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
Acknowledgement is made of the amendment filed on 3/20/2026 in which no claims were amended. No new claims were added. Claims 1-9 are pending for examination below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/20/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-9 made in view of Park, Галкин, and Yoshioka have been withdrawn.
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.
Claim 1-5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. US 20150200537 in view of Li US 20100141219 further in view of Bruce et al. US 20080239603.
With regards to claim 1 Kang discloses, a protection circuit for protecting a battery comprising a plurality of cells, the protection circuit comprising:
a switch configured to control when the battery supplies power to a load [fig 1 discharge switch 130]; and
a control circuit [control IC 120] being configured to:
detect, at a first point in time, when a voltage across at least part of the battery falls below a threshold voltage [¶26 “Whenever a discharging fault is detected (e.g., under-voltage, over-current, over-temperature, or the like)”]; and
open the switch [¶26 “the control IC 120 turns off the discharge switch 130 to stop discharging the battery 110”],
wherein the opening of the switch is irreversible [¶24 “This secondary protection mechanism may be used to provide a permanent disconnection of the battery pack from the charger and/or load”].
Kang fails to disclose, when the voltage across at least part of the battery remains below the threshold voltage during a preconfigured duration from the first point in time.
However, Li discloses, when the voltage across at least part of the battery remains below the threshold voltage during a preconfigured duration from the first point in time [¶48 "In one embodiment, when the cell voltage is less than a voltage threshold for a corresponding time interval, a protection action will be triggered to protect the battery from an undesired condition" and ¶58 "The control signal can be used to trigger a protection action, e.g., terminating battery charging or discharging"].
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 battery protection circuits of Kang with Li to include a preconfigured duration of time for the low voltage protection in order to filter out minor fluctuations to protect the battery and improve detection accuracy.
Kang fails to disclose a plurality of lithium primary cells.
However, Bruce discloses, a plurality of lithium primary cells [fig 1 primary battery cells 106-108].
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 battery protection device of Kang with the battery protection device of Bruce to protect a plurality of primary battery cells to prevent over discharge in order to improve safety of the device.
With regards to claim 2 the combination discloses, the protection circuit according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to open the switch once the preconfigured duration has passed from the first point in time and when a voltage across any one of the plurality of lithium primary cells [Bruce fig 1 lithium primary cells 106-108] of the battery is below the threshold voltage [Li Fig. 7 cell voltage monitor 702 and Fig. 6b where Vcell falls below VUV1 during time t1 and ¶48 "In one embodiment, when the cell voltage is less than a voltage threshold for a corresponding time interval, a protection action will be triggered to protect the battery from an undesired condition"].
With regards to claim 3 the combination discloses, the protection circuit according to claim 2, wherein protection circuit is connected such that the control circuit can detect voltage separately across each one of the plurality of lithium primary cells when the plurality of lithium primary cells are connected serially [Li Fig, 7 battery cells 750-756 connected to cell voltage monitor 702, ¶51 "The cell voltage monitor 702 can receive the cell terminal voltages of each battery cell 750, 752, 754 and 756 and provide cell voltages of the battery cells 750, 752, 754 and 756, respectively"].
With regards to claim 4 the combination discloses, the protection circuit according to claim 1, wherein the preconfigured duration is between 1 and 20 seconds [Li Fig. 6b where the time periods of t1-t4 each differ in duration and reasonably read on a time between 1 and 20 seconds].
With regards to claim 5 the combination discloses, the protection circuit according to claim 1, further comprising a short-circuit protection device, configured to disconnect the battery from the load if a short-circuit occurs [Li Fig. 1 fuse 132].
With regards to claim 7 the combination discloses, a battery device comprising a protection circuit according to claim 1, and a plurality of lithium primary cells protected by the protection circuit [Li Fig. 1 device 100 and Bruce fig 1 shows a battery protection device and a plurality of primary battery cells].
With regards to claim 8 the combination discloses, the battery device according to claim 7, wherein the lithium primary cells are serially connected [Bruce fig 1 serially connected primary battery cells 106-108].
With regards to claim 9 the combination discloses, a method for protecting a battery comprising a plurality of lithium primary cells [Bruce fig 1 lithium primary cells 106-108], the method comprising:
detecting, at a first point in time, when a voltage across at least part of the battery falls below a threshold voltage [Li Fig. 7 cell voltage monitor 702 and Fig. 6b where Vcell falls below VUV1 during time t1 and ¶48 "In one embodiment, when the cell voltage is less than a voltage threshold for a corresponding time interval, a protection action will be triggered to protect the battery from an undesired condition"]; and
opening a switch when the voltage across at least part of the battery remains below the threshold voltage during a preconfigured duration from the first point in time [Li ¶48 "In one embodiment, when the cell voltage is less than a voltage threshold for a corresponding time interval, a protection action will be triggered to protect the battery from an undesired condition" and P58 "The control signal can be used to trigger a protection action, e.g., terminating battery charging or discharging"],
wherein the opening of the switch is irreversible [Kang ¶24 “This secondary protection mechanism may be used to provide a permanent disconnection of the battery pack from the charger and/or load”].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. US 20150200537 in view of Li US 20100141219 further in view of Bruce et al. US 20080239603 further in view of Hasegawa US 20080084180.
With regards to claim 6 the combination fails to disclose, the protection circuit according to claim 1, further comprising an accelerometer and wherein the control circuit is configured to open the switch when the accelerometer indicates an acceleration magnitude greater than a threshold value.
However, Hasegawa discloses, the protection circuit according to claim 1, further comprising an accelerometer [Fig. 1 acceleration sensor 4 ] and
wherein the control circuit is configured to open the switch when the accelerometer indicates an acceleration magnitude greater than a threshold value [Fig. 4 steps S11-S14 and ¶58 "FIG. 4 is a protection process flowchart of the battery pack according to the present invention. The control unit 20 of the protection circuit 2 reads a voltage outputted from the acceleration sensor 4 (step S11), and checks whether or not the read voltage value is equal to or greater than a threshold value (step S12). When the read voltage value is not equal to or greater than the threshold value, the step S11 and subsequent steps are repeated. When the read voltage value is equal to or greater than the threshold value, the control unit 20 stores in the storage device 5 the voltage value indicating a strength of shock (step S13), and the previous number of times of shock and turns off the switch 6 to thereby cut off the output of the battery pack 31 (step S14)"].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Kang in view of Li and Bruce with Hasegawa to utilize an acceleration sensor (claimed accelerometer) within the battery circuit in order to provide protection for users in the case of a significant impact to the battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathaniel Instone whose telephone number is (571)272-1563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 EST.
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 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.
/NATHAN J INSTONE/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights