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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued that Abe is not meeting the amended claims as Abe only teaches a few reference functions and C rates. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant has claimed m=2 or more. Abe teaches at least 4 reference charge functions with corresponding C rates. 4 reference charge functions > 2, and therefore the applicant’s arguments are respectfully refuted.
The examiner notes that the amended claims do not appear to add much distinction from the originally filed claims. The original claims had that the reference changeover values were based on the start value. As “a function of” without a supplied function is functionally equivalent to “based on”. Similarly, as the scope has not substantially changed from the originally filed claims, and as the applicant has not addressed the rejections, the double patenting rejections will stand rejected and be maintained.
It is noted that the index of claims and 326 form listed 20 claims. This typographical error will be fixed with this response.
The specification and drawing objections are withdrawn due to the accepted amendments. It is noted that the abstract contains two nouns without a verb in the 1st sentence. While the examiner will not object to it, the examiner suggest the applicant delete the 1st sentence, and e.g. add “a battery management method” somewhere else, e.g. “…C-rates, and a control unit to perform a battery management method to determine…” Or e.g. the last line stating “A battery management method is described to perform the functional steps of the control unit.”
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over
Claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12344120
Claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11460506
Claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No.11912158
Claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12370922
Claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No 12500438
Claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No 11876397
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations substantially cover the same subject matter. Taking Constant current values compared to voltage/SOC in memory, and applying it with the multiple constant current steps.
Claims 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over:
Claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18005790 (reference application).
Claims 1-11 of copending Application No. 18005787 (reference application).
Claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18706590 (reference application).
Claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 18699354 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations substantially cover the same subject matter. Taking Constant current values compared to voltage/SOC in memory, and applying it with the multiple constant current steps.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Other claimsets which may potentially result in provisional double patenting rejections [depending on future amendments] include: 16972297 (1-12), 18727808 (1-20)
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant’s amendments have rendered “the start value” without any antecedent basis. Emend to provide the 1st instance with “a start value”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abe et al (USPGPN 20190363546).
Independent Claim 1, Abe discloses a battery management system (Figs. 1 & 8, performing methods of Figs. 2A-7), comprising:
a sensing unit configured to generate a sensing signal indicating a voltage and a current of a battery ([18, 14, 13] across Figs. 1 & 8, see ¶[23]);
a memory unit configured to store a reference charging map for constant-current charging using first to mth reference current rates(C-rates), wherein m is a natural number of 2 or greater (22, ¶[24] compared to Figs. [2A-7, esp. 2A-5 & 7]); and
a control unit (20, 14, ¶’s [25-28]) configured to determine a start value indicating a charge factor of the battery at a time point at which a charge command is received based on the sensing signal in response to the charge command being received (s1 of Fig. 6, starting point for Figs. [2A-5 & 7]),
wherein the control unit is configured to:
generate first to mth reference charge functions corresponding to the first to mth reference C-rates in a one-to-one relationship from the reference charging map,
each reference charge function indicates an adjustable changeover value as a function of the start value, wherein the changeover value is a maximum charge factor at which the battery is charged at the corresponding reference C-rate of the reference charge function, for each reference charge function, determine the changeover value of the reference charge function based on the start value, (as shown in Figs. [2A-5 & 7], the start value is used to indicate a modified changeover value, which is the maximum value at which the battery is charged at the corresponding reference C-rate), and
when a charge cycle including the constant-current charging starts, control a charge current supplied to the battery using the first to mth reference C-rates in a sequential order based on the sensing signal, the start value and the first to mth reference charge functions (Figs. 2A-5 show the C-rates from first to mth reference C-rates in sequential order pattern, Fig. 6 S1-S5 shows the process to generate the pattern).
Dependent Claim 2, Abe discloses the control unit is configured to replace the reference charging map stored in the memory unit with the first to mth reference charge functions (it is noted that the applicant omits how the replacement is done [i.e. the information stored in memory is replaced in memory with the changed data, i.e. overwritten such that the old data is removed, the information of the changed data is added together with the old data, or the changed data is not even added to memory, it is just adjusted/adapted based on the new facts at hand], thus Abe’s shifting of the stored pattern/functions/map, as demonstrated in Figs. [2A-6, esp. 2B, 4-6] meets one of the requirements under BRI, see further ¶’s [41-44, 47-49, 52-57, 64, 65, 68, 71, 73, 76, 82, 83, 86-88] for a fuller explanation on the shifting/replacing).
Dependent Claim 3, Abe discloses the reference charging map includes first to mth reference arrays corresponding to the first to mth reference C-rates in a one-to-one relationship,
each reference array includes first to nth reference values and first to nth boundary values, wherein n is a natural number of 2 or greater, and
when i is a natural number between 2 and m, and j is a natural number between 1 and n:
a jth boundary value of the first reference array indicates an allowable limit value for constant-current charging with the first reference C-rate when the charge cycle starts at a time point at which the charge factor of the battery is equal to a jth reference value, and
a jth boundary value of an ith reference array indicates an allowable limit value for constant-current charging with an ith reference C-rate from a time point at which the charge factor of the battery reaches a ith boundary value of a i−1th reference array (see Figs. 2A-5).
Dependent Claim 4, Abe discloses the ith reference C-rate is smaller than a i−th reference C-rate (see Figs. 2A-5).
Dependent Claim 5, Abe discloses when k is a natural number between 2 and n,
a kth reference value is larger than a k−1th reference value, and
a kth boundary value of the ith reference array is larger than a k−1th boundary value of the ith reference array (see Figs. 2A-5, SOC goes up).
Dependent Claim 6, Abe discloses the control unit is configured to determine first to mth changeover values from the first to mth reference charge functions respectively based on the start value, and output a first control signal, and
wherein the first control signal is a signal requesting to set the charge current to be equal to the first reference C-rate (Abe’s shifting of the stored pattern/functions/map, as demonstrated in Figs. [2A-6, esp. 2B, 4-6], see further ¶’s [41-44, 47-49, 52-57, 64, 65, 68, 71, 73, 76, 82, 83, 86-88] for a fuller explanation on the shifting/replacing).
Dependent Claim 7, Abe discloses z is an index value, and
when z is a natural number less than m, the control unit is configured to increase z by 1 and output a zth control signal in response to the charge factor of the battery reaching a zth changeover value by the charge current of a zth reference C-rate, and
wherein the zth control signal is a signal requesting to set the charge current to be equal to the zth reference C-rate (see Figs. 2A-5, as SOC goes up, C-rate goes down).
Independent Claim 13, Abe discloses a battery management (Figs. 1 & 8 show the structure) method (Figs. 2A-7 show the methods steps), comprising:
generating first to mth reference charge functions corresponding to first to mth reference C-rates in a one-to-one relationship from a reference charging map for constant-current charging using the first to mth reference C-rates (Figs. 2A-5 show the C-rates from first to mth reference C-rates in sequential order pattern, Fig. 6 S1-S5 shows the process to generate the pattern);
each reference charge function indicates an adjustable changeover value as a function of the start value, wherein the changeover value is a maximum charge factor at which the battery is charged at the corresponding reference C-rate of the reference charge function, for each reference charge function, determine the changeover value of the reference charge function based on the start value, (as shown in Figs. [2A-5 & 7], the start value is used to indicate a modified changeover value, which is the maximum value at which the battery is charged at the corresponding reference C-rate),
in response to receiving a charge command, determining a start value which is a charge factor of the battery at a time point at which the charge command is received (s1 of Fig. 6, starting point for Figs. [2A-5 & 7], at least ¶’s [59-61]);
determining first to mth changeover values from the first to mth reference charge functions respectively based on the start value (see Figs. 2A-5);
outputting a first control signal requesting to set a charge current to be equal to the first reference C-rate to start a charge cycle including the constant-current charging (see Figs. 2A-5 and s5 of Fig. 6); and
z is an index value, when z is a natural number that is less than m, increasing z by 1 and outputting a zth control signal requesting to set the charge current to be equal to the zth reference C-rate in response to the charge factor of the battery reaching the zth changeover value by the charge current of the zth reference C-rate (see Figs. 2A-5, as SOC goes up, C-rate goes down).
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.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al (USPGPN 20190363546) in view of Lim et al (USPGPN 20180123354), as evidenced by Nishikawa et al (USPGPN 20160028255; hereinafter Nishi)
Dependent Claim 8, Abe is silent to the control unit is configured to output a changeover signal requesting to change from the constant-current charging to constant-voltage charging with a threshold voltage in response to the charge factor of the battery reaching the mth changeover value by the charge current of the mth reference C-rate.
Lim teaches the control unit (BMS 1312) is configured to output a changeover signal requesting to change from the constant-current charging to constant-voltage charging with a threshold voltage in response to the charge factor of the battery reaching the mth changeover value by the charge current of the mth reference C-rate (¶[75], when SOC is 80%, constant voltage, see Figs. 1 & 13). Nishi provides evidence in ¶’s [03, 08, 64-66] that by switching to Constant-voltage at the end of charge [after 2 or more Constant current steps] to achieve the final step-up of SOC to full SOC serves to suppress the degradation of the battery and therefore increase service life.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Abe with Lim to provide improved service life and reduced degradation.
Dependent Claim 10, the combination of Abe and Lim teaches the control unit is configured to terminate the constant-voltage charging in response to the current of the battery reaching a threshold current during the constant-voltage charging (Lim: Figs. 1 & 2, ¶[66]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe in view of Lim, further in view of Baek et al (USPGPN 20190176641), as evidenced by Nishi
Dependent Claim 9, Abe is silent to the control unit is configured to set the threshold voltage to be equal to the voltage of the battery at a time point at which the charge factor of the battery reaches the mth changeover value.
Baek teaches the control unit (210 of Fig. 2) is configured to set the threshold voltage to be equal to the voltage of the battery at a time point at which the charge factor of the battery reaches the mth changeover value (Figs. 3-6 demonstrate that the final voltage for constant voltage charging is held to the maximum voltage allowable for the battery, see ¶’s [29, 60, 62-66, esp. 29, 66]). ¶[60] states that by maintaining the constant voltage value at the maximum voltage cutoff helps to prevent deterioration and so extend the lifetime of the battery.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Abe in view of Lim with Baek to provide improved service life and reduced degradation.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al (USPGPN 20190363546) in view of Odaohhara (USPGPN 20090085527; hereinafter Oda)
Dependent Claim 11, Abe teaches the system is used in a vehicle/phone which one of ordinary skill in the art understands almost always are housed in packs, i.e. battery packs (¶[20])
Abe fails to explicitly teach a battery pack comprising the battery management system according to claim 1.
Oda teaches a battery pack comprising a BMS system (Figs. [1 & 2, esp. 2] has battery pack 100 containing BMS 113/107 with ¶[72] stating that 113 is used to control the charging pattern/routine, with Figs. [4A-7B, esp. 4A, 4B, 7B] demonstrating analogous methods to Abe and the present application). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by having a battery pack containing an internal controller/BMS, it serves to provide the dual purpose of protecting both elements from damage and also improving the convenience of moving the system by having them together in a pre-set housing as well as by being able to design the placement of the battery pack in the vehicle/phone of Abe to contour with the designed housing of the pack. In addition, by having the battery pack having an internal controller, it can protect the battery from damage [e.g. overdischarge/overcharge/short] in addition to the common protective features of an external controller [see switches in Fig. 2])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Abe with Oda to provide improved convenience and protection/safety.
Dependent Claim 12, the combination of Abe and Oda teaches n electric vehicle comprising the battery pack according to claim 11 (Abe: ¶[20]).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Dependent Claim 14, the prior art discloses each reference charge function is a multi-degree polynomial function, and wherein the control unit is configured to generate the first to mth reference charge functions using a curve fitting technique.
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 JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. 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 Dunn can be reached at 5712722312. 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.
/JOHN T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859