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 § 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.
Claims 5 and 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.
Regarding claim 5, the recitation of “the measured voltage enters the criterion voltage” is unclear.
Regarding claim 7, the recitation of “a phase change time of the battery” is unclear.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ezawa et al. (US 2016/0190827, cited by applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Ezawa teaches a battery control apparatus (fig. 1), comprising: a memory (111) configured to store a criterion voltage for a battery (101) ([0034]-[0038]); a measuring unit (115) configured to measure a voltage of the battery during a charging or discharging process of the battery ([0033]); and a processor (116, [0031]) configured to: compare the measured voltage and the criterion voltage during the charging or discharging process of the battery and change a charging C-rate or a discharging C-rate for the battery when the measured voltage corresponds to the criterion voltage ([0079]-[0083]).
Regarding claim 2, Ezawa further teaches wherein the memory stores different criterion voltages for the charging process (111, [0034]-[0037]) and the discharging process (121, [0062], [0063] and [0067]), respectively (figs. 1 and 9).
Regarding claim 3, Ezawa further teaches wherein the processor is configured to perform rapid control so that the battery is charged or discharged at a C-rate higher than a C-rate other than the criterion voltage, in a state where the measured voltage corresponds to the criterion voltage ([0085]).
Regarding claim 4, Ezawa further teaches wherein the processor is configured to perform normal control so that the battery is charged or discharged at a C-rate lower than a C-rate in a state of rapid control for charging or discharging, after the rapid control for charging or discharging is performed ([0030] and [0085]).
Regarding claim 6, Ezawa further teaches wherein the processor is configured to increase a magnitude of the C-rate while allowing a current to flow in a same direction or to allow the current to flow in an opposite direction, before charging or discharging of the battery ends (figs. 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 8, Ezawa further teaches a battery pack ([0003]), comprising the battery control apparatus according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Ezawa further teaches a vehicle ([0003]), comprising the battery control apparatus according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Ezawa further teaches an energy storage system ([0003]), comprising the battery control apparatus according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Ezawa teaches a battery control method, comprising: storing a criterion voltage for a battery (101, [0034]-[0037]); measuring a voltage of the battery during a charging or discharging process of the battery ([0033] and [0066]); and comparing the measured voltage and the criterion voltage during the charging or discharging process of the battery and changing a charging C-rate or a discharging C-rate for the battery when the measured voltage corresponds to the criterion voltage ([0081]-[0083]).
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 nonobviousness.
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ezawa in view of Shibata et al. (US 2011/0215765).
Regarding claim 5, Ezawa teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for wherein the processor is configured to perform idle control so that charging or discharging is stopped for a predetermined time, when the measured voltage enters the criterion voltage.
However, Shibata teaches protection circuit and battery pack that a controller is configured to perform idle control so that charging or discharging is stopped for a predetermined time, when the measured voltage enters the criterion voltage (the abstract).
In view of Shibata’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ezawa by incorporating the teaching as taught by Shibata so as to protect the battery from over chagrining or discharging.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ezawa in view of Lee et al. (US 2017/0234930, cited by applicant).
Regarding claim 7, Ezawa teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above.
Ezawa further teaches wherein the criterion voltage is determined based on a voltage measure at a type and degradation degree of a battery, etc. ([0030]-[0037]) but silent a phase change time of the battery.
However, Lee teach wherein the criterion voltage is determined based on a voltage measure at a phase change time of the battery ([0072], [0080] and claim 8).
In view of Lee’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ezawa by incorporating the teaching as taught by Lee so as to prevent the damage of the battery and the life of the battery can be improved (see Lee: [0080]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
References: Yoon et al. (US 12,095,298); Namikawa et al. (US 2022/0115890); Ikeda et al. (US 2021/0305820); Lee et al. (US 2021/0190878); Lim et al. (US 2020/0182943); Kim (US 2012/0021255) are cited because they are related to battery control system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuyen Kim Vo whose telephone number is (571)270-1657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8AM-6:30PM.
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.
/TUYEN K VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights