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 .
Acknowledgement is made of reply filed 0n 08/18/2025 in which claims 1-20 remain as previously presented and are still pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s representative argues that:
PK does not determine an internal temperature of the battery based on an ambient temperature, an electric current value, and a voltage, and does not disclose, teach, or suggest that such determined internal temperature of the battery is verified based on the sensed battery temperature and the selected threshold.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that PK was relied only for the limitations of, “receiving internal battery temperature data from a battery temperature sensor; and verifying the internal temperature that is determined based on the internal battery temperature data and a designated relative threshold value”, which Marchand did not disclose. Marchand already discloses(see ¶[0016]) and shows in Fig. 2 that the internal battery temperature is determined by a combination of the initial temperature(54), the heat generated in the battery (56) and the heat transfer to or from the battery (57). Furthermore, the initial temperature is a function of the ambient temperature and Fig. 3 shows a flow chart for determining the initial temperature(see ¶[0021]); determine one or more conditions for at least one of charging or discharging the battery based at least in part on the internal temperature(as determined by temperature sensor 22), the electric current value(as determined by current sensor 26), and the voltage(as determined by voltage sensor 24)(see ¶[0008] and Fig. 1)
PK discloses and shows in Figs. 1,5A-5B, factual evidence of, receiving internal battery temperature data from a battery temperature sensor(internal thermistor (not shown); see Fig. 5B ¶[0046];¶[0075],¶[0076]); and verifying (by IC 38)(¶[0029],¶[0031],¶[0045]-¶[0046]. Note-IC 38 inherently includes arithmetic and processing circuits capable of comparing sensed temperature with selected threshold)the internal temperature that is determined based on the internal battery temperature data and a designated relative threshold(see ¶[0046]; ¶[0075], ¶[0076]) as also admitted by applicant’s representative on his remarks/arguments page 8, last paragraph, page 9, paragraphs 2 and 3, and page 11, paragraphs 1-2. Fig. 5B of PK is also illustrative that a comparison and verification is performed in looking at steps (100),(102), (104) and (108).
Additionally, 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).
Therefore rejections have been maintained where arguments were found not persuasive.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1,2,5-7,11-12,14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchand et al., (Marchand) US 2007/0139017 in view of PK US 2019/0319466.
Regarding claims 11 and 1: Marchand at least discloses and shows in Figs. 1-2: A power control system comprising: a controller comprising one or more processors(note-signal processing circuitry is integrated into the controller 18; see ¶[0016]) configured to: receive an ambient temperature via a temperature sensor(22), an electric current value of electricity that is conducted into or out of a battery(14) via a current sensor(26), and a voltage of a battery circuit that comprises the battery via a voltage sensor(24)(see ¶[0008]; see also Fig. 1) determine an internal temperature of the battery based at least in part on the ambient temperature, the electric current value, and the voltage(see ¶[0016] and see Fig. 2 which shows that the internal battery temperature is determined by a combination of the initial temperature (54), the heat generated in the battery (56) and the heat transfer to or from the battery 57. The initial temperature is a function of the ambient temperature and Fig. 3 shows a flow chart for determining the initial temperature; see ¶[0021]); determine one or more conditions for at least one of charging or discharging the battery based at least in part on the internal temperature, the electric current value, and the voltage(see ¶[0016],¶[0028]); and control at least one of charging or discharging of the battery based on the one or more conditions(see ¶[0016]); However, Marchand does not expressly teach the limitations of:
receiving internal battery temperature data from a battery temperature sensor; and verifying the internal temperature that is determined based on the internal battery temperature data and a designated relative threshold value
PK discloses and shows in Figs. 1,5A-5B, factual evidence of, receiving internal battery temperature data from a battery temperature sensor(internal thermistor (not shown); see Fig. 5B ¶[0046];¶[0075],¶[0076]); and verifying (by IC 38)(¶[0029],¶[0031],¶[0045]-¶[0046])the internal temperature that is determined based on the internal battery temperature data and a designated relative threshold(see ¶[0046]; ¶[0075], ¶[0076]).
Marchand and PK are battery devices analogous art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to avail of the teachings of PK into the power control system of Marchand in further receiving internal battery temperature data from a battery temperature sensor; and verifying the internal temperature that is determined based on the internal battery temperature data and a designated relative threshold value, as recited, in order to preserve long term battery life and prevent deterioration of the battery, as per the teachings of PK (¶[0070]).
Regarding claims 12 and 2, Marchand in view of PK discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claims 11 and 1 respectively. Marchand further discloses, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine the internal temperature without using the battery temperature sensor(see ¶[0008]-¶[0009]; note-Marchand uses some sort of approximation method to determine the temperature of the battery).
Regarding claims 14 and 5, Marchand in view of PK discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 11 and 1 respectively. Marchand further discloses, wherein the one or more conditions comprises one or more of a charging current value or a charging voltage of the battery(see ¶[0016], ¶[0028]).
Regarding claims 15 and 6, Marchand in view of PK discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claims 11 and 1 respectively. Marchand further discloses, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: control a rate of the at least one of charging or discharging of the battery based on the one or more conditions(see ¶[0029])(see also PK; ¶[0045]-¶[0046]).
Regarding claims 16 and 7, Marchand in view of PK discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claims 11 and 1 respectively. PK further discloses, wherein the one or more processors(IC 38) are further configured to:
verify the internal temperature(as measured by internal thermistor(not shown); see Fig. 5B ¶[0046];¶[0075],¶[0076]) that is determined by comparing(temperature error as output by output signal 35 from the OR gate 34 ¶[0031]-¶[0034]) the internal battery temperature(as determined by internal thermistor; see step 102 of Fig. 5B) with the internal temperature that is determined (selected threshold temperatures from either the external or internal thermistors 20,22-30; see Figs. 1, 5A-5B and step 104 of Fig. 5B)
Claim(s) 8-10,17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchand et al., (Marchand) US 2007/0139017 in view of PK US 2019/0319466 and in further view of Hindle US 20170199246.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Marchand in view of PK discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 7 and 16 respectively but fails to expressly disclose the limitations of:
further communicating an alert to an operator of the system in response to a determination that the difference between the internal battery temperature data and the internal temperature that is determined exceeding a designated relative threshold value
However, Hindle discloses factual evidence of a battery monitoring system(100[Wingdings font/0xE0]104) that communicates warnings to an operator via a user interface(120) when the internal battery(108[Wingdings font/0xE0]109a-109i; see Fig. 2) temperature exceeds a predetermined threshold value(see Hindle ¶[0035],¶[0039]).
Marchand, PK and Hindle are direct current system monitoring devices analogous art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marchand in view of PK with the teachings of Hindle by further communicating an alert to an operator of the system in response to a determination that the difference between the internal battery temperature data and the internal temperature that is determined exceeding a designated relative threshold value as recited, in order to provide an optimal working conditions of the battery by preventing possible damage which might result from overheating and thereby extending the useful life of the battery.
Accordingly claims 8 and 17 would have been obvious.
Regarding claims 18 and 9, Marchand in view of PK discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claims 11 and 1 respectively. Marchand discloses, further comprising determining that the internal temperature exceeds a designated absolute threshold value(see Marchand; ¶[0028])(PK; ¶[0031],¶[0034], ¶[0045]-¶[0046], ¶[0062]).
The combination of Marchand and PK does not expressly disclose the limitations of,
and communicating an alert to an operator of the system based on the internal temperature exceeding the designated absolute threshold value.
However, Hindle discloses factual evidence of a battery monitoring system(100[Wingdings font/0xE0]104) that communicates warnings to an operator via a user interface(120) when the internal battery(108[Wingdings font/0xE0]109a-109i; see Fig. 2) temperature exceeds a predetermined threshold(see Hindle ¶[0035],¶[0039]).
Marchand, PK and Hindle are direct current system monitoring devices analogous art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marchand in view of PK with the teachings of Hindle by communicating an alert to an operator of the system based on the internal temperature exceeding the designated absolute threshold value, as recited, so as to provide an optimal working conditions of the battery by preventing possible damage which might result from overheating and thereby extending the useful life of the battery.
Accordingly claims 9 and 18 would have been obvious.
Regarding claims 19 and 10, Marchand in view of PK and Hindle discloses all the claimed invention a set forth and discussed above in claims 18 and 9 respectively. Marchand discloses, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: change the one or more conditions for charging or discharging the battery based on the internal temperature exceeding the designated absolute threshold value(¶[0028]).
Accordingly claims 10 and 19 would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 20, Marchand at least discloses and shows in Figs. 1-2: A method comprising: receiving an ambient temperature(via temperature sensor 22) of a system, an electric current value(via current sensor 26) of electricity that is conducted into or out of a battery(14) coupled with the system, and a voltage(via voltage sensor 24) of the battery(see ¶[0008] and Fig. 1); determining an internal temperature of the battery, without a battery temperature sensor(see ¶[0008]-¶[0009] note-Marchand uses some sort of approximation method to determine the temperature of the battery) based at least in part on the ambient temperature, the electric current value, and the voltage(see ¶[0016] and Fig. 2 which shows that the internal battery temperature is determined by a combination of the initial temperature (54), the heat generated in the battery (56) and the heat transfer to or from the battery 57. The initial temperature is a function of the ambient temperature and Fig. 3 shows a flow chart for determining the initial temperature; see ¶[0021]-¶[0022]); determining one or more conditions for charging the battery based at least in part on the internal temperature, the electric current value, and the voltage(see ¶[0028]), the one or more conditions comprising one or more of a charging current or a charging voltage of the battery, the one or more conditions being configured to control a rate of charging the battery(14)(see ¶[0028]-¶[0029]); automatically charging the battery based on the one or more conditions(see Fig. 2 and ¶[0027]-¶[0028]); determining that the internal temperature exceeds a designated absolute threshold value(¶[0028]); and changing of the one or more conditions for charging the battery based on the internal temperature exceeding the designated absolute threshold value(see ¶[0028]);
receiving internal battery temperature data from a battery temperature sensor; and verifying the internal temperature that is determined based on the internal battery temperature data and a designated relative threshold value
PK discloses and shows in Figs. 1,5A-5B, factual evidence of, receiving internal battery temperature data from a battery temperature sensor(internal thermistor (not shown); see Fig. 5B ¶[0046];¶[0075],¶[0076]); and verifying (by IC 38)(¶[0029],¶[0031],¶[0045]-¶[0046])the internal temperature that is determined based on the internal battery temperature data and a designated relative threshold(see ¶[0046]; ¶[0075], ¶[0076]).
Marchand and PK are battery devices analogous art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to avail of the teachings of PK into the power control system of Marchand in further receiving internal battery temperature data from a battery temperature sensor; and verifying the internal temperature that is determined based on the internal battery temperature data and a designated relative threshold value, as recited, in order to preserve long term battery life and prevent deterioration of the battery, as per the teachings of PK (¶[0070]).
Marchand in view of PK still does not expressly disclose the limitations of,
and communicating an alert to an operator of the system based on the internal temperature exceeding the designated absolute threshold value.
However, Hindle discloses factual evidence of a battery monitoring system(100[Wingdings font/0xE0]104) that communicates warnings to an operator via a user interface(120) when the internal battery(108[Wingdings font/0xE0]109a-109i; see Fig. 2) temperature exceeds a predetermined threshold(see Hindle ¶[0035],¶[0039]).
Marchand, PK and Hindle are direct current system monitoring devices analogous art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marchand in view of PK with the teachings of Hindle by communicating an alert to an operator of the system based on the internal temperature exceeding the designated absolute threshold value, as recited, so as to provide an optimal working conditions of the battery by preventing possible damage which might result from overheating and thereby extending the useful life of the battery.
Accordingly claim 20 would have been obvious.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchand et al., (Marchand) US 2007/0139017 in view of PK US 2019/0319466 and in further view of Zhang CN 111756103 A (Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 3, Marchand in view of PK discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1 but fails to expressly teach the limitations of:
further comprising; determining a surface temperature of a housing of the battery based at least in part on the internal temperature
However, Zhang discloses(see Machine Translation ¶[0015]) factual evidence of a processor configured to determine an average value of a first internal temperature and second internal temperature as a surface temperature of a battery.
Marchand, PK and Zhang are battery housing surface temperature determination analogous art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marchand in view of PK with the teachings of Zhang by obtaining two internal temperature values and taking their average to determine the surface temperature of the battery as taking the average of two internal temperature values would provide more accuracy in the surface temperature determining and such modification would provide the advantages of determining the surface battery temperature from values of the internal battery temperature in the absence of temperature sensor.
Accordingly claim 3 would have been obvious.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchand et al., (Marchand) US 2007/0139017 in view of PK US 2019/0319466 and Zhang CN 111756103 A (Machine Translation) and in further view of Kawahara US 2012/0256569.
Regarding claim 4, Marchand in view of PK and Zhang discloses all the claimed invention a set forth and discussed above in claim 3 but fails to expressly teach:
determining the one or more conditions for charging or discharging the battery based also on the surface temperature.
However, Kawahara discloses factual evidence of a permitted current calculation unit that obtains the permitted currents for charging and discharging the battery and is calculated from the estimated internal temperature (T3) which is a result of a calculation involving the surface temperature (T1)(see Kawahara Fig. 3 and ¶[0073]).
Marchand, PK, Zhang and Kawahara are battery housing surface temperature determination analogous art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marchand in view of PK and Zhang with the teachings of Kawahara, by determining the one or more conditions for charging or discharging the battery based also on the surface temperature, as recited, for the advantages of being able to determine conditions for charging or discharging the battery based also on the surface temperature since such determined conditions will be less prone to error should one of the determinations or measurements were to fail. The decrease in errors should lead to a longer battery lifetime since overcharging is less likely to occur.
Accordingly claim 4 would have been obvious.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchand et al., (Marchand) US 2007/0139017 in view of PK US 2019/0319466 and in further view of Zhang CN 111756103 A (Machine Translation) and Nakao et al., (Nakao) US 9,952,288.
Regarding claim 13, Marchand in view of PK discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 11 but fails to expressly teach the limitations of:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
determine a surface temperature of a housing of the battery based on the internal temperature; and determine the one or more conditions for charging or discharging the battery based on the surface temperature.
However, Zhang discloses(see Machine Translation ¶[0015]) factual evidence of a processor configured to determine a surface temperature of a housing of the battery based on the internal temperature by taking an average value of a first internal temperature and second internal temperature as a surface temperature of a battery.
Marchand in view of PK and Zhang still does not teach the limitations of:
and determine the one or more conditions for charging or discharging the battery based on the surface temperature
However, Nakao discloses factual evidence of, determine(via battery calculation unit (151) which is included in the battery control unit (150)) the one or more conditions(SOC, SOH and the control of the amount of charging/discharging; see col. 6, lines 10-13 and 20-32 and Fig. 3) for charging or discharging the battery based on the surface temperature(note- the temperature received by the battery control unit is the surface temperature of the battery(see col. 10, lines 47-50)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nakao and Zhang into the power control system of Marchand in view of PK by having the one or more processors further configured to: determine a surface temperature of a housing of the battery based on the internal temperature; and determine the one or more conditions for charging or discharging the battery based on the surface temperature, as recited, for the advantages of determining the optimal charging or discharging conditions of the battery based on the surface temperature in absence of a battery temperature sensor.
Accordingly claim 13 would have been obvious.
Conclusion
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 M'BAYE DIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9:00AM-6:30PM.
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, DREW A DUNN can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
M'BAYE DIAO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/M BAYE DIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 August 28, 2025