DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is in response to an amendment/response filed on 8/27/2025
Hereon, claims 1,21-39 are currently pending; claims 1,21-39 are rejected.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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)(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) 1,21,24,25-27,29-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pereira et al, (Pereira), (USNO.2020/0259347).
As for claim 1, Pereira discloses and shows in Figs. 1 a system comprising: providing a plurality of hot-swappable, stackable slices, each slice of the plurality of slices comprises at least one mechanical connector and at least one electrical connector configured to mechanically and electrically couple the slice to an adjacent slice (within ref’s charging station), for battery charging and power output, wherein a slice comprises: wherein at least one of the plurality of slices comprises power input circuitry, at least one of the plurality of slices comprises power storage circuitry, and at least one of the plurality of slices comprises power output circuitry, and wherein the plurality of slices are configured to communicate via a communication bus (via wifi interface and identity module) without requiring a dedicated host controller communication circuitry for communication among the slices; one or more of: power input conversion circuitry, power storage circuitry, and power output conversion circuitry; at least one electrical connector for connecting to a second slice, the at least one electrical connector comprising connections for power and communications; and at least one mechanical connector for connecting to the second slice (par.[0037-0043,0064,0098]).
As for claim 21, Pereira discloses power storage circuitry comprises battery management circuitry including a primary battery management system configured to support high-current operation and a secondary battery management system configured to operate when battery voltage is below a threshold (par.[0037-0039])
As for claim 24, Pereira discloses communication bus comprises a host-free, multi-master bus protocol
As for claim 25, Pereira discloses communication bus protocol is based on a Controller Area Network (CAN) protocol (par.[0056])
As for claim 26, Pereira discloses a stack base having a first connector for coupling to a first stack of slices and a second connector electrically coupled to the first connector via a cable for coupling to a second stack of slices.
As for claim 27, Pereira discloses the mechanical connector comprises alignment features selected from the group consisting of: pins, recesses, feet, and holes
As for claim 29, Pereira discloses and shows in Figs. 1 a stackable slice, comprising: a housing configured for mechanical and electrical stacking with one or more other slices; an electrical connector providing conductors for a positive rail, a ground rail, and a communication bus; and communication circuitry configured to determine an address for the slice and communicate an identifier for the slice via the communication bus (par.[0037-0043,0064,0098]).
As for claim 30, Pereira discloses communication circuitry is configured to broadcast a slice identifier including the assigned address and a slice type.
As for claim 31, Pereira discloses the mechanical connector comprises a sliding latch operable to detachably secure the slice to an adjacent slice.
As for claim 32, Pereira discloses the sliding latch includes a magnetic element to maintain the latch in a latched position (par.[0070]).
As for claim 33, Pereira discloses and shows the housing further comprises a display configured to present information aggregated from other slices via the communication bus.
As for claim 34, Pereira discloses and shows in Figs. 1 a method comprising: providing a plurality of stackable slices mechanically and electrically coupled together to form a stack; operating the slices cooperatively to transfer power among the slices; and expanding capability of the stack by adding an additional slice that integrates with the stack without manual reconfiguration of other slices (par.[0037-0043,0064,0098]).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 22,23,28,37 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pereira in view of KAMIKAWA et al, (KAMIKAWA), (USNO.2017/0229902).
As for claim 22, Pereira discloses all limitations, but differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose power input circuitry comprises a plurality of DC-to-DC converters each coupled to a respective DC input connection
Kamikawa discloses and shows in Figs.1-3 power input circuitry comprises a plurality of DC-to-DC converters each coupled to a respective DC input connection (par.[0021-0030])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified the teachings of Pereira by using power input circuitry comprises a plurality of DC-to-DC converters each coupled to a respective DC input connection for advantages such as providing the ability to control voltage power supply for operation (par.[0008]), as taught by Kamikawa.
As for claim 23, Pereira in combination with Kamikawa discloses each DC-to-DC converter is controlled by an independent maximum power point tracking (MPPT) controller (within ref controller CPU)
As for claim 28, Pereira in combination with Kamikawa discloses and shows at least one of the slices comprises both AC power outlets and DC power outlets
As for claim 37, Pereira in combination with Kamikawa discloses and shows expanding capability of the stack comprises adding a storage slice to increase total battery capacity
As for claim 39, Pereira in combination with Kamikawa discloses and shows expanding capability of the stack comprises adding an output slice to increase available AC or DC output
Claim(s) 35 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pereira in view of Bonilla et al, (Bonilla), (USNO.2018/0375349).
As for claims 35, Pereira discloses all limitations, but differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose dynamically assigning an address to the additional slice based on a unique identifier for the additional slice
Bonilla discloses communication circuitry (within central charging station) dynamically assigning an address to the additional slice based on a unique identifier for the additional slice (par.[0027])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified the teachings of Pereira by using dynamically assigning an address to the additional slice based on a unique identifier for the additional slice for advantages suchas providing the ability to manage proximity power supplies (par.[0003), as taught by Bonilla.
As for claims 36, Pereira in combination with Bonilla discloses resolving an address conflict by selecting one of a plurality of candidate addresses based on a predetermined rule
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pereira in view of Duarte, (USNO.2022/0344964)
As for claims 38, Pereira discloses all limitations, but differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose expanding capability of the stack comprises adding an input slice to increase input capacity from a solar array
Duarte discloses expanding capability of the stack comprises adding an input slice to increase input capacity from a solar array (par.[0053])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified the teachings of Pereira by using expanding capability of the stack comprises adding an input slice to increase input capacity from a solar array for advantages such as providing deliver larger amounts of energy (par.[0003), as taught by Duarte.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/27/2025 have been fully considered but are now moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment.
For at least the reasons provided above, the applicant arguments regarding independent claims are not persuasive. The applicant argues that dependent claims are patentable for similar reasons and are also not persuasive. The applicant further argues that since dependent claims depend on the argued independent claim; they are patentable at least by virtue of their dependencies. Since the applicant's arguments regarding independent claims are not persuasive, the applicant's arguments regarding dependent claims are also not persuasive.
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 extension fee 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 ARUN C WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9765. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian Huffman can be reached on 571-272-2147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARUN C WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859