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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains exemplary language. Remove “Embodiments of the present application provide”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 16 should recite “a charging current value transmitted”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-13, & 15-20 of copending Application No. 17/715,166 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of claims 1 & 4 of the instant application are recited in claim 1 of the copending application, and the limitations of claims 2-3 & 5-10 of the instant application are identical to the limitations recited in claims 2-3 & 5-10 of the copending application.
Furthermore, claim 11 of the instant application recites the charging and discharging apparatus comprises a bi-directional DC/DC converter and a control unit, and the control unit performing the method whereas claim 11 of the copending application only recites the charging and discharging apparatus. However, copending application further indicates the presence of a bi-directional DC/DC converter in the charging and discharging apparatus, and a control unit since the apparatus receives and sends control commands from the BMS to the bi-directional DC/DC converter.
Lastly, claim 20 of the instant application recites the charging and discharging apparatus comprises a bi-directional DC/DC converter whereas claim 20 of the copending application only recites the charging and discharging apparatus. However, copending application further indicates the presence of a bi-directional DC/DC converter in the charging and discharging apparatus (“controlling a bi-directional DC/DC converter of the charging and discharging apparatus”).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 2, 8-12, & 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaston et al. (USPGPN 20170106764 A1), in view of Willson (US 10926644 B1), Kim et al. (USPGPN 20120249078 A1), and Robinson et al. (USPGPN 20130342011 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Beaston teaches a charging and discharging apparatus (Fig. 3B, 300B), characterized by comprising a DC/DC converter (Fig. 3B, 305) and a control unit (Fig. 3B, 303); wherein the control unit is configured to: control (¶0041) the DC/DC converter (305) based on the first charging current (¶0049) to charge the battery (Fig. 3B, 309) through an energy storage battery (Fig. 3B,312) (¶0048).
Beaston does not explicitly teach wherein the DC/DC converter is bi-directional, and wherein the control unit is configured to: receive a first charging current transmitted by a battery management system (BMS) of a battery; receive a first discharging current transmitted by the BMS and control the bi- directional DC/DC converter based on the first discharging current to discharge a battery capacity of the battery to the energy storage battery, wherein the first discharging current is a discharging current transmitted by the BMS when a first accumulative charging amount of the battery is greater than or equal to a first accumulative charging amount threshold and a voltage of a battery cell of the battery does not exceed a full- charging voltage of the battery cell; and receive a second charging current transmitted by the BMS and, wherein the second charging current is a charging current transmitted by the BMS when a first accumulative discharging amount of the battery is greater than or equal to a first accumulative discharging amount threshold.
However, Willson shows it is common in the art that an electric vehicle includes a battery (Fig. 1, 30) with an associated BMS (Fig. 1, 32) that communicates with a control unit (Fig. 1, 34). The BMS communicates charging parameters to the control unit (Col 4, lines 7-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle taught by Beaston to include a BMS system in the vehicle which communicates charging parameters to the control unit, as taught by Willson. This would the battery to communicate with the control unit based on its charging needs.
Moreover, Robinson teaches a power management system which teaches a charging system that connects two rechargeable energy sources (Fig. 3, 360 & 370) that can charge or discharge between each other bi-directionally (¶0020 & 0022). These two power sources are connected to a power bus (Fig. 4, 410) through DC/DC converters (Fig. 4, 440 & 442; bi-directional power flow indicates bi-directional DC/DC converters are used).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charging system taught by Beaston with Robinson to use a bi-directional DC/DC converter and control the vehicle battery to discharge to the BESS battery system using the DC/DC converter. Doing so would allow the DC/DC converter to ensure compatibility between battery voltages before charging or discharging, and allows the BESS system recharge from the vehicle in a state where the vehicle is not in use and the power grid has a high demand cost.
Moreover, Kim teaches a BMS (Fig. 2, 22) which communicates with a controller (Fig. 2, 23) to provide charging and discharging instructions (¶0064 & 0073). These charging and discharging instructions are based on a first lower limit (Fig. 4, L1), second lower limit (Fig. 4, L2), and first upper limit (Fig. 4, H1) which indicates three separate control signals for charging and discharging control. Examiner equates these separate control signals to the first charging current value, second charging current value, and first discharging current value. First discharging occurs when the battery exceeds a threshold (H1) and second charging occurs when the battery exceeds a threshold (L2). Kim also teaches that the discharge control (H1) does not occur when the battery cell voltage exceeds a full charge voltage (Fig. 4, H1 is lower than 100% SOC).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charging control method taught by Beaston to include charging current values communicated from the BMS to the control unit, based on charging and discharging thresholds, as shown in Kim. It would also be obvious to ensure discharging does not occur when the battery cell voltage exceeds a full charge voltage, as shown in Kim. Both modifications would assist in extending the lifetime of the battery.
Regarding Claim 2, Beaston, as modified, is capable of receiving a second discharging current value, and controlling the DC/DC converter to discharge the battery capacity to the energy storage battery, as described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Beaston, as modified, fails to explicitly disclose that the second discharging current value is transmitted when a second accumulative charging amount of the battery is greater than or equal to a second accumulative charging amount threshold and a voltage of the battery cell of the battery does not exceed a full-charging voltage of the battery cell.
However, Kim further teaches a control signal based on a second discharge control signal based on a second capacity threshold (Fig. 4, H2) which is also does not occur when the battery cell voltage exceeds a full-charging voltage (Fig. 4, H2 is less than 100% SOC).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system taught by Beaston, in view of Wilson, Robinson, and Kim, with Kim to include a second capacity threshold which the BMS uses communicate a second discharging current value when the battery cell capacity is less than a full-charging voltage. Doing so will assist in extending the lifetime of the battery.
Regarding Claim 8, Beaston, as modified, does not explicitly teach that at least one of the first charging current, the first discharging current and the second charging current is determined and obtained by the BMS according to a state parameter of the battery; the state parameter of the battery comprises at least one of a battery temperature, a battery voltage, a battery current, a state of charge of the battery and a battery health state.
However, Kim further teaches that a charging or discharging control signal is based on the SOC of the battery (Fig.4 & ¶0073).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system taught by Beaston, in view of Willson, Kim, and Robinson, with Kim to determine the charging or discharging currents values using the SOC of the battery, as taught by Kim. Doing so ensures the SOC is held within a desired threshold to improve the lifetime of the battery.
Regarding Claim 9, Beaston, as modified, further teaches that the control unit (303) is further configured to: regularly receive the first charging current transmitted by the BMS (303 communicates over 319 via a CAN bus, ¶0050, which indicates regular communication between the control unit and BMS).
Regarding Claim 10, Beaston, as modified, does not explicitly teach that the control unit is further configured to: receive a first charging voltage transmitted by the BMS, wherein the first charging voltage and the first charging current are carried in a first battery charging demand message.
However, Robinson further teaches a control unit (Fig. 6, 420) which receives desired max voltage levels (¶0161) with desired current levels (¶0161).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the charging system taught by Beaston, in view of Willson, Kim, and Robinson, to include a charging voltage in the communication, as taught by Robinson, between the BMS and control unit to ensure safe battery charging.
Regarding Claim 11, Beaston teaches a battery charging method, performed by a charging and discharging apparatus (Fig. 3B, 300B), comprising a DC/DC converter (Fig. 3B, 305) and a control unit (Fig. 3B, 303); wherein the control unit is configured to: control (¶0041) the DC/DC converter (305) based on the first charging current (¶0049) to charge the battery (Fig. 3B, 309) through an energy storage battery (Fig. 3B,312) (¶0048).
Beaston does not explicitly teach wherein the DC/DC converter is bi-directional, and the method comprising: receiving, by the control unit, a first charging current transmitted by a battery management system (BMS) of a battery; receiving, by the control unit, a first discharging current transmitted by the BMS and controlling the bi- directional DC/DC converter based on the first discharging current to discharge a battery capacity of the battery to the energy storage battery, wherein the first discharging current is a discharging current value transmitted by the BMS when a first accumulative charging amount of the battery is greater than or equal to a first accumulative charging amount threshold and a voltage of a battery cell of the battery does not exceed a full- charging voltage of the battery cell; and receiving, by the control unit, a second charging current value transmitted by the BMS and, wherein the second charging current value is a charging current value transmitted by the BMS when a first accumulative discharging amount of the battery is greater than or equal to a first accumulative discharging amount threshold.
However, Willson shows it is common in the art that an electric vehicle includes a battery (Fig. 1, 30) with an associated BMS (Fig. 1, 32) that communicates with a control unit (Fig. 1, 34). The BMS communicates charging parameters to the control unit (Col 4, lines 7-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle taught by Beaston to include a BMS system in the vehicle which communicates charging parameters to the control unit, as taught by Willson. This would the battery to communicate with the control unit based on its charging needs.
Moreover, Robinson teaches a power management system which teaches a charging system that connects two rechargeable energy sources (Fig. 3, 360 & 370) that can charge or discharge between each other bi-directionally (¶0020 & 0022). These two power sources are connected to a power bus (Fig. 4, 410) through DC/DC converters (Fig. 4, 440 & 442; bi-directional power flow indicates bi-directional DC/DC converters are used).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charging system taught by Beaston with Robinson to use a bi-directional DC/DC converter and control the vehicle battery to discharge to the BESS battery system using the DC/DC converter. Doing so would allow the DC/DC converter to ensure compatibility between battery voltages before charging or discharging, and allows the BESS system recharge from the vehicle in a state where the vehicle is not in use and the power grid has a high demand cost.
Moreover, Kim teaches a BMS (Fig. 2, 22) which communicates with a controller (Fig. 2, 23) to provide charging and discharging instructions (¶0064 & 0073). These charging and discharging instructions are based on a first lower limit (Fig. 4, L1), second lower limit (Fig. 4, L2), and first upper limit (Fig. 4, H1) which indicates three separate control signals for charging and discharging control. Examiner equates these separate control signals to the first charging current value, second charging current value, and first discharging current value. First discharging occurs when the battery exceeds a threshold (H1) and second charging occurs when the battery exceeds a threshold (L2). Kim also teaches that the discharge control (H1) does not occur when the battery cell voltage exceeds a full charge voltage (Fig. 4, H1 is lower than 100% SOC).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charging control method taught by Beaston to include charging current values communicated from the BMS to the control unit, based on charging and discharging thresholds, as shown in Kim. It would also be obvious to ensure discharging does not occur when the battery cell voltage exceeds a full charge voltage, as shown in Kim. Both modifications would assist in extending the lifetime of the battery.
Regarding Claim 12, Beaston, as modified, is capable of receiving a second discharging current value, and controlling the DC/DC converter to discharge the battery capacity to the energy storage battery, as described in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Beaston, as modified, fails to explicitly disclose that the second discharging current value is transmitted when a second accumulative charging amount of the battery is greater than or equal to a second accumulative charging amount threshold and a voltage of the battery cell of the battery does not exceed a full-charging voltage of the battery cell.
However, Kim further teaches a control signal based on a second discharge control signal based on a second capacity threshold (Fig. 4, H2) which is also does not occur when the battery cell voltage exceeds a full-charging voltage (Fig. 4, H2 is less than 100% SOC).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method taught by Beaston, in view of Wilson, Kim and Robinson, with Kim to include a second capacity threshold which the BMS uses communicate a second discharging current value when the battery cell capacity is less than a full-charging voltage. Doing so will assist in extending the lifetime of the battery.
Regarding Claim 18, Beaston further teaches that the receiving, by the control unit, a first charging current transmitted by a BMS comprises: regularly receiving, by the control unit, the first charging current transmitted by the BMS (300B communicates over 318 via a CAN bus, ¶0050, which indicates regular communication between the charging and discharging apparatus and the vehicle).
Regarding Claim 19, Beaston, as modified, does not explicitly teach receiving, by the control unit, a first charging voltage transmitted by the BMS, wherein the first charging voltage and the first charging current are carried in a first battery charging demand message.
However, Robinson further teaches a control unit (Fig. 6, 420) which receives desired max voltage levels (¶0161) with desired current levels (¶0161).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the charging method taught by Beaston, in view of Willson, Kim, and Robinson, to include a charging voltage in the communication, as taught by Robinson, between the BMS and charging and discharging apparatus to ensure safe battery charging.
Regarding Claim 20, Beaston teaches a charging and discharging apparatus (300B) and a battery charging method, characterized by being applied to a charging and discharging apparatus (300B), the method comprising: controlling (¶0041) the DC/DC converter (305) of the charging and discharging apparatus based on the first charging current (¶0049) to charge the battery (Fig. 3B, 309) through an energy storage battery (Fig. 3B,312) (¶0048).
Beaston does not explicitly teach a bi-directional DC/DC converter and the charging and discharging apparatus comprising a processor and non-transitory memory, wherein the memory stores a battery charging method, wherein the method comprises receiving a first charging current value transmitted by a battery management system (BMS) of a battery; receiving a first discharging current value transmitted by the BMS and controlling the bi- directional DC/DC converter based on the first discharging current to discharge a battery capacity of the battery to the energy storage battery, wherein the first discharging current value is a discharging current value transmitted by the BMS when a first accumulative charging amount of the battery is greater than or equal to a first accumulative charging amount threshold and a voltage of a battery cell of the battery does not exceed a full- charging voltage of the battery cell; and receiving a second charging current value transmitted by the BMS and, wherein the second charging current value is a charging current value transmitted by the BMS when a first accumulative discharging amount of the battery is greater than or equal to a first accumulative discharging amount threshold.
However, Willson shows it is common in the art that an electric vehicle includes a battery (Fig. 1, 30) with an associated BMS (Fig. 1, 32) that communicates with a control unit (Fig. 1, 34). The BMS communicates charging parameters to the control unit (Col 4, lines 7-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle taught by Beaston to include a BMS system in the vehicle which communicates charging parameters to the control unit, as taught by Willson. This would the battery to communicate with the control unit based on its charging needs.
Moreover, Robinson teaches a power management system which teaches a charging system that connects two rechargeable energy sources (Fig. 3, 360 & 370) that can charge or discharge between each other bi-directionally (¶0020 & 0022). These two power sources are connected to a power bus (Fig. 4, 410) through DC/DC converters (Fig. 4, 440 & 442; bi-directional power flow indicates bi-directional DC/DC converters are used). Robinson also teaches that an energy management schema may be stored on memory (Fig. 4, 430) to be ran by a CPU (420) (¶0172).
Beaston and Robinson are considered analogous to the claimed invention since they both pertain to charging and discharging batteries that are connected to each other. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charging system taught by Beaston to use a bi-directional DC/DC converter and control the vehicle battery to discharge to the BESS battery system using the DC/DC converter. Doing so would allow the DC/DC converter to ensure compatibility between battery voltages before charging or discharging, allows the BESS system recharge from the vehicle in a state where the vehicle is not in use and the power grid has a high demand cost, and would for efficient and consistent control from the battery charging method..
Moreover, Kim teaches a BMS (Fig. 2, 22) which communicates with a controller (Fig. 2, 23) to provide charging and discharging instructions (¶0064 & 0073). These charging and discharging instructions are based on a first lower limit (Fig. 4, L1), second lower limit (Fig. 4, L2), and first upper limit (Fig. 4, H1) which indicates three separate control signals for charging and discharging control. Examiner equates these separate control signals to the first charging current value, second charging current value, and first discharging current value. First discharging occurs when the battery exceeds a threshold (H1) and second charging occurs when the battery exceeds a threshold (L2). Kim also teaches that the discharge control (H1) does not occur when the battery cell voltage exceeds a full charge voltage (Fig. 4, H1 is lower than 100% SOC).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charging control method taught by Beaston to include charging current values communicated from the BMS to the control unit, based on charging and discharging thresholds, as shown in Kim. It would also be obvious to ensure discharging does not occur when the battery cell voltage exceeds a full charge voltage, as shown in Kim. Both modifications would assist in extending the lifetime of the battery.
Claim(s) 3 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaston, in view of Willson, Kim, and Robinson, as applied to claims 1 & 11 above, and further in view of Mitsutani (USPGPN 20150298568 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Beaston, as modified, teaches that the control unit is further configured to: control the bi-directional DC/DC converter to discharge the battery capacity of the battery to the energy storage battery, as described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Beaston, as modified, fails to explicitly teach the control unit determining according to the first discharging current that a discharging demand power of the battery is smaller than a discharging power threshold.
Mitsutani teaches a converter (Fig. 1, 10) that is controlled to ensure the discharging power limit (Wout2) is not exceeded (¶0133).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus taught by Beaston, in view of Willson, Kim, and Robinson, to monitor the discharging power of the battery, which Mitsutani teaches since a measurement is required to determine if a limit is not exceeded, and control the DC/DC converter to allow the battery to discharge to the energy storage battery if the discharging power is below the discharging limit. This would allow for greater charging efficiency of the energy storage battery.
Regarding Claim 13, Beaston, as modified, teaches controlling, by the charging and discharging apparatus, the bi-directional DC/DC converter to discharge the battery capacity of the battery to the energy storage battery, as described in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Beaston, as modified, fails to explicitly teach determining, by the control unit, and according to the first discharging current that a discharging demand power of the battery is smaller than a discharging power threshold.
Mitsutani teaches a converter (Fig. 1, 10) that is controlled to ensure the discharging power limit (Wout2) is not exceeded (¶0133).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Beaston, in view of Willson, Kim, and Robinson, to monitor the discharging power of the battery, which Mitsutani teaches since a measurement is required to determine if a limit is not exceeded, and control the DC/DC converter to allow the battery to discharge to the energy storage battery if the discharging power is below the discharging limit. This would allow for greater charging efficiency of the energy storage battery.
Claim(s) 5 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaston, in view of Willson, Kim, and Robinson, as applied to claims 1 & 11 above, and further in view of Komiya et al. (USPGPN 20130054069 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Beaston, as modified, fails to explicitly teach that the control unit is further configured to: obtain a state of charge (SOC) of the energy storage battery; and determine that the SOC is greater than or equal to a SOC threshold and control the bi-directional DC/DC converter based on the first charging current to charge the battery through the energy storage battery.
However, Komiya teaches a charging system where the control unit (Fig. 3, 111) obtains an SOC of the storage battery (Fig. 3, 108), and determines if the SOC of the storage battery exceeds a threshold (¶0089). The control unit further controls the DC/DC converter (Fig. 3, 110) to discharge the storage battery (108) to the battery (103) (¶0089).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control unit taught by Beaston, in view of Willson, Kim, and Robinson, with Komiya to monitor the SOC of the storage battery and discharge the storage battery to the battery, by controlling the DC/DC converter, if the SOC of the storage battery exceeds a threshold. Doing so helps avoid overcharging the storage battery.
Regarding Claim 15, Beaston, as modified, fails to explicitly teach obtaining, by the control unit, a state of charge (SOC) of the energy storage battery, determining that the SOC is greater than or equal to a SOC threshold, and controlling the bi-directional DC/DC converter based on the first charging current to charge the battery through the energy storage battery.
However, Komiya teaches a charging system where the control unit (Fig. 3, 111) obtains an SOC of the storage battery (Fig. 3, 108), and determines if the SOC of the storage battery exceeds a threshold (¶0089). The control unit further controls the DC/DC converter (Fig. 3, 110) to discharge the storage battery (108) to the battery (103) (¶0089).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control unit taught by Beaston, in view of Willson, Kim, and Robinson, with Komiya to monitor the SOC of the storage battery and discharge the storage battery to the battery, by controlling the DC/DC converter, if the SOC of the storage battery exceeds a threshold. Doing so helps avoid overcharging the storage battery.
Claim(s) 7 & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaston, in view of Willson, Kim, and Robinson, as applied to claims 1 & 11 above, and further in view of Hermann (USPGPN 20140091748 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Beaston, as modified, fails to explicitly teach the control unit is further configured to: receive a charging stop command transmitted by the BMS and stop charging the battery, wherein the charging stop command is a command transmitted by the BMS when a voltage of a battery cell of the battery exceeds a full-charging voltage of the battery cell.
However, Hermann teaches a battery monitoring system which monitors the cell voltage in a battery pack to ensure the voltage remains within an operable range. If the voltage increases or decreases outside the range, an interrupt is activated to stop the charge or discharged. (¶0067)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charging system taught by Beaston, in view of Willson, Kim, and Robinson, to include a charging interrupt, as taught by Hermann, to have the BMS transmit a charging stop instruction when the voltage of the battery exceeds an upper threshold. This avoids overcharging the battery and improves the lifetime of the battery.
Regarding Claim 17, Beaston, as modified, fails to explicitly teach the receiving, by the control unit, a charging stop command transmitted by the BMS and stopping charging the battery, wherein the charging stop command is a command transmitted by the BMS when a voltage of a battery cell of the battery exceeds a full-charging voltage of the battery cell.
However, Hermann teaches a battery monitoring system which monitors the cell voltage in a battery pack to ensure the voltage remains within an operable range. If the voltage increases or decreases outside the range, an interrupt is activated to stop the charge or discharged. (¶0067)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charging system taught by Beaston, in view of Willson, Kim, and Robinson, to include a charging interrupt, as taught by Hermann, to have the BMS transmit a charging stop instruction when the voltage of the battery exceeds an upper threshold. This avoids overcharging the battery and improves the lifetime of the battery.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 14, & 16 are 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.
Claims 4 and 14 recites comparing a discharging demand power with a discharging power threshold, and controlling the bi-directional DC/DC converter to discharge a battery capacity of the battery corresponding to a first discharge power and controlling the DC/DC converter to discharge a battery capacity of the battery corresponding to a second discharge power to a power grid through a second charging and discharging apparatus. The prior art of record fails to teach these limitations in combination with all other elements disclosed in the claims.
Claims 6 & 16 depend on claims 4 & 14 and so they are allowable for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P ONDRASIK whose telephone number is (703)756-1963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at (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 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.
/JOHN P ONDRASIK/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights