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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 prior art rejections have been considered but are moot due to new ground of rejections.
Examiner indicates that applicant did not provide any arguments regarding the 112 a written description rejections.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they contain blank boxes. Examiner suggest adding text labels for clarity. 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 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.
Claims 1-3,5,7-11,13-15 are 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.
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 11, the disclosure does not provide adequate disclosure to perform the claimed functions of wherein the ground fault test apparatus is configured to be connected to the aggregated battery; wherein the ground fault test apparatus is configured to perform the following steps in order:
(a) open the plurality of contactors to disconnect the plurality of parallel battery packs from the circuit; (the controller 14 opens the switching units 5-8 and 16-19 sequentially line by line. Presence of ground fault is then detected under each state thus specifying a battery group in which the ground fault occurred.)
(b) sequence closure of the plurality of contactors to include each connect one of the plurality of parallel battery packs at a time to the circuit; (the controller 14 opens the switching units 5-8 and 16-19 sequentially line by line. Presence of ground fault is then detected under each state thus specifying a battery group in which the ground fault occurred.)
(c) check for a ground fault in the circuit to determine whether the one battery pack that is connected to the circuit comprises a faulty battery pack, wherein the faulty battery pack comprises a ground fault; (the controller 14 opens the switching units 5-8 and 16-19 sequentially line by line. Presence of ground fault is then detected under each state thus specifying a battery group in which the ground fault occurred.)
(d) disconnect the faulty battery pack or battery packs from the circuit.
The specification of the USPGPUB only recites:
[0019] The power storage modules 111, 121, 131, 141 and 151 may comprise rechargeable power storage modules. The plurality of battery packs 110, 120, 130, 140 and 150 may be connected in parallel to each other. The isolation monitor 160 is configured to be connected in a circuit with the plurality of battery packs 110, 120, 130, 140 and 150. The BMS service tool 170 may be connected to the plurality of battery packs 110, 120, 130, 140 and 150 and to the isolation monitor 160. The BMS service tool 170 may be connected to the plurality of battery packs 110, 120, 130, 140 and 150 and to the isolation monitor 160 via a controller area network. The isolation monitor may communicate with the BMS service tool over the controller area network (CAN).
[0028] FIG. 5 illustrates an exemplary arrangement in which the isolation monitor 160 is connected to the aggregated battery 600, wherein the aggregated battery 600 comprises a plurality of battery packs 610, 620, 630, 640 and 650. The BMS service tool 170 is connected to the aggregated battery 600 and to the isolation monitor 160 via a CANbus (indicated by the dashed line). In use, a user may fit the isolation monitor 160 (or ground fault detection tool) between the aggregated battery 600 and the BMS service tool 170.
Examiner acknowledge the specification use of the terms isolation monitor and battery management service tool for the ground fault test apparatus however the specification is silent as to the structure of these elements. Figure1 shows blank boxes for the isolation monitor 160 and the battery management system service tool. The use of these terms do not provide adequate because there are any number of possible configurations for the insulation monitor and the battery management system service tool. As such, the specification does not provide adequate description of the structures such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is applicant’s ground fault test apparatus . The original disclosure doesn’t reasonably demonstrate that applicant had possession of the claim features at issue because it does not reasonably demonstrate the manner in which these features are implemented by applicant.
Regarding claims 7, the disclosure does not provide adequate disclosure to perform the claimed functions of wherein sequencing closure of the plurality of contactors to connect one of the plurality of parallel battery packs at a time in the circuit comprises connecting only one of the plurality of parallel battery packs to the circuit at a given time.
The specification of the USPGPUB only recites
[0022] A method of ground fault location according to an embodiment of the present disclosure is illustrated by the flow diagram of FIG. 2. The method may be for an aggregated battery comprising a plurality of battery packs (110, 120, 130, 140 and 150 as illustrated in FIG. 1, although it will be understood that there may be fewer or more battery packs), an isolation monitor 160 and a circuit configured to connect the plurality of battery packs 110, 120, 130, 140 and 150 to the isolation monitor 160, wherein the circuit comprises a plurality of contactors (112, 122, 132, 142, 152, 113, 123, 133, 143 and 153 in FIG. 1) configured to disconnect each of the plurality of battery packs 110, 120, 130, 140 and 150 from the circuit. The method may comprise a step 210 of using the isolation monitor 160 to detect whether a ground fault exists. In the event that a ground fault exists, at step 220 a user may be notified that a ground fault exists. At least one contactor per battery pack may be opened at step 230 to disconnect the plurality of battery packs from the circuit. For example, with reference to FIG. 1, contactors 113, 123, 133, 143 and 153 may be opened. At step 240, a faulty battery pack that comprises the ground fault is located among the plurality of battery packs by testing each battery pack in turn using the isolation monitor 160. Step 240 may comprise sequencing closure of the plurality of contactors (for example 113, 123, 133, 143 and 153) to include each of the plurality of battery packs (for example 110, 120, 130, 140 and 150) in the circuit with the isolation monitor 160 in turn. The sequencing may involve closure of one of the plurality of contactors (for example 113, 123, 133, 143 and 153) at any one time. The faulty battery pack is disconnected at step 250. The faulty battery pack may remain disconnected until it is repaired or replaced.
Examiner acknowledge the specification use of the term isolation monitor however the specification is silent as to the structure of this element. Figure1 shows blank box for the isolation monitor 160. The use of the terms does not provide adequate because there are any number of possible configurations for the insulation monitor. As such, the specification does not provide adequate description of the structures such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is applicant’s isolation monitor and the battery management system service tool . The original disclosure doesn’t reasonably demonstrate that applicant had possession of the claim features at issue because it does not reasonably demonstrate the manner in which these features are implemented by applicant.
Regarding claims 8, the disclosure does not provide adequate disclosure to perform the claimed functions of wherein prior to the step of sequencing closure of the plurality of contactors to connect one of the plurality of parallel battery packs at a time to the circuit, the method further comprises a step of sequencing closure of the plurality of contactors to connect more than one of the plurality of parallel battery packs to the circuit at a given time, and to determine whether the battery packs that are connected to the circuit comprise a faulty battery pack.
The specification of the USPGPUB only recites
[0022] A method of ground fault location according to an embodiment of the present disclosure is illustrated by the flow diagram of FIG. 2. The method may be for an aggregated battery comprising a plurality of battery packs (110, 120, 130, 140 and 150 as illustrated in FIG. 1, although it will be understood that there may be fewer or more battery packs), an isolation monitor 160 and a circuit configured to connect the plurality of battery packs 110, 120, 130, 140 and 150 to the isolation monitor 160, wherein the circuit comprises a plurality of contactors (112, 122, 132, 142, 152, 113, 123, 133, 143 and 153 in FIG. 1) configured to disconnect each of the plurality of battery packs 110, 120, 130, 140 and 150 from the circuit. The method may comprise a step 210 of using the isolation monitor 160 to detect whether a ground fault exists. In the event that a ground fault exists, at step 220 a user may be notified that a ground fault exists. At least one contactor per battery pack may be opened at step 230 to disconnect the plurality of battery packs from the circuit. For example, with reference to FIG. 1, contactors 113, 123, 133, 143 and 153 may be opened. At step 240, a faulty battery pack that comprises the ground fault is located among the plurality of battery packs by testing each battery pack in turn using the isolation monitor 160. Step 240 may comprise sequencing closure of the plurality of contactors (for example 113, 123, 133, 143 and 153) to include each of the plurality of battery packs (for example 110, 120, 130, 140 and 150) in the circuit with the isolation monitor 160 in turn. The sequencing may involve closure of one of the plurality of contactors (for example 113, 123, 133, 143 and 153) at any one time. The faulty battery pack is disconnected at step 250. The faulty battery pack may remain disconnected until it is repaired or replaced.
Examiner acknowledge the specification use of the term isolation monitor however the specification is silent as to the structure of these elements. Figure1 shows blank box for the isolation monitor 160. The use of the terms does not provide adequate because there are any number of possible configurations for the insulation monitor. As such, the specification does not provide adequate description of the structures such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is applicant’s isolation monitor and the battery management system service tool . The original disclosure doesn’t reasonably demonstrate that applicant had possession of the claim features at issue because it does not reasonably demonstrate the manner in which these features are implemented by applicant.
Regarding claims 9, the disclosure does not provide adequate disclosure to perform the claimed functions of wherein after the faulty battery pack is disconnected from the circuit it is determined whether an additional ground fault exists in the aggregated battery and wherein; in the event that the additional ground fault exists the additional ground fault is located; and in the event that the additional ground fault does not exist the method terminates.
The specification of the USPGPUB only recites
[0022] A method of ground fault location according to an embodiment of the present disclosure is illustrated by the flow diagram of FIG. 2. The method may be for an aggregated battery comprising a plurality of battery packs (110, 120, 130, 140 and 150 as illustrated in FIG. 1, although it will be understood that there may be fewer or more battery packs), an isolation monitor 160 and a circuit configured to connect the plurality of battery packs 110, 120, 130, 140 and 150 to the isolation monitor 160, wherein the circuit comprises a plurality of contactors (112, 122, 132, 142, 152, 113, 123, 133, 143 and 153 in FIG. 1) configured to disconnect each of the plurality of battery packs 110, 120, 130, 140 and 150 from the circuit. The method may comprise a step 210 of using the isolation monitor 160 to detect whether a ground fault exists. In the event that a ground fault exists, at step 220 a user may be notified that a ground fault exists. At least one contactor per battery pack may be opened at step 230 to disconnect the plurality of battery packs from the circuit. For example, with reference to FIG. 1, contactors 113, 123, 133, 143 and 153 may be opened. At step 240, a faulty battery pack that comprises the ground fault is located among the plurality of battery packs by testing each battery pack in turn using the isolation monitor 160. Step 240 may comprise sequencing closure of the plurality of contactors (for example 113, 123, 133, 143 and 153) to include each of the plurality of battery packs (for example 110, 120, 130, 140 and 150) in the circuit with the isolation monitor 160 in turn. The sequencing may involve closure of one of the plurality of contactors (for example 113, 123, 133, 143 and 153) at any one time. The faulty battery pack is disconnected at step 250. The faulty battery pack may remain disconnected until it is repaired or replaced.
Examiner acknowledge the specification use of the term isolation monitor for performing the limitations however the specification is silent as to the structure of the element. Figure1 shows blank box for the isolation monitor 160. The use of the terms does not provide adequate because there are any number of possible configurations for the insulation monitor. As such, the specification does not provide adequate description of the structures such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is applicant’s isolation monitor and the battery management system service tool . The original disclosure doesn’t reasonably demonstrate that applicant had possession of the claim features at issue because it does not reasonably demonstrate the manner in which these features are implemented by applicant.
Claims 2,3,5 and 13-15 are rejected for containing 112 rejections above and for depending on rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-3,5,7,10,11,13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. (JP H07325121) in view of Hendrix (US 20140097797).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Harada et al. teach A ground fault test apparatus (Note abstract) for an aggregated battery (Note combined battery groups 1-4, abstract, Fig. 1) for an electric work vehicle, wherein the aggregated battery is not connected to the electric work vehicle and wherein the aggregated battery comprises a plurality of parallel battery packs (Note 1-4, Fig. 1) and a plurality of contactors (Note 5-8, Fig. 1) configured to connect the parallel battery packs of the aggregated battery to a circuit, the contactors each configured to facilitate connection of a battery pack of the plurality of parallel battery packs to the circuit and disconnection of the battery pack from the circuit , (Note 5-8, Fig. 1) wherein the ground fault test apparatus is configured to be connected to the aggregated battery; wherein the ground fault test apparatus is configured to perform the following steps in order:
(a) open the plurality of contactors to disconnect the plurality of parallel battery packs from the circuit; (the controller 14 opens the switching units 5-8 and 16-19 sequentially line by line. Presence of ground fault is then detected under each state thus specifying a battery group in which the ground fault occurred.) Note abstract
(b) sequence closure of the plurality of contactors to include each connect one of the plurality of parallel battery packs at a time to the circuit; (the controller 14 opens the switching units 5-8 and 16-19 sequentially line by line. Presence of ground fault is then detected under each state thus specifying a battery group in which the ground fault occurred.) Note abstract
(c) check for a ground fault in the circuit to determine whether the one battery pack that is connected to the circuit comprises a faulty battery pack, wherein the faulty battery pack comprises a ground fault; (the controller 14 opens the switching units 5-8 and 16-19 sequentially line by line. Presence of ground fault is then detected under each state thus specifying a battery group in which the ground fault occurred.) Note abstract and
Harada et al. does not explicitly teach (d) disconnect the faulty battery pack or battery packs from the circuit.
Hendrix et al. teach disconnect the faulty battery pack or battery packs from the circuit. (0108] FIG. 50 is a flow chart illustrating steps performed by the control system of the present disclosure for selectively disconnecting a battery string from a rack, such as when a fault condition occurs for the particular string)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harada et al. to include the teaching of disconnect the faulty battery pack or battery packs from the circuit to prevent shutting down the entire module. (Note Hendrix et al. par. 0010)
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Harada et al. teach notifying a user of the existence of the ground fault. (Note par. 0012)
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Harada et al. teach notifying a user of the existence of the ground fault. (The means to judge and notify the battery group in which the accident has occurred.) Note par. 0006; (When this operation ends, the battery group in which the ground fault has occurred is specified. Further, this discrimination data is notified by a notification means such as a display device.) Note par. 0015
Regarding claim 5, Harada et al. teach the plurality of contactors are to a negative side of the circuit. (Note contactors 5-8 are connected to the batteries 1-4 which inherently has a negative side)
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Harada et al. teach wherein sequencing closure of the plurality of contactors to connect one each of the plurality of parallel battery packs at a time to the circuit comprises connecting only one of the plurality of parallel battery packs to the circuit a given time. (A detector for detecting a fault accident, a switching device group connected in series at both ends of each of the battery groups to open and close each battery group independently, and a ground fault detection signal from the detector Based on the above, the switching device selection closing circuit for sequentially repeating the operation of closing one row of switching devices in the switching device group and opening all the other switching devices, and the switching device selection closing circuit operate.) (Note par. 0009)
Regarding claim 11, Harada et al. teach A ground fault test apparatus (Note abstract) for an aggregated battery (Note combined battery groups 1-4, abstract, Fig. 1) for an electric work vehicle, wherein the aggregated battery is not connected to the electric work vehicle and wherein the aggregated battery comprises a plurality of parallel battery packs (Note 1-4, Fig. 1) and a plurality of contactors (Note 5-8, Fig. 1) configured to connect the parallel battery packs of the aggregated battery to a circuit, the contactors each configured to facilitate connection of a battery pack of the plurality of parallel battery packs to the circuit and disconnection of the battery pack from the circuit , (Note 5-8, Fig. 1) wherein the ground fault test apparatus is configured to be connected to the aggregated battery; the ground fault test apparatus is configured to perform the method of claim 1.(Note rejection of claim 1 above.)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. (JP H07325121) in view of Hendrix (US 20140097797) further in view of Wiley et al. (US 6031354).
Harada et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 8, Harada et al. does not teach a step of sequencing closure of the plurality of contactors to connect more than one of the plurality of parallel battery packs to the circuit at a given time, to determine whether the battery packs that are connected to included in the circuit with the isolation monitor comprise a faulty battery pack.
Wiley et al. teach of sequencing closure of the plurality of contactors to connect more than one of the plurality of parallel battery packs to the circuit at a given time, to determine whether the battery packs that are connected to included in the circuit with the isolation monitor comprise a faulty battery pack. , (PAL 74 receives and decodes 8-bit address information, and then issues an output which turns on respective photo MOS relays 76a-76i, two at a time. The two photo MOS relays turned on at a given time identify two corresponding batteries at that particular point in time, thereby permitting a voltage reading to be taken across one of the batteries. For example, if two of the relays 76a-76i are turned on, and if these relays correspond to batteries 53 and 54 in battery bank 50, the voltage across battery 53 will be measured. column 17, lines 50-58) and using the isolation monitor (controllers10, 12 and 14, and claim 1) to determine whether the battery packs that are included in the circuit with the isolation monitor comprise a faulty battery pack. (It is an additional object of the present invention to provide an on-line battery management and monitoring system and method which provide continuous or periodic operability information on each battery cell, including SOC, internal faults, and magnitude and location of both ground faults and degraded connections., column 5, lines 9-14)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harada et al. to include the teaching of sequencing closure of the plurality of contactors to connect more than one of the plurality of parallel battery packs to the circuit at a given time, to determine whether the battery packs that are connected to the circuit with the isolation monitor comprise a faulty battery pack to increase monitoring efficiency by reducing the time to monitor devices separately.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. (JP H07325121) in view of Hendrix (US 20140097797) further in view of Eliassen (US 20210041507).
Harada et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 9, Harada et al. does not teach wherein after the faulty battery pack is disconnected from the circuit it is determined whether an additional ground fault exists in the aggregated battery and wherein; in the event that the additional ground fault exists the additional ground fault is located; and in the event that the additional ground fault does not exist the method terminates.
Eliassen teach wherein after the faulty battery pack is disconnected from the circuit it is determined whether an additional ground fault exists in the aggregated battery and wherein; in the event that the additional ground fault exists the additional ground fault is located; and in the event that the additional ground fault does not exist the method terminates. (Note claim 4, isolating a first module at both terminals; checking for a ground fault in the remaining modules; when no ground fault is present, removing and replacing the isolated module; when a ground fault is still present; reconnecting the isolated module; isolating a next module; checking again for a ground fault in the energy storage unit; when the ground fault is still present, repeating the isolating and checking steps until the faulty module is determined.) Note also claims 1-3.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to include the teaching of wherein after the faulty battery pack is disconnected from the circuit it is determined whether an additional ground fault exists in the aggregated battery and wherein; in the event that the additional ground fault exists the additional ground fault is located; and in the event that the additional ground fault does not exist the method terminates to verify all the devices are free of fault.
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 DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-3441. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 5:30-1:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858