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 .
Status of the Claims
In the communication filed on 11/30/2023 claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 18 are independent.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 replace “a” with --the-- so that it reads “the average current” and in line 3 replace “a” with --the-- so that it reads “the highest or lowest” to avoid a lack of antecedent basis issue. For examination purposes below these limitations will be interpreted as having proper antecedent basis, however, appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4 replace “a” with --the-- so that it reads “the actual current drawn” to avoid a lack of antecedent basis issue. For examination purposes below this limitation will be interpreted as having proper antecedent basis, however, appropriate correction is required.
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 5-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Crouse, JR. (USPGPN 20200274368; identified by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) and cited in the European Search Opinion), hereinafter Crouse.
With respect to independent claim 1, Crouse teaches a system for balancing current by controlling impedance in parallel battery packs (Fig. 2, battery packs 212; ¶[143]).
Crouse teaches a controlled impedance (Fig. 2, device 214) operably coupled to an internal impedance (one of ordinary skill understands batteries comprise an internal impedance) and an external impedance (one of ordinary skill understands the external bus connected to the battery pack has an impedance external to the battery pack), wherein the controlled impedance can be adjusted to control current sharing with at least one other battery pack (¶[66], last sentence; device 214 is controlled to change an operating parameter of each battery pack; ¶[143], is understood by one of ordinary skill to change the impedance of the respective battery pack by changing the voltage and current behavior for current balancing purposes, wherein from Ohm’s law R = V/I, thus controlling the impedance).
Crouse teaches a control circuit operably coupled to the controlled impedance, wherein the control circuit is configured to exchange data with at least one other battery pack (Fig. 2, controller 216 coupled to device 214 via CAN line thus data is exchanged between the battery packs 212 and the controller 216).
Crouse teaches wherein the control circuit determines an average current needed from each battery pack in the system and compares that current to an actual current drawn or supplied to a particular battery pack, and then adjusts the current of the particular battery pack by adjusting the controlled impedance (¶[143], the battery packs balance current by communicating with one another and sharing their measured current values. The controller calculates the average current of all the connected battery packs and adjusts the switching duty cycle so that the current of the battery pack moves closer to the average, while ensuring it does not exceed its own maximum current limit).
With respect to claim 2, Crouse teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Crouse teaches wherein adjusting the controlled impedance comprises adjusting current of the particular battery pack to be closer to the average current needed (¶[143]).
With respect to claim 3, Crouse teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Crouse teaches wherein adjusting the controlled impedance comprises balancing impedance among parallel battery packs so current is equally shared among parallel battery packs (¶[143]).
With respect to claim 5, Crouse teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Crouse teaches wherein the internal impedance comprises any one or more of cell resistance, cell temperature, cell age, connection and/or cable impedances, busbars, and protection switches (It is well known that internal impedance of a battery pack comprises these limitations).
With respect to claim 6, Crouse teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Crouse teaches a communication bus operably coupled to each of the battery packs in the system, for exchanging impedance data with each of the battery packs in the system (Fig. 2, controller 216 coupled to device 214 via CAN line thus data is exchanged between the battery packs 212 and the controller 216. Device 214 changes operating parameters which includes impedance as understood by one of ordinary skill).
With respect to claim 7, Crouse teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 6. Further, Crouse teaches wherein the communication bus is digital and is a controller area network (CAN) bus system (Fig. 2, the bus is CAN which one of ordinary skill knows is a digital communication protocol).
With respect to claim 8, Crouse teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 6. Further, Crouse teaches wherein the communication bus is analogue (Fig. 7b, the battery voltage, temperature and compression are analog values measured for data).
With respect to claim 9, Crouse teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Crouse teaches wherein the controlled impedance used to balance current between the parallel battery packs is controlled using a switching regulator to introduce a voltage drop between battery cells of each input/output (I/O) power connector of each of the battery packs (Fig. 8).
With respect to claim 10, Crouse teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Crouse teaches wherein the battery system is modular and comprises a plurality of battery packs, wherein more than one battery pack can be added in parallel to expand the battery system (Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 11, Crouse teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Crouse teaches wherein the battery system is modular and comprise a plurality of battery packs, wherein the plurality of battery packs are swappable and removable for easy replacement (Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 12, Crouse teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Crouse teaches further comprising a dead band and/or an impedance clamp (¶[143], see maximum current limits).
With respect to claim 13, Crouse teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Crouse teaches a method for current sharing among parallel battery packs in a battery system, comprising providing the system of claim 1 (As cited above in claim 1), the system having a plurality of battery packs and connecting the plurality of battery packs in parallel (Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 14, Crouse teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 13. Further, Crouse teaches determining an average current needed from each of the plurality of battery packs in the system, or determining a highest or lowest current from at least one of the plurality of battery packs in the system, using the control circuit (As cited above in claim 1).
With respect to claim 15, Crouse teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 14. Further, Crouse teaches comparing the average current needed from each of the plurality of battery packs, or comparing the highest or lowest current from at least one of the plurality of battery packs in the system, with an actual current drawn or supplied to each of the plurality of battery packs (As cited above in claim 1).
With respect to claim 16, Crouse teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 15. Further, Crouse teaches adjusting impedance of the particular battery pack, using the controlled impedance and the control circuit, to control current sharing between the particular battery pack and each of the plurality of battery packs in the system (As cited above in claim 1).
With respect to claim 17, Crouse teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 16. Further, Crouse teaches wherein adjusting impedance of the particular battery pack comprises adjusting the impedance to be closer to the average current needed (¶[143]).
With respect to independent claim 18, Crouse teaches a battery pack having impedance balancing control (Fig. 2, battery packs 212; ¶[143]).
Crouse teaches a controlled impedance adjustable to control impedance (Fig. 2, device 214) and/or current sharing with other battery packs (¶[66], last sentence; device 214 is controlled to change an operating parameter of each battery pack; ¶[143], is understood by one of ordinary skill to change the impedance of the respective battery pack by changing the voltage and current behavior for current balancing purposes, wherein from Ohm’s law R = V/I, thus controlling the impedance).
Crouse teaches a control circuit operably coupled to the controlled impedance, wherein the control circuit is configured to exchange data with other battery packs (Fig. 2, controller 216 coupled to device 214 via CAN line thus data is exchanged between the battery packs 212 and the controller 216).
Crouse teaches wherein if current of the battery pack is different from a predetermined current, then the control circuit changes the controlled impedance to change current of the battery pack, to balance current between the battery pack and other battery packs (¶[143], the battery packs balance current by communicating with one another and sharing their measured current values. The controller calculates the average current of all the connected battery packs and adjusts the switching duty cycle so that the current of the battery pack moves closer to the average, while ensuring it does not exceed its own maximum current limit).
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.
Claims 4 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crouse and further in view of Baby et al. (USPGPN 20190081487; identified by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) and cited in the European Search Opinion).
With respect to claim 4, Crouse teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Crouse fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 4.
Baby teaches wherein the controlled impedance can balance total resistance for each battery pack in a battery system by balancing internal impedance, external impedance, and controlled impedance (¶[37]; ¶[40]; the impedance of FET 380 in Fig. 3 is controlled to balance the internal (i.e., battery/device impedances) and external impedances (i.e., hinge impedances)).
Cell balancing is a process of mitigating how differing impedances cause cells in a battery pack to discharge and charge at different rates, which could lead to dangerous voltage imbalances. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Baby’s controlled impedance to Crouse’s balancing circuit in order to balance the uncontrollable impedances of the battery pack and the external system with an impedance that can be controlled to achieve cell balancing. The advantage of this being compensating for the differences in the impedances (see abstract and ¶[25] of Baby) thus improving battery capacity, extending battery lifespan, and preventing damage.
With respect to claim 19, Crouse teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 18. However, Crouse fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 19.
Baby teaches wherein if current of the battery pack is higher than a predetermined current value, then the control circuit increases the controlled impedance to reduce current to the battery pack, to balance current between the battery pack and other battery packs (¶[40-41]; circuit 374 increases or decreases FET 380’s effective impedance as needed to maintain balanced charging currents and the charging current varies. Thus one of ordinary skill understands as charging current increases past a value, the feedback circuit increases the FET’s effective impedance as needed).
Cell balancing is a process of mitigating how differing impedances cause cells in a battery pack to discharge and charge at different rates, which could lead to dangerous voltage imbalances. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Baby’s controlled impedance to Crouse’s balancing circuit in order to balance the uncontrollable impedances of the battery pack and the external system with an impedance that can be controlled to achieve cell balancing. The advantage of this being compensating for the differences in the impedances (see abstract and ¶[25] of Baby) thus improving battery capacity, extending battery lifespan, and preventing damage.
With respect to claim 20, Crouse teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 18. However, Crouse fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 20.
Baby teaches wherein if current of the battery pack is lower than a predetermined current value, then the control circuit decreases the controlled impedance to increase current to the battery pack, to balance current between the battery pack and other battery packs (¶[40-41]; circuit 374 increases or decreases FET 380’s effective impedance as needed to maintain balanced charging currents and the charging current varies. Thus one of ordinary skill understands as charging current decreases past a value, the feedback circuit decreases the FET’s effective impedance as needed).
Cell balancing is a process of mitigating how differing impedances cause cells in a battery pack to discharge and charge at different rates, which could lead to dangerous voltage imbalances. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Baby’s controlled impedance to Crouse’s balancing circuit in order to balance the uncontrollable impedances of the battery pack and the external system with an impedance that can be controlled to achieve cell balancing. The advantage of this being compensating for the differences in the impedances (see abstract and ¶[25] of Baby) thus improving battery capacity, extending battery lifespan, and preventing damage.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The additional prior art identified by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) were considered by the examiner, however, for examination purposes were not relied upon for citation purposes.
Kristjansson et al. (USPGPN 20200412136) teaches battery packs that are connected in parallel and share power. In such systems, one battery pack can end up delivering more current than the others, even when the impedance differences are small. The invention adds a controllable impedance inside each battery pack so the pack can be made to carry more or less current as needed. A control circuit in each pack communicates with the other packs to compare current levels. The control circuit can then raise or lower the pack’s impedance to bring its current closer to the group average. The goal is to make the parallel packs share current more evenly.
Flowers et al. (USPGPN 20200203961) teaches a battery pack that mixes different kinds of battery cells in the same pack. The cells have different internal impedances and different charging-current limits, but they are arranged in parallel so they can share charging and powering a device. The core idea is to slow down charging through the lower-impedance cells so they do not take too much current. The pack does this by placing a current-control circuit in series with each lower-impedance cell. That control circuit may be a resistor, a buck regulator, or an active current-limiting circuit. In some versions, the circuit is bypassed during discharge so the device can get power with less loss.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank A Silva whose telephone number is (703)756-1698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 09:30 am -06:30 pm ET.
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.
/FRANK ALEXIS SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights