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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christophersen (US20170254859) (Provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on October 25th, 2023) in view of Horiguchi (US20090214912).
Regarding Claim 9, Christophersen discloses a network manager for a battery management system (impedance measurement system, [007]), the network manager comprising:
A wireless unit to communicated with a plurality of monitors (impedance measurement system-200 includes a impedance measurement device-210, [0027], wherein impedance measurement device includes several monitors including a SOSG-216 configured to signal and output, DAS-214 configured to receive battery response signal, [0028] process-212 configured to synchronize and control the DAD and SOSG, [0033], Fig. 2) wherein the plurality of monitors are coupled to respective battery modules associated with unique identifiers (it is the examiner’s position that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, “unique identifiers” can be system that stores the response of the battery under a battery, the impedance data of the batteries can be stored by the impedance computation module, [0050]), wherein each battery modules includes a plurality of battery cells (the battery modules can include one more energy storage cells, [0027]);
Wherein the network manager is configured to:
Transmit instructions to the plurality of monitors to inject respective stimulus signals into the battery modules and measure respective responses of the battery modules (IMD-210 can be configured to measure electrical signals-206 to battery-205 responsive to the SOS current signal applied to terminals of battery, [0029]);
Receive from the plurality of monitors information regarding the respective responses (DAS-215 can receive battery response signal and compute impedance of test battery, [0029]); and
Store the information regarding the respective responses to an external memory location and to associate the information with the unique identifier (impedance data is stored, [0050]).
Christopherson does not directly disclose wherein the battery modules use a plurality of analog-to-digital converters, wherein each respective response include a plurality of cell responses from respective cells of the plurality of battery cells in the respective battery module.
Horiguchi discloses an electronic apparatus that includes a power supply monitor that monitors and output voltage from the base battery and an output from a secondary battery ([0049]). Horiguchi further discloses wherein the data is collected as digital data through an analog to digital converter which has a plurality of input channels ([0049]). Horiguchi further discloses wherein the singles can include an output single or current detection signal ([0050]). Horiguchi teaches that this structure allow for long term operations states ([007]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Christopherson with the teachings of Horiguchi to have wherein the battery modules use a plurality of analog-to-digital converters, wherein each respective response include a plurality of cell responses from respective cells of the plurality of battery cells in the respective battery module. This modification would yield the expected result of improved long term operation states.
Regarding Claim 10, Christophersen in view of Horiguchi discloses the limitations as set forth above. Christophersen further discloses wherein the plurality of monitors (DAS & SOSG) generated synchronized stimulus signals for respective modules in the battery (processor synchronizes DAS and SOSG, [0033]).
Regarding Claim 11, Christophersen in view of Horiguchi discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Christophersen does not directly disclose wherein the instructions include information regarding stimulus signal patterns stored in the plurality of monitors.
The examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, “the instructions include information regarding stimulus signal patterns stored in the plurality of monitors” can be interpreted to mean that the stimulus signal patterns are stored and collected by the plurality of monitors.
Christophersen further discloses wherein the functions of the methods disclosed can be stored or transmitted as one or more computer-readable instructions ([0020]). Christophersen further discloses wherein impedance computation module-312 can be configured to provide or store impedance data ([0050]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Christophersen to have wherein the instructions include information regarding stimulus signal patterns stored in the plurality of monitors.
Regarding Claim 12, Christophersen in view of Horiguchi discloses the limitations as set forth above. Christophersen further discloses wherein the instructions instruct the plurality of monitors to synchronously measure the responses with respect to the stimulus signals (processor synchronizes DAS and SOSG in response to battery current signals, [0028]).
Regarding Claim 13, Christophersen in view of Horiguchi discloses the limitations as set forth above. Christophersen further discloses wherein the external memory location is a cloud storage location (remote computer can be a server, [0031]).
Regarding Claim 14, Christophersen in view of Horiguchi discloses the limitations as set forth above. Christophersen does not directly disclose wherein the information regarding the respective responses includes parametrized information of impedance responses of respective modules in the battery.
Christophersen discloses wherein the impedance monitoring device-210 can implement a minimum of three-point magnitude and phase calibration for each frequency within the SOSG control signal ([0032]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Christophersen to have wherein the information regarding the respective responses includes parametrized information of impedance responses of respective modules in the battery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments in view of their arguments, see Claims, filed November 5th, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 9 under 35 SUC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Christopherson in view of Horiguchi under 35 USC 103.
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 ANKITH R SRIPATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 am - 5:00pm.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/ANKITH R SRIPATHI/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728