DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 2013/03/16, 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2023/11/29 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show
The memory element recited in claims 4, 7. ¶[0024] admits the EEPROM is "part of the BMS... without being graphically depicted in greater detail."
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
"0V," "VOUT," and "V-" labels (Fig. 2) are not mentioned or tied to any corresponding structure in the specification. ¶[0022] describes the Hall sensor's connections only in generic terms — "connected to an analog input of the BMS via the line 12" and powered "with a supply voltage of 5V +/-0.25V... via an analog output of the BMS" — without using the specific labels "0V," "VOUT," or "V-" to identify which line is which.
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), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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 following title is suggested: “Control Device for a Battery Storage Device Having a Total Current Sensor and a Differential Current Sensor Between Strings”.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Inconsistent terminology: "EPROM" (¶[0009]) vs. "EEPROM" (¶[0024]) for what appears to be the same fail-safe memory element. EPROM and EEPROM are distinct, non-interchangeable technologies.
Undefined/inconsistent term: "control unit" (¶[0014]) is not used anywhere else in the specification and is inconsistent with "control device"/"battery management system (BMS)" used throughout the rest of the disclosure and in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 6 covers any number of "n strings" and "n−1 Hall sensors," however the specification only works through the two-string embodiment and merely mentions a three-string configuration in passing, characterizing any further generalization as "generally and theoretically" possible rather than actually enabled (¶[0011]). No guidance is provided as to how Hall sensor placement, wiring topology, or signal processing would be adapted as the number of strings increases, so practicing the claim across its full breadth would require undue experimentation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 requires that the control device itself be arranged in the battery management system, but the specification never states this; it discloses only that the memory (EEPROM) is "part of the BMS" (¶[0024]), without ever describing the control device's own location relative to the BMS. Because the specification nowhere conveys that the control device, as opposed to just its memory, is arranged within the battery management system, it fails to show possession of this specific structural arrangement.
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 1, 4 – 7 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation " the device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, introduces two separate "devices": "a control device" and "a battery storage device". The phrase "the device" does not clearly refer to either one. With more than one available antecedent, a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) cannot determine which device claim 6 is referring to.
Claims 1, 5 – 7 are incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are:
"two strings" (claims 1, 5, 7),
"n strings" (claim 6)
The claims do not state how these strings relate structurally to "the plurality of modules" recited earlier in claim 1; there is no language establishing that the strings are formed by, comprise, or otherwise correspond to the modules, leaving the boundary between "strings" and "modules" indeterminate.
Claims 4, 7 recite the term “relevant”,
Claim 6 recites the term “expandable”,
relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms “relevant” and “expandable” are 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.
Neither the claims nor the specification identifies which module qualifies as "relevant" or provides any criterion for selecting it. This is compounded by a structural mismatch, since the differential current at issue is a string-level quantity shared between two strings rather than a value attributable to any single module. Absent a standard for identifying the "relevant" module, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained.
The specification's own hedging language — describing further generalization beyond two strings as only "generally and theoretically" possible (¶[0011]) — gives no standard for what structural or functional threshold makes the device "expandable" to a given number of strings. Without that standard, it cannot be determined whether the claim requires actual provision for additional strings or merely a theoretical capacity.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 6, 8 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GALLEGOS et al. (US 2012/0105001 A1), in view of MCCOY et al. (US 2012/0182021 A1).
In re claim 1, GALLEGOS discloses a control device (Energy Storage Master 100) of a battery storage device (¶[0029]: energy storage system comprising strings of batteries 103), comprising
a plurality of modules interconnected in the battery storage device via electromechanical components (FIG. 6; ¶[0052]: modules 600 interconnected via contactor 611, fuse 612, and bus-bar 613),
and the plurality of modules are connected to a battery management system for controlling charging and discharging (¶s [0052, 0078]: BMS boards connected to modules 600 via BMS harnessing; Energy Storage Master 700 controlling charging/discharging via the Fast Charge System interface).
GALLEGOS does not expressly disclose wherein, in addition to a sensor for a total current, the control device is also connected to a sensor, which is embodied to measure a differential current between two strings.
MCCOY teaches wherein, in addition to a sensor for a total current (FIG. 3; ¶[0033]: current measuring device 303A providing total current Itotal), the control device is also connected to a sensor (FIG. 3; ¶[0033]: current measuring device 303B, connected in addition to 303A, measures individual current I1 of battery 301), which is embodied to measure a differential current between two strings (FIG. 3; ¶[0033]: differential current I2 = Itotal − I1, calculated between batteries 301 and 302).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to combine MCCOY's differential current measurement module into GALLEGOS's battery management system in order to directly and accurately detect a fault in one of the two strings and thereby prevent violent battery failure, without needing to derive the fault condition solely from subtraction of two large-range total-current readings.
In re claim 6, GALLEGOS is silent to wherein the device is expandable to use with multi-string systems with
n
strings and
n
-
1
Hall sensors.
MCCOY teaches wherein the device is expandable to use with multi-string systems with
n
strings (FIG. 6; ¶s [0029, 0036]: pack generalized to any appropriate number of parallel cell sub-units; four-battery embodiment 601A–D/602A–D) and
n
-
1
Hall sensors (FIG. 6; ¶[0031]: devices optionally Hall Effect transducers).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to modify GALLEGOS 's battery management system to accommodate additional strings and additional Hall sensors, as taught by MCCOY's, in order to extend the differential current monitoring capability to systems with more than two strings without redesigning the underlying measurement principle.
In re claims 8 – 9, GALLEGOS discloses wherein the battery storage device is a battery storage device of an electric vehicle (¶[0029]: "Such a battery pack may be incorporated into any appropriate electrical device, including but not limited to … hybrid electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, electric vehicles, …").
As to claim 9, GALLEGOS further discloses wherein the electromechanical components comprise at least one of the group consisting of contactors, fuses, and busbars (FIG. 6: contactor 611, fuse 612, bus-bar 613).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GALLEGOS et al. (US 2012/0105001 A1), in view of MCCOY et al. (US 2012/0182021 A1), and further in view of BERGMANN et al. (US 2016/0329615 A1).
In re claim 2, GALLEGOS is silent to the control device further comprising a Hall sensor for measuring a difference in a current flow of the two strings, wherein high-voltage lines of the two strings are arranged extending in opposite directions and the high-voltage lines have partial currents flowing through the high-voltage lines in opposite directions.
BERGMANN teaches the control device further comprising a Hall sensor for measuring a difference in a current flow of the two strings (Abstract; ¶[0017]: magnetic field sensor is "a Hall sensor" with an evaluating unit "configured to determine a difference between the first and the second cell current from the measured superimposed field"),
wherein high-voltage lines of the two strings are arranged extending in opposite directions (FIG. 1; ¶[0032]: "the first wound element 4 is wound in a clockwise direction... and the second wound element 5 is wound in the counterclockwise direction") and
the high-voltage lines have partial currents flowing through the high-voltage lines in opposite directions (Abstract; ¶[0036]: "the cell currents... flowing through the first and the second wound element 4, 5 generate opposite magnetic fields which cancel each other out").
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to combine BERGMANN 's Hall sensor and oppositely-arranged current paths for the two strings into GALLEGOS 's battery management system in order to detect the difference between the two string currents without direct electrical contacting of the current-carrying components, thereby keeping measuring errors and insulation costs to a minimum.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GALLEGOS et al. (US 2012/0105001 A1), in view of MCCOY et al. (US 2012/0182021 A1), and further in view of TAKATSUKA (JP 2008-292403 A).
In re claim 3, GALLEGOS is silent to wherein a measuring shunt is provided as a sensor for a total current flow.
TAKATSUKA teaches wherein a measuring shunt is provided as a sensor for a total current flow (FIG. 2; ¶[0050]: "a single current sensor (shunt resistor) 5 is installed at the points where the entire current normally flows").
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to combine TAKATSUKA 's total-current shunt resistor into GALLEGOS 's battery management system in order to enable the current of one battery cell in a parallel group to be calculated from the total current and the individually-measured currents of the other cells, without needing a dedicated current sensor for that cell, thereby reducing the number of current sensors required.
Claims 4, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GALLEGOS et al. (US 2012/0105001 A1), in view of MCCOY et al. (US 2012/0182021 A1), and further in view of OHKAWA et al. (US 2012/0175953 A1).
In re claim 4, GALLEGOS is silent to wherein a differential current is added up over a service life of a relevant one of the plurality of modules and the differential current is storable in a memory in a fail-safe way.
OHKAWA teaches wherein a differential current is added up over a service life of a relevant one of the plurality of modules (FIG. 8; ¶s [0006, 0162]: integrated current from current meters SA1, SA2 stored as history data D11 once a threshold is reached) and
the differential current is storable in a memory in a fail-safe way (¶[0063]: redundant non-volatile memory scheme for "enhancement of the reliability of the operation for storage of the data that represents the history data").
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to combine OHKAWA's redundant non-volatile memory storage scheme into GALLEGOS 's battery management system in order to prevent loss of stored battery history data if a malfunction occurs during a write operation, thereby ensuring the reliability of the battery system.
In re claim 7, GALLEGOS discloses wherein the control device is arranged in the battery management system (¶[0007]: battery management system including, among its components, at least one pack master board).
GALLEGOS does not expressly teach the control device is embodied to automatically store, in a fail-safe way, a difference in the current flow of the two strings added up over a service life of a relevant one of the plurality of modules.
OHKAWA teaches the control device is embodied to automatically store, in a fail-safe way (¶[0009]: history data written to non-volatile memory at start/end of operation using alternating storage blocks, so a write fault in one doesn't lose the data), a difference in the current flow of the two strings added up over a service life of a relevant one of the plurality of modules (FIG. 8; ¶s [0006, 0162]: integrated current from current meters SA1, SA2 stored as history data D11 once a threshold is reached).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to combine OHKAWA 's redundant non-volatile memory storage scheme into GALLEGOS 's battery management system in order to prevent loss of stored battery history data if a malfunction occurs during a write operation, thereby ensuring the reliability of the battery system.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GALLEGOS et al. (US 2012/0105001 A1), in view of MCCOY et al. (US 2012/0182021 A1), TAKATSUKA (JP 2008-292403 A), and further in view of MELICHAR (US 2006/0103348 A1).
In re claim 5, GALLEGOS is silent to the control device further comprising an additional current limitation at a level of the two strings.
MELICHAR teaches a control device further comprising an additional current limitation at a level of the two strings (FIG. 2; ¶s [0006, 0026]: power limit module 72 calculating a maximum current limit Ilim for battery subpack 12, one of several parallel subpacks).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to combine MELICHAR's per-string maximum current limit calculation into GALLEGOS's battery management system in order to ensure that the power demanded of each string remains within that individual string's own power capability, rather than being clamped only at the overall pack level.
Terminal Disclaimer
The prior art applied in this Office Action includes foreign patent documents that were originally published in languages other than English. Machine-generated translations of these documents were utilized to assess their relevance and content.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHANN DJANAL-MANN whose telephone number is (571)272-4697. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 - 17:00.
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, Drew Dunn can be reached at (571) 272-2312. 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.
/D. JOHANN DJANAL-MANN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights