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 Amendment
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsurumaru et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2016/0204647 in view of Onnerud et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2011/0049977 in further view of Ding et al. US Patent No.: US 11,644,513.
Regarding Claim 1, Tsurumaru teaches a method for cell inspection by an energy storage system (see [0013]-[0014] and figures 1-2), wherein the energy storage system comprises a power conversion system (PCS) and a battery cluster (see figure 1, 143 and [0013] stating that each battery may consist of a plurality of cells), the battery cluster comprises a plurality of cells (figure 1, in which 143 is a battery cluster, each with a plurality of cells according to [0013]), and the method comprises:
controlling the PCS to generate an alternating- current voltage signal at a preset frequency and input the direct current voltage signal into the battery cluster (see figure 2 and [0034]-[0036] in which the PCS receives a signal that in turn causes power regulation; see obviousness rationale below which teaches an alternating current voltage applied to the battery cluster);
determining a current signal of the battery cluster (see [0031] in which a current sensor, not illustrated, is included in the BMU), and
for each of the plurality of cells, determining a voltage signal of the cell (see [0031], in which each cells BMU shown in figure 1, comprises a voltage detector, not illustrated), and determining whether the cell malfunctions (discussed in [0039]-[0041] in which failures can be detected within each discrete battery cell).
Tsurumaru is silent in explicitly disclosing calculating an impedance of the cell based on the current signal and the voltage signal, and determining based on the impedance whether the cell malfunctions. However, Onnerud teaches for each of the plurality of cells, determining a voltage signal of the cell, calculating an impedance of the cell based on the current signal and the voltage signal, and determining based on the impedance whether the cell malfunctions (see Onnerud figures 1-4 and 8 as well as [0043], [0069], and Claims 8 and 11, which teach determining impedance from measuring voltage and current, and subsequently using said impedance to determine battery failure). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Okada with those of Onnerud in order to determine a faulty voltage cell and the service life of the device and its components (as taught in Onnerud [0008]).
Tsurumaru is silent in disclosing controlling the PCS to generate an alternating- current voltage signal at a preset frequency and input the alternating-current voltage signal into the battery cluster. However, Ding teaches controlling the PCS to generate an alternating- current voltage signal at a preset frequency and input the alternating-current voltage signal into the battery cluster (see Ding col.3, lns.25-53 discussing the injection of an AC current into a battery cluster at a preset frequency in order to determine impedance and health). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Tsurumaru with those of Ding in order to plot the impedance of the battery back to ultimately determine health and aging (as discussed in Ding col.3, lns. 45-61).
Regarding Claim 8, Tsurumaru teaches an energy storage system, comprising:
a logical controller (figure 1, 130);
a power conversion system (PSC) (see figure 1, PCS 100); and
a battery cluster, wherein the battery cluster comprises a plurality of cells (see figure 2, battery cluster 143, each with a plurality of cells as described in [0013]);
a direct current side of the PCS is electrically connected to the battery cluster (see figure 1);
a cluster management unit (CMU) and a plurality of battery management units (BMU) are arranged in the battery cluster, and the BMU is electrically connected to at least one of the plurality of cells, and the CMU is communicatively connected to the plurality of BMUs (see figure 1, in which the claimed connections are illustrated);
the logical controller is communicatively connected to the CMU and the PCS (seen in figure 1, CMU 120 and PCS 100 are communicatively connected to the logic controller); and
the logical controller, the PCS, the BMU and the CMU are configured to cooperate, wherein the logical controller is configured to send an inspection command upon receipt of a cell inspection command (see [0031] and figure 1);
the PCS is configured to regulate power generate an direct-current voltage signal at a preset frequency and input the alternating-current voltage signal into the battery cluster (see figure 1 and [0035]; see obviousness rationale below which teaches an alternating current voltage applied to the battery cluster);
the BMUs are each configured to acquire a current signal of the battery cluster and a voltage signal of the cell connected to the BMU (see [0031] in which a current sensor and voltage sensor, not illustrated, is included in the BMU).
Tsurumaru is silent in explicitly disclosing calculating an impedance of the cell based on the current signal and the voltage signal, and transmit the impedance to the logical controller, the logical controller is configured to determine based on the impedance whether the cell malfunctions. However, Onnerud teaches for each of the plurality of cells, determining a voltage signal of the cell, calculating an impedance of the cell based on the current signal and the voltage signal, and transmit the impedance to the logical controller, the logical controller is configured to determine based on the impedance whether the cell malfunctions (see Onnerud figures 1-4 and 8 as well as [0043], [0069], and Claims 8 and 11, which teach determining impedance from measuring voltage and current, and subsequently using said impedance to determine battery failure). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Okada with those of Onnerud in order to determine a faulty voltage cell and the service life of the device and its components (as taught in Onnerud [0008]).
Tsurumaru is silent in disclosing controlling the PCS to generate an alternating- current voltage signal at a preset frequency and input the alternating-current voltage signal into the battery cluster. However, Ding teaches controlling the PCS to generate an alternating- current voltage signal at a preset frequency and input the alternating-current voltage signal into the battery cluster (see Ding col.3, lns.25-53 discussing the injection of an AC current into a battery cluster at a preset frequency in order to determine impedance and health). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Tsurumaru with those of Ding in order to plot the impedance of the battery back to ultimately determine health and aging (as discussed in Ding col.3, lns. 45-61).
Regarding Claim 9, Tsurumaru, Onnerud, and Ding teach the energy storage system according to claim 8, wherein the CMU is configured to determine the current signal of the battery cluster and transmit the current signal to the BMUs (see Tsurumaru figure 1 in which CMU 120 sends current signal via controller 130 to BMUs).
Regarding Claim 10, Tsurumaru, Onnerud, and Ding teach the energy storage system according to claim 8, wherein the number of the battery cluster is one, and the PCS is further configured to determine the current signal of the battery cluster and transmit the current signal to the BMUs (seen in Tsurumaru figure 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Tsurumaru, Onnerud, and Ding teach the energy storage system according to claim 8, wherein the logical controller is further configured to display alarm information when determined that the cell malfunctions (see Onnerud [0039]).
Regarding Claim 12, Tsurumaru, Onnerud, and Ding teach an energy storage station, comprising:
an energy management system (EMS) (see Tsurumaru figure 1, 30); and
the energy storage system according to claim 8, wherein the energy storage system is numbered at least one, and the EMS is configured to send a cell inspection command to the logical controller, for the energy storage system to perform cell inspection (seen Tsurumaru in figure 1 and [0033]-[0034]).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsurumaru et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2016/0204647 in view of Onnerud et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2011/0049977 in view of Ding US Patent No.: 11,644,513 in further view of Okada USPG Pub. No.: US 2013/0030737.
Regarding Claim 5, Tsurumaru, Onnerud, and Ding teach the method according to claim 1, but are silent in explicitly disclosing wherein the determining the current signal of the battery cluster and the determining the voltage signal of the cell comprise: acquiring a current detection signal of the battery cluster and acquiring a voltage detection signal of the cell; and extracting the current signal from the current detection signal at a preset frequency and extracting the voltage signal from the voltage detection signal at the preset frequency. However, Okada discloses wherein the determining the current signal of the battery cluster and the determining the voltage signal of the cell comprise: acquiring a current detection signal of the battery cluster and acquiring a voltage detection signal of the cell; and extracting the current signal from the current detection signal at a preset frequency and extracting the voltage signal from the voltage detection signal at the preset frequency (see Okada figure 2, 24a-24e, and in particular 24c and [0025]-[0026] and [0080] in which current and voltage frequencies are extracted in determining impedance). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Tsurumaru and Onnerud with those of Okada in order to improve accuracy of the impedance measurement (as discussed in Okada [0080]).
Regarding Claim 6, Tsurumaru, Onnerud, Ding, and Okada teach the method according to claim 5, wherein the extracting the current signal from the current detection signal at the preset frequency and extracting the voltage signal from the voltage detection signal at the preset frequency comprises: performing Fast Fourier Transform on the current detection signal and the voltage detection signal at the preset frequency (see Okada figure 2, 24a-24e, and in particular 24c and [0025]-[0026] and [0080] in which current and voltage frequencies are extracted in determining impedance by means of FFT).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/03/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 8-12 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ding US Patent No.: 11,644,513.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 7 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.
RE Claim 2, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest “generating an alternating-current voltage signal at a preset frequency by the PCS and inputting the alternating-current voltage signal into the battery cluster,” in combination with the other claim limitations. Claim 3 is subsequently rejected for its dependance on rejected Claim 2. Tsurumaru et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2016/0204647 is the closest cited prior art, but teaches away from this limitation as discussed in [0016], in which a DC signal is generated by the PCS and input to the battery cluster.
RE Claim 4, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest “inputting the alternating-current voltage signal into the battery cluster, wherein the battery cluster is connected to the DC/DC conversion circuit,” in combination with the other claim limitations.
RE Claim 7, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest “determining that the cell does not malfunction if determined that the difference is less than the preset difference or if determined that the impedance is within the preset reference range; and determining that the cell malfunctions if determined that the difference is not less than the preset difference of if determined that the impedance is not within the preset reference range,” in combination with the other claim limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL A HARRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 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, STEPHANIE BLOSS can be reached at (571) 272-3555. 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.
/MICHAEL A HARRISON/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights