DETAILED ACTION
This non-final rejection is responsive to the claims filed 09 April 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8, and 13 are independent claims.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,561,272 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitations of claims 8, 12 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “serial interface”, “modulation unit”, and a “delay unit” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 8, 12 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 8-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “a serial interface configured to receive”. This limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. §112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. The function of receiving be performed in hardware, software, or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 8 recites “a modulation unit configured to generate”. This limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. §112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. The function of generating be performed in hardware, software, or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 8 recites “a delay unit configured to delay”. This limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. §112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. The function of delaying be performed in hardware, software, or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 12 recites “the serial interface is configured to receive”. This limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. §112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. The function of receiving be performed in hardware, software, or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims.
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.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suyakov (US 2023/0308006 A1) hereinafter known as Suyakov.
Regarding independent claim 1, Suyakov teaches:
connecting a first cluster controller of a first battery cluster to a serial communication bus; (Suyakov: Fig. 1B and 2B and ¶[0071]; Suyakov teaches a local control device as a component of the module (containing the energy source 206, i.e. battery) and connected serially. Fig. 25B and ¶[0347] further teaches the local control devices connected serially, wherein the MCD 112 sends control information to RS-485 interfaces over a twisted cable 115.)
connecting a second cluster controller of a second battery cluster to the serial communication bus; (Suyakov: Figs. 1B, 2B, and 25B and ¶[0071] and ¶[0347]; Suyakov teaches connecting multiple modules in series.)
sending synchronization data to the first cluster controller and the second cluster controller over the serial communication bus; (Suyakov: ¶[0301]; Suyakov teaches sending a synchronization signal to the LCDs.)
...
...
An embodiment of Suyakov does not explicitly teach but another embodiment teaches:
controlling a first bridge of the first battery cluster to connect a first battery terminal of the first battery cluster to an output terminal based on the synchronization data and a first rank assigned to the first battery cluster to generate a first component of a waveform; and (Suyakov: Fig. 7A and 8B and ¶[0128]; Suyakov teaches the module array in series to generate an AC output signal. ¶0124] teaches the synchronization signal consisting of control information to generate switch signals that manage the utilization of the energy source 206 (batteries). Further, Fig. 2B and ¶[0089] teach the converter 202 (inside each module 108) includes a half-bridge or a full bridge. Further, ¶[0136]-¶[0137] teaches a phase-shift technique which continuously rotates utilization of each module. The foregoing teaches ranking.)
controlling a second bridge of the second cluster to connect a second battery terminal of the second battery cluster to the output terminal based on the synchronization data and a second rank assigned to the second battery cluster to generate a second component of the waveform. (Suyakov: Figs. 7A, 8B, and ¶[0128], ¶[0136-¶[0137]; Suyakov teaches controlling the modules to output an AC output signal based on the synchronization signal and ranking.)
Suyakov is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as it is directed to generating AC current using battery modules connected in series. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine battery modules connected in series to further generate an AC signal based on a synchronization signal and rank. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings because the combination would allow outputting the appropriate waveform, as suggested by Suyakov: ¶[0005]-¶[0008].
Regarding claim 13, this claim recites a system that performs the method of claims 1; therefore, the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claims 2-5, 8, 9, 11, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suyakov in view of Chang (US 2021/0075227 A1) hereinafter known as Chang in view of Larson (US 2006/0041730 A1) hereinafter known as Larson.
Regarding claim 2, Suyakov further teaches the method of claim 1.
Suyakov further teaches:
controlling the first bridge comprises: sending a first bridge state command to the first cluster controller over the serial communication bus based on the first rank; and (Suyakov: Figs. 7A, 8B, and ¶[0128], ¶[0136-¶[0137]; Suyakov teaches controlling the modules to output an AC output signal based on the synchronization signal and ranking.)
controlling the second bridge comprises: sending a second bridge state command to the second cluster controller over the serial communication bus based on the second rank; and (Suyakov: Figs. 7A, 8B, and ¶[0128], ¶[0136-¶[0137]; Suyakov teaches controlling the modules to output an AC output signal based on the synchronization signal and ranking.)
Suyakov does not explicitly teach but Chang further teaches:
wherein: sending the synchronization data comprises: determining a propagation delay associated with the serial communication bus; (Chang: ¶[0042], ¶[0043], and ¶[0059]; Chang teaches compensating a clock difference caused by the propagation delay of the daisy chain.)
...
...
...
...
...
...
Suyakov and Chang are in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as the references are directed to serially daisy-chained battery modules. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine battery modules connected in series that generate an AC signal based on a synchronization signal and rank as taught in Suyakov with compensation for the propagation delay as taught in Chang. Suyakov recognizes that data transmission can be delayed. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Suyakov to include teachings of Chang, because the combination would allow the system to be more cost-effective and have lower power consumption, as suggested by Chang: ¶[0007].
Suyakov in view of Chang does not explicitly teach but Larson teaches:
assigning a first delay component to the first cluster controller based on the propagation delay; and (Larson: ¶[0033]-¶[0034]; Larson teaches assignment of a delay value based on the propagation delay.)
assigning a second delay component to the second cluster controller based on the propagation delay; (Larson: ¶[0033]-¶[0034]; Larson teaches assignment of a delay value based on the propagation delay.)
delaying execution of the first bridge state command based on the first delay component; and (Larson: ¶[0035]-¶[0036]; Larson teaches delaying execution until the delay programmed has elapsed.)
delaying execution of the second bridge state command based on the second delay component. (Larson: ¶[0035]-¶[0036]; Larson teaches delaying execution until the delay programmed has elapsed.)
Larson is analogous to the present invention, since it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, i.e. compensating for the signal propagation delay in serially chained devices on a common bus. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine battery modules connected in series that generate an AC signal based on a synchronization signal and rank with compensation for the propagation delay as taught in Suyakov in view of Chang with further delaying execution of a processing of a command based on the propagation delay as taught in Larson. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Suyakov and Chang to include teachings of Larson, because the combination would allow accurately predicting when a command will be executed, as suggested by Larson: ¶[0019].
Regarding claim 3, Suyakov in view of Chang in view of Larson further teaches the method of claim 2.
Suyakov further teaches:
wherein: connecting the first cluster controller and the second cluster controller to the serial communication bus comprises: connecting the first cluster controller and the second cluster controller to the serial communication bus using a serial transceiver; and (Suyakov: ¶[0255]-¶[0256]; Suyakov teaches sending signals to the LCD using serial transceivers.)
...
Chang further teaches:
determining the propagation delay associated with the serial communication bus comprises determining the propagation delay based on a delay associated with the serial transceiver. (Chang: ¶[0042], ¶[0043], and ¶[0059]; Chang teaches compensating a clock difference caused by the propagation delay of the daisy chain. In other words, Suyakov teaches a serial bus with serial transceivers. Chang provides the additional functionality of determining a propagation delay on the daisy chain. Since the transceivers are part of the daisy chain, the foregoing teaches: “determining a propagation delay based on a delay associated with the serial transceiver”. The claimed limitation is not yet clear on whether the serial transceivers add to the propagation delay or are simply on the serial bus.)
Regarding claim 4, Suyakov in view of Chang in view of Larson further teaches the method of claim 2.
Larson further teaches:
wherein delaying execution of the first bridge state command based on the first delay component comprises: configuring a programmable delay counter in the first cluster controller with the first delay component; generating a bridge configuration signal responsive to the first bridge state command; delaying the bridge configuration signal in the programmable delay counter to generate a delayed bridge configuration signal; and controlling a bridge driver associated with the first bridge based on the delayed bridge configuration signal. (Larson: ¶[0031]-¶[0034]; Larson teaches a programmable command delay unit and assignment of a delay value based on the propagation delay.)
Suyakov further teaches controlling bridge drivers. (Suyakov: ¶[0113]-¶[0114], ¶[0126], and ¶[0340])
Regarding claim 5, Suyakov in view of Chang in view of Larson further teaches the method of claim 2.
Larson further teaches:
wherein: assigning the first delay component to the first cluster controller comprises assigning the first delay component to the first cluster controller based on the propagation delay and a position of the first cluster controller in the serial communication bus; and (Larson: ¶[0014] and ¶[0033]-¶[0034]; Larson teaches assignment of a delay value based on the propagation delay and an equation which takes into account physical proximity of the DIMM to the memory controller.)
assigning the second delay component to the second cluster controller comprises assigning the second delay component to the second cluster controller based on the propagation delay and a position of the second cluster controller on the serial communication bus. (Larson: ¶[0014] and ¶[0033]-¶[0034]; Larson teaches assignment of a delay value based on the propagation delay and an equation which takes into account physical proximity of the DIMM to the memory controller.)
Regarding claims 8, 9, and 11, these claims recite a battery cluster controller that performs the method of claims 4 and 5; therefore, the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claims 14-18, these claims recite a system that performs the method of claims 2-5; therefore, the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claims 6, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suyakov in view of Martin (US 2019/0006723 A1) hereinafter known as Martin.
Regarding claim 6, Suyakov further teaches the method of claim 1.
Suyakov further teaches:
wherein connecting the first cluster controller and the second cluster controller to the serial communication bus comprises: connecting the first cluster controller and the second cluster controller to the serial communication bus in a ... topology. (Suyakov: ¶[0191]; Suyakov teaches connecting the cluster controllers on the serial bus.)
Martin further teaches the ring topology. (Martin: ¶[0031]-¶[0033]; Martin teaches a daisy-chain loop.)
Martin is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to serially daisy-chained battery modules. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine battery modules connected in series that generate an AC signal based on a synchronization signal and rank with compensation for the propagation delay as taught in Suyakov with further a ring topology as taught in Martin. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Suyakov to include teachings of Martin, because the combination would allow supporting multiple topologies.
Regarding claim 10, this claim recites a battery cluster controller that performs the method of claims 6; therefore, the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 19, this claim recites a battery cluster controller that performs the method of claims 6; therefore, the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claims 7, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suyakov in view of Janz (US 2013/0265009 A1) hereinafter known as Janz.
Regarding claim 7, Suyakov further teaches the method of claim 1.
Suyakov does not explicitly teach but Janz further teaches:
wherein connecting the first cluster controller to the serial communication bus comprises: automatically assigning an address to the first cluster controller according to a protocol of the serial communication bus. (Janz: ¶[0025]-¶[0027]; Janz teaches assigning addresses to the device in the daisy chain, wherein the communication protocol allows for single, broadcast and mixed device access.)
Janz is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to serially daisy-chained battery modules. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine battery modules connected in series that generate an AC signal based on a synchronization signal and rank with compensation for the propagation delay as taught in Suyakov with further automatically assigned an address according to a protocol of the serial bus as taught in Janz. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Suyakov to include teachings of Janz, because the combination would allow all devices to be addressed independently, as suggested by Janz: ¶[0026].
Regarding claim 12, this claim recites a battery cluster controller that performs the method of claims 7; therefore, the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 20, this claim recites a battery cluster controller that performs the method of claims 7; therefore, the same rationale for rejection applies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX OLSHANNIKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-0667. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALEKSEY OLSHANNIKOV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights