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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/12/2026. The amendment to claim 9 encompasses the elected Species A. Therefore, claims 9-12 previously identified as encompassing Species B will not be withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 2, S5 discloses “smaller than”. The disclosure of the Figure states the slopes are equal to or greater than the reference slope [Page 15, Lines 18-20]. Therefore, Figure 2, S5 should read greater than. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “whether of the pre-charge resistors” in Line 11. This appears to be a typo
The Specification discloses at least one of a plurality of pre-charge resistors being determined defective based on a determination result of a current comparison in Page 14, Lines 8-12.
Claim 1, Line 11 is interpreted as reciting: whether at least one of the pre-charge resistors.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitations “calculate, for each branch, a branch charging slope; and determine for a branch of the plurality of branches having a branch charging slope smaller than a predetermined reference slope, the pre-charge resistor of the branch is operating abnormally based on a difference between a capacitor voltage of the capacitor of the branch upon a second period of the pre-charge operation elapsing and the capacitor voltage upon a third period of the pre- charge operation elapsing” in Lines 3-8.
The Specification discloses calculating a branch charge slope by using a plurality of capacitor voltages [Page 15, Lines 1-3]; comparing the charging slope with a reference slope [Page 15, Lines 10-11]; and determining a resistor is abnormal if the charging slope is smaller than the reference [Page 15, Lines 15-17].
There is no support on the Specification for first calculating the charging slope and then if the charging slope is smaller than a reference determining abnormality based on capacitor voltage.
For purpose of examination Claim 2, Lines 3-8 is interpreted as reciting: calculate, for each branch, a branch charging slope; based on a difference between a capacitor voltage of the capacitor of the branch upon a second period of the pre-charge operation elapsing and the capacitor voltage upon a third period of the pre-charge operation elapsing; and determine for a branch of the plurality of branches having a branch charging slope smaller than a predetermined reference slope, the pre-charge resistor of the branch is operating abnormally.
Claims 3-6 depend from Claim 2 and are rejected under 112(a) for the same reasons as indicated above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3, Line 2; Claim 6, Line 2; Claim 10, Line 2; and Claim 12, Line 2 recite the limitation: “a plurality of pre-charge resistors”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a plurality of branches, each branch comprising: a respective pre-charge resistor”, in Lines 4-5; and Claim 8 recites the limitation “a plurality of branches, each branch including a respective pre-charge resistor”, in Lines 3-4.
It is unclear if the plurality of pre-charge resistors are the same respective pre-charge resistors as disclosed in Claims 1 and 8 or are different pre-charge resistors.
Claim 3, Line 2; Claim 6, Line 2; Claim 10, Line 2; and Claim 12, Line 2 is interpreted as reciting: “a respective pre-charge resistor of the plurality of branches”.
Claims 2-7 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected under 112(b) for the same reasons as indicated above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-12 are directed to the abstract idea of determining a pre-charge resistor in a branch of a plurality of branches is operating abnormally: based on comparing a sum of a plurality of branches currents with a current of a battery pack; based on a calculated branch charging slope being smaller than a reference slope; and based on a branch charging time being longer than a predetermined reference time, as explained in detail below. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
The steps described correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims recite a plurality of battery packs, a pre-charge switch, a capacitor, and a control circuit at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S.2014).
Evidence that a plurality of battery packs, a pre-charge switch, a capacitor, and a control circuit are well understood and conventional in the art can be found in Okabe et al. (US 2019/0089147) teaches a battery system (10) (Fig.1) comprising: a plurality of battery packs (16) (Par.21); a plurality of branches, each branch comprising: a respective pre-charge resistor (40) (Par.21); a respective pre-charge switch (42) (Par.42); a capacitor including a first terminal that is connected to the pre-charge switch (42) (Par.31); and a main control circuit (44) (Par.21).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yun (US 2014/0079960) teaches a battery system (20) (Fig.6) (Par.27) comprising: a plurality of battery packs (220) including a plurality of battery cells (Par.50), each battery pack (220) including a respective first terminal (R+) (Fig.6) (Par.101); a plurality of branches (230) (Fig.6), each branch (230) comprising: a respective pre-charge resistor (235) including a first terminal (Fig.6) that is connected to each of the first terminals (R+ via sw1) of the plurality of battery packs (220) (Par.93 and 101) and a second terminal (Fig.6); a respective pre-charge switch (234), including a first terminal that is connected to a corresponding second terminal of the pre-charge resistor (235) (Par.90) and a second terminal (Fig.6); a capacitor including a first terminal that is connected to the second terminal of the pre-charge switch (234) (Par.93; A capacitor is connected between R+ and R-. Thereby, the second terminal of the ore-charge switch (234) is connected to a first terminal to the capacitor connected to R+); and a main control circuit (15) (Par.40).
Yonezaki et al. (US 2015/0054517) discloses determining an abnormality of a precharge resistor (R1) based on monitoring a change in the voltage of a capacitor (Par.50).
Kwon et al. (US 2015/0346283) discloses determining an abnormality of a precharge resistance based on voltage measurements while a predetermined current value flows (Par.32).
Lee (US 2016/0020629) discloses preventing damage of a battery rack by measuring a current and recognizing a pre-charge resistor is abnormally installed (Par.85).
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 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
Prosecution Insights