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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues “a control device that is at least intermittently placed in a state with minimum energy consumption and intermittently placed in a state with normal energy consumption to detect a control signal for switching from the idle mode to the operating mode” is not taught or suggested in the prior art.
Kristensen (US 2019/0103750) teaches wherein in the idle mode a control device (Par.41; Localized electronics) in a state with normal energy consumption detects a control signal for switching from the idle mode to the operating mode (Par.36, 273 and 276-277).
Newly applied prior art D’Angelo et al. (US 6,265,974) teaches in an idle mode a control device (27) (Fig.3) is at least intermittently placed in a state with minimum energy consumption and intermittently placed in a state with normal energy consumption to detect a control signal (Col.8, Lines 57-61).
Applicant argues Martin’s control device does not control any bridge circuit and has no connection to switching elements for setting battery or bypass modes.
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).
Crowley et al. (US 2019/0363311) discloses a bridge circuit (112) which is provided between the input connection and the output connection and is designed either to connect the battery unit (110) to the input and output connection (battery mode) or to connect the input connection to the output connection by bypassing the battery unit (110) (bypass mode) (Par.113).
Kristensen teaches each battery module (17) designed to be controlled, via a control signal, between an operating mode (Positive output, Negative output and Bypassed configurations) (Par.41 and 97-99) and an idle mode (Open configuration) (Par.100).
Martin et al. (US 2013/0297954) was introduced for its teaching of an isolation device (320) connected to a battery unit (Par.43, 83 and 89) at predefined intervals in an idle mode (Par.92). An isolation device (320) is turned on at predefined intervals (Par.89) during an idle mode to provide power from an associated battery module to electronics including a processor (310) (Fig.3) (Par.43) in order to check on the status of a control signal (WAKE signal) (Par.92).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of connecting the battery unit at predefined intervals in an idle mode in the combination of Crowley in view of Kristensen to have had reduced power consumption without sacrificing required performance (Par.89) as taught in Martin.
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).
Applicant argues Crowley fails to disclose the concept of an "idle mode" for energy conservation or any other purpose.
Kristensen teaches each battery module (17) designed to be controlled, via a control signal, between an operating mode (Positive output, Negative output and Bypassed configurations) (Par.41 and 97-99) and an idle mode (Open configuration) (Par.100).
The rejection is based on the combination of prior art references.
Applicant argues the primary cited references do not relate to energy conversation, and thus lack any motivation or other teaching that would lead a person of skill in the art to combine them with the other references in the manner proposed in the Office Action. Kristensen discloses an "open" configuration where all switches are opened. Kristensen, paragraph [0100]. The Office Action equates this to the claimed "idle mode." However, Kristensen's "open" configuration serves a fundamentally different purpose. For example, FIG. 1 shows options for additional isolated switches which provide a method of fault protection in battery packs to enable pack functionality after fault.
In response to applicant's argument that “Kristensen's open configuration is for fault isolation of defective modules - not for reducing energy consumption in idle periods”, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Kristensen discloses the claimed limitations: a plurality of battery modules (17) (Par.94); each battery module (17) designed to be controlled, via a control signal, between an operating mode (Positive output, Negative output and Bypassed configurations) (Par.41 and 97-99) and an idle mode (Open configuration) (Par.100), wherein in the idle mode (Open configuration) a bridge circuit (11-15) is placed in a state with minimum energy consumption (Par.191) such that a battery unit (10) is not connected to either an input connection (IOA) or an output connection (IOB) and such that the input connection (IOA) is not connected to the output connection (IOB) (Par.94, 100 and 191; All switches 11-15 open. Therefore, there is no connection between the input and output of the module.).
Furthermore, there appears to be no evidence presented to support Applicant’s assumption that the references would not be combined in the manner proposed.
The teaching or motivation to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings is not only required to be related to energy conservation in order to arrive at the claimed invention. The Applicant does not provide arguments as to why the combination differs from the claimed invention.
Applicant argues Kliem discloses a solid-state relay with self-blocking (normally open) power p-channel IGFETs, in particular power p-channel MOSFETs. Kliem is directed to a standalone bidirectional electronic switching circuit for general power switching (e.g., in vehicles as separation relays). In Kliem, "self-blocking" transistors are used for safety (ensuring current interruption on control-circuit defect) in a solid-state relay, not for minimizing energy consumption in an idle mode of a cascaded multi-level battery energy supply system. The Office Action's rationale to modify Crowley and Kristensen to utilize Kliem's solid-state relays is to minimize energy consumption. Final Office Action, pg. 9. However, Kliem's motivation for using these relays is safety, not energy minimization. In addition, as discussed above, Crowley and Kristensen are not concerned with minimizing energy consumption in an idle state.
Kliem (US 2019/0207605) discloses self-blocking switching elements (T1-T2) are placed in a self-blocking state when in an open configuration (Par.48; Switched off/Open) to minimize energy consumption (Par. 15; The switching elements are self-blocking (normally open), they require no voltage in order to turn off/open. Thereby, the energy consumption would be minimized in an open configuration.). Kliem discloses the argued limitation as claimed.
Furthermore, the examiner notes the limitation "to minimize energy consumption” recites the intended use of the self-blocking switching elements. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In this case, Kliem discloses a structure (self-blocking switching elements T1-T2) capable of performing the intended use as recited, and thus meets the claim.
The rationale to modify the combination of Crowley in view of Kristensen does not include to minimize energy consumption as argued: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Kliem in the combination of Crowley in view of Kristensen to have had utilized transistors that are normally open thereby requiring a low control voltage and increasing safety in the event of a defect in the control circuit (Par.15).
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.
Claims 1, 6-7, 10, 12-14, 17 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crowley et al. (US 2019/0363311) in view of Kristensen (US 2019/0103750), Kliem (US 2019/0207605) and D’Angelo et al. (US 6,265,974).
Claim 1: Crowley teaches a mobile energy supply system (100) (Fig.1) comprising:
a plurality of battery modules (102) that can be connected in series in a controllable manner to supply different voltages at an output of the energy supply system (100) (Par.135-141), and
a control unit (104) for activating the battery modules (102) (Par.111),
wherein each battery module (102) comprises:
an input connection and an output connection (Fig.1),
a battery unit (110) (Par.113), and
a bridge circuit (112) which is provided between the input connection and the output connection and is designed either to connect the battery unit (110) to the input and output connection (battery mode) or to connect the input connection to the output connection by bypassing the battery unit (110) (bypass mode) (Par.113);
a control device (108) (Fig.4) (Par.112),
wherein each battery module (102) is designed to be controlled in an operating mode, wherein in the operating mode the bridge circuit (112) can be switched into a battery mode and a bypass mode (Par.113),
wherein the control device (108) is connected to the battery unit (110) for energy supply and to the bridge circuit (112) in order to switch the bridge (112) circuit into the battery mode or the bypass mode (Par.123-125) (Fig.4),
the bridge circuit (112) comprises a plurality of switching elements (114) for setting the battery mode or the bypass mode (Par.113).
Crowley does not explicitly teach each battery module is designed to be controlled, via a control signal, between an operating mode and an idle mode, wherein in the idle mode the bridge circuit is placed in a state with minimum energy consumption such that the battery unit is not connected to either the input connection or the output connection and such that the input connection is not connected to the output connection, wherein in the idle mode the switching elements of the bridge circuit are placed in a state with minimum energy consumption.
Kristensen teaches a plurality of battery modules (17) (Par.94); each battery module (17) designed to be controlled, via a control signal, between an operating mode (Positive output, Negative output and Bypassed configurations) (Par.41 and 97-99) and an idle mode (Open configuration) (Par.100), wherein in the idle mode (Open configuration) a bridge circuit (11-15) is placed in a state with minimum energy consumption (Par.191) such that a battery unit (10) is not connected to either an input connection (IOA) or an output connection (IOB) and such that the input connection (IOA) is not connected to the output connection (IOB) (Par.94, 100 and 191; All switches 11-15 open. Therefore, there is no connection between the input and output of the module.),
switching elements of a bridge circuit are placed in a state with minimum energy consumption in the idle mode (Open configuration) (Par.94, 100 and 191; All switches 11-15 open/switched off. Therefore, there is no energy transfer between the input and output of the circuit.),
wherein in the idle mode a control device (Par.41; Localized electronics) in a state with normal energy consumption detects a control signal for switching from the idle mode to the operating mode (Par.36, 273 and 276-277).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had placed the bridge circuit/switching assembly in idle mode in the system of Crowley to have had a dynamically reconfigurable energy module (Par.145) comprising an idle/isolation mode to allow for faulty energy modules to be completely removed from the system while allowing the rest of the plurality of battery modules to continue functioning (Par.187 and 191) as taught in Kristensen thereby protecting the additional battery modules from damage.
The combination of Crowley in view of Kristensen does not explicitly teach wherein the bridge circuit comprises a plurality of self-blocking switching elements; wherein the switching elements, in the idle mode, are placed in a blocking state.
Kliem teaches a plurality of self-blocking switching elements (T1-T2) (Par.48); wherein the switching elements are placed in a self-blocking state when in an open configuration (Par.48; Switched off/Open) to minimize energy consumption (Par.15; The switching elements are self-blocking (normally open) thereby they require no voltage in order to turn off/open. Thereby, utilizing self-blocking elements as the switching elements in the combination of Crowley in view of Kristensen would minimize energy consumption in an idle mode; when the switching elements are all turned off/open.). Furthermore, the limitation “to minimize energy consumption” recites the intended use of the self-blocking switching elements. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In this case, Kliem discloses a structure (self-blocking switching elements T1-T2) capable of performing the intended use as recited, and thus meets the claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Kliem in the combination of Crowley in view of Kristensen to have had utilized transistors with that are normally open thereby requiring a low control voltage and increasing safety in the event of a defect in the control circuit (Par.15).
The combination of Crowley and Kristensen does not explicitly teach wherein in the idle mode the control device is at least intermittently placed in a state with minimum energy consumption and intermittently placed in a state with normal energy consumption to detect a control signal.
D’Angelo discloses in an idle mode a control device (27) (Fig.3) is at least intermittently placed in a state with minimum energy consumption and intermittently placed in a state with normal energy consumption to detect a control signal (Col.8, Lines 57-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of D’Angelo in the combination of Crowley and Kristensen to have had reduced power consumption (Col.8, Lines 65-67) (Col.9, Lines 1-3) thereby prolonging battery life (Col.8, Lines 45-46).
Claim 6: Crowley in view of Kristensen, Kliem and D’Angelo teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Crowley teaches wherein the control unit (104) is designed to direct a control signal to at least one of the battery modules (102) to activate the operating mode (Par.120-121).
Claim 7: Crowley in view of Kristensen, Kliem and D’Angelo teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Crowley teaches wherein each battery module (102) comprises an isolation device (isolation) (Fig.1) which provides galvanic isolation between the battery module (102) and the control unit (104) (Par.63-65).
Claim 10: Crowley in view of Kristensen, Kliem and D’Angelo teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Crowley does not explicitly teach wherein a battery module is placed in the idle mode when a specified criterion is reached.
Kristensen teaches a battery module (17) is placed in an idle mode (Open configuration) when a specified criterion is reached (Par.187 and 191; Overvoltage, overcurrent, overtemperature).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had placed the bridge circuit/switching assembly in idle mode in the system of Crowley to have had isolated a faulty energy module and have had allowed the rest of the plurality of battery modules to continue functioning (Par.187 and 191) as taught in Kristensen thereby protecting the additional battery modules from damage.
Claim 12: Crowley in view of Kristensen, Kliem and D’Angelo teach the limitations of claim 7 as disclosed above. Crowley teaches wherein the isolation device (132) comprises an optical sensor (Par.61, Opto-isolator.) (Par.123).
Claim 13: Crowley in view of Kristensen, Kliem and D’Angelo teach the limitations of claim 6 as disclosed above. Crowley teaches wherein the control signal supplied by the control unit (104) contains at least two items of information, namely bypass mode or battery mode (Par.113 and 125), and operating mode (Par.117, Control signal includes a signal for a specific battery module to operate and act upon on.).
Claim 14: Crowley in view of Kristensen, Kliem and D’Angelo teach the limitations of claim 13 as disclosed above. Crowley teaches wherein the control unit (104) is designed to generate a time-coded binary signal as the control signal (Par.119).
Claim 17: Crowley in view of Kristensen, Kliem and D’Angelo teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Crowley teaches wherein the battery unit (110) comprises at least one battery cell (Par.113) (Fig.2).
Claim 20: Crowley in view of Kristensen, Kliem and D’Angelo teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Crowley teaches wherein the energy supply system (100) is designed for use in a vehicle (Par.3).
Claim 21: Crowley teaches a battery module (102) for an energy supply system (100) (Fig.1), wherein the battery module (102) comprises:
an input connection and an output connection (Fig.1),
a battery unit (110) (Par.113), and
a bridge circuit (112) which is provided between the input connection and the output connection and is designed either to connect the battery unit (110) to the input and output connection (battery mode) or to connect the input connection to the output connection by bypassing the battery unit (110) (bypass mode) (Par.113);
a control device (108),
wherein each battery module (102) is designed to be controlled in an operating mode, wherein in the operating mode the bridge circuit (112) can be switched into a battery mode and a bypass mode (Par.113).
wherein the control device (108) is connected to the battery unit (110) for energy supply and to the bridge circuit (112) in order to switch the bridge (112) circuit into the battery mode or the bypass mode (Par.123-125) (Fig.4),
the bridge circuit (112) comprises a plurality of switching elements (114) for setting the battery mode or the bypass mode (Par.113).
Crowley does not explicitly teach each battery module is designed to be controlled, via a control signal, between an operating mode and an idle mode, wherein in the idle mode the bridge circuit is placed in a state with minimum energy consumption such that the battery unit is not connected to either the input connection or the output connection and such that the input connection is not connected to the output connection, wherein in the idle mode the switching elements of the bridge circuit are placed in a state with minimum energy consumption.
Kristensen teaches a plurality of battery modules (17) (Par.94); each battery module (17) designed to be controlled, via a control signal, between an operating mode (Positive output, Negative output and Bypassed configurations) (Par.41 and 97-99) and an idle mode (Open configuration) (Par.100), wherein in the idle mode (Open configuration) a bridge circuit (11-15) is placed in a state with minimum energy consumption (Par.191) such that a battery unit (10) is not connected to either an input connection (IOA) or an output connection (IOB) and such that the input connection (IOA) is not connected to the output connection (IOB) (Par.94, 100 and 191; All switches 11-15 open. Therefore, there is no connection between the input and output of the module.),
switching elements of a bridge circuit are placed in a state with minimum energy consumption in the idle mode (Open configuration) (Par.94, 100 and 191; All switches 11-15 open/switched off. Therefore, there is no energy transfer between the input and output of the circuit.),
wherein in the idle mode a control device (Par.41; Localized electronics) in a state with normal energy consumption detects a control signal for switching from the idle mode to the operating mode (Par.36, 273 and 276-277).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had placed the bridge circuit/switching assembly in idle mode in the system of Crowley to have had a dynamically reconfigurable energy module (Par.145) comprising an idle/isolation mode to allow for faulty energy modules to be completely removed from the system while allowing the rest of the plurality of battery modules to continue functioning (Par.187 and 191) as taught in Kristensen thereby protecting the additional battery modules from damage.
The combination of Crowley in view of Kristensen does not explicitly teach wherein the bridge circuit comprises a plurality of self-blocking switching elements; wherein the switching elements, in the idle mode, are placed in a blocking state.
Kliem teaches a plurality of self-blocking switching elements (T1-T2) (Par.48); wherein the switching elements are placed in a self-blocking state when in an open configuration (Par.48; Switched off/Open) to minimize energy consumption (Par.15; The switching elements are self-blocking (normally open) thereby they require no voltage in order to turn off/open. Thereby, utilizing self-blocking elements as the switching elements in the combination of Crowley in view of Kristensen would minimize energy consumption in an idle mode; when the switching elements are all turned off/open.). Furthermore, the limitation “to minimize energy consumption” recites the intended use of the self-blocking switching elements. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In this case, Kliem discloses a structure (self-blocking switching elements T1-T2) capable of performing the intended use as recited, and thus meets the claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Kliem in the combination of Crowley in view of Kristensen to have had utilized transistors with that are normally open thereby requiring a low control voltage and increasing safety in the event of a defect in the control circuit (Par.15).
The combination of Crowley and Kristensen does not explicitly teach wherein in the idle mode the control device is at least intermittently placed in a state with minimum energy consumption and intermittently placed in a state with normal energy consumption to detect a control signal.
D’Angelo discloses in an idle mode a control device (27) (Fig.3) is at least intermittently placed in a state with minimum energy consumption and intermittently placed in a state with normal energy consumption to detect a control signal (Col.8, Lines 57-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of D’Angelo in the combination of Crowley and Kristensen to have had reduced power consumption (Col.8, Lines 65-67) (Col.9, Lines 1-3) thereby prolonging battery life (Col.8, Lines 45-46).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crowley et al. (US 2019/0363311) in view of Kristensen (US 2019/0103750), Kliem (US 2019/0207605) and D’Angelo et al. (US 6,265,974) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Martin et al. (US 2013/0297954).
Claims 8-9: Crowley in view of Kristensen, Kliem and D’Angelo teach the limitations of claim 7 as disclosed above. Crowley wherein the isolation device (132) is connected at least partially and/or at least intermittently to the battery unit (110) to supply energy (Par.124-125).
The combination of Crowley in view of Kristensen does not explicitly teach the isolation device is connected to the battery unit at predefined intervals in the idle mode.
Martin teaches an isolation device (320) connected to a battery unit (Par.43, 83 and 89) at predefined intervals in an idle mode (Par.92).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Martin in the combination of Crowley in view of Kristensen to have had periodically powered up to check a status of a control signal while maintaining power consumption to a minimum (Par.92).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crowley et al. (US 2019/0363311) in view of Kristensen (US 2019/0103750), Kliem (US 2019/0207605) and D’Angelo et al. (US 6,265,974) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Snyder et al. (US 2015/0180257)
Claim 11: Crowley in view of Kristensen, Kliem and D’Angelo teach the limitations of claim 10 as disclosed above. The combination of Crowley in view of Kristensen does not explicitly teach wherein the criterion is selected from: absence of a control signal from the control unit in bypass mode, or mean current output below a specified value, or charge state/voltage of at least one battery module below a specifiable value.
Snyder teaches a battery module is placed in the idle mode when a specified criterion is reached (Par.77); wherein the criterion is selected from: charge state/voltage of at least one battery module below a specifiable value (Par.77).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Snyder in the combination of Crowley and Kristensen to have had placed a battery in an idle mode when the battery does not provide a substantial output (Par.77) thereby preventing over discharge.
Claims 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crowley et al. (US 2019/0363311) in view of Kristensen (US 2019/0103750), Kliem (US 2019/0207605) and D’Angelo et al. (US 6,265,974) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tzivanopoulos (US 2015/0256014).
Claim 15: Crowley in view of Kristensen, Kliem and D’Angelo teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Crowley does not explicitly teach wherein each battery module has an isolating device which is designed to disconnect the bridge circuit and/or a DC link capacitor from the battery unit, the DC link capacitor being provided in parallel with the battery unit.
Tzivanopoulos discloses an isolating device (13) which is designed to disconnect a DC link capacitor (5) from a battery unit (4) (Par.37) (Fig.1), the DC link capacitor (5) being provided in parallel with the battery unit (4) (Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Tzivanopoulos in the system of Crowley to have had an element, DC link capacitor, that provides currents for short-term high current consumer requirements (Par.2); and have had isolated the charging battery from the charge receiving DC link capacitor thereby preventing any undesired current flow (Par.18).
Claim 16: Crowley in view of Kristensen, Kliem, D’Angelo and Tzivanopoulos teach the limitations of claim 15 as disclosed above. Crowley does not explicitly teach wherein the isolating device comprises at least one switching element; in the idle mode this at least one switching element is placed in a high-resistance state with minimum energy consumption.
Kristensen teaches an isolating device (15) comprises at least one switching element (Par.94); wherein in an idle mode (Open configuration) the switching element (15) is placed in a high-resistance state (open) with minimum energy consumption (Par.191).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the isolation device of Crowley be a switching element for the expected result of electrically isolating the battery unit from the rest of the battery module (Par.94) as taught in Kristensen thereby protecting additional battery units from damage.
Claim 18: Crowley in view of Kristensen, Kliem, D’Angelo and Tzivanopoulos teach the limitations of claim 16 as disclosed above. Crowley teaches wherein at least one of the switching elements (112) is implemented as a transistor (Par.113).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crowley et al. (US 2019/0363311) in view of Kristensen (US 2019/0103750), Kliem (US 2019/0207605) and D’Angelo et al. (US 6,265,974) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Timmons et al. (US 2011/0248680).
Claim 19: Crowley in view of Kristensen, Kliem and D’Angelo teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Crowley teaches wherein the control device (108) comprises a circuit for measuring individual voltages of series-connected battery cells (Par.61) of the battery unit (110) (Par.124 and 182).
The combination of Crowley in view of Kristensen does not explicitly teach the circuit is placed in a state with minimum energy consumption in the idle mode.
Timmons discloses a circuit (60) (Fig.5) for measuring a state of battery cells (70) of a battery unit (Par.21) is placed in a state with minimum energy consumption in an idle mode (Par.29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Timmons in the combination of Crowley and Kristensen to have had disconnected battery management systems that drain power from their associated battery cells thereby prolonging the batteries shelf lives (Par.29).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Wang et al. (US 2016/0036100) discloses when a switch is open is in a high resistance state (Par.49).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHALI ALEJANDRA TORRES RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am-6:00pm.
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, Julian D 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.
/JOHALI A TORRES RUIZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
