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 Interpretation
The phrases “judging whether” are considered contingent limitations and fail to impart further structural elements to the claim. That is, language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. See MPEP 2103. Further, MPEP 2106(II), states that "It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim be established prior to examining a claim for eligibility" and the BRI of the claim under MPEP 2111.04 and the contingent limitations "requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met." Here the conditions might not be met, (i.e., is less, is equal) and thus, this does not further limit the claim as they are not required and thus do not confer eligibility under BRI.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “and a control module, wherein the control module is configured to”, “the control module is configured to” in claims 11-12, 14, 17-18.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 11-12, 14, 17-18 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. MPEP 2181 states that “When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under section 112(a).” Further, the disclose, when filed, does not contain sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claim as to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the claimed invention. Claims 13, 15-16, 19, 20 are also rejected for the same reason due to their dependency on claims 11, 14, 17.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4, 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4, 14 recite the limitation “is not less than a second threshold or not in the case that the temperature rise rate of the energy storage unit is not less than a first threshold" in lines 4, 4, respectively. This portion of the limitation is unclear because it contains a double negative and does not clearly convey which of these are optional or required in the claimed invention. For this reason, these claims fail to particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant (MPEP 2171). Claims 15-18 are also rejected for the same reason due to their dependency on claims 5-8;
Claims 10, 20 recite "the turn on mode" in lines 5, 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims;
Claim limitation “and a control module, wherein the control module is configured to”, “the control module is configured to” in claims 11-12, 14, 17-18 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. That is, the written description is silent with regard to any such structure. Therefore, these claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claims 13, 15-16, 19, 20 are also rejected for the same reason due to their dependency on claims 11, 14, 17.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites a control method of an energy storage system, comprising: acquiring state information of the energy storage system; and determining operating modes of a heat management unit and a fire-fighting unit of the energy storage system according to the state information.
The limitations of and determining operating modes of a heat management unit and a fire-fighting unit of the energy storage system according to the state information, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes but from the recitation of implementing them on generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the limitation pertaining to “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user judging operating modes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of – acquiring state information of the energy storage system. The energy storage system, heat management unit, and fire-fighting unit are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. The additional elements pertaining to “acquiring” represents insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and are mere data gathering steps. Accordingly, these additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element pertaining to “acquiring” represents insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and/or receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these limitations, both individually and in combination, fail to amount to an inventive concept because they merely append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, and thus, do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (Step 2B). Accordingly, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 11 recites an energy storage system, comprising: an energy storage unit; a heat management unit; a fire-fighting unit; and a control module, wherein the control module is configured to acquire state information of the energy storage system and determine operating modes of the heat management unit and the fire-fighting unit according to the state information.
The limitations of and determine operating modes of the heat management unit and the fire-fighting unit according to the state information, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes but from the recitation of implementing them on generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “wherein the control module is configured to” nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “wherein the control module is configured to” language, the limitation pertaining to “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user judging operating modes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of – an energy storage system, comprising: an energy storage unit; a heat management unit; a fire-fighting unit; and a control module, wherein the control module is configured to acquire state information of the energy storage system. The energy storage system, energy storage unit, heat management unit, fire-fighting unit and control module are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. The additional elements pertaining to “acquire” represents insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and are mere data gathering steps. Accordingly, these additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element pertaining to “acquire” represents insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and/or receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these limitations, both individually and in combination, fail to amount to an inventive concept because they merely append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, and thus, do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (Step 2B). Accordingly, claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Claims 12-20 depend on claims 2-10 and include all the limitations of these claims. Therefore, these claims are directed to the same abstract idea and the analysis must proceed to (Step 2A, Prong 2).
Claims 2, 12 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to determining operating modes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging operating modes of the heat management and fire-fighting units. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2, 12 are not patent eligible.
Claims 3 ,13 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to the state information. These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and are associated with the mere data gathering steps from the independent claims. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and/or receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 4-6, 14-16 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to judging the temperature rise rate as well as the threshold ranges and determining the operating mode. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging whether the temperature rise rate is not less than a second threshold and judging the operating mode. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 4-6, 14-16 are not patent eligible.
Claims 7-9, 17-19 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to determining operating modes and the third threshold range. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging operating modes of the heat management and fire-fighting units. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 7-9 17-19 are not patent eligible.
Claims 10, 20 recite additional limitations pertaining to a fire-fighting unit being in turn-on mode. These devices and/or components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. That is the sensors triggering computing components (fire-management unit) to turn on is a generic computing function. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
As aforementioned, these devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Williams (US 2023/0318066).
Regarding claim 1, Williams discloses:
A control method of an energy storage system, comprising: acquiring state information of the energy storage system ([0186] In a first step 1210, sensor data relating to a battery module is received. As indicated above, one or more parameters may be calculated based on the sensor data);
and determining operating modes of a heat management unit and a fire-fighting unit of the energy storage system according to the state information ([0187] In a second step 1220, a comparison is made between one or more parameters associated with the sensor data and a corresponding threshold value. Accordingly, the one or more parameters provide an indication of the performance and health of the battery. The battery may therefore be monitored to determine whether one or more battery cells in the battery are at risk of approaching a thermal runaway event based on known threshold values that define a Safe Operating Area (SOA) for the battery modules. Accordingly, the comparison is able to provide an indication of whether one or more battery modules are undergoing abusive conditions and so may be at risk of entering thermal runaway [0188] In a third step 1230, a first thermal regulation system is configured in response to the comparison. Accordingly, if the comparison indicates that one or more battery modules are at risk of entering thermal runaway the first thermal regulation system is activated in order to prevent the one or more battery modules from entering thermal runaway. As indicated above, the first thermal regulation system may comprise current interrupt devices and/or a battery cooling circuit [0189] In a final step 1240, a second thermal regulation system is configured if any of the parameters exceeds the corresponding threshold value).
As per claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated, Williams further discloses:
wherein the determining operating modes of a heat management unit and a fire-fighting unit of the energy storage system according to the state information comprises: determining the operating mode of the heat management unit according to the state information; and determining the operating mode of the fire-fighting unit according to the state information and the operating mode of the heat management unit ([0009], [0033], [0046], [0116], [0163]-[0168], [0177] the first fire suppression system is activated in combination with the emergency cooling system such that additional cooling power is provided to the battery pack in advance of thermal runaway occurring, and the first fire suppression system is activated at the same time or after one or more battery cells enter thermal runaway, [0190]).
As per claim 3, claim 1 is incorporated, Williams further discloses:
wherein the state information comprises at least one of temperature information, voltage, insulation resistance value, state of charge (SOC) and state of health (SOH) of an energy storage unit of the energy storage system ([0020], [0021] the parameters comprise one or more of: electrical parameters associated with at least one battery module, and temperature parameters associated with at least one battery module, [0032], [0088], [0126]-[0127], [0156], [0159]).
As per claim 10, claim 1 is incorporated, Williams further discloses:
wherein the energy storage system further comprises a smoke sensor and/or a temperature sensor; and in the case that the smoke sensor and/or the temperature sensor is triggered, the operating mode of the fire-fighting unit is the turn-on mode ([0116]-[0118], [0123]-[0128], [0146]-[0151], [0163]-[0166]).
Regarding claim 11, Williams discloses:
An energy storage system, comprising: an energy storage unit; a heat management unit; a fire-fighting unit; and a control module, wherein the control module is configured to acquire state information of the energy storage system and determine operating modes of the heat management unit and the fire-fighting unit according to the state information ([0186] In a first step 1210, sensor data relating to a battery module is received. As indicated above, one or more parameters may be calculated based on the sensor data [0187] In a second step 1220, a comparison is made between one or more parameters associated with the sensor data and a corresponding threshold value. Accordingly, the one or more parameters provide an indication of the performance and health of the battery. The battery may therefore be monitored to determine whether one or more battery cells in the battery are at risk of approaching a thermal runaway event based on known threshold values that define a Safe Operating Area (SOA) for the battery modules. Accordingly, the comparison is able to provide an indication of whether one or more battery modules are undergoing abusive conditions and so may be at risk of entering thermal runaway [0188] In a third step 1230, a first thermal regulation system is configured in response to the comparison. Accordingly, if the comparison indicates that one or more battery modules are at risk of entering thermal runaway the first thermal regulation system is activated in order to prevent the one or more battery modules from entering thermal runaway. As indicated above, the first thermal regulation system may comprise current interrupt devices and/or a battery cooling circuit [0189] In a final step 1240, a second thermal regulation system is configured if any of the parameters exceeds the corresponding threshold value).
Claims 12-13 recite similar claim limitations as the control method of claims 2-3, except that they set forth the claimed invention as an energy storage system and, as such, they are rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
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 of this title, 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 4, 6, 8, 14, 16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 2023/0318066) in view of Yang (CN113679987A).
As per claim 4, claim 3 is incorporated, Williams further discloses:
wherein the temperature information comprises a temperature rise rate of the energy storage unit, and the determining the operating mode of the heat management unit according to the state information comprises: judging whether the temperature rise rate of the energy storage unit is not less than a second threshold or not in the case that the temperature rise rate of the energy storage unit is not less than a first threshold and lasts a certain period of time; and determining the operating mode of the heat management unit to be a full power refrigeration mode in the case that the temperature rise rate of the energy storage unit is not less than the second threshold ([0014], [0028]-[0029], [0033], [0046], [0150]-[0151], [0163]-[0164], [0165] The additional power enables embodiments of the invention to run all components of the cooling circuit 500, including the water pump feeding the faulty pack, the refrigerant compressor, condenser fan and water/glycol cooling fan, at peak power, [0166], [0177], [0178] if a temperate increase rate and/or a battery cell temperature reach a threshold value then the control module may send an alert to the crew in order to enable the crew to manually activate the first fire suppression system. In preferred embodiments, the threshold value for the temperature increase rate may be approximately degrees Celsius per second and the threshold value for the battery cell temperature may be approximately 100 degrees Celsius, [0187], [0189]).
Williams fails to disclose “the second threshold being greater than the first threshold”
However, Yang teaches the above limitation ([Pg. 7] S201: Obtain the temperature increase rate of the battery pack of the target power storage module. Optionally, in some examples, the detection unit 170 may include a heating rate detection device, and the heating rate detection device is used to detect the heating rate of the battery pack 120. In other examples, the temperature detection device of the detection unit 170 detects the operating temperature of the battery pack 120 in real time, and sends the temperature information to the control module 200, and the control module 200 calculates the temperature increase rate of the battery pack 120 according to the temperature information. S202: Determine that the temperature increase rate of the battery pack is within a first preset temperature increase rate range, control the cooling unit to work at full power, and cut off the electrical connection between the target power storage module and the outside. In this way, different countermeasures can be taken according to the operating temperature of the battery pack 120, so as to control the operating temperature of the battery pack 120. When the temperature rise rate of the operating temperature of the battery pack 120 is within the first preset heating rate range It means that the heating rate of the battery pack 120 is too fast. This is not only to cool the battery pack 120 through the cooling unit 170, but also to cut off the electrical connection between the target power storage module 100 and the outside world, and power off the target power storage module 100 Deal with it in order to control the fire and avoid more serious losses. Optionally, the first preset heating rate range is greater than or equal to 10° C./min. For example, when the heating rate of the battery pack 120 is 15° C./min, which is within the first preset heating rate range, the control module 200 correspondingly controls the cooling unit 170 to operate at full power, and cuts off the electrical connection between the target power storage module and the outside. Further, if it is determined that the heating rate of the battery pack 120 is within the second preset heating rate range, and the second preset heating rate is less than 10°C/min, the cooling unit 170 can be controlled to work at an appropriate power, such as the rated power of the cooling unit 170 If the power is 1000W, the cooling unit 170 can be controlled to work at 500W at this time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Yang into the teaching of Williams because the references similarly disclose energy storage management and safety. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further modify the system as in Williams to further include the specific thresholds as in Yang in order to allow for a timely early warning and reduction of possibility of fire (Yang 1, Pg. 3).
As per claim 6, claim 4 is incorporated, Yang further discloses:
wherein the second threshold is 2°C/min - 10°C/min ([Pg. 7]).
As per claim 8, claim 4 is incorporated, Williams further discloses:
wherein the determining the operating mode of the fire-fighting unit according to the state information and the operating mode of the heat management unit comprises: determining the operating mode of the fire-fighting unit to be a turn-on mode in the case that the operating mode of the heat management unit is the full power refrigeration mode and the temperature rise rate of the energy storage unit is not less than a third threshold ([0028]-[0029], [0033], [0046], [0163]-[0166], [0177]-[0178], [0187]-[0189]).
Williams fails to disclose “the third threshold being greater than the second threshold”
However, Yang teaches the above limitation ([Pg. 7] S201: Obtain the temperature increase rate of the battery pack of the target power storage module. Optionally, in some examples, the detection unit 170 may include a heating rate detection device, and the heating rate detection device is used to detect the heating rate of the battery pack 120. In other examples, the temperature detection device of the detection unit 170 detects the operating temperature of the battery pack 120 in real time, and sends the temperature information to the control module 200, and the control module 200 calculates the temperature increase rate of the battery pack 120 according to the temperature information. S202: Determine that the temperature increase rate of the battery pack is within a first preset temperature increase rate range, control the cooling unit to work at full power, and cut off the electrical connection between the target power storage module and the outside. In this way, different countermeasures can be taken according to the operating temperature of the battery pack 120, so as to control the operating temperature of the battery pack 120. When the temperature rise rate of the operating temperature of the battery pack 120 is within the first preset heating rate range It means that the heating rate of the battery pack 120 is too fast. This is not only to cool the battery pack 120 through the cooling unit 170, but also to cut off the electrical connection between the target power storage module 100 and the outside world, and power off the target power storage module 100 Deal with it in order to control the fire and avoid more serious losses. Optionally, the first preset heating rate range is greater than or equal to 10° C./min. For example, when the heating rate of the battery pack 120 is 15° C./min, which is within the first preset heating rate range, the control module 200 correspondingly controls the cooling unit 170 to operate at full power, and cuts off the electrical connection between the target power storage module and the outside. Further, if it is determined that the heating rate of the battery pack 120 is within the second preset heating rate range, and the second preset heating rate is less than 10°C/min, the cooling unit 170 can be controlled to work at an appropriate power, such as the rated power of the cooling unit 170 If the power is 1000W, the cooling unit 170 can be controlled to work at 500W at this time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Yang into the teaching of Williams because the references similarly disclose energy storage management and safety. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further modify the system as in Williams to further include the specific thresholds as in Yang in order to allow for a timely early warning and reduction of possibility of fire (Yang 1, Pg. 3).
Claims 14, 16, 18 recite similar claim limitations as the control method of claims 4, 6, 8, except that they set forth the claimed invention as an energy storage system and, as such, they are rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
Claims 5, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams ((US 2023/0318066) in view of Yang (CN113679987A) and further in view of Huang (CN 113611942).
As per claim 5, claim 4 is incorporated, Williams, Yang fail to disclose “wherein the first threshold is 0.01°C/min - 2°C/min”
However, Huang teaches the above limitation ([Pg. 3] the preset threshold value of the temperature rise rate of the battery module 1 may be 2°C/min).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Huang into the teaching of Williams, Yang because the references similarly disclose energy storage management and safety. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further modify the system as in the combination of references to further include the thresholds as in Huang so that “a thermal runaway warning is issued in advance to notify the occupants, so that the occupants have sufficient time to escape and avoid danger.” (Huang, [Pg. 4]).
Claims 15 recites similar claim limitations as the control method of claim 5, except that it sets forth the claimed invention as an energy storage system and, as such, it is rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yang Yang (CN113809441A) discloses a battery pack thermal runaway control method and device;
Liu (CN109273801A) discloses thermal management early warning method and a device;
Zheng (US 2022/0131199) discloses a container-type energy storage system and an environment control method therefor;
Ryder (US 2022/0407176) discloses mitigating fire within a battery storage container;
Sandahl (US 2022/0401770) discloses fire suppression system for a battery enclosure;
Sandahl (US 2022/0407174) discloses fire suppression system for a vehicle;
Fang (US 2024/0139571) discloses fire-protection detecting method and device;
Chaltry (US 2023/0338766) discloses fire suppression system for a battery enclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM P BARTLETT whose telephone number is (469)295-9085. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 11:30-8:30, F 11-3.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached on 571-272-9782. 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.
/WILLIAM P BARTLETT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights