indication based on the determination whether the difference exceeds the threshold difference [¶71 alert is issued].
With regards to claim 6 Beast discloses, a system according to claim 1, wherein, for each energy storage unit, the threshold voltage can vary and comprises or consists of a difference between the voltage of the energy storage unit and an average voltage of the voltages of the energy storage units [¶28 discloses voltage target adjustments based on the battery pack 100 which reasonably reads on the varying voltage threshold, also where different battery units/modules are known to have slightly varying manufacturing tolerances in their voltage values].
With regards to claim 7 Beast discloses, a system according to claim 1, wherein, for each energy storage unit, the threshold voltage is fixed and comprises or consists of an upper voltage limit of the voltage of the energy storage unit [¶27-28 reasonably read on the threshold voltage being fixed, where the controller would receive an initial target value and use that value as the “fixed” value which would be the upper voltage limit of the unit in order to maximize the capabilities of the system].
With regards to claims 8 and 16 Beast discloses, a system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one control and/or processing unit is configured to activate the at least one voltage balancing unit or keep the at least one voltage balancing unit activated if the voltage of at least one of the energy storage unit(s) associated with the at least one voltage balancing unit exceeds the threshold voltage level [¶28 discloses adjusting each of the modules to the target which reasonably reads on the balancing unit being activated, where the unit will ensure that each of the modules reaches the target voltage before turning off], and
deactivate or not activate the at least one voltage balancing unit if the voltage of none of the energy storage unit(s) associated with the at least one voltage balancing unit exceeds the threshold voltage level [¶28 reasonably reads on the deactivation where once each module reaches the target voltage the system will stop the balancing process].
Claim 16 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 8 above, a detailed discussion is avoided for brevity.
With regards to claim 12 Beast discloses, a system according to claim 1, wherein each of the energy storage units comprises one or more of at least one capacitor and at least one battery [fig 2 battery modules].
With regards to claim 13 Beast discloses, a system according to claim 12, wherein the at least one sensing unit is configured to, for each of the energy storage units, sense a voltage across the at least one capacitor and/or the at least one battery of the energy storage unit [fig 2 BMCs 220-260 and ¶27].
With regards to claim 14 Beast discloses, a system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of energy storage units are connected in series [fig 2 connected in series].
With regards to claim 18 Beast discloses, a computer program comprising instructions, which when executed by one or more processors comprised in a control and/or processing unit, cause the control and/or processing unit to perform the method of claim 15 [¶43,44,89 application/computer program].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaston US 20170040646 (hereinafter Beast) in view of Furukawa US 20230104680 (hereinafter Furu).
With regards to claim 5 Beast discloses, a system according to claim 2, wherein the at least one control and/or processing unit is configured to, for each voltage balancing unit,
determine time during which the at least one voltage balancing unit is or has been activated [¶71 discloses the balancing unit and a time that it has been active].
Beast fails to disclose a curve of the time as a function of time and provide the indication based on at least one of: a slope of the curve at a point on the curve; and a shape of the curve.
However, Furu discloses, a curve of the time as a function of time and provide the indication based on at least one of: a slope of the curve at a point on the curve; and a shape of the curve [fig 6 which discloses a curve of time as a function of time that has a slope/shape].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the active balancing detection time/data of Beast with the plotting/graphing of the time of Furu in order to provide a better visual representation of the time data for the user.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaston US 20170040646 (hereinafter Beast) in view of Eguchi at al. US 5547775 (hereinafter Eg).
With regards to claims 9 and 17 Beast discloses, a system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one control and/or processing unit is configured to activate the at least one voltage balancing unit or keep the at least one voltage balancing unit activated if the voltage of at least one of the energy storage unit(s) associated with the at least one voltage balancing unit exceeds the threshold voltage level, and, otherwise deactivate or not activate the at least one voltage balancing unit [Beast ¶28 reasonably discloses the activation when a module exceeds the threshold].
Beast fails to disclose, if none of the energy storage unit(s) associated with the at least one voltage balancing unit has a voltage exceeding the threshold voltage level: keep the at least one voltage balancing unit activated or activate the at least one voltage balancing unit if the voltage of at least one of the energy storage unit(s) associated with the at least one voltage balancing unit is within a selected voltage range below the threshold voltage level and otherwise deactivate or not activate the at least one voltage balancing unit.
However, Eg discloses, if none of the energy storage unit(s) associated with the at least one voltage balancing unit has a voltage exceeding the threshold voltage level: keep the at least one voltage balancing unit activated or activate the at least one voltage balancing unit if the voltage of at least one of the energy storage unit(s) associated with the at least one voltage balancing unit is within a selected voltage range below the threshold voltage level and otherwise deactivate or not activate the at least one voltage balancing unit and otherwise deactivate or not activate the at least one voltage balancing unit [fig 4 discloses a voltage range below the threshold voltage where the balancing is still activated and then when not in that range the balancing is deactivated].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the battery charging systems of Beast with Eg to include a voltage threshold below the target which keeps the unit active in order to improve the cycling life of the system which prevents rapid flipping on/off of the components and prevents potential damage to the components.
Claim 17 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 9 above, a detailed discussion is avoided for brevity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathaniel Instone whose telephone number is (571)272-1563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 EST.
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.
/NATHAN J INSTONE/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights