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 .
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 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhargava, US PGPub 2020/0109703.
PNG
media_image1.png
354
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 13, Bhargava discloses an energy storage and delivery system (see fig 10), comprising: an upper deck (24,28); a lower deck (26,30) positioned vertically below the upper deck (24,28), the upper deck and the lower deck being configured to support a plurality of blocks (12a-n); a elevator shaft (14) vertically extending between the upper deck (24,28) and the lower deck (26,30), the plurality of blocks (12a-n) stacked on a left side (left in fig 10) and stacked on a right side (right side in fig 10) of each elevator shaft (14); a elevator (16) sized to receive and support one or more of the plurality of blocks (12a-n), each elevator (16) is movably disposed within a corresponding elevator shaft (14), the elevators (16) are operable to vertically travel between the upper deck (24,28) and the lower deck (26,30); a jack (see [0048]) operable to move the plurality of blocks (12a-n) into and out of the elevators (16); and a motor-generator (20) electrically coupled to the elevator (16); wherein each elevator (16) is operable to receive a block of the plurality of blocks (12a-n) stacked on the left side (as described above) or the right side (as described above) of the corresponding elevator shaft (14) on the lower deck (26,30) and vertically move the block (12a-n) upwards from the lower deck (26,30) to stack the block (12a-n) on the upper deck (24,28) to store electricity; and wherein each elevator (16) is operable to receive a block of the plurality of blocks (12a-n) stacked on the left side (as described above) or the right side (as described above) of the corresponding elevator shaft (14) on the upper deck (24,28) and vertically move the block (12a-n) downwards from the upper deck (24,28) to stack the block (12a-n) on the lower deck (26,30) to generate electricity.
Bhargava but does not specify that each module includes two elevator shafts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to employ a second shaft since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routing skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to employ a second shaft in order to increase the size the responsiveness to demand of the energy storage system.
Regarding claim 7, Bhargava discloses the energy storage and delivery system of Claim 1, wherein the jack (as described above) is integrated with the elevators (16).
Regarding claims 8 and 14, Bhargava discloses the energy storage and delivery system of Claims 1 and 13, but does not specify the block material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ one of the specified materials, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended us as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to employ one of the specified materials in order to employ a low cost and abundantly available material.
Regarding claims 9 and 15, Bhargava discloses the energy storage and delivery system of Claims 1 and 13, wherein each block of the plurality of blocks (12a-n) stores a different amount of energy when moved from the lower deck to the upper deck (see [0045]).
Regarding claims 10 and 16, Bhargava discloses the energy storage and delivery system of Claims 1 and 13, wherein each block of the plurality of blocks (12a-n) generates a different amount of electricity when moved from the upper deck to the lower deck (see [0045]).
Regarding claims 11 and 17, Bhargava discloses the energy storage and delivery system of Claims 1 and 13, wherein the plurality of blocks (12a-n) stacked on the left side (as described above) of each of the elevator shafts (14) remains on the left side (as described above) when vertically moved between the upper deck (24,28) and the lower deck (26,30), wherein the plurality of blocks (12a-n) stacked on the right side (as described above) of each of the elevator shafts (14) remains on the right side (as described above) when vertically moved between the upper deck (24,28) and the lower deck (26,30).
Regarding claim 12, Bhargava discloses the energy storage and delivery system of claim 1 but does not specify multiple modules. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to employ multiple modules since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routing skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to employ multiple modules in order to increase the storage capacity of the system.
Claim(s) 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhargava in view of Peitzke et al., US PGPub 2017/0288457.
Regarding claims 2-3, Bhargava discloses the energy storage and delivery system of Claim 1, but does not specify the details of the jack.
PNG
media_image2.png
364
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Peitzke et al. teaches a similar energy storage system including a jack (30, see fig 4b) operable to slide underneath the block (22) and lift the block (22) from the plurality of blocks on the lower deck or the upper deck. (claim 2)
wherein the jack (30) has a housing (38) with multiple wheels (36) that allow the jack (30) to move into and out of the elevators and one or more lift arms (110a,b) actuatable to move from a non-vertical orientation (see fig 6ad) to a vertical orientation (see fig 6ak) to lift the block (22) from the plurality of blocks on the lower deck or the upper deck. (claim 3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the jack described by Peitzke et al. to the system disclosed by Bhargava in order to facilitate moving the block in and out of the elevator shaft without the need for motors attached to each load.
Regarding claim 4, Bhargava in view of Peitzke et al. discloses the energy storage and delivery system of claim 3, wherein the plurality of blocks (12a-d) have a rectangular shape (see fig 10) with a planar upper surface and an opposite bottom surface (see fig 10). Bhargava does not specify the block protrusions. Peitzke et al. teaches a similar energy storage system wherein the blocks (22) have two or more protrusions (42) and one or more recesses (below 44) between the two or more protrusions (42) that define openings (see fig 4c) that extend along a depth of the block (see fig 4c), wherein the jack (30) is configured to slide underneath the plurality of blocks (22) and between the two or more protrusions (42). ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the shaped block described by Peitzke et al. to the system disclosed by Bhargava in order to improve the block stability and facilitate transfer to the parking spaces from the elevator shaft.
Regarding claim 5, Bhargava in view of Peitzke et al. disclose the energy storage and delivery system of Claim 4, wherein the jack (30 – Peitzke et al.) has one or more fingers (112a,b – Peitzke et al.) sized to extend within the one or more recesses (as described above – Peitzke et al.).
Regarding claim 6, Bhargava in view of Peitzke et al. disclose the energy storage and delivery system of Claim 4, wherein the planar upper surface (see fig 10) of the plurality of blocks 12a-n) is smooth and configured to facilitate movement of the jack (30 – Peitzke et al.) over the planar upper surface (24,26).
Claim(s) 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhargava in view of Pedretti et al., US PGPub 2020/0025181.
Regarding claim 18, Bhargava discloses the energy storage and delivery system of claim 1 but does not specify the block rotation functionality or the grabber.
PNG
media_image3.png
592
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Pedretti et al. teaches a similar energy storage system wherein the elevator is rotatable (se fig 14L) in a horizontal plane about an elevator guide with respect to a vertical axis coinciding with a longitudinal axis running through the frame. (claim 18)
wherein an electric motor-generator is operably connected to the elevator via one or more pulleys (537) mounted at a top end of an elevator guide (536), wherein the elevator is rotatable about the elevator guide in the horizontal plane. (claim 19)
wherein the elevator is an elevator grabber (500) configured to securely grab the block (150). (claim 20)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the rotatable elevator system described by Pedretti et al. in the system disclosed by Bhargava in order to assist storing loads at various angles and increase the energy storage capacity of the system.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhargava in view of Pedretti et al. and further in view of Peitzke et al.
Regarding claim 21, Bhargava in view of Pedretti et al. disclose the energy storage and delivery system of Claim 18 but does not specify arc shaped blocks. Peitzke et al teaches a similar elevator system wherein each of the plurality of blocks has an arc shape (see fig 4c). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the arc shaped blocks described by Peitzke et al. to the system disclosed by Bhargava in view of Pedretti et al. in order to facilitate connection to a jack for transport in and out of the shaft area.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A RIEGELMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7956. The examiner can normally be reached 8-6 EST Monday - Friday.
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, Michael Mansen can be reached at (571) 272-6608. 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. RIEGELMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/MICHAEL A RIEGELMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654