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 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Cook ‘7 does not disclose use of the input path from the alternator 12 as an output path. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As cited in the rejection present in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 09/23/2026, Cook ‘7 discloses that the shore power connection can charge both batteries 30 & 32 when present (¶0047). The combination presented in the rejection would have the alternator connection connected to the first outlet shown in Cook ‘3 Fig.1 (connection to battery 30). Based on this modification, the common bus (Cook ‘3: 24) connected to the first outlet would function as an output when shore power is present since the power would be output by the common bus 24 to the battery 30.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 recites “the battery management system of claim 5” however claim 5 has been cancelled. It is unclear which of the preceding claims claim 6 is now referring to. For the purpose of this examination, examiner interprets this to read as “the battery management system of claim 1”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook et al. (USPGPN 2005/0151513 A1, hereinafter Cook-‘3, in view of Cook et al. (USPGPN 2005/0151517 A1 – published 2005, hereinafter Cook-‘7).
Regarding Claim 1, Cook-‘3 (Fig.1) teaches a battery management system, comprising:
a controller (18/20/22/36) configured to be coupled to multiple battery circuits (connections for 30 and 32) and comprising a first outlet (connection to 30) configured to be coupled to at least one first battery circuit (30) having a first nominal voltage (12 VDC) and a second outlet (connection to 32) configured to be coupled to at least one second battery circuit (32) having a second nominal voltage (42 VDC) that differs from the first nominal voltage of the at least one first battery circuit;
at least one first power input (connection to 14) configured to be coupled to an electrical output from at least one motor (12);
at least one second power input (connection to 21) configured to be coupled to a power source (21) other than the at least one motor; and
wherein the controller is configured to generate a first charging current according to a first charging profile for charging batteries in the least one first battery circuit having the first nominal voltage and a second charging current according to a second charging profile for charging batteries in the least one second battery circuit having the second nominal voltage (¶0019: controller controls the operation of inverter 18 and converters 20 & 22 to charge batteries 30 & 32);
first bus (24) configured to be coupled to the first outlet to receive the first charging current according to the first charging profile for charging at least one battery in the at least one first battery circuit (30);
a second bus (34) configured to be coupled to a second outlet to receive the second charging current according to the second charging profile for charging at least one battery in the at least one second battery circuit (32).
Cook-‘3 fails to explicitly teach the battery management system being used for a vessel containing the motor; and
wherein the first outlet and the at least one first power input are coupled together such that when the controller is receiving power from the electrical output from the at least one motor of the vessel, a common bus coupled to the first outlet and the at least one first power input functions as power input to the controller and when the controller is receiving power from a source other than the at least one motor of the vessel, the common bus coupled to the first outlet and the at least one first power input functions as power output from the controller.
However, the system taught by Cook-‘3 is intended to be used for vehicles with power sources, energy storage, and loads (¶0005), which would include vessels with power sources, energy storage, and loads.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the apply the battery management system of Cook to a vessel for the benefit of optimizing the flow and management of energy to loads and more accurately controlling an predicting battery charge and discharge, as taught by Cook-‘3 (¶0004: “vehicle power and battery management system to optimize the flow and management of energy to loads, and to more accurately control and predict battery charge and discharge”).
Moreover, Cook-‘7 teaches an alternator can be connected to a different DC bus (Fig.3) and that the configuration of the alternator and system can be adjusted based on the needs of the system (¶0047: configuration 300 may be used if most of the available power is consumed at a low voltage level, 12 VDC; ¶0048: power generation could be preferable at 42 VDC).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Cook-‘3 with Cook-‘7 to modify the configuration of the battery system and generate power/connect the input power to the same bus as the first outlet, the first battery circuit. Doing so would reduce the complexity of the power conversion system and the number of DC/DC converters needed, therefore reducing the cost (Cook-‘7; ¶0047: configuration 300 can be used for cost benefit) and improving the efficiency of the circuit, since a converter’s operation wastes power as a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand.
Cook-‘3, in view of Cook-‘7, would further teach a common bus coupled to the first outlet and the at least one first power input functions as power input to the controller when the controller is receiving power from the electrical output from the at least one motor of the vessel (Cook-‘7; ¶0047: battery 32 would be charged from the power generated by the alternator being input to DC/DC 20 when the alternator generation is available), and the common bus coupled to the first outlet and the at least one first power input functions as power output from the controller when the controller is receiving power from a source other than the at least one motor of the vessel (Cook-‘7; ¶0047: shore power connection can charge both batteries 30 & 32 when present).
Regarding Claim 4, Cook-‘3, as modified, (Fig.1) further teaches wherein the first nominal voltage of the at least one first battery circuit is 12 volts (12 VDC batteries connected to secondary DC bus 24).
Regarding Claim 6, Cook-‘3, as modified, (Fig.1) further teaches wherein the second nominal voltage of the at least one second battery circuit is greater than 12 volts (primary bus is 42 VDC).
Regarding Claim 20, Cook-‘3 (Fig.1) teaches a battery management system, comprising:
a controller (18/20/22/36) configured to be coupled to multiple battery circuits (connections for 30 and 32) and comprising a first outlet (connection to 30) configured to be coupled to at least one first battery circuit (30) having a first nominal voltage (12 VDC) and a second outlet (connection to 32) configured to be coupled to at least one second battery circuit (32) having a second nominal voltage (42 VDC) that differs from the first nominal voltage of the at least one first battery circuit;
at least one first power input (connection to 14) configured to be coupled to an electrical output from at least one motor (12);
at least one second power input (connection to 21) configured to be coupled to a power source (21) other than the at least one motor; and
wherein the controller is configured to generate a first charging current according to a first charging profile for charging batteries in the least one first battery circuit having the first nominal voltage and a second charging current according to a second charging profile for charging batteries in the least one second battery circuit having the second nominal voltage (¶0019: controller controls the operation of inverter 18 and converters 20 & 22 to charge batteries 30 & 32).
Cook-‘3 fails to explicitly teach the battery management system being used for a vessel containing the motor and wherein the first outlet and the at least one first power input are coupled together such that when the controller is receiving power from the electrical output from the at least one motor of the vessel, a common bus coupled to the first outlet and the at least one first power input functions as power input to the controller and when the controller is receiving power from a source other than the at least one motor of the vessel, the common bus coupled to the first outlet and the at least one first power input functions as power output from the controller.
However, the system taught by Cook-‘3 is intended to be used for vehicles with power sources, energy storage, and loads (¶0005), which would include vessels with power sources, energy storage, and loads.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the apply the battery management system of Cook-‘3 to a vessel for the benefit of optimizing the flow and management of energy to loads and more accurately controlling an predicting battery charge and discharge, as taught by Cook-‘3 (¶0004: “vehicle power and battery management system to optimize the flow and management of energy to loads, and to more accurately control and predict battery charge and discharge”).
Moreover, Cook-‘7 teaches an alternator can be connected to a different DC bus (Fig.3) and that the configuration of the alternator and system can be adjusted based on the needs of the system (¶0047: configuration 300 may be used if most of the available power is consumed at a low voltage level, 12 VDC; ¶0048: power generation could be preferable at 42 VDC).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Cook-‘3 with Cook-‘7 to modify the configuration of the battery system and generate power/connect the input power to the same bus as the first outlet, the first battery circuit. Doing so would reduce the complexity of the power conversion system and the number of DC/DC converters needed, therefore reducing the cost (Cook-‘7; ¶0047: configuration 300 can be used for cost benefit) and improving the efficiency of the circuit, since a converter’s operation wastes power as a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand.
Cook-‘3, in view of Cook-‘7, would further teach a common bus coupled to the first outlet and the at least one first power input functions as power input to the controller when the controller is receiving power from the electrical output from the at least one motor of the vessel (Cook-‘7; ¶0047: battery 32 would be charged from the power generated by the alternator being input to DC/DC 20 when the alternator generation is available), and the common bus coupled to the first outlet and the at least one first power input functions as power output from the controller when the controller is receiving power from a source other than the at least one motor of the vessel (Cook-‘7; ¶0047: shore power connection can charge both batteries 30 & 32 when present).
Claim(s) 2 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook-‘3, in view of Cook-‘7, as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Kusch et al. (USPGPN 2018/0354373 A1 – published 2018).
Regarding Claim 2, Cook-‘3, as modified, fails to explicitly teach comprising a third outlet configured to be coupled to at least one third battery circuit having a third nominal voltage that differs from at least the first nominal voltage of the at least one first battery circuit.
However, Kusch (Fig.11) teaches a battery management system with a third outlet (P4) configured to be coupled to at least one third battery circuit (406) having a third nominal voltage that differs from a high-power battery nominal voltage (¶0045: energy battery typically has a lower nominal voltage than the power battery; 404 & 406 are energy batteries).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Cook-‘3, in view of Cook-’7, with Kusch to include a third outlet to be coupled to a third battery circuit. Doing so allows for greater energy storage capacity, by including a third battery, without requiring an additional battery management system for the third battery, as taught by Kusch (¶0040: fewer components improve reliability).
Regarding Claim 19, Cook-‘3 (Fig.1) teaches a battery management system, comprising:
a controller (18/20/22/36) configured to be coupled to multiple battery circuits (connections for 30 and 32) and comprising a first outlet (connection to 30) configured to be coupled to at least one first battery circuit (30) having a first nominal voltage (12 VDC) and a second outlet (connection to 32) configured to be coupled to at least one second battery circuit (32) having a second nominal voltage (42 VDC) that differs from the first nominal voltage of the at least one first battery circuit;
at least one first power input (connection to 14) configured to be coupled to an electrical output from at least one motor (12);
at least one second power input (connection to 21) configured to be coupled to a power source (21) other than the at least one motor; and
wherein the controller is configured to generate a first charging current according to a first charging profile for charging batteries in the least one first battery circuit having the first nominal voltage and a second charging current according to a second charging profile for charging batteries in the least one second battery circuit having the second nominal voltage (¶0019: controller controls the operation of inverter 18 and converters 20 & 22 to charge batteries 30 & 32).
Cook-3 fails to explicitly teach the battery management system being used for a vessel containing the motor and wherein the controller is configured to generate the first and second charging currents simultaneously; and
wherein the first outlet and the at least one first power input are coupled together such that when the controller is receiving power from the electrical output from the at least one motor of the vessel, a common bus coupled to the first outlet and the at least one first power input functions as power input to the controller and when the controller is receiving power from a source other than the at least one motor of the vessel, the common bus coupled to the first outlet and the at least one first power input functions as power output from the controller.
However, the system taught by Cook-‘3 is intended to be used for vehicles with power sources, energy storage, and loads (¶0005), which would include vessels with power sources, energy storage, and loads.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the apply the battery management system of Cook to a vessel for the benefit of optimizing the flow and management of energy to loads and more accurately controlling an predicting battery charge and discharge, as taught by Cook-‘3 (¶0004: “vehicle power and battery management system to optimize the flow and management of energy to loads, and to more accurately control and predict battery charge and discharge”).
Moreover, Kusch teaches a battery management system which teaches simultaneous charging of two batteries (Figs. 5, 6, & 8; ¶0072: “energy use can be optimized by selectively providing power from heat engine 12 and re-charging other storage units for peak efficiency. The APU 500 provides additional flexibility of operation and enables independent or simultaneous charging of both batteries 406, 408, and extends the integrated charging control.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Cook-‘3 with Kusch to include simultaneous generation of first and second charging currents. Doing so allows for improved flexibility and efficiency in charging the batteries, as taught by Kusch (“energy use can be optimized by selectively providing power from heat engine 12 and re-charging other storage units for peak efficiency. The APU 500 provides additional flexibility of operation and enables independent or simultaneous charging of both batteries 406, 408, and extends the integrated charging control.”).
Moreover, Cook-‘7 teaches an alternator can be connected to a different DC bus (Fig.3) and that the configuration of the alternator and system can be adjusted based on the needs of the system (¶0047: configuration 300 may be used if most of the available power is consumed at a low voltage level, 12 VDC; ¶0048: power generation could be preferable at 42 VDC).
Lastly, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Cook-‘3 with Cook-‘7 to modify the configuration of the battery system and generate power/connect the input power to the same bus as the first outlet, the first battery circuit. Doing so would reduce the complexity of the power conversion system and the number of DC/DC converters needed, therefore reducing the cost (Cook-‘7; ¶0047: configuration 300 can be used for cost benefit) and improving the efficiency of the circuit, since a converter’s operation wastes power as a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand.
Cook-‘3, in view of Cook-‘7, would further teach a common bus coupled to the first outlet and the at least one first power input functions as power input to the controller when the controller is receiving power from the electrical output from the at least one motor of the vessel (Cook-‘7; ¶0047: battery 32 would be charged from the power generated by the alternator being input to DC/DC 20 when the alternator generation is available), and the common bus coupled to the first outlet and the at least one first power input functions as power output from the controller when the controller is receiving power from a source other than the at least one motor of the vessel (Cook-‘7; ¶0047: shore power connection can charge both batteries 30 & 32 when present).
Claim(s) 8, 9, 12-15, 21, & 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook-‘3, in view of Cook-‘7, as applied in claims 1 & 20 above, and further in view of NPL DIY Boat Owner, (“Marine Electrical Systems”, published 2007, JM Publishing, Pages 13, 48, 51, 68, & 117; https://www.whitsundaydiscountmarine.com.au/assets/files/DIY%20Boating%20Magazine/Electrical/Marine%20Electrical%20Systems.pdf?srsltid=AfmBOorcxLNxgIAu1K_prYN4_4VrO-9rwkloZ-eTXAq4AYHHtoKWM69h).
Regarding Claim 8, Cook-‘3, as modified, fails to explicitly teach comprising a communications system for transmitting data from the controller to at least one remote device viewable by a user.
However, DIY Boat Owner teaches using system monitors connected to a battery system (Pg.13, para. 7: system monitors as needed) and transmitting data to a remote device (Pg.51, para. 7: remote control/display completes the system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Cook-‘3, in view of Cook-‘7, with DIY Boat Owner to include system monitors communicating to a remote display. Doing so allows a user of the vessel to ensure the system is operating as intended and to troubleshoot possible issues based on expected monitoring results.
Regarding Claim 9, Cook-‘3, as modified, further teaches wherein the at least one remote device is a vessel information system on the vessel (remote control/display as disclosed in the rejection of claim 8 above).
Regarding Claim 12, Cook-‘3, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to provide notification of whether input power is received by the controller from the at least one motor of the vessel or another source.
However, DIY Boat Owner teaches that it is common for vessels to be provided monitoring systems for the battery system to provide notification of the presence of charging power (Pg.117, para. 8: monitoring functions are provided to indicate if power is received of charging conditions are right).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Cook-‘3, in view of Cook-‘7 and DIY Boat Owner, with DIY Boat Owner to provide configuration for providing notification of whether input power is received from another source. Doing so allows a user to determine if they want to manually start the charging process of a battery or monitor the charging status of the battery to ensure no issues arise.
Regarding Claim 13, Cook-‘3, as modified, fails to explicitly teach comprising a notification system configured to provide notification of data regarding the at least one first battery circuit having the first nominal voltage and data regarding the at least one second battery circuit having the second nominal voltage.
However, DIY Boat Owner teaches that it is common for vessels to be provided monitoring systems for the battery system to provide notification of data for the batteries (Pg.117, para. 8: basic battery state-of-charge information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Cook-‘3, in view of Cook-‘7 and DIY Boat Owner, with DIY Boat Owner to include a notification system for providing notification of data regarding the batteries. Doing so would allow a user to determine if the batteries have sufficient charge for safe operation.
Regarding Claim 14, Cook-‘3, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein a notification system is configured to provide notification of an out of specification condition of the at least one first battery circuit having the first nominal voltage.
However, DIY Boat Owner teaches that it is common for vessels to be provided monitoring systems for the battery system to provide notification of data for the batteries (Pg.117, para. 8: basic battery state-of-charge information) and that battery types have different specification conditions for improved performance (Pg.68, para. 4: SLI batteries being deeply discharged will greatly shorten battery life).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Cook-‘3, in view of Cook-‘7 and DIY Boat Owner, with DIY Boat Owner to include a notification system for providing a notification of an out of specification condition, a low state-of-charge condition, for a first battery circuit. Doing so allows a user to improve the battery life of their batteries by ensuring minimal operation in out of specification conditions.
Regarding Claim 15, Cook-‘3, as modified, fails to explicitly teach comprising a first alternating current input module configured to be removably positioned inline between the controller and a power source other than the at least one motor of the vessel and a second alternating current input module configured to be removably positioned inline between the controller and the power source other than the at least one motor of the vessel, wherein the second alternating current input module has a different maximum amperage than the first alternating current input module.
However, DIY Boat Owner teaches that input modules are used for connecting the controller to the power source other than the at least one motor of the vessel and are removeable (Pg.48, para. 1: Shorepower cord for connecting the battery system to shore power, and disconnect from the vessel), and that they may have different maximum amperages (Pg.48, para. 1: 15, 30, or 50 ampere rating).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Cook-‘3, in view of Cook-‘7 and DIY Boat Owner, with DIY Boat Owner to include input modules/shorepower cords for providing power to the controller from the power source other than the at least one motor of the vessel, with different maximum amperages/ampere ratings. Doing so allows a vessel to be connected to shore power for recharging the batteries when the motor is not running, allows the vessel to be disconnected from shore power so that it can be operated, and allows for different amperages to be safely provided based on the needs and ratings of the battery system.
Regarding Claim 21, Cook-‘3, as modified, fails to explicitly teach comprising a communications system for transmitting data from the controller to at least one remote device viewable by a user.
However, DIY Boat Owner teaches using system monitors connected to a battery system (Pg.13, para. 7: system monitors as needed) and transmitting data to a remote device (Pg.51, para. 7: remote control/display completes the system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Cook-‘3, in view of Cook-‘7, with DIY Boat Owner to include system monitors communicating to a remote display. Doing so allows a user of the vessel to ensure the system is operating as intended and to troubleshoot possible issues based on expected monitoring results.
Regarding Claim 22, Cook-‘3, as modified, fails to explicitly teach comprising a notification system configured to provide notification of data regarding the at least one first battery circuit having the first nominal voltage and data regarding the at least one second battery circuit having the second nominal voltage.
However, DIY Boat Owner teaches that it is common for vessels to be provided monitoring systems for the battery system to provide notification of data for the batteries (Pg.117, para. 8: basic battery state-of-charge information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Cook-‘3, in view of Cook-‘7 and DIY Boat Owner, with DIY Boat Owner to include a notification system for providing notification of data regarding the batteries. Doing so would allow a user to determine if the batteries have sufficient charge for safe operation.
Claim(s) 10 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook-‘3, in view of Cook-‘7 and DIY Boat Owner, as applied in the rejection of claim 8 above, and further in view of Karner et al. (2019/0033377 A1 – published 2019).
Regarding Claim 10, Cook-‘3, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one remote device is a wireless device.
However, Karner teaches a battery monitoring system which communicates with a wireless remote device (¶0056: battery monitor circuit communicates via cellular network with the remote device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Cook, in view of Cook-‘7 and DIY Boat Owner, with Karner to include communicating with a wireless remote device for a user to view data. Doing so allows a user of the vessel to view system status from a distance without requiring a physical connection to the system.
Regarding Claim 11, Cook-‘3, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the communications system transmits data wirelessly from the controller to the at least one remote device.
However, Karner teaches a battery monitoring system which communicates with a wireless remote device (¶0056: battery monitor circuit communicates via cellular network with the remote device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Cook-‘3, in view of Cook-‘7 and DIY Boat Owner, with Karner to include communicating with a wireless remote device for a user to view data. Doing so allows a user of the vessel to view system status from a distance without requiring a physical connection to the system.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook-‘3, in view of Cook-‘7, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Kumar et al. (USPGPN 2019/0176639 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Cook-‘3, as modified, fails to explicitly teach comprising a machine learning model configured to generate predictions relative to the at least one first battery circuit having the first nominal voltage.
However, Kumar teaches a battery system which generates predictions relative to a battery using a machine learning module (Fig.3, 310/312/318; ¶0069: machine learning techniques may be used to define thresholds).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Cook-‘3, in view of Cook-‘7, with Kumar to include a machine learning module configured to generate predictions relative to the at least one first battery circuit. Doing so will improve the battery management system by providing a more accurate end of life prediction for the first battery circuit, with less computation intensity, as taught by Kumar (¶0008: “the remaining life of the component may be predicted with less computation intensity, without compromising on the accuracy of prediction”).
Regarding Claim 17, Cook-‘3, as modified, fails to explicitly teach comprising a machine learning model configured to generate predictions relative to the at least one second battery circuit having the second nominal voltage.
However, Kumar teaches a battery system which generates predictions relative to a battery using a machine learning module (Fig.3, 310/312/318; ¶0069: machine learning techniques may be used to define thresholds), and that the technique can be implemented for other battery technologies.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system taught by Cook-‘3, in view of Cook-‘7 and Kumar, with Kumar to include a machine learning module configured to generate predictions relative to the at least one second battery circuit. Doing so will improve the battery management system by providing a more accurate end of life prediction for the first battery circuit, with less computation intensity, as taught by Kumar (¶0008: “the remaining life of the component may be predicted with less computation intensity, without compromising on the accuracy of prediction”).
Regarding Claim 18, Cook-‘3, as modified, further teaches wherein the machine learning model configured to receive data from the controller, process the data and generate at least one prediction relative to the at least one first battery circuit having the first nominal voltage (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 16 above, the machine learning module predicts end of life based on measurements of the battery).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook-‘3, in view of Cook-‘7 and Kusch, as applied in claim 19 above, and further in view of NPL DIY Boat Owner.
Regarding Claim 23, Cook-‘3, as modified, fails to explicitly teach comprising a communications system for transmitting data from the controller to at least one remote device viewable by a user.
However, DIY Boat Owner teaches using system monitors connected to a battery system (Pg.13, para. 7: system monitors as needed) and transmitting data to a remote device (Pg.51, para. 7: remote control/display completes the system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Cook-‘3, in view of Cook-‘7 and Kusch, with DIY Boat Owner to include system monitors communicating to a remote display. Doing so allows a user of the vessel to ensure the system is operating as intended and to troubleshoot possible issues based on expected monitoring results.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 P ONDRASIK whose telephone number is (703)756-1963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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.
/JOHN P ONDRASIK/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights