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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/23/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites. “the switch” in line 7. It is unclear which switch is the limitation referring to. It is unclear the limitation is referring to the switch connected to a remaining power storage module OR the switch connected to a power storage module. This limitation render the claim unclear. For examination purpose Examiner considered the limitation as the switch connected to the power storage module Appropriate correction is required. .
Claim 1 recites. “the switch” in line 10. It is unclear which switch is the limitation referring to. It is unclear the limitation is referring to the switch connected to a remaining power storage module OR the switch connected to a power storage module. This limitation render the claim unclear. For examination purpose Examiner considered the limitation as the switch connected to the power storage module Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites. “the switch” in line 6. It is unclear which switch the limitation referring to. It is unclear the limitation is referring to the switch connected to a remaining power storage module OR the switch connected to a power storage module. Thus, the limitation render the claim unclear. Examiner considered the limitation as the switch connected to the power storage module. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 recites. “the switch” in line 12 It is unclear which switch is the limitation referring to. It is unclear the limitation is referring to the switch connected to a remaining power storage module OR the switch connected to a power storage module. Thus, the limitation render the claim unclear. Examiner considered the limitation as the switch connected to the power storage module.
Claim 5 recites. “a switch” in lines 3-4. It is unclear which switch is the limitation referring to. It is unclear the limitation is referring to the switch connected to a remaining power storage module OR the switch connected to a power storage module. Thus, the limitation render the claim unclear. Examiner considered the limitation as the switch connected to the power storage module. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 5 recites. “the switch” in line 4. It is unclear which switch is the limitation referring to. It is unclear the limitation is referring to the switch connected to a remaining power storage module OR the switch connected to a power storage module. Thus, the limitation render the claim unclear. Examiner considered the limitation as the switch connected to the power storage module. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 5 recites. “the switch” in line 7. It is unclear which switch is the limitation referring to. It is unclear the limitation is referring to the switch connected to a remaining power storage module OR the switch connected to a power storage module. Thus, the limitation render the claim unclear. Examiner considered the limitation as the switch connected to the power storage module. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 6 recites. “the switch” in line 4. It is unclear which switch is the limitation referring to. It is unclear the limitation is referring to the switch connected to a remaining power storage module OR the switch connected to a power storage module. Thus, the limitation render the claim unclear. Examiner considered the limitation as the switch connected to the power storage module. Appropriate correction required.
.
Claim Objections
Claims 2- 4 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “an upper limit” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. For examination purpose the limitation is considered as the same as in claim 1 line 5 and should be written as "the upper limit” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites “an upper limit” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. For examination purpose the limitation is considered as the same as in claim 1 line 5 and should be written as "the upper limit” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites “a state of charge of each of the plurality of power storage modules” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. For examination purpose the limitation is considered as the same as in claim 2 line 3 and should be written as "the state of charge of each of the plurality of power storage modules”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “the connection candidate’ in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. It should be written as " a connection candidate” the upper limit” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites. “an upper limit value” in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. It should be written as "the third upper limit value” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites “an upper limit” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. For examination purpose the limitation is considered as the same as in claim 1 line 5 and should be written as "the upper limit” Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 and 5-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,179,631
1. A management device that manages a plurality of power storage modules each connected in parallel to a load with a switch and includes a first state where the switch connected to a power storage module is turned on and the switch connected to a remaining power storage module is turned off and included in the plurality of power storage modules, the management device comprising a determination unit that does not permit turning on at least one of the switch connected to the remaining power storage module and turned off in the first state when the switch is turned on and an upper limit value of current or power that is allowed to be discharged to the load from all of the plurality of power storage modules is lower than a first threshold based on a maximum value of current or power required by the load in a state where the at least one of the switch is turned on
1. A management device that manages a plurality of power storage modules each connected in parallel to a load via a switch, the management device comprising a determination unit that determines, in a state where, within the plurality of power storage modules, the switch connected to each of one or more power storage modules of the plurality of power storage modules is in an on state and the switch connected to each of one or more remaining power storage modules of the plurality of power storage modules is in an off state, whether an upper limit value of current or power allowed to be supplied to the load entirely from the plurality of power storage modules after the switch of one of the one or more remaining power storage modules is turned on, is less than or equal to a prior value of the current or the power before turning on the switch of the one of the one or more remaining power storage modules, and upon determining that the upper limit value is less than or equal to the prior value, does not permit the switch of the one of the one or more remaining power storage modules in the off state to be turned on.
. The remaining elements of Claims 2 and 5-7 are meat by Claims 5-7 of '631.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, all the elements are mentioned explicitly or implicitly.
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 as being anticipated by Park (US 2011/0133558).
As to claims 1 and 6, Park discloses in figure 2 (see figure below),
PNG
media_image1.png
414
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a management device [see figure above BMS (215) and see ¶0037] that manages a plurality of power storage modules [Main battery (220a) and auxiliary battery (220b); and also see ¶0042 ] each connected in parallel to a load [load (240 and (250) ; see ¶0042] with a switch [plurality of switch circuits disclosed; see figure above and element (217) and ¶0042] and includes a first state where the switch connected to a power storage module is turned on and the switch connected to a remaining power storage module is turned off and included in the plurality of power storage modules [noted that the main switch is turned on to connect the load] , the management device comprising a determination unit that does not permit turning on at least one of the switch connected to the remaining power storage module [the auxiliary battery is in off position; and see Abstract, see ¶008 and ¶0014] and turned off in the first state when the switch is turned on and an upper limit value of current or power that is allowed to be discharged to the load from all of the plurality of power storage modules is lower than a first threshold based on a maximum value of current or power required by the load in a state where the at least one of the switch is turned on [the auxiliary battery is connected when the power demand is greater than the power supplied by the main battery; see ¶008 and ¶0014] .
As to Claim 6 Park discloses in figure 2, the plurality of power storage modules each connected in parallel to the load with the switch [ see figure above, the batteries are connected to the load via switching elements],
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.
Claims 2 and 7 are /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Park et al. (US 2012/0268070), hereinafter 070’.
As to Claim 2, Park discloses all of the claim limitations except, an acquisition unit that acquires at least a state of charge for each of the plurality of power storage modules; and a calculator that estimates an upper limit value of current or power allowed to be discharged from the all of the plurality of power storage modules, based on SOC-discharge upper limit characteristics that define a relationship between a state of charge of each of the plurality of power storage modules and an upper limit value of current or power allowed to be discharged from corresponding one of the plurality of power storage modules, wherein the SOC-discharge upper limit characteristics show that the upper limit value of current or power allowed to be discharged from each of the plurality of power storage modules decreases as the state of charge of corresponding one of the plurality of power storage modules decreases.
070’ discloses in figure 1, an acquisition unit [the controller (110) determines SOC of the batteries; see ¶0039 ] that acquires at least a state of charge for each of the plurality of power storage modules [SOC determination of the batteries; see also ¶0042]; and a calculator that estimates an upper limit value of current or power allowed to be discharged from the all of the plurality of power storage modules[ see ¶0043; each SOC of the battery is determined by the controller (110) and transmits to the control unit (120); see ¶0042-0073], based on SOC-discharge upper limit characteristics that define a relationship between a state of charge of each of the plurality of power storage modules and an upper limit value of current or power allowed to be discharged from corresponding one of the plurality of power storage modules, wherein the SOC-discharge upper limit characteristics show that the upper limit value of current or power allowed to be discharged from each of the plurality of power storage modules decreases as the state of charge of corresponding one of the plurality of power storage modules decreases [noted that the batteries groups based on the calculated SOC values and connected in parallel to be discharged, see ¶0044].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to consider Park’s battery SOC value to discharge and charge as taught by 070’ in order to prevent the battery damage due to deep discharge or swelling.
As to claim 7, 070’ discloses in figures 1-2, wherein the load is a motor [vehicle as a load is disclosed] of a moving body, [vehicle] and the management device notifies a controller in the moving body of an upper limit value of current or power allowed to be supplied from the all of the plurality of power storage modules to the motor [noted that the vehicle as a load is disclosed where the vehicle comprises a motor to drive the body of the vehicle].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use Park’s battery power supply with vehicle motor as taught by 0070’ in order to have high energy efficiency vehicle, and also extending the scope of the batteries for different devices.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Kang et al. (US 2010/0085009), hereinafter Kang.
.As to claim 5, Park discloses in figures 1-2, wherein when power supply from the plurality of power storage modules to the load is started, a switch is turned on, the switch being connected to a power storage module with a highest open circuit voltage among the plurality of power storage modules [first the main battery , and a power storage module with a highest open circuit voltage among the power storage module connected to the switch in an off, is a connection candidate connected to the switch to be turned on next.
Kang discloses in figures 1-3, wherein when power supply from the plurality of power storage modules [plurality of cells are disclosed] to the load is started, a switch is turned on, the switch being connected to a power storage module with a highest open circuit voltage among the plurality of power storage modules, and a power storage module with a highest open circuit voltage among the power storage module connected to the switch in an off, is a connection candidate connected to the switch to be turned on next [noted that the cell with higher OCV is discharged; see . ¶0042, ¶0026, ¶0085].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify or discharge Park’s battery based on OCV values as taught by Kang in order to minimize voltage/capacity deviation of the battery module.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL BERHANU whose telephone number is (571)272-8430. The examiner can normally be reached M_F.
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 A. Huffman can be reached at Julian.Huffman@uspto.gov. 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.
/SAMUEL BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859