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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 7/29/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the search across Groups I, II and III would be largely coextensive and not create a serious burden on Examiner” and that the “Groups are unified by the same technical feature ways to make it easier to connect EV batteries within such batteries are at different charge states and different voltages”. This is not found persuasive because the search across Groups I, II and III does create a serious burden on examination, since each Group is a distinct invention which require different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). Thus, placing a serious burden on examination. With respect to the argument that the Groups are unified by the same technical feature of “ways to make it easier to connected EV batteries within such batteries are at different charge states and different voltages”. The above argument is not persuasive, since each Group includes different circuitry and/or processes to provide for the “way to make it easier to connect EV batteries within such batteries are at different charge states and different voltages”. Therefore, the technical features are not unified by the same devices/methods of operations.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/29/25.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (USPN 11,509,144).
With respect to claim 1, Liu et al. discloses, in Fig. 1, a resistive current limiting system (Fig. 1) for paralleling high voltage batteries (121; 122. Note, Liu et al. anticipates that 122 may be a battery, see Col. 5 lines 15-23, e.g. “another battery”), the system comprising a plurality of switched resistors (Q1 with 129 and Q3; Q2 with 132, 133 and Q4) and at least one controller (125), wherein the plurality of switch resistors are driven by the at least one controller (125 driving the gates of Q1-Q4, to switch the resistors into/out of the circuitry) to maintain current and heat within the system below pre-set levels (the circuit is designed to limit inrush current to avoid breakdown of 122, see Col. 5 lines 42-44 and 55-62 and Col. 7 lines 59-63. Thus the current is maintained below a pre-set level to avoid damage to 122. Furthermore, the current is maintained below a maximum fault current, see Col. 8 lines 32-34. Moreover, the circuit is designed to maintain heat/temperature within pre-set levels to prevent excessive heating, see Col. 9 lines 60-64 and provide operates for desired temperature ranges and currents at desired temperature, see Col. 8 lines 21-26).
With respect to claim 2, the system of claim 1, wherein the high voltage batteries have different states of charge relative to one another (e.g., during start up the batteries will have different states of charge, e.g., essentially 122 is charged to zero and 121 is at its full charge, see Col. 5 lines 19-23).
With respect to claim 3, the system of claim 1, wherein the high voltage batteries have different voltages relative to one another (e.g., during start up the batteries will have different states of charge, e.g., essentially 122 is charged to zero and 121 is at its full charge, see Col. 5 lines 19-23. When 122 is uncharged 122 will be equal to zero volts, see Col. 5 lines 44-47, while 121 has a stored voltage).
With respect to claim 4, the system of claim 1, wherein the high voltage batteries are from used electric vehicles (the above limitation is merely an intended use/functional limitation of which the “resistive current limiting system” is capable of providing. This is further suggested in Col. 14 lines 19-22).
With respect to claim 5, the system of claim 1, wherein the system allows a connection between batteries to rapidly occur in a manner that does not exceed pre-set current limits of both the high voltage batteries being connected and existing batteries within the system (the system allows for rapid charging while staying below inrush current limits that would cause damage to either 121, see Col. 7 line 35-42, or 122, see Col. 5 lines 42-44 and 55-62 and Col. 7 lines 59-63).
With respect to claim 6, the system of claim 1, wherein the system limits current in one or more of the high voltage batteries during operation (Liu et al. anticipates such an operation, see Col. 6 lines 39-46. Especially when 127 is “always on”).
Cited Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kwon et al. (USPN 11,251,790) further evidences that it is known to replace a charged capacitor in a load (see capacitor in load 600 of Fig. 6) with a charged battery in the load (see battery in load 1600 of Fig. 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas J. Hiltunen whose telephone number is (571)272-5525. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM-5:30PM EST M-F.
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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached at 571-270-3684. 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.
/THOMAS J. HILTUNEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2849