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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The claims are not just directed to an energy storage “system”, but a specific manner in which energy storage units are added to a common bus in order to mitigate cross currents due to unequal voltages upon connection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are the specific components of “execute a process of mitigating a cross current”.
The claim simply states that the system control device process is to “execute” the process, but there is no indication in the claim of what this process is. The process is only defined by its intended outcome (the mitigation of cross current) and not by any steps taken to actually make it happen. The public would have no notice over the scope to which the Applicant is seeking patent protection.
Figure 1, for example, illustrates that the system comprises a switch (SW-M) to selectively connect each energy storage bank to the trunk line. This structure is not mentioned in claim 1.
Next, the system control device would have to actively control selected ones of the switches in a specific order (as opposed to simultaneously).
Claim 1 refers to “accompanying the inputting to the trunk line” and “are caused to input to the trunk line”. The first phrase has no antecedent basis in the claim. There are no limitations that positively recite that any energy storage bank is ever “input” to the trunk line or that the control device has any ability to control it. The second phrase is written in a passive voice to indicate an event that happens to the system – it is outside the scope of the claim. That energy storage banks “are caused to input” is not the same as actually reciting that the system control device sends a command to simultaneously close all of the energy storage banks’ switches.
Claim 2 refers to “and determines an order of inputting to the trunk line by the energy storage banks”. First, there is no indication in any of claims 1-2 that the execution of the process is the “inputting” of energy storage banks. As noted above, claim 1 refers to “inputting” in offhanded ways that do not explicitly introduce this functionality as taken by the system control device. Second, this phrase implies that the inputting is done by the energy storage bank itself – not the system control device.
Claim 4 recites, “the process of mitigating the cross current is a process of estimating the cross current …”. Actually mitigating (an electrical process) is not the same as estimating (predicting what will happen). These two functionalities are not equivalent – one is not the other. Further, claim 3 does not remedy the omission noted for claim 1.
Claim 5 refers to events that happen after the mitigation process is executed. The claim does not remedy the omission noted for claim 1.
Claims 1-5 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.
Claim 1 recites “a plurality of energy storage banks connected in parallel to a trunk line”. Thus, they are already connected. There can be no process of mitigating cross current that would occur while connecting (i.e. inputting) the energy storage banks. Claims 2-5 are similarly rejected as they depend from, and inherit the deficiencies of, claim 1.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are what actually happens in the step of “executing a process of mitigation”. Like for claim 1, the claim simply states the intended benefit and end result without giving any notice about how to achieve it. The passive references to the inputting of energy storage banks is improper and does not clearly set forth that the method actually includes electrically connecting (or switching on) energy storage bank(s).
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)(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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park (US 2020/0244075).
With respect to claim 1, Park discloses an energy storage system (figs 1-6; all text) comprising:
a plurality of energy storage banks (110, 120) connected in parallel to a trunk line; and
a system control device (200, SW1, SW2),
wherein
when a maximum voltage difference between the energy storage banks is equal to or greater than a first threshold before each of the energy storage banks is caused to input to the trunk line, the system control device executes a process of mitigating a cross current generated between the energy storage banks to mitigate a cross current accompanying the inputting to the trunk line by each of the energy storage banks (fig 4; par 54), and
when the maximum voltage difference between the energy storage banks is less than the first threshold, the energy storage banks are caused to input to the trunk line without limitation of the process of mitigating the cross current (fig 3; par 53).
Park discloses that the voltages of the two batteries are compared. If their difference is below a threshold, they are connected in parallel right away (fig 3). If their difference is above the threshold, they are connected one at a time (fig 4). Thus, Park anticipates “executes a process of mitigating a cross current”.
The Examiner notes that the claim begins with all energy storage banks connected in parallel. Next, the claims omit any structure for selectively connecting the energy storage banks (i.e. switches). Further, the claim does not define what the process of mitigating actually includes – just that it is executed.
Lastly, the claim recites the existence of a first threshold in a “when” hypothetical statement. There is no explicit recitation in the claims of the structure to create a threshold (voltage or current source, memory, etc.) or that the system control device actually completes the functionality of comparing (there are no comparators [or equivalent] recited in the claim).
With respect to claim 2, Park discloses wherein, when the maximum voltage difference between the energy storage banks is equal to or greater than a second threshold (“when” the voltage difference is higher than a second threshold” is a hypothetical – no structure to carry it out is claimed) that is higher than the first threshold, the system control device
calculates a voltage difference between each of the energy storage banks with respect to a reference bank, using an energy storage bank having a lowest voltage or an energy storage bank having a highest voltage as the reference bank (there are only two energy storage banks – Park knows the voltage of both and the difference. The difference inherently includes using one of the two values as a “reference”. Difference equals A minus B; A is the reference, B is subtracted from it),
excludes an energy storage bank having the calculated voltage difference equal to or greater than the second threshold (this hypothetical never happens in Park), and
determines an order of inputting to the trunk line by the energy storage banks (par 54).
With respect to claim 3, Park discloses the system control device
calculates the number of energy storage banks to be excluded from the determination of the order of inputting (the number is zero) for both a case in which the energy storage bank having the lowest voltage is used as the reference bank and a case in which the energy storage bank having the highest voltage is used as the reference bank, and
selects as the reference bank the energy storage bank in the case where the number of energy storage banks to be executed is smaller (the number is zero for both using the higher voltage battery as the reference or using the lower voltage battery as the reference.
With respect to claim 4, Park discloses the process of mitigating the cross current is a process of estimating the cross current between the energy storage banks in every predetermined time based on measured values of a current and a voltage of each of the energy storage banks (par 41-42), and causes each of the energy storage banks to input to the trunk line after the estimated value of the cross current becomes less than a limit value (par 54).
With respect to claim 5, Park discloses after executing the process of mitigating the cross current, the system control device stops the process of mitigating the cross current when the measured value of the current of the energy storage bank is less than a predetermined value despite the estimated value of the cross current being equal to or greater than the limit value (par 54). Park discloses two batteries. When the mitigation is required, Park’s controller controls the batteries to input to the trunk line one at a time. When this process is completed, it is over (i.e. “stopped”) regardless of hypothetical cross current estimations (there are no more batteries to connect – so any other cross current values would be zero).
The Examiner notes that the claim does not recite any actual “estimation” or that the system control device as the structure necessary to carry out estimations.
The Applicant is encouraged to avoid “when” and “in a case where” hypotheticals and recite the actual process by which the system control device inputs data, makes comparisons/determinations, and then executes control functions.
With respect to claim 6, Park discloses the apparatus necessary to complete the recite method steps, as discussed above in the art rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
The corresponding claims in the PCT application were rejected under an X-reference (WO 2021/132421). This reference is materially relevant and the Applicant should consider its disclosure when filing amendments. Just because it was not cited in this Action does not mean the Examiner will not use its disclosure against future claim amendments. A complete English language translation of this document is attached to this Action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADI AMRANY whose telephone number is (571)272-0415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-7pm.
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, Rex Barnie can be reached at 5712722800 x36. 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.
/ADI AMRANY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights