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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ichikawa (US 2018/01219387).
With respect to the claim, Ishikawa discloses a battery device comprising a positive and negative link terminals (fig. 2, leads connected to right and left sides respectively to load 4) connected to an external device (load 4), a plurality of positive switches (fig. 2 right side sub-relay unit 22) respectively connected between the positive terminals of the battery packs (P1 through Pn) up to switch 23 thereby defining a node, and a plurality of negative switches (fig. 2 left side sub-relay unit 22) respectively connected between the negative terminals of the battery packs (P1 through Pn) up to switch 23 there defining another node. See fig. 2 and par. 0035. Ishikawa discloses a controller 3 (with processor) designed to look at the potential differences between the various packs (relying on the positive and negative switches) with the goal of charging all the battery packs to “equalize electric potentials of the storage batteries” (abstract) (i.e. balancing between some of the battery packs). See fig. 6 and 7. The processor and the circuitry performing said operations constitutes a balancing circuit that is necessarily between the positive and negative terminals.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa in view of Sudo et al (USP 5,742,148).
With respect to claim 1, Ishikawa already set forth a battery device comprising positive and negative terminals, a plurality of battery packs, a plurality of positive and negative terminals connecting the respective positive and negative terminals of the battery packs to first and second nodes. See the discussion of claim 9 above. Ichikawa further discloses a first switch (fig. 2, the rightmost switch 23) connected between the node and the positive link terminal as well as a second switch (fig. 2, leftmost switch 23) between the other node and the negative link terminal. See fig. 2 and par. 0035. Ichikawa further discloses a controller (processor) configured to control all of the switches of the devices including the positive, negative, first, and second switches with the idea being to balance the voltage of at least some of the battery packs.
Ichikawa did not explicitly disclose a third switch and a resistor in series between the first and second nodes. It is noted that Ichikawa necessarily contains some circuitry for controlling the charging that is occurring between the first and second nodes (par. 0044 for example), but Ichikawa is silent on that circuitry. Sudo discloses a battery charging circuit that contains switching elements (25, 35, 36) and resistors R1, R2, and/or R3 in series across where the charging circuit connects to the battery terminals (+VB, -VB). See fig. 4 and 5 and 25, 35, or 36 functioning as a switch in series with resistors 161 and 162 (fig. 6 and col. 10, l. 49 – col. 11, l. 11). Any charging circuit that is utilized with Ichikawa would necessarily be parallel to its first and second nodes as that is the terminals where the charging is being conducted. Hence a charging circuit having switches and a resistor in series across the battery terminals to be charge would read on the claimed third switch and resistor giving the claim language its broadest reasonable interpretation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize the circuitry of Sudo for the unspecified circuitry of Ichikawa because the utility of known and conventional charging circuitry requires only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 2, Ichikawa discloses in a charging process that the load can be disconnected from the battery system during charging (par. 0044), which is equivalent to opening the first and second switches. Ichikawa also discloses that the system controls with battery packs will be connected during a charging operation (fig. 9 for example), which is equivalent to closing certain positive and negative switches to those battery packs. Sudo renders obvious opening and closing switches 25, 35, and 36 to ensure the appropriate voltage is applied to the battery (col. 10, l. 49 – col. 11, l. 11), which is equivalent to the closing of the third switch. Finally, it is noted that the controlling of all of these switch is for the purpose of balancing the voltage between at least a first and second battery pack.
With respect to claims 3 and 4, Ichikawa is doing the balancing because of thresholds being exceeded (S104 in fig. 6).
With respect to claim 5, Ichikawa suggests the load the battery is under is (or can be) disconnected from the external device (load 4) (par. 0044). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to control whether the external device is or is not discharged from the device and utilize that as a condition for whether the balancing can be commenced.
With respect to claim 6, whatever reason Ichikawa uses to end the balancing reads on the completely undefined second predetermined condition of the claim.
With respect to claim 7, the whole point of Ichikawa’s device is to “equalize electric potentials of the storage batteries” (abstract) so using a potential that is less than a threshold is clearly a predetermined condition that can and should be utilized to end a charging cycle.
With respect to claim 8, because Ichikawa suggests connecting and disconnecting the charger and/or motor (par. 0044), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if the motor (external device) is required, it would be obvious to utilize that as a balancing end condition.
With respect to claim 10, see the previous discussion of claims 9, 1, and 2.
With respect to claim 11, the resistor of Sudo discussed in claim 1 constitutes a resistor between the first and second node of Ichikawa.
With respect to claims 12-16, see the discussion of claims 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 above respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-19 are allowed
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not disclose nor render obvious all the cumulative limitations of claim 17 with particular attention to supplying a current from the first battery pack to the second battery pack and the resistor by closing negative switches connected to the negative terminals of the first battery pack and the second battery pack among the plurality of negative switches, and closing positive switches connected to the positive terminals of the first battery pack and the second battery pack among the plurality of positive switches.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAJ K OLSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 AM - 5 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights