DETAILED ACTION
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 Statements (IDS) filed 03/14/2023 and 09/14/2022 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings received 12/20/2022 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 21-34 in the reply filed on 11/26/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims Status.
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 11/26/2025. Claims 21-40 were pending. Claims 35-40 are withdrawn from examination as being drawn to non-elected invention and cancelled by Applicant. Claims 21-34 are now pending. Claims 21-34 are presented for examination. Applicant's arguments have been considered.
Double Patenting
Claims 21 and 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of US 11,450,899. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant independent claims 21 and 30 is merely broader than independent claims 1 and 9 of US 11,450,899. It is clear that all of the elements of claims 21 and 30 are found in claims 1 and 9 respectively of the US 11,450,899. The difference lies in the fact that the claims 1 and 9 respectively of the US 11,450,899 include many more elements and is thus much more specific. Thus the invention of the 1 and 9 respectively of the US 11,450,899 are in effect a "species" of the "generic" invention of the instant claims 21 and 30. It has been held that the generic invention is "anticipated” by the “species". See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since claims 21 and 30 are anticipated by claims 1 and 9 respectively of the US 11,450,899 claims 21 and 30, they are not patentably distinct from claims the 1 and 9 respectively of the US 11,450,899.
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.
Claims 29, 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
It is unclear if a maximum value, a minimum value, a high-middle value, and a low-middle value are the same or different from high value, mid-high value, mid-low value and low value. Moreover, the recitations "assign a mid-high value", "assign a mid-low value", are vague because one of ordinary skill in the art would not know how high or low these values are.
In claims 31 and 32 it is unclear if the recitations "assign a mid-high value", "assign a mid-low value", ", and "assign a low value" are vague because one of ordinary skill in the art would not know how high or low these values are.
In claim 34 it is unclear what battery management system was claimed : system of claim 21 or from claim 30, since claim 34 as written depends from both independent claims
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US 2015/0318724 to Brockman ( Brockman).
Regarding claim 21, Brockman discloses a battery system (Abstract) comprising: a battery pack having a plurality of cells, each of the plurality of cells each having a cell temperature (implicitly) such that the battery pack comprises a plurality of cell temperatures, a battery management system coupled to the battery pack (Fig. 3) and designed to obtain the plurality of cell temperatures from the battery pack (para 16) and output a single battery temperature, the battery management system including: a high temperature threshold value (maximum predetermined threshold) and a low temperature threshold value (minimum predetermined threshold); and with the battery management system being configured for assignment of a single battery pack temperature value to the single battery temperature where a specified criteria is fulfilled, using the plurality of cell temperatures, and an output of the single battery temperature as the single battery pack temperature value (para 45-46, Fig. 7).
Alternatively, the phrase, "the battery management system is configured to" is considered claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require the steps to be performed. See MPEP 2111.04. Because the instant claims are product claims drawn to structural elements of the battery system, i.e. product, the language "the battery management system which comprises a computer (para 47) is configured to for assignment of a single battery pack temperature value to the single battery temperature where a specified criteria is fulfilled, using the plurality of cell temperatures, and an output of the single battery temperature as the single battery pack temperature value” is functional language and imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the intended use language of the claim has been considered, it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. (See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78,44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claims 22, 23 and 24, Brockman discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 21 and incorporated therein. Regarding the limitations:” the battery management system is further configured to use the plurality of cell temperatures and threshold values to determine if there is a battery fault or error” and “the battery management system is further configured to assign a minimum value to the battery temperature when none of the specified criteria are fulfilled”, and “wherein the battery management system is further configured to assign an average value to the battery temperature when none of the specified criteria are fulfilled”, the phrase "the battery management system is configured to" is considered claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require the steps to be performed. See MPEP 2111.04. Because the instant claims are product claims drawn to structural elements of the battery system, i.e. product, the language " further configured to use the plurality of cell temperatures and threshold values to determine if there is a battery fault or error” and “further configured to assign a minimum value to the battery temperature when none of the specified criteria are fulfilled” as well as ” wherein the battery management system is further configured to assign an average value to the battery temperature when none of the specified criteria are fulfilled” is functional language and imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the intended use language of the claim has been considered, it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. (See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78,44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claims 25, Brockman discloses wherein he battery system is configured to obtain a state of charge from each of the plurality of batteries (Fig. 7, claim 1).
Regarding claims 26, Brockman discloses wherein he battery system is configured to obtain a state of charge from each of the plurality of batteries (Fig. 7, para 46).
Regarding claims 27, Brockman discloses wherein the battery management system outputs a single state of charge for the battery (para 57, claim 23).
Regarding claims 28, Brockman discloses a method of determining battery pack temperature (Fig. 7, para 66).
Regarding claim 29, Brockman discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 21, including the plurality of cell temperatures (Fig. 7, claim 1), calculate a maximum value, a minimum value (para 46, 47), and incorporated therein. Regarding the limitation: “further-configured to calculate a high-middle value, and a low-middle value, assign a high value to the battery temperature where a first criteria is satisfied, assign a mid-high value to the battery temperature where a second criteria is satisfied independent of the first criteria assign a mid-low value to the battery temperature where a third criteria is satisfied independent of the first criteria or the second criteria, assign a low value to the battery temperature where a fourth criteria is satisfied independent of the first criteria, second criteria, or third criteria” The phrase, "the controller further configured to…" is considered claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require the steps to be performed. See MPEP 2111.04. Because the instant claim is a product claims drawn the battery system i.e. product, the language "further configured to calculate a high-middle value, and a low-middle value, assign a high value to the battery temperature where a first criteria is satisfied, assign a mid-high value to the battery temperature where a second criteria is satisfied independent of the first criteria assign a mid-low value to the battery temperature where a third criteria is satisfied independent of the first criteria or the second criteria, assign a low value to the battery temperature where a fourth criteria is satisfied independent of the first criteria, second criteria, or third criteria” is functional language and imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the intended use language of the claim has been considered, it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product.
While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78,44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 30, Brockman discloses a system for determining battery pack state of charge (claim 1, Abstract, Fig. 7) the system comprising: a battery management system coupled to the battery pack (Fig. 3) and designed to obtain a plurality of state of charge readings from the plurality of cells (Fig. 7) and output a single battery state of charge (Abstract), the battery management system including: a high state of charge threshold value (maximum predetermined threshold, para 46)) and a low state of charge threshold value ((minimum predetermined threshold, para 46) and with the battery management system is further configured for assignment of a single battery pack state of charge value to the battery state of charge where a specified criteria is fulfilled, and output a single battery pack state of charge value (para 45-46, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 31, Brockman discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 21 and incorporated therein. Regarding the limitations:” the battery management system is further configured to use the plurality of state of charge readings and threshold values to determine if there is a battery fault or error” the phrase "the battery management system is configured to" is considered claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require the steps to be performed. See MPEP 2111.04. Because the instant claims are product claims drawn to structural elements of the battery system, i.e. product, the language " the battery management system is further configured to use the plurality of state of charge readings and threshold values to determine if there is a battery fault or error is functional language and imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the intended use language of the claim has been considered, it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. (See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78,44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claims 32 and 33 Brockman discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 30 and incorporated therein. Regarding the limitations “further-configured to: assign a high value to the battery state of charge where a first criteria is satisfied, assign a mid-high value to the battery state of charge where a second criteria is satisfied independent of the first criteria, assign an average value to the battery state of charge where a third criteria is satisfied independent of the first or second criteria, assign a mid-low value to the battery state of charge where a fourth criteria is satisfied independent of the first, second, or third criteria; and assign a low value to the battery temperature where a fifth criteria is satisfied independent of the first, second, third, or fourth criteria” and “system is further-configured to assign an alternative valve to the battery state of charge where one of the following is satisfied, a sixth criteria and the second criteria are satisfied independent of the first, third, fourth, or fifth criteria, a sixth criteria and the third criteria is satisfied independent of the first, second, fourth, or fifth criteria; and a sixth criteria and the fourth criteria is satisfied independent of the first, second, third, or fifth criteria” The phrase, "the controller further configured to…" is considered claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require the steps to be performed. See MPEP 2111.04. Because the instant claim is a product claims drawn the battery system i.e. product the above claims languages are functional languages and impart intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the intended use language of the claim has been considered, it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. (See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78,44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78,44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987.
Regarding claim 34, Brockman discloses a vehicle (Fig. 1, para 45).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20100304193.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER USYATINSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-7703. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/Alexander Usyatinsky/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751