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 The rejections from the Office Action of 11/6/2025 are hereby withdrawn. New grounds for rejection of the amended claims are presented below.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/4/2026 has been entered.
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, 2, 4-8, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pavic et al., Decentralized Master-Slave Communication and Control Architecture of a Battery Swapping Station, IEEE, 2018 [hereinafter “Pavic”] and Peev et al. (US 20160232724 A1)[hereinafter “Peev”].
Regarding Claim 1, Pavic discloses a first slave battery management system (BMS)[Page 1 first column – “Battery management system (BMS) is the brain of a battery. It collects measurements from the components, computes control variables, sends commands to lower-level controllers and communicates with external devices.”Page 2, second column – “Modular: each slave node (Module Management unit or MMU) monitors, balances and controls a group of battery cells within battery module.”] comprising:
a communication circuit configured to output battery measurement data of a first battery module to an external device [Page 2, second column – “MMU node communicates with central PMU unit through serial interface.”].
Pavic fails to disclose a signal generation circuit configured to, in a first state, generate a first state signal having a preset first pattern, and in a second state, generate the first state signal having a preset second pattern that is different from the first pattern, wherein the first pattern is indicative of the first slave BMS being in a normal state of operation and wherein the second pattern is indicative of an operation error occurring at the first slave BMS.
However, Peev discloses a monitoring scheme where a communication device is configured to produce a superimposed signal which is evaluated to determine whether a fault is indicated using multiple signal patterns where the first pattern is indicative of the device being in a normal state of operation and wherein the second pattern is indicative of an operation error occurring at the device [See Fig. 1 and Paragraph [0066] – “Detection of a fault is performed by the controller introducing in the diagnostic sensing signal an indication of such a fault. The latter is performed by altering the periodicity or pulse duration in the periodic signal. E.g. if the duration between any two sequential output state edges (excluding the second edge of each output ticking pulse) becomes different from the nominal ticking period±given tolerance, then this is assumed as fail message.”].
It would have been obvious to equip the slave BMS with a signal generation circuit to produce a signal for device and communication path evaluation in order to be capable of evaluating the state of the slave BMS.
The combination would disclose an output terminal configured to output the first state signal to a second slave BMS [Page 2, second column of Pavic – “Beside master-slave configuration there is also peer-to-peer where MMUs communicate with each other without PMU.”].
Regarding Claim 2, the combination would disclose an input terminal configured to receive a second state signal from a third slave BMS [Page 2, second column of Pavic – “Beside master-slave configuration there is also peer-to-peer where MMUs communicate with each other without PMU.”]; and
a diagnosis circuit configured to diagnose a state of the third slave BMS based on a pattern of the second state signal of the third slave BMS [Per the evaluation scheme of Peev].
The combination would disclose that the communication circuit is configured to output the diagnosed state of the third slave BMS to the external device [Page 2, second column of Pavic – “MMU node communicates with central PMU unit through serial interface.”], but not explicitly that the communication is made. It would have been obvious to transmit the diagnosis to the central PMU such that appropriate battery management could be performed using the diagnosis.
Regarding Claim 4, Peev discloses that each of the first and second state signals is a square wave signal [Fig. 1], and
the state signal having the first pattern and the state signal having the second pattern are signals that are different from each other in terms of at least one of a period, a duty ratio, or an amplitude [Fig. 1, the signal period and duty ratio being different.].
Regarding Claim 5, it would have been obvious to transmit the diagnosis [from Peev] to the central PMU or another MMU such that appropriate battery management could be performed using the diagnosis.
As such, the combination would disclose that the communication circuit is configured to output the result through a controller area network (CAN) bus connected to the external device [Page 2, second column of Pavic – “Digital measurements between MMU and PMU and control signals from PMU to other components are usually transmitted through serial communication bus protocols: SPI [21], [22] I2C [23], [24], [25], LIN or CAN [26], [27], [28], [29]. SPI and I2C are simpler and easier to implement but CAN is more robust and compatible with other system elements, therefore preferable for EV environment.”], and
the output terminal is configured to output the state signal through a terminal of a first general-purpose input/output (GPIO) connected to a terminal of a second GPIO of the second slave BMS [Page 2, second column of Pavic – “Beside master-slave configuration there is also peer-to-peer where MMUs communicate with each other without PMU.”].
Regarding Claim 6, Pavic discloses a battery pack comprising: a first battery module [Page 1 first column – “Battery management system (BMS) is the brain of a battery. It collects measurements from the components, computes control variables, sends commands to lower-level controllers and communicates with external devices.”Page 2, second column – “Modular: each slave node (Module Management unit or MMU) monitors, balances and controls a group of battery cells within battery module.”]; and
a first slave battery management system (BMS)[Page 2, second column – “Modular: each slave node (Module Management unit or MMU) monitors, balances and controls a group of battery cells within battery module.”] configured to output battery measurement data of the first battery module to an external device through a first communication link [Page 2, second column – “MMU node communicates with central PMU unit through serial interface.”], and
a communication link between the first slave BMS and a second slave BMS [Page 2, second column – “Beside master-slave configuration there is also peer-to-peer where MMUs communicate with each other without PMU.”], but fails to disclose that the first slave BMS is configured to, in a first state, output a first state signal having a first preset pattern to a second slave BMS through a second communication link, and in a second state, output the first state signal having a second preset pattern that is different from the first pattern to the second slave BMS through the second communication link, wherein the first pattern is indicative of the first slave BMS being in a normal state of operation and wherein the second pattern is indicative of an operation error occurring at the first slave BMS.
However, Peev discloses a monitoring scheme where a communication device is configured to produce a superimposed signal which is evaluated to determine whether a fault is indicated using multiple signal patterns where the first pattern is indicative of the device being in a normal state of operation and wherein the second pattern is indicative of an operation error occurring at the device [See Fig. 1 and Paragraph [0066] – “Detection of a fault is performed by the controller introducing in the diagnostic sensing signal an indication of such a fault. The latter is performed by altering the periodicity or pulse duration in the periodic signal. E.g. if the duration between any two sequential output state edges (excluding the second edge of each output ticking pulse) becomes different from the nominal ticking period±given tolerance, then this is assumed as fail message.”].
It would have been obvious to equip the slave BMS with a signal generation circuit to produce a signal for device and communication path evaluation in order to be capable of evaluating the state of the slave BMS. It would have been obvious to transmit the diagnosis to either the central PMU or another MMU (second slave BMS) such that appropriate battery management could be performed using the diagnosis.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination would disclose the second slave BMS, wherein the second slave BMS is configured to output a notification signal to the external device through a third communication link, in response to a diagnosis of abnormal operation of the first slave BMS based on the first state signal received through the second communication link [Page 2, second column of Pavic – “MMU node communicates with central PMU unit through serial interface.”], but not explicitly that the communication is made. It would have been obvious to transmit the diagnosis to the central PMU such that appropriate battery management could be performed using the diagnosis.
Regarding Claim 8, Pavic discloses that the external device is a master BMS that controls the first slave BMS and the second slave BMS [Page 1 first column – “Battery management system (BMS) is the brain of a battery. It collects measurements from the components, computes control variables, sends commands to lower-level controllers and communicates with external devices.”Page 2, second column – “MMU node communicates with central PMU unit through serial interface.”],
the first communication link is generated by a controller area network (CAN) bus between the master BMS and the first slave BMS [Page 2, second column – “Digital measurements between MMU and PMU and control signals from PMU to other components are usually transmitted through serial communication bus protocols: SPI [21], [22] I2C [23], [24], [25], LIN or CAN [26], [27], [28], [29]. SPI and I2C are simpler and easier to implement but CAN is more robust and compatible with other system elements, therefore preferable for EV environment.”],
the second communication link is generated by a connection between a terminal of a general-purpose input/output (GPIO) of the first slave BMS and a terminal of a GPIO of the second slave BMS [Page 2, second column of Pavic – “Beside master-slave configuration there is also peer-to-peer where MMUs communicate with each other without PMU.”], and
the third communication link is generated by a CAN bus between the master BMS and the second slave BMS [Page 2, second column – “MMU node communicates with central PMU unit through serial interface.”Page 2, second column – “Digital measurements between MMU and PMU and control signals from PMU to other components are usually transmitted through serial communication bus protocols: SPI [21], [22] I2C [23], [24], [25], LIN or CAN [26], [27], [28], [29]. SPI and I2C are simpler and easier to implement but CAN is more robust and compatible with other system elements, therefore preferable for EV environment.”].
Regarding Claim 12, Peev discloses that the first pattern is an uninterrupted repeating pattern [First pattern in the signal in Fig. 1], and wherein the second pattern is an uninterrupted repeating pattern separate from the first pattern [Second pattern in the signal in Fig. 1].
Regarding Claim 13, the combination would disclose that the operation error occurring at the first slave BMS is an unplanned malfunction occurring at the first slave BMS [Fault detection per Paragraph [0066] of Peev].
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pavic et al., Decentralized Master-Slave Communication and Control Architecture of a Battery Swapping Station, IEEE, 2018 [hereinafter “Pavic”]; Peev et al. (US 20160232724 A1)[hereinafter “Peev”]; and Shah (US 5390326 A).
Regarding Claim 9, Pavic discloses a master battery management system (BMS)[Page 1 first column – “Battery management system (BMS) is the brain of a battery. It collects measurements from the components, computes control variables, sends commands to lower-level controllers and communicates with external devices.”] comprising:
a communication circuit configured to communicate with a first slave BMS and a second slave BMS, wherein the communication circuit is configured to receive battery measurement data of a first battery module from the first slave BMS and a notification signal from the second slave BMS [Page 2, second column – “MMU node communicates with central PMU unit through serial interface.”]; and
a controller determining configured to: obtain, from the communication circuit, a notification signal received from the second slave BMS [Page 2, second column – “MMU node communicates with central PMU unit through serial interface.”].
Pavic fails to disclose that the controller is configured to: in response to occurrence of a communication error between the master BMS and the first slave BMS, determine whether the communication error is caused by an internal problem of the first slave BMS or by a problem of communication between the communication circuit and the first slave BMS based on the received notification signal.
However, Peev discloses a monitoring scheme where a communication device is configured to produce a superimposed signal which is evaluated to determine whether a fault is indicated using multiple signal patterns where the first pattern is indicative of the device being in a normal state of operation and wherein the second pattern is indicative of an operation error occurring at the device [See Fig. 1 and Paragraph [0066] – “Detection of a fault is performed by the controller introducing in the diagnostic sensing signal an indication of such a fault. The latter is performed by altering the periodicity or pulse duration in the periodic signal. E.g. if the duration between any two sequential output state edges (excluding the second edge of each output ticking pulse) becomes different from the nominal ticking period±given tolerance, then this is assumed as fail message.”].
Shah discloses evaluating the integrity of communication paths through use of a heartbeat signal [Column 6 lines 31-54 – “When the agent processor 40 receives the first report from the CS 30 that two successive agent heartbeats have been missed on a specific cable (A or B) from a node X, the agent processor 40 starts a 35-second timer. This represents the "agent window" for this fault report. The 35-second agent window is longer than the 30-second time between heartbeat signals to ensure that if the second heartbeat is sent, it will not be missed. When the agent window ends, the agent processor applies its rules, generates filtered results and transmits them to the master if necessary. While the window is open, the agent processor 40 waits for another report from the CS 30 of two consecutive missed agent heartbeats from another node. If no such report is made by the CS 30, the agent processor 40, applying the agent rules, concludes that the transmitter on node X (Channel A or B) has failed. Thus, the filtered results reported to the master module are that the transmitter on a particular channel in node X has failed. During the 35-second agent window, if the CS 30 reports that two consecutive agent heartbeats have been lost from multiple nodes on the same cable, the agent processor 40 concludes that the trunk cable has failed and makes this report to the master module.”]
It would have been obvious to equip the slave BMSs with a signal generation circuit to produce a signal for device and communication path evaluation in order to be capable of evaluating the state of the slave BMSs. It would have been obvious to perform communication monitoring with both the master BMS and the second slave BMS in order to ascertain where any communication pathway issues have developed. It would have been obvious to have the second slave BMS notify the master BMS of any communication pathway issues (or lack thereof) such that the master BMS can perform appropriate battery control.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination would disclose that the notification signal indicates a state of the first slave BMS [See Fig. 1 and Paragraph [0066] of Peev – “Detection of a fault is performed by the controller introducing in the diagnostic sensing signal an indication of such a fault. The latter is performed by altering the periodicity or pulse duration in the periodic signal. E.g. if the duration between any two sequential output state edges (excluding the second edge of each output ticking pulse) becomes different from the nominal ticking period±given tolerance, then this is assumed as fail message.”].
Regarding Claim 11, the combination would disclose an input terminal [Page 2, second column of Pavic – “MMU node communicates with central PMU unit through serial interface.”] configured to receive, from the second slave BMS, a state signal having a pattern that differs according to a state of the second slave BMS [Per Fig. 1 of Peev],
wherein the communication circuit is configured to receive, from the second slave BMS, information about a state of a second battery module monitored by the second slave BMS [Page 1 first column of Pavic – “Battery management system (BMS) is the brain of a battery. It collects measurements from the components, computes control variables, sends commands to lower-level controllers and communicates with external devices.”],
wherein the controller is configured to determine whether the communication error is caused by an internal problem of the second slave BMS or by the problem of communication between the communication circuit and the first slave BMS based on the pattern of the state signal [Error evaluation per Peev of the slave BMSs of Pavic], and
wherein the pattern of the state signal is related to at least one of a period, a duty ratio, or an amplitude of the state signal [Fig. 1 of Peev, the signal period and duty ratio being different.].
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
445
889
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
70
888
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner agrees. However, Pavic discloses the use of such communication pathways [Page 2, second column of Pavic – “Beside master-slave configuration there is also peer-to-peer where MMUs communicate with each other without PMU.”]. It would have been obvious to use such communication pathways to process fault reporting data because they would have been effective in doing so.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image3.png
183
890
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
630
890
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner agrees. New grounds for rejection are presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bae et al., Battery Management System by Using CAN Communication Based on DSP Platform, IEEE, 2013
Lee et al., Wireless Battery Management System, EVS21, 2013
Ping et al., A Distributed Management System for Lithium Ion Battery Pack, IEEE, 2016
Reindl et al., Software Framework for the Simulation of a Decentralized Battery Management System Consisting of Intelligent Battery Cells, IEEE, 2019
US 20190305386 A1 – FAULT-TOLERANT BATTERY MANAGEMENT
US 20190252735 A1 – BATTERY PACK MANAGEMENT DEVICE
US 20140091769 A1 – METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ALLOCATING IDENTIFIERS TO MULTI-SLAVE IN BATTERY PACK
US 20090003320 A1 – System For Seamless Redundancy In IP Communication Network
US 20050188265 A1 – Multi-state Status Reporting For High-availability Cluster Nodes
US 20110145406 A1 – Method And Apparatus For Realizing Heartbeat Mechanism In A Communication Network
US 20020090949 A1 – Prioritized-routing For An Ad-hoc, Peer-to-peer, Mobile Radio Access System
US 20200055421 A1 – POWER CELL TRACKING AND OPTIMIZATION SYSTEM
US 20030061340 A1 – Network Health Monitoring Through Real-time Analysis Of Heartbeat Patterns From Distributed Agents
US 20110026568 A1 – SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MINIMIZING THE AMOUNT OF DATA BEING SENT ON A NETWORK FOR SUPERVISED SECURITY SYSTEMS
US 20050233739 A1 – Status Reporting System And Method
US 20180102878 A1 – Methods And Devices For Receipt Status Reporting
US 20210109832 A1 – BASEBOARD MANAGEMENT CONTROLLER THAT INITIATES A DIAGNOSTIC OPERATION TO COLLECT HOST INFORMATION
US 20110296251 A1 – HEARTBEAT SYSTEM
US 20100238814 A1 – Methods And Apparatus To Characterize And Predict Network Health Status
US 10552249 B1 – System For Determining Errors Associated With Devices
US 9772666 B1 – Multi-level Battery Management
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 9AM-5PM 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
Prosecution Insights