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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on November 30th 2022 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the method described in claims 1-2 must be shown (using a flowchart or suitable alternative) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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
Claims 4-22 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 4-22 have not been further treated on the merits.
Claims 4, 7-8, 12 and 21-22 are objected to because they depend on a multiple dependent claim (claim 3).
Claims 9-11 and 13-20 are objected to because they depend on a multiple dependent claim (claim 8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-3 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.
The meaning of the limitation “an evaluation of the evolution to come by an integral” is not clear to one of ordinary skill in the art, and the specification does not provide a clear understanding. The term ‘evolution’ seems to refer to a slope, however evaluating an integral would result in the area.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the evolution" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 is further rejected because the it is not clear if the “reference threshold” in line 7 is the same as the “detection voltage threshold” in line 12.
Claims 2-3 are rejected because they depend on Claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "i.e." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rutkowski et al. (US 20120074904 A1) in view of Doepke et al (US 20090121721 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Rutkowski teaches a method (Fig. 5) for detecting abnormal operating conditions of a single battery element or of a plurality of the set of single elements (412, 424) comprising the following steps:
sampling at least one voltage proportional to the voltage at the terminals of the single element or of the set of single elements (¶[38] “At 502, routine 500 determines tracked variables of a battery pack. Tracked variables may include but are not limited to battery voltage”);
comparing the detected voltage with a reference threshold (504);
characterized in that said comparison with said reference threshold triggers the implementation of (¶[40] “If the tracked variable exceeds a threshold level at 504 routine 500 essentially starts to integrate one or more parameters related to the one of more tracked variables”):
an evaluation of the evolution to come by an integral, evaluated analogically or digitally (508, ¶[47] “By proceeding through 508 or 510, routine 500 integrates a parameter related to a tracked battery variable”);
a comparison of this evaluation with a detection voltage threshold Td (¶[48] “At 512, routine 500 judges whether or not the integrated parameter related to a battery pack tracked variable exceeds a threshold amount or level”) from which a disconnection of the single element or of the set of monitored single elements is carried out with respect, at least, to the terminals of the battery (514, ¶[50] “At 514, routine 500 commands a battery pack contactor to an open state so that the battery pack is electrically decoupled from loads and sources external to the battery pack”).
Rutkowski does not teach sampling, at the common point of at least two resistors of a divider bridge with at least two resistors, at least one voltage.
Doepke teaches sampling, at the common point of at least two resistors (R4, R5) of a divider bridge with at least two resistors (S1), at least one voltage (¶[29] “The reference threshold voltage is compared with a part of the cell voltage, which is tapped off via a voltage divider comprising the resistors R4 and R5. The values of the resistors R4 and R5 define the predetermined division ratio for the part of the cell voltage”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rutkowski to incorporate the teachings of Doepke to provide sampling, at the common point of at least two resistors of a divider bridge with at least two resistors, at least one voltage because voltage dividers are a well-known and reliable method to measure a fraction of a voltage.
Regarding Claim 3, Rutkowski teaches a battery management systems (BMS) for accumulators (BCM 438), said batteries being capable of being constituted by a single element or several single elements that can be arranged in a modular assembly and connected in series, in parallel or in a plurality of series modular assemblies associated in parallel to form a battery (¶[16] “The battery modules 16 may include a plurality of battery cells configured to store energy. Although a plurality of battery modules are illustrated, it will be appreciated that in other examples a single battery module may be utilized”),
characterized in that said system comprises means suitable for performing the steps of a detection method according to one of the preceding claims (as taught by Rutkowski and Doepke in claim 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to disclose the further inclusion of and combination with:
steps for calculating the evolution slope (P) of the voltage curve by using at least two measurements taken;
at least one step of comparing the calculated slope with a stored “RapidThreshold” value, i.e., if the slope exceeds the “RapidThreshold” value, applying a weight coefficient increasing the acceleration of the evolution of the integral so that it crosses the trigger voltage threshold Td more quickly, or if it is not exceeded, a weight coefficient without acceleration effect.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIMAN BICKIYA whose telephone number is (571)270-0555. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 6 PM 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.
/A.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859