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 . The rejections from the Office Action of 5/21/2025 are hereby withdrawn. New grounds for rejection are presented below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harvey et al. (US 20180186316 A1)[hereinafter “Harvey”].
Regarding Claim 1, Harvey discloses a battery management system [Fig. 3], managing a switching circuit [Fig. 3 – contactor 106] between a battery module [Fig. 3 – lithium battery 52] and a system circuit in an electronic device [Fig. 3 – Motor System 30], comprising:
a switching circuit controller, coupled to the switching circuit [Fig. 3 – wakeup circuit 104];
a communication interface, coupled to the system circuit [Fig. 3 – “inputs 134 from the motor system 30”Fig. 4 – communications interface 202];
a processor, coupled to the switching circuit controller and the communication interface [Paragraph [0049] – “As shown in FIG. 4, the wakeup circuitry 200 includes, in an example embodiment, a communications interface 202, memory 204, processing circuitry 206, and additional circuitry 208. Such components form the control logic 130 and the timer 132 of the wakeup circuit 104 (FIG. 3).”]; and
a timer, coupled to the processor [Paragraph [0049] – “As shown in FIG. 4, the wakeup circuitry 200 includes, in an example embodiment, a communications interface 202, memory 204, processing circuitry 206, and additional circuitry 208. Such components form the control logic 130 and the timer 132 of the wakeup circuit 104 (FIG. 3).”],
wherein in response to the processor determining that the system circuit stops communicating with the communication interface, the processor controls the timer to accumulate a continuous downtime of communication, and in response to the processor determining that the continuous downtime of communication is greater than a default time threshold, the processor controls the switching circuit controller to cut off the switching circuit [Paragraph [0054] – “With reference to FIG. 5 and in accordance with some embodiments, a first arrangement of the user controls 36 includes a maintenance switch 260, a keyed switch 270, and an accelerator (or throttle) pedal 280 which are electrically connected in series to the other circuitry of the motion control system 26 (also see FIG. 2). Such user controls 36 may communicate with the BMS 50 via the inputs 134 (FIG. 3). Other user controls 36 may be electrically connected to the motion control system 26 as well such as a brake pedal, a forward/reverse switch, and so on. In some arrangements, one or more of the user controls 36 connect directly to the motor system 30 and input signals are sensed by the BMS 50 from the motor system 30.”Paragraph [0062] – “Also, at this time, the control logic 130 of the wakeup circuit 104 starts the timer 132 (FIG. 3) which counts or tracks time until the timer 132 reaches a predefined idle time threshold (i.e., a maximum idle time limit). In accordance with some embodiments, example values that are suitable for use for the predefined idle time threshold include time amounts within the time range of 10 hours to 14 hours (e.g., 11 hours, 12 hours, 13 hours, etc.). In accordance with other embodiments, example values that are suitable for use for the predefined idle time threshold include time amounts within the time range of 2 hours to 6 hours (e.g., 3 hours, 4 hours, 5 hours, etc.). If the timer 132 counts from an initial time value to the predefined idle time threshold (a sleep event), the timer 132 outputs a sleep event signal to the control logic 130 of the wakeup circuit 104 which directs the control logic 130 to terminate output of the actuation signal 136 thus disconnecting the lithium battery 52 from the motor system 30. Such operation prevents the lithium battery 52 from unnecessarily succumbing to parasitic loads from the motor system 30, from the contactor 106 (i.e., the coil maintaining the contactor 106 in the closed position), and perhaps from elsewhere in the utility vehicle 20.”Paragraph [0065] – “However, if the user leaves the utility vehicle 20 unattended and the timer 132 expires by reaching the predefined idle time threshold, the timer 132 expires (a sleep event) and sends a sleep event signal to the control logic 130. In response to the sleep event signal, the control logic 130 terminates output of the actuation signal 136 thus opening the contactor 106 to disconnect the lithium battery 52 from the motor system 30 (FIG. 3) and protecting the lithium battery 52 against further discharge.”],
wherein when the continuous downtime of communication is determined to be greater than the default time threshold, the processor further determines whether a stored electricity of the battery module is less than or equal to a default electricity threshold, or whether a state of charge of the battery module is less than or equal to a default state of charge threshold, to control the switching circuit controller to cut off the switching circuit [See Paragraph [0060] and Fig. 8, step 406 – “start a timer to measure a period of non-use and maintain lithium battery access as long as the time has not expired and as long as the remaining lithium battery charge remains above a predefined safe level”Regarding the timing for determining the state of the battery (the word “when”), the determination of the period of non-use and battery state takes place when the BMS is awake and both determinations would naturally be occurring in the moment where the allowed period of non-use has been exceeded.].
Regarding Claim 11, Harvey discloses a battery management method [Figs. 3 and 8] for managing a switching circuit between a battery module [Fig. 3 – lithium battery 52] and a system circuit in an electronic device [Fig. 3 – Motor System 30], comprising:
controlling a timer to accumulate a continuous downtime of communication in response to determining that the system circuit stops communicating with a communication interface; and controlling a switching circuit controller to cut off the switching circuit in response to determining that the continuous downtime of communication is greater than a default time threshold [Fig. 8, steps 404 and 406].
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Harvey discloses that the switching circuit comprises a first circuit, and the first circuit is coupled between a positive electrode of the battery module and a positive electrode of the system circuit [Fig. 3, inherent to the two-wire connection between battery and system].
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Harvey discloses that the switching circuit controller controls a switching circuit on the first circuit [Fig. 3, the opening and closing of both paths of the two-wire connection between battery and system].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 4-7 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey et al. (US 20180186316 A1)[hereinafter “Harvey”] and Ladret (US 20150025823 A1).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Harvey discloses that the processor determines the stored electricity of the battery module [See Paragraph [0060] and Fig. 8, step 406 – “start a timer to measure a period of non-use and maintain lithium battery access as long as the time has not expired and as long as the remaining lithium battery charge remains above a predefined safe level”].
Harvey fails to disclose an electricity counting circuit, coupled to the processor and the battery module and detecting an electricity of the battery module to generate an electricity signal, wherein the processor determines a stored electricity of the battery module according to the electricity signal because Harvey fails to explain how the battery charge is determined.
However, Ladret discloses that using such an electricity signal is a known manner of determining battery SOC [Paragraph [0007] – “The SoC estimation can be performed, in known systems, by two main methods: a "voltage" approach, whereby the voltage is measured and compared with values stored in a look-up table using the impedance to take the voltage drop into account. The reading from the look-up table giving the SoC or remaining capacity; and a "coulomb counter", whereby the SoC calculation is based on measuring the current flowing into, and out of, the battery through a sense resistor. Summing the "in" and "out" currents yields the total charge contained within the battery, enabling its SoC to be calculated.”]. It would have been obvious to equip the switching circuit with an SOC determination circuit in order to ensure that the battery is disconnected in the event that SOC becomes unsafe.
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Harvey fails to disclose that the electricity counting circuit is disposed on a second circuit of the switching circuit. However, Ladret discloses that using such an electricity signal is a known manner of determining battery SOC [Paragraph [0007] – “The SoC estimation can be performed, in known systems, by two main methods: a "voltage" approach, whereby the voltage is measured and compared with values stored in a look-up table using the impedance to take the voltage drop into account. The reading from the look-up table giving the SoC or remaining capacity; and a "coulomb counter", whereby the SoC calculation is based on measuring the current flowing into, and out of, the battery through a sense resistor. Summing the "in" and "out" currents yields the total charge contained within the battery, enabling its SoC to be calculated.”]. It would have been obvious to equip the switching circuit with an SOC determination circuit in order to ensure that the battery is disconnected in the event that SOC becomes unsafe.
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Harvey discloses monitoring battery SOC to determine whether to cut off the battery [See Paragraph [0060] and Fig. 8, step 406 – “start a timer to measure a period of non-use and maintain lithium battery access as long as the time has not expired and as long as the remaining lithium battery charge remains above a predefined safe level”].
Harvey fails to disclose a voltage comparator, coupled to the processor and the battery module and detecting a voltage of the battery module, wherein the processor calculates the state of charge of the battery module according to the voltage.
However, Ladret discloses that using such an electricity signal is a known manner of determining battery SOC [Paragraph [0007] – “The SoC estimation can be performed, in known systems, by two main methods: a "voltage" approach, whereby the voltage is measured and compared with values stored in a look-up table using the impedance to take the voltage drop into account. The reading from the look-up table giving the SoC or remaining capacity; and a "coulomb counter", whereby the SoC calculation is based on measuring the current flowing into, and out of, the battery through a sense resistor. Summing the "in" and "out" currents yields the total charge contained within the battery, enabling its SoC to be calculated.”]. It would have been obvious to equip the switching circuit with an SOC determination circuit in order to ensure that the battery is disconnected in the event that SOC becomes unsafe.
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Harvey fails to disclose a storage cell, coupled to the processor and storing a lookup table, wherein the processor searches the lookup table according to the voltage to obtain a corresponding state of charge.
However, Ladret discloses that using such an electricity signal is a known manner of determining battery SOC [Paragraph [0007] – “The SoC estimation can be performed, in known systems, by two main methods: a "voltage" approach, whereby the voltage is measured and compared with values stored in a look-up table using the impedance to take the voltage drop into account. The reading from the look-up table giving the SoC or remaining capacity; and a "coulomb counter", whereby the SoC calculation is based on measuring the current flowing into, and out of, the battery through a sense resistor. Summing the "in" and "out" currents yields the total charge contained within the battery, enabling its SoC to be calculated.”]. It would have been obvious to equip the switching circuit with an SOC determination circuit (including a storage cell to store the voltage lookup table) in order to ensure that the battery is disconnected in the event that SOC becomes unsafe.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey et al. (US 20180186316 A1)[hereinafter “Harvey”], Ladret (US 20150025823 A1), and Sugeno et al. (US 20150286198 A1)[hereinafter “Sugeno”].
Regarding Claim 8, Ladret fails to disclose that the voltage comparator is respectively coupled to two ends of a plurality of battery strings of the battery module to generate a plurality of voltages corresponding to the battery strings, and the processor calculates a plurality of states of charge of the battery strings according to the voltages, and in response to the processor determining that the continuous downtime of communication is greater than the default time threshold, the processor further determines whether at least one of the states of charge is less than or equal to the default state of charge threshold to control the switching circuit controller to cut off the switching circuit.
However, Sugeno discloses the monitoring of the modules of such a type of battery [See Fig. 1 and associated text]. It would have been obvious to monitor the SOCs of the modules of such a battery and to disconnect the battery when a threshold SOC for a module is reached in order to ensure the continued safe operation of the battery.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey et al. (US 20180186316 A1)[hereinafter “Harvey”] and Hattori (US 20170052644 A1).
Regarding Claims 9 and 18, Harvey fails to disclose that the electronic device is a notebook computer or a computer device, and the system circuit comprises a computer main board device.
However, Hattori discloses such a device that is powered by a battery [Paragraph [0033]]. It would have been obvious to apply the teachings of Harvey to the operation of such a device in order to extend the life of the battery.
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey et al. (US 20180186316 A1)[hereinafter “Harvey”] and Sugeno et al. (US 20150286198 A1)[hereinafter “Sugeno”].
Regarding Claims 10 and 19, Harvey fails to disclose that the battery module comprises a multi-series and multi-parallel multi-cell lithium battery. However, Sugeno discloses the use of such a type of battery [See Fig. 1 and associated text]. It would have been obvious to apply the teachings of Harvey to the operation of a device including such a type of battery in order to extend the life of the battery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
686
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Harvey explicitly discloses that battery access is maintained until both the timing condition and charge condition are violated [Fig. 8, step 406 – “start a timer to measure a period of non-use and maintain lithium battery access as long as the time has not expired and as long as the remaining lithium battery charge remains above a predefined safe level”].
Second, even if Harvey only disclosed cutting battery access when a single condition is present, the determination of the period of non-use and battery state takes place when the BMS is awake and both determinations would naturally be occurring in the moment where the allowed period of non-use has been exceeded.
The Applicant argues for a “subsequent determination” of battery energy/charge, but this is not recited in Claim 1. The Examiner recommends including such a limitation as Harvey is not seen to disclose performing the timing determination in order to trigger the energy/charge determination in the manner seen in instant Fig. 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20180172770 A1 – BATTERY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD THEREOF
US 20150212158 A1 – ELECTRIC STORAGE SYSTEM
US 20140001844 A1 – Battery And Motor Vehicle
US 20070090792 A1 – Lithium Ion Battery And Method Of Power Conservation For The Same
US 20050088147 A1 – Battery Protection Circuit
US 20210039576 A1 – METHOD FOR OPERATING AN ELECTRICALLY DRIVABLE MOTOR VEHICLE AND A DEVICE THEREFOR
US 20210234382 A1 – BATTERY SAVING SYSTEM AND ELECTRICALLY POWERED MOBILITY DEVICE COMPRISING THE SAME
US 20170104353 A1 – BATTERY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
US 20220393493 A1 – BATTERY MANAGEMENT FOR PERFORMING A FINAL ACTION
US 8022661 B1 – Battery Over-discharge Protection With Dead-bus Recovery
US 6320354 B1 – Method And Apparatus For Battery Charging
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 KYLE ROBERT QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4879. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM-9PM 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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at (571) 272-2619. 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.
/KYLE R QUIGLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857