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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 and 15- have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding applicants general argument that neither Fetzer nor Lehn discloses, teaches, or suggests that each power conversion module includes at least one DC/DC converter converting a DC voltage stored in the battery into a DC module voltage in addition to an inverter converting a DC voltage stored in the battery into an AC voltage to control the motor, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant.
In fact as highlighted below Zhu teaches at least one DC/DC converter converting a DC voltage stored in the battery into a DC module voltage in addition to an inverter converting a DC voltage stored in the battery into an AC voltage to control the motor, therefore on of ordinary skill in the art would look at the prior art of record and arrive at applicants invention without an inventive step nor novelty.
All other remarks made by applicant are considered yet not found persuasive.
The Examiner suggest that applicant amend the claims to include structural elements that can differentiate applicants claimed invention with the prior art of record.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-9 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fetzer (US 2015/0175014) in view of Lehn (US 2023/0234461) and further in view of Zhu (US 2021/0408889).
Regarding claim 1, Fetzer a vehicle (see para 0009, Fig. 2), comprising: a plurality of single-phase battery module systems (see 11, Fig. 2) including a plurality of battery modules (see 12, Fig. 2), and each of the plurality of battery modules are electrically connected to each phase of a motor (see connection of 11 to each one of phases between 22 and 21), wherein each of the plurality of battery modules includes a battery (see 12, Fig. 2) and a control module (see 19, Fig. 2); wherein the control module includes: one or more processors (see para 0027); and a storage medium configured to store computer-readable instructions (see 0026-0027); and wherein, when a computer-readable instructions are executed by one or more processors, the one or more processors being configured such that a charging current provided from a charger is controlled by each of the plurality of single-phase battery module systems (see 0026-0027).
However, Fetzer does not disclose a power conversion module, and each power conversion module includes an inverter configured to convert a DC voltage stored in the battery into an AC voltage and to control the motor and at least one DC/DC converter configured to convert a DC voltage stored in the battery into a DC module voltage.
Yet, Lehn in the same filed teaches a power conversion module (see 208, Fig. 2 ), and each power conversion module includes an inverter configured to convert a DC voltage stored in the battery into an AC voltage and to control the motor (see 208, para 0076, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fetzer with the teachings of Lehn by having a power conversion module, and each power conversion module includes an inverter configured to convert a DC voltage stored in the battery into an AC voltage and to control the motor in order to dynamically adjusts the frequency and voltage of the AC power supplied to the motor, allowing it to operate at its most efficient point across various speeds and loads further minimizing waste energy and extending the operational range of the vehicle and run time of the battery.
Further, Zhu in the same field of electric power circuits such as electric power converters used in electric vehicles teaches at least one DC/DC converter configured to convert a DC voltage stored in the battery into a DC module voltage (see 1280 connected to 1230; Fig. 12 para 0114).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fetzer with the teachings of Zhu by having at least one DC/DC converter configured to convert a DC voltage stored in the battery into a DC module voltage in to operate enables independent, decentralized power management that can protects sensitive electronics, improves system fault tolerance, isolates faults so they don't cascade, and prevents premature battery degradation through precise load balancing
.Regarding claims 2 and 16, the combination teaches wherein the one or more processors control the charging current for each of the plurality of single-phase battery module systems by performing pulse width modulation (PWM) control on an inverter included in the single-phase battery module system for each of the plurality of single-phase battery module systems (see para 0110 and 0122-00128; Lehn).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, the combination teaches wherein the one or more processors control the charging current equally for each of the plurality of single-phase battery module systems by performing pulse width modulation (PWM) control for each of the inverters included in the single-phase battery module system of the plurality of single-phase battery module systems according to a same duty ratio (see para 0110 and 0122-00128; Lehn).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, the combination teaches wherein the one or more processors control the charging current differently for the plurality of single-phase battery module systems by performing pulse width modulation (PWM) control for an inverter included in a single-phase battery module system according to different duty ratios for the plurality of single-phase battery module systems (see para 0110 and 0122-00128; Lehn).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, the combination teaches wherein the one or more processors perform sequential pulse width modulation control for an inverter included in a single-phase battery module system for each of the plurality of single-phase battery module systems (see para 0115- 0130; Lehn).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches wherein the charger provides a DC charging current (see 208, para 0076, Fig. 2; Fetzer).
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches a charging method of a vehicle including a plurality of single-phase battery module systems including a plurality of battery modules, and each of the plurality of modules are electrically connected to each phase of a motor, wherein each of the plurality of battery modules includes a battery and a power conversion module, and each power conversion module includes an inverter configured to convert a DC voltage stored in the battery into an AC voltage and to control the motor, and at least one DC/DC converter configured to convert a DC voltage stored in the battery into a DC module voltage, the charging method comprising: a receiving operation of receiving a charging signal from a charger; and a control operation of controlling a charging current provided from the charger for each of the plurality of single-phase battery module systems when the charging signal is received (Please see the rejection of claim 1).
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fetzer, Lehn and Zhu in further view of Zhang (US 20190319461).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, the combination teaches the vehicle of claim 1.
Yet does not disclose wherein, when at least one of batteries included in the plurality of battery modules has a predetermined temperature or higher, the one or more processors reduces a duty ratio of an inverter provided in a single-phase battery module system including the battery having the predetermined temperature or higher.
However Zhang in the same field teaches at least one of batteries included in the plurality of battery modules has a predetermined temperature or higher, the one or more processors reduces a duty ratio of an inverter provided in a single-phase battery module system including the battery having the predetermined temperature or higher (see para 0021-0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fetzer, Lehn and Zhu with the teachings of Zhang by having at least one of batteries included in the plurality of battery modules has a predetermined temperature or higher, the one or more processors reduces a duty ratio of an inverter provided in a single-phase battery module system including the battery having the predetermined temperature or higher in order to protect the battery from accelerated degradation and damage further extending its operational lifespan, and ensuring the overall safety and stability of the system.
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fetzer, Lehn and Zhu in further view of Yamanaka (US 6,058,032).
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the vehicle of claim 1.
Yet does not disclose wherein input ends of the battery and the inverter are connected to each other in parallel, and wherein an output end of the inverter is connected in series to an output end of an inverter included in an adjacent battery module.
However, Yamanaka teaches wherein input ends of the battery and the inverter are connected to each other in parallel, and wherein an output end of the inverter is connected in series to an output end of an inverter included in an adjacent battery module (see Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fetzer and Lehn with the teachings of Yamanaka by having an output end of the inverter is connected in series to an output end of an inverter included in an adjacent battery module in order to increase the overall output voltage of the system.
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches the vehicle of claim 1.
The combination does not disclose a plurality of switches configured to open and close connections between each of the plurality of single-phase battery module systems and a charger.
However, Yamanaka teaches a plurality of switches configured to open and close connections between each of the plurality of single-phase battery module systems and a charger (see 311-314; Fig. 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fetzer and Lehn with the teachings of Yamanaka by having a plurality of switches configured to open and close connections between each of the plurality of single-phase battery module systems and a charger in order to enhanced safety, improved fault tolerance, and granular control over each module.
Regarding claim 10 the combination in view of Yamanaka teach wherein one end of each of the plurality of switches is interconnected and connected to a (+) terminal of the charger, and wherein another end of each of the plurality of switches is connected to each of the plurality of single-phase battery module systems (see 311-314; Fig. 12; Yamanaka).
Regarding claim 11, the combination in view of Yamanaka teach wherein the other end of each of the plurality of switches is connected to one end among output ends of an inverter included in one of the plurality of battery modules included in each of the plurality of single-phase battery module systems (see 311-314; Fig. 12; Yamanaka).
Regarding claim 12, the combination in view of Yamanaka teach, further comprising a motor including a plurality of motor windings (see motor U, V and W; Fig. 13; Yamanaka).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is 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.
Claim 14 is dependent of claim 13.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ELIM ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7114. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:30pm.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571) 272-7492. 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.
/ELIM ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights