DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 5.20.24. In view of this communication, claims 1-33, 115 are now pending in this application.
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 Objections
Claims below are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 30 which depends on claim 1 recites “the one or more electrical conductors” wherein “the” should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 25-28, 32-33 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 25 recites the limitations “ a driver configured to apply a 15 kHz charging signal to charge the kinetic cells” . Fig 18 of instant specification seems to suggest IGBT being switched. However Examiner cannot read specification or drawing into the claims. To advance prosecution, Examiner interprets charging frequency in line with required rpm of flywheel /rotor as per power design requirement for each cell. Claims 26-28 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 25.
Claims 32 and 33 contains the trademark/trade name Kevlar and Kevlar EXO . Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe canister material and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 33 is rejected due to its dependency on Claim 32.
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 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 1-5,30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al (CN111439154A English translation), hereinafter Zhao.
Regarding Claim 1, Zhao discloses an energy storage unit (Figs 1,3,6) comprising:
a plurality of kinetic cells (5) configured to be charged by rotating a levitating mass (35 is magnetic bearing) and discharged [Para 0050 discloses charging and discharging using 5] by generating electrical power utilizing the rotating, levitating mass (33);
a structure (9 is cabinet) configured to support the kinetic cells; and
an electrical bus (4 is DC bus) connected to the kinetic cells (5) to conduct electrical signals to and from the kinetic cells to respectively charge and discharge the kinetic cells [0050].
PNG
media_image1.png
436
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
338
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
390
368
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Zhao discloses the energy storage unit according to claim 1. Zhao further discloses further comprising a housing (9) supported by the structure and configured to enclose the kinetic cells (5) therein.
Regarding Claim 3, Zhao discloses the energy storage unit according to claim 2. Zhao further discloses wherein the structure and housing define a cabinet (9 is integrated cabinet Para 0032).
Regarding Claim 4, Zhao discloses the energy storage unit according to claim 1. Zhao further discloses wherein the structure is configured to support the kinetic cells (5) in vertical alignment (Fig 2) with one another (If Applicant intends vertical to imply in the direction of gravity, it needs to be recited in the claim).
PNG
media_image4.png
292
670
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Zhao discloses the energy storage unit according to claim 1. Zhao further discloses wherein the structure is configured to support the kinetic cells (5) in rows and columns (Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 30, Zhao discloses the energy storage unit according to claim 1. Zhao further discloses wherein
Regarding Claim 31, Zhao discloses the energy storage unit according to claim 1. Zhao further discloses further comprising a canister (31) surrounding each of the kinetic cells (5).
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 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.
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.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Tanimoto et al (US20230396125A1 PCT Filed 10.1.21), hereinafter Tanimoto.
Regarding Claim 6, Zhao discloses the energy storage unit according to claim 1. Zhao further disclose wherein the kinetic cells (5) include at least one
Tanimoto discloses bearing as air bearing [Para 0060 discloses “pneumatic bearing”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed energy storage unit of Zhao with air bearing of Tanimoto in order have design choice of bearing to support rotating rotor.
Claims 18,29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Capp et al (US20050077881A1), hereinafter Capp.
Regarding Claim 18, Zhao discloses the energy storage unit according to claim 1. Zhao does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the kinetic cells have unique network addresses so as to be individually network addressable.
Capp discloses wherein each of the kinetic cells have unique network addresses so as to be individually network addressable [Para 0059 discloses “it also is within the scope of the present invention that the individual FESS arrays 100 of an FESS array sub-system 200 be controlled so as to provided or absorb power altogether or separately “]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed energy storage unit of Zhao with network addressable kinetic cell as taught by Capp in order to align the charging or discharging in proportion to power source and load.
Regarding Claim 29, Zhao discloses the energy storage unit according to claim 1. Zhao does not explicitly disclose further comprising a plurality of electrical switches configured to enable the kinetic cells to be selectably charged and discharged.
Capp discloses a plurality of electrical switches configured to enable the kinetic cells to be selectably charged and discharged [Para 0059 discloses “it also is within the scope of the present invention that the individual FESS arrays 100 of an FESS array sub-system 200 be controlled so as to provided or absorb power altogether or separately “] .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed energy storage unit of Zhao with individually selectable kinetic cell as taught by Capp in order to align the charging or discharging in proportion to power source and load.
Claims 19-21,25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Zhao.
Regarding Claim 19, Zhao discloses the energy storage unit according to claim 1. Zhao does not explicitly disclose wherein a number of the plurality of kinetic cells is more than 10 kinetic cells.
Zhao further discloses wherein a number of the plurality of kinetic cells (5) is more than 10 kinetic cells (Fig 2 discloses 8 cells which is close to 10 and it is a matter of routine optimization to determine the number of kinetic cells based on size and capability of each kinetic cell, nature and capability of power source, nature and need of load and the level of control needed. For e.g., a large power source and large load along with very fine control will require for larger number of smaller kinetic cells and vice versa) [MPEP2144.05.II.B]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed energy storage unit of Zhao with number of kinetic cells as further taught by Zhao in order to align the number, sizing of kinetic of cells with nature and capability of power source, nature and need of load and the level of control needed .
Regarding Claim 20, Zhao discloses the energy storage unit according to claim 1. Zhao does not explicitly disclose wherein a number of the plurality of kinetic cells is more than 100 kinetic cells.
Zhao further discloses wherein a number of the plurality of kinetic cells (5) is more than 100 kinetic cells (Fig 2 discloses 8 cells and it is a matter of routine optimization to determine the number of kinetic cells based on size and capability of each kinetic cell, nature and capability of power source, nature and need of load and the level of control needed. For e.g., a large power source and large load along with very fine control will require for larger number of smaller kinetic cells and vice versa. Further specification does not reveal any special effect at more than 100 cells) [MPEP2144.05.II.B]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed energy storage unit of Zhao with number of kinetic cells as further taught by Zhao in order to align the number, sizing of kinetic of cells with nature and capability of power source, nature and need of load and the level of control needed .
Regarding Claim 21, Zhao discloses the energy storage unit according to claim 1. Zhao does not explicitly disclose wherein a number of the plurality of kinetic cells is at least 1000.
Zhao further discloses wherein a number of the plurality of kinetic cells (5) is at least 1000 (Fig 2 discloses 8 cells and it is a matter of routine optimization to determine the number of kinetic cells based on size and capability of each kinetic cell, nature and capability of power source, nature and need of load and the level of control needed. For e.g., a large power source and large load along with very fine control will require for larger number of smaller kinetic cells and vice versa. Further specification does not reveal any special effect at more than 1000 cells) [MPEP2144.05.II.B]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed energy storage unit of Zhao with number of kinetic cells as further taught by Zhao in order to align the number, sizing of kinetic of cells with nature and capability of power source, nature and need of load and the level of control needed .
Regarding Claim 25, Zhao discloses the energy storage unit according to claim 1. Zhao does not explicitly disclose further comprising a driver configured to apply a 15 kHz charging signal to charge the kinetic cells.
Zhao further discloses [0012] comprising a driver configured to apply a 15 kHz charging signal to charge the kinetic cells (5) [Para 0012 discloses “A DC fast charging control unit that simultaneously receives filtered and regulated DC power transmitted by the DC filter control unit”](Tuning to a desired frequency is a matter of routine optimization. For e.g., a higher charging frequency will lead to a higher rpm and vice versa and choosing the right frequency is a trade-off between driver electronics (IGBT durability), power input and output design, fineness in control of system [MPEP2144.05.II.B].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed energy storage unit of Zhao with charging signal as taught by Zhao in order to spin the rotor at a desired charging frequency that is in line with the number, sizing of kinetic of cells with nature and capability of power source, nature and need of load and the level of control needed.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Su et al (CN113541355B English translation).
Regarding Claim 22, Zhao discloses the energy storage unit according to claim 1. Zhao does not explicitly disclose wherein a maximum dimension of the kinetic cells is less than about 4-inches (about 10cm) long.
Su discloses [Para 0026] wherein a maximum dimension (outer diameter) of the kinetic cells is less than about 4-inches (about 10cm) long [0026 discloses 8.6cm].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed energy storage unit of Zhao with kinetic cell maximum dimension as taught by Su in order have design choice of kinetic cell packaging based on alignment with the number, sizing of kinetic of cells with nature and capability of power source, nature and need of load and the level of control needed.
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Cipriani (US20110025066A1).
Regarding Claim 23, Zhao discloses the energy storage unit according to claim 1. Zhao does not explicitly disclose wherein the kinetic cells include ferrite inside coils to enhance flux density and reduce eddy currents.
Cipriani discloses wherein the kinetic cells include ferrite inside coils to enhance flux density and reduce eddy currents [Para 0065, 0067 discloses high flux density, 0070 discloses low losses].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed energy storage unit of Zhao with cells having ferrite taught by Cipriani in order to improve cell efficiency .
Regarding Claim 24, Zhao discloses the energy storage unit according to claim 1. Zhao does not explicitly disclose wherein the kinetic cells are configured as brushless DC motors(Zhao does disclose DC motors but not explicitly brushless).
Cipriani discloses wherein the kinetic cells are configured as brushless DC motors [0075].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed energy storage unit of Zhao with cells configured as brushless motor as taught by Cipriani in order to improve cell efficiency .
Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Treppman et al (US20150318702A1), hereinafter Treppman.
Regarding Claim 26, Zhao discloses the energy storage unit according to claim 25. Zhao does not explicitly disclose wherein the driver is configured to charge the kinetic cells to above 200,000 revolutions per minute (RPM).
Treppman discloses [Para 0034 discloses 50000 RPM] wherein the driver is configured to charge the kinetic cells to above 200,000 revolutions per minute (RPM) . It is a matter of routine optimization to determine the required rpm based on size and capability of each kinetic cell, nature and capability of power source, nature and need of load and the level of control needed. For e.g., higher rpm will lead to greater capability of power charge and discharge, however will have mechanical and driver tradeoffs and vice versa. Further specification does not reveal any special effect at 200000 rpm) [MPEP2144.05.II.B].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed energy storage unit of Zhao with rpm as taught by Treppman in order to spin the rotor at a desired revolution that is in line with the number, sizing of kinetic of cells with nature and capability of power source, nature and need of load and the level of control needed.
Regarding Claim 27, Zhao in view of Treppman discloses the energy storage unit according to claim 26. Zhao in view of Treppman does not explicitly disclose wherein the kinetic cells are collectively configured to output at least 200KWh of electrical energy.
Treppman further discloses [0024 discloses 150kWh] wherein the kinetic cells are collectively configured to output at least 200KWh of electrical energy. It is a matter of routine optimization to determine to get to a output of more than 200 kWh. For e.g., higher output capacity will lead to larger systems and vice versa and it is optimization based on end requirements. Further specification does not reveal any special effect at 200000 rpm) [MPEP2144.05.II.B].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed energy storage unit of Zhao in view of Treppman with rpm as taught by Treppman with output greater than 200kWh as further taught by Treppman in order meet the requirements of energy storage system.
Regarding Claim 28, Zhao in view of Treppman discloses the energy storage unit according to claim 26. Zhao in view of Treppman does not explicitly disclose wherein each kinetic cell is configured to output at least 200Wh of electrical energy.
Treppman further discloses each kinetic cell is configured to output at least 200Wh of electrical energy [Para 0023 discloses 5kWh].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed energy storage unit of Zhao in view of Treppman with each kinetic cell output as further taught by Treppman in order meet the requirements of energy storage system.
Claim 32 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Teller et al (US8897933B1), hereinafter Teller.
Regarding Claims 32, Zhao discloses the energy storage unit according to claim 25. Zhao does not explicitly disclose wherein the canister is formed of Kevlar®.
Teller discloses [Col 14 Line 27] wherein the canister is formed of Kevlar® .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed energy storage unit of Zhao with canister made of Kevlar as taught by Teller to prevent any debris from reaching outside in the case of failure.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Teller and NPLDupont (Dupont press release dated April 14 2023 provided by Applicant).
Regarding Claims 33, Zhao in view of Teller discloses the energy storage unit according to claim 32. Zhao in view of Teller does not explicitly disclose wherein the Kevlar is Kevlar EXOTM from DuPont.
NPLDupont (provided by Applicant) discloses the Kevlar is Kevlar EXOTM from DuPont (discloses highest ballistics performance amongst all aramid fibers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed energy storage unit of Zhao in view of Teller with Kevlar being Kevlar EXO as taught by NPLDupont in order to further improve ballistics performance in case of failure of energy storage unit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-17, 115 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 7 recites “The energy storage unit according to claim 6, wherein the at least one air bearing is at least one aerodynamic air bearing that enables the mass to self-levitate when rotating”. Zhao discloses magnetic bearing which is not a self-levitating air bearing as recited in specification. Other references have air bearing such as Tanimoto but they are not explicitly self -levitating. Therefore claim 7 is allowable. Claims 8-17, 115 are allowable because of their dependency on claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20210376692A1 discloses energy storage system with a kinetic cell configuration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at 5712723560. 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.
/VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834