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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 28, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the references do not suggest switching carried out as a function of current in a current path of preceding switching units (p. 5). However, the switching units and current sensors of Holgers are all in the same current path (Holgers Figs. 3 and 4). Current detected at any of the batteries after the first is therefore necessarily the current in a current path of preceding switching units.
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) 11-14 and 16-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holgers et al. (US 2016/0114695 A1) in view of “Solid State Relay” (Electronics Tutorials, January 2017, retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20170104184427/https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/power/solid-state-relay.html on March 6, 2025; hereinafter referred to as “SSR”) and Goto et al. (US 2020/0136199 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Holgers teaches a method for disconnecting a battery comprising multiple battery cells (battery modules 11, 12, 13) from a motor vehicle, with each battery module connected to the load and associated with a first switch (bypass switch 15, 16, 17) and a second switch (disconnect switch 21, 22, 23) (Holgers Abstract and Fig. 3). The method includes activating both switches for an individual battery module (Holgers Abstract), and is applied to each of the battery modules in emergency situations (Holgers [0012]).
PNG
media_image1.png
1349
1429
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Holgers does not teach that the switching incudes switching from a blocking state to a conducting state and/or vice versa. Holgers teaches that it is desirable to provide the switches in the form of relays so that the batteries may be reconnected (Holgers [0058]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use relays as the switches in the method of Holgers in order to make the process reversible. SSR teaches that solid state relays (non-mechanical relays, i.e., switches that switch from a blocking state to a conducting state) are preferable to mechanical relays because they have no moving parts to wear out and are much faster (SSR p. 1, last paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use solid state relays (which switch from switching to blocking states) instead of mechanical relays in the method of Holgers in order to improve speed and durability.
Holgers teaches that the switches may be sequentially activated by means of a delay timer (Holgers [0052]-[0053]). Holgers does not teach any particular delay time. Goto teaches that a delay time of 100 ns between activating connected switches is appropriate to prevent a short circuit caused by simultaneous switching (Goto [0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to implement a delay of 100 ns, which falls within the range of the instant claim, between switch activations in order to prevent a short circuit.
Holgers teaches that switching is done as a function of current detected in the bypass path (Holgers Fig. 3 and [0046]). All of the bypass switching elements are in the same current path (all current in the system must flow through switch 17), so current detected at any of the batteries after the first is therefore necessarily the current in a current path of preceding switching units.
Regarding claim 12, Holgers teaches that the battery modules may be bypassed and disconnected one by one in sequence (Holgers [0012]).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, modified Holgers teaches that the battery modules may be bypassed and disconnected one by one in sequence (Holgers [0012]). This would necessarily require either a timed delay or a signal from the previous battery module (i.e., current detection at the previous switch), both of which are provided for in Holgers (delay circuits at Holgers [0052] and current detection at Holgers [0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to try either method to achieve the sequential deactivation of modified Holgers.
Regarding claim 16, the two switches are a short circuit switch parallel to the battery module (bypass switch 15, 16, 17) and a coupling switch in series with the battery module (disconnect switch 21, 22, 23) (Holgers Abstract and Fig. 1). Holgers teaches that the switches may be sequentially activated (bypass and then disconnect) by means of a delay timer (Holgers [0052]-[0053]]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Holgers teaches that the disconnect switch (i.e., coupling switch) is opened after the bypass switch (i.e., short circuit switch) is closed (Holgers [0053]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Holgers teaches that the battery modules may be bypassed and disconnected one by one in sequence (Holgers [0012]), and Holgers gives an example with 5 different battery modules (Holgers [0009]).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, modified Holgers teaches that the battery modules may be bypassed and disconnected one by one in sequence (Holgers [0012]). Holgers teaches that the system includes a plurality of battery modules (i.e., more than 1; Holgers Abstract), which overlaps the ranges of the instant claims. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 21, modified Holgers teaches that the battery may be a 300 V battery (Holgers [0009]), which is a high voltage battery.
Regarding claim 22, modified Holgers teaches that the switches are arranged at individual battery modules (Holgers [0007]) that constitute the battery, so the switches must necessarily be integrated into the battery.
Regarding claim 23, Holgers teaches a device for disconnecting a battery comprising multiple battery cells (battery modules 11, 12, 13) from a motor vehicle, with each battery module connected to the load and associated with a first switch (bypass switch15, 16, 17) and a second switch (disconnect switch 21, 22, 23) (Holgers Abstract and Fig. 3). The disconnection includes activating both switches for an individual battery module (Holgers Abstract), and is applied to each of the battery modules in emergency situations (Holgers [0012]).
Holgers does not teach that the switching incudes switching from a blocking state to a conducting state and/or vice versa. Holgers teaches that it is desirable to provide the switches in the form of relays so that the batteries may be reconnected (Holgers [0058]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use relays as the switches in the method of Holgers in order to make the process reversible. SSR teaches that solid state relays (non-mechanical relays, i.e., switches that switch from a blocking state to a conducting state) are preferable to mechanical relays because they have no moving parts to wear out and are much faster (SSR p. 1, last paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use solid state relays (which switch from switching to blocking states) instead of mechanical relays in the method of modified Holgers in order to improve speed and durability.
Holgers teaches that the switches may be sequentially activated by means of a delay timer (Holgers [0052]-[0053]). Holgers does not teach any particular delay time. Goto teaches that a delay time of 100 ns between activating connected switches is appropriate to prevent a short circuit caused by simultaneous switching (Goto [0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to implement a delay of 100 ns, which falls within the range of the instant claim, between switch activations in order to prevent a short circuit.
Holgers teaches that switching is done as a function of current detected in the bypass path (Holgers Fig. 3 and [0046]). All of the bypass switching elements are in the same current path (all current in the system must flow through switch 17), so current detected at any of the batteries after the first is therefore necessarily the current in a current path of preceding switching units.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/J.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722