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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 2-3, 8-9, 14-16 and 19-20 are canceled.
Claim 4 and 12 is amended.
Claims 1, 4-7, 10-13, 17-18 are pending.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 4 and 12 recite “shutting down the first BCC but not the second BCC if the failure is detected in the first BCC or shutting down the second BCC but not the first BCC if the failure is detected in the second BCC” (emphasis added). Applicant has not cited where this is supported in the application, further upon examiners review, while the specification does recite “” that does not support the described negative limitations per MPEP 2173.05(i), “Rather, as with positive limitations, the disclosure must only 'reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.' ... While silence will not generally suffice to support a negative claim limitation, there may be circumstances in which it can be established that a skilled artisan would understand a negative limitation to necessarily be present in a disclosure.” Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 2022 USPQ2d 569 (Fed. Cir. 2022)”.
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, 5-7, 10-11, 13-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorbold US-20110004427 A1 in view of Ashida (US 20140009090 A1) and Applicant admitted prior art (See applicant’s figures 1, 2, and the corresponding specification) hence forth AAPA.
In claim 1, Gorbold discloses a system for battery management (Fig. 2), comprising: a first battery cell controller (BCC) (Fig. 2, 210.1) coupled to monitor a first stack of battery cells (Fig. 2, 220 Ch1-6); a second BCC coupled (Fig. 2, 210.2) to monitor a second stack of battery cells (Fig. 2, 220 Ch6-11); wherein at least one battery cell is a common battery cell shared by the first stack of battery cells and the second stack of battery cells (Fig. 2, 220 Ch6, Par. 21).
wherein each BCC comprises a multiplexer (Fig. 3, 320), the multiplexer having a plurality of selectable inputs (Par. 22, Fig. 3 and 6, “multiplex” examiner notes multiplexers are data selectors), and remaining selectable inputs of the plurality are coupled to receive voltage levels from the battery cells (Par. 22 “detectors 340 may measure the battery cells coupled and generate analog measurements signals. The multiplexer 320 may receive the analog measurement signals”), the multiplexer selecting one of the plurality of selectable inputs as an output based upon a control signal (Par. 22-23 and Fig. 6);
a controller (Fig. 2, 230, Par. 22 “system controller”), coupled to receive digital values representing selected diagnostic voltage levels (Fig. 3 and 4, Par. 22 “The transceiver 350 may communicate with other battery monitor parts and the system controller” Par. 23 “The transceiver 410.3 may then transmit the digital measurement signals according to the controller's instructions”) and digital values representing selected monitored cell voltages from the first BCC and second BCC (Par. 27);
monitoring of the common battery cell (Par. 24 “X”) by comparing a first digital value which represents a selected cell voltage for the common battery cell at the output of the multiplexer of the first BCC (Par. 24 “measurement of channel x from its neighboring battery monitor” “Channel x represents the overlap portion of the battery”) with a second digital value which represents a selected cell voltage for the common battery cell at the output of the multiplexer of the second BCC (Par 24 “local channel x measurement”).
Gorbold does not explicitly disclose wherein a first selectable input of the plurality is coupled to receive a diagnostic voltage level; a controller configured to: determine a failure of the first BCC or the second BCC based upon monitoring of the common battery cell by comparing a first digital value which represents a selected cell voltage for the common battery cell at the output of the multiplexer of the first BCC with a second digital value which represents a selected cell voltage for the common battery cell at the output of the multiplexer of the second BCC; after the failure is determined, use the digital values representing selected diagnostic voltage levels at the outputs of the multiplexers of the first BCC and second BCC; and take at least one action to protect a battery pack including the first and second stacks of battery cells in response to a determination of the failure of the first BCC or the second BCC (emphasis added).
Gorbold does teach each BCC further comprising a diagnostic voltage level (Fig. 3, 330 Par. 22 reference voltage) input in addition to the multiplexer inputs into an ADC (Par. 22).
APAA teaches a first battery cell controller (BCC) (Fig. 1, 102) coupled to monitor a first stack of battery cells (Fig. 1, 118); a second BCC coupled (Fig. 1, 132) to monitor a second stack of battery cells (Fig. 1, 148) wherein each BCC comprises a multiplexer (Fig. 1, 104, 134), the multiplexer having a plurality of selectable inputs (See page 2 “selected”) wherein a first selectable input of the plurality is coupled to receive a diagnostic voltage level (Fig. 1, 116,146 respectively, Emphasis added) and remaining selectable inputs of the plurality are coupled to receive voltage levels from the battery cells (Fig. 1, see 118, 148), the multiplexer selecting one of the plurality of selectable inputs as an output based upon a control signal (Fig. 1, 105/135); and a controller coupled to receive digital values representing selected diagnostic voltage levels (Fig. 1, 124) and digital values representing selected monitored cell voltages from the first BCC and second BCC (see Fig. 1 and specification page 2), the controller configured to: determine a failure of the first BCC or the second BCC based upon monitoring of the battery cell (Specification page 3 “detect failures”).
Ashida teaches a controller (Fig. 1, 50) configured to: determine a failure of the first BCC or the second BCC (Par. 32 “plurality of monitoring integrated circuits” par. 72 “failure”) based upon monitoring of the common battery cell (Par. 57 “cell”); use digital values associated with diagnostic voltage levels (Par. 53 “Information about the upper limit voltage value and the lower limit voltage value”) to further determine which BCC of the first BCC or the second BCC failed (Par. 72, "controller 50 is able to determine whether there is a failure in one of the monitoring unit 21 and the voltage sensor 25 by comparing the voltage value that is detected by the monitoring unit 21 with the voltage value that is detected by the voltage sensor 25." Examiner considered the voltage sensor to be the functional equivalent of the second BCC as they both monitor the battery); and take at least one action to protect a battery pack (Fig. 1, 10) including the first and second stacks of battery cells in response to a determination of the failure of the first BCC or the second BCC (Par. 71-73, Fig, 3, S106).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have wherein a first selectable input of the plurality is coupled to receive a diagnostic voltage level based on the teachings of AAPA in view of the disclosure of Gorbold, as it is simply combining previously known elements and their arrangements in battery management systems using known methods to perform the same function of inputting a diagnostic voltage level, performable by one of ordinary skill in the art to yield the predictable result of receiving a diagnostic voltage level at a controller, as it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70, thus resulting in the obvious benefit of grouping inputs from each monitor, leading to easer data management.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a controller configured to: determine a failure of the first BCC or the second BCC based upon monitoring of the common battery cell; use digital values associated with diagnostic voltage levels to further determine which BCC of the first BCC or the second BCC failed; and take at least one action to protect a battery pack including the first and second stacks of battery cells in response to a determination of the failure of the first BCC or the second BCC as taught by Ashida in Gorbold in order to use reliable values despite fluctuations (Ashida Par. 10), thus leading to a more dependable and accurate way to monitor the charge of the battery.
In claim 5, Gorbold in view of AAPA and Ashida discloses all of claim 1. Gorbold further discloses wherein only a single battery cell is a common battery cell shared by the first stack of battery cells and the second stack of battery cells (Fig. 2, 220 Ch6, Par. 21).
In claim 6, Gorbold in view of AAPA and Ashida discloses all of claim 5. Gorbold further discloses wherein the single battery cell is a top battery cell within the first stack of battery cells and a bottom battery cell within the second stack of battery cells (Fig. 2, 220 Ch6, Par. 21).
In claim 7, Gorbold in view of AAPA and Ashida discloses all of claim 1. Gorbold further discloses one or more additional BCCs, each additional BCC being coupled to monitor an additional stack of battery cells having at least one battery cell shared with a stack of battery cells monitored by another BCC (Fig. 2, 210.3…210.3=m Par. 21).
In claim 10, Gorbold in view of AAPA and Ashida discloses all of claim 1. Gorbold further discloses wherein each BCC further comprises a level shifter coupled to receive the output of the multiplexer (Fig. 3, Par. 18), an analog- to-digital converter (ADC) coupled to receive an output of the level shifter (Fig. 3, 310), and a logic circuit coupled to receive a digital value from the ADC and to output the control signal (Fig. 3, 370).
In claim 11, Gorbold discloses a method for battery management (Fig. 2), comprising: monitoring a first stack of battery cells (Fig. 2, 220, Ch1-6) with a first battery cell controller (BCC) (Fig. 2, 210.1); monitoring a second stack of battery cells (Fig. 2, 220, Ch6-11) with a second BCC (Fig. 2, 210.2), wherein at least one battery cell is a common battery cell shared by the first stack of battery cells and the second stack of battery cells (Fig. 2, 220, Ch6); determining a failure of the first BCC or the second BCC based upon monitoring of the common battery cell (Par. 26 “error”); and taking at least one action to protect a battery pack including the first stack of battery cells and the second stack of battery cells based upon the determining (Par. 26 “corrects”).
wherein each BCC comprises a multiplexer (Fig. 3, 320), the multiplexer having a plurality of selectable inputs (Par. 22, Fig. 3 and 6, “multiplex” examiner notes multiplexers are data selectors), and remaining selectable inputs of the plurality are coupled to receive voltage levels from the battery cells (Par. 22 “detectors 340 may measure the battery cells coupled and generate analog measurements signals. The multiplexer 320 may receive the analog measurement signals”), the multiplexer selecting one of the plurality of selectable inputs as an output based upon a control signal (Par. 22-23 and Fig. 6);
a controller (Fig. 2, 230, Par. 22 “system controller”), coupled to receive digital values representing selected diagnostic voltage levels (Fig. 3 and 4, Par. 22 “The transceiver 350 may communicate with other battery monitor parts and the system controller” Par. 23 “The transceiver 410.3 may then transmit the digital measurement signals according to the controller's instructions”) and digital values representing selected monitored cell voltages from the first BCC and second BCC (Par. 27);
generating with the first BCC and the second BCC digital values representing selected monitored cell voltages (Par. 24);
monitoring of the common battery cell (Par. 24 “X”) by comparing a generated first digital value which represents a selected cell voltage for the common battery cell at the output of the multiplexer of the first BCC (Par. 24 “measurement of channel x from its neighboring battery monitor” “Channel x represents the overlap portion of the battery”) with a generated second digital value which represents a selected cell voltage for the common battery cell at the output of the multiplexer of the second BCC (Par 24 “local channel x measurement”); generating with the first BCC and the second BCC digital values representing selected diagnostic voltage levels at the outputs of the multiplexers of the first BCC and the second BCC (Par. 24-25).
Gorbold does not explicitly disclose wherein a first selectable input of the plurality is coupled to receive a diagnostic voltage level; a controller configured to: determine a failure of the first BCC or the second BCC based upon monitoring of the common battery cell by comparing a first digital value which represents a selected cell voltage for the common battery cell at the output of the multiplexer of the first BCC with a second digital value which represents a selected cell voltage for the common battery cell at the output of the multiplexer of the second BCC; after the failure is determined, use the generated digital values representing selected diagnostic voltage levels at the outputs of the multiplexers of the first BCC and second BCC; and take at least one action to protect a battery pack including the first and second stacks of battery cells in response to a determination of the failure of the first BCC or the second BCC (emphasis added).
Gorbold does teach each BCC further comprising a diagnostic voltage level (Fig. 3, 330 Par. 22 reference voltage) input in addition to the multiplexer inputs into an ADC (Par. 22).
APAA teaches a first battery cell controller (BCC) (Fig. 1, 102) coupled to monitor a first stack of battery cells (Fig. 1, 118); a second BCC coupled (Fig. 1, 132) to monitor a second stack of battery cells (Fig. 1, 148) wherein each BCC comprises a multiplexer (Fig. 1, 104, 134), the multiplexer having a plurality of selectable inputs (See page 2 “selected”) wherein a first selectable input of the plurality is coupled to receive a diagnostic voltage level (Fig. 1, 116,146 respectively, Emphasis added) and remaining selectable inputs of the plurality are coupled to receive voltage levels from the battery cells (Fig. 1, see 118, 148), the multiplexer selecting one of the plurality of selectable inputs as an output based upon a control signal (Fig. 1, 105/135); and a controller coupled to receive digital values representing selected diagnostic voltage levels (Fig. 1, 124) and digital values representing selected monitored cell voltages from the first BCC and second BCC (see Fig. 1 and specification page 2), the controller configured to: determine a failure of the first BCC or the second BCC based upon monitoring of the battery cell (Specification page 3 “detect failures”).
Ashida teaches determine a failure of the first BCC or the second BCC (Par. 32 “plurality of monitoring integrated circuits” par. 72 “failure”) based upon monitoring of the common battery cell (Par. 57 “cell”); using generated digital values associated with diagnostic voltage levels (Par. 53 “Information about the upper limit voltage value and the lower limit voltage value”) to determine which BCC of the first BCC or the second BCC failed (par. 72, "controller 50 is able to determine whether there is a failure in one of the monitoring unit 21 and the voltage sensor 25 by comparing the voltage value that is detected by the monitoring unit 21 with the voltage value that is detected by the voltage sensor 25." Examiner considered the voltage sensor to be the functional equivalent of the second BCC as they both monitor the battery).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have wherein a first selectable input of the plurality is coupled to receive a diagnostic voltage level based on the teachings of AAPA in view of the disclosure of Gorbold, as it is simply combining previously known elements and their arrangements in battery management systems using known methods to perform the same function of inputting a diagnostic voltage level, performable by one of ordinary skill in the art to yield the predictable result of receiving a diagnostic voltage level at a controller, as it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70, thus resulting in the obvious benefit of grouping inputs from each monitor, leading to easer data management.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled that using generated digital values associated with diagnostic voltage levels to determine which BCC of the first BCC or the second BCC failed as taught by Ashida in Gorbold in order to use reliable values despite fluctuations (Ashida Par. 10), thus leading to a more dependable and accurate way to monitor the charge of the battery.
In claim 17, Gorbold in view of AAPA and Ashida discloses all of claim 11. Gorbold further discloses wherein only a single battery cell is a common battery cell shared by the first stack of battery cells and the second stack of battery cells, and wherein the single battery cell is a top battery cell within the first stack of battery cells and a bottom battery cell within the second stack of battery cells (Fig. 2, 220 Ch6, Par. 21).
In claim 18, Gorbold in view of AAPA and Ashida discloses all of claim 11. Gorbold further discloses monitoring one or more additional stacks of battery cells with an additional BCC for each additional stack of battery cells, each additional stack of battery cells having at least one battery cell shared with a stack of battery cells monitored by another BCC (Fig. 2, 210.3…210.3=m Par. 21).
Claim(s) 4 and 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorbold in view of AAPA and Ashida in further view of Fifield (US 20190302186 A1).
In claim 4, Gorbold in view of AAPA and Ashida discloses all of claim 3. Gorbold does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one action comprises shutting down the first BCC if the failure is detected in the first BCC or shutting down the second BCC if the failure is detected in the second BCC.
Fifield teaches wherein the at least one action comprises shutting down the first BCC if the failure is detected in the first BCC (Fig. 2, 222) but not the second BCC (Fig. 2, 220) or shutting down the second BCC but not the first BCC if the failure is detected in the second BCC (Fig. 4, 410, Par. 4, 64 “result exceeds a threshold, e.g., a user-selectable threshold, the result of the comparison may be used, e.g., to trigger a safety alert that initiates an emergency procedure. It is noted that additional steps may comprise turning off a portion of the circuit at certain times” and Par. 44 “Circuit 200 comprises battery stack 210, 212 and circuit 220, 222”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to have the at least one action comprises shutting down the first BCC if the failure is detected in the first BCC or shutting down the second BCC if the failure is detected in the second BCC as taught by Fifield in Gorbold in order to reduce overall power consumption (Fifield Par. 64) thus leading to a more efficient system.
In claim 12, Gorbold in view of AAPA and Ashida discloses all of claim 11. Gorbold does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one action comprises shutting down the first BCC if the failure is detected in the first BCC or shutting down the second BCC if the failure is detected in the second BCC.
Fifield teaches wherein the at least one action comprises shutting down the first BCC (Fig. 2, 222) but not the second BCC (Fig. 2, 220) if the failure is detected in the first BCC or shutting down the second BCC but not the first BCC if the failure is detected in the second BCC (Fig. 4, 410, Par. 4, 64 “result exceeds a threshold, e.g., a user-selectable threshold, the result of the comparison may be used, e.g., to trigger a safety alert that initiates an emergency procedure. It is noted that additional steps may comprise turning off a portion of the circuit at certain times” and Par. 44 “Circuit 200 comprises battery stack 210, 212 and circuit 220, 222”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to have the at least one action comprises shutting down the first BCC if the failure is detected in the first BCC or shutting down the second BCC if the failure is detected in the second BCC as taught by Fifield in Gorbold in order to reduce overall power consumption (Fifield Par. 64) thus leading to a more efficient system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s 103 arguments on pages 6-10, the examiner respectfully disagrees. First, regarding “after the failure is determined, use the digital values representing selected diagnostic voltage levels at the outputs of the multiplexers of the first BCC and second BCC to further determine which BCC of the first BCC or the second BCC failed;”, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In addition, regarding “determine a failure of the first BCC or the second BCC”, per Ashida, Par. 72, "controller 50 is able to determine whether there is a failure in one of the monitoring unit 21 and the voltage sensor 25 by comparing the voltage value that is detected by the monitoring unit 21 with the voltage value that is detected by the voltage sensor 25." Examiner considered the voltage sensor to be the functional equivalent of the second BCC as they both monitor the battery.
Further, “shutting down the first BCC but not the second BCC if the failure is detected in the first BCC or shutting down the second BCC but not the first BCC” is explicitly cited at being taught by Fifield, which further determines if there is a failure when the cell voltages exceed a threshold, and partially shuts down the circuitry which includes the two monitoring units (see Fig. 2, Par. 61-64).
Thus the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20140197794 A1, BATTERY PACK INCLUDING DIFFERENT KINDS OF CELLS AND POWER DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME; US 9203075 B2, Battery Pack Including Overcurrent Protector.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON J BECKER whose telephone number is (571)431-0689. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/B.J.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857