Status of Claims
In the communication filed on 01/06/2026, claims 1-3, 5, and 7 are pending. Claims 1-3, 5, and 7 are amended. No claims are new. Claims 4 and 6 are presently cancelled.
Response to Arguments
The prior objections to the Drawings, Specification, and Claims are withdrawn due to the amendments. However, new objections are made to each in this office action.
The prior rejections under U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn due to the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1-3, 5, and 7 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Drawings
The following objections are with respect to the replacement drawings filed 01/06/2026.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“various series of battery cells” (claim 1) – The replacement Fig. 1 depicts a block labelled “battery cells”. However, it is unclear from the drawing how the battery cells are connected to each other and to other features of the battery management system. Are there multiple strings of series battery cells, wherein the strings are connected in parallel?
“voltage values of various series of battery cells” – The replacement Fig. 1 depicts a block labelled “battery cells”. However, it is unclear from the drawing where the voltages are measured at.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the following subject matter, as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
The replacement Fig. 1 depicts the “charger” as being within the “charging and discharging unit 4” within the “battery management system 100”. However, the specification describes the charger as connecting to the battery management system. Based on the specification, it is interpreted that the charger is external to the battery management system. Thus, Fig. 1 appears to be in conflict with the rest of the disclosure.
The replacement Fig. 1 depicts the boxes for the “charging FET” and the “discharging FET”. However, the connections of these two FETs to the “battery cells” and to the “analog front-end module” are missing. These structural details are necessary to understand how “in the charging mode, a discharging field effect transistor switch is switched on at first, and then a charging field effect transistor switch is switched on”, as claimed by claim 5.
The replacement Fig. 2 introduces a new box with a functional description of operations involving the following text: “When the voltage of the battery management system drops to the first voltage protection threshold value, enter a first section under-voltage protection state and shut down if the voltage is between the first voltage protection threshold value and the second voltage protection threshold value and a first preset delay time is reached. When the voltage is lower than the second voltage protection threshold value, enter a second section under-voltage protection state and shut down if the voltage is kept below the second voltage protection threshold value and a second preset delay time is reached.”
However, this functional description is not properly integrated into Fig. 2’s flowchart. Instead, this functional description is depicted as a step prior to step S101. This order does not make sense because these steps cannot be completed prior to step S101’s “Write an instruction of an under-voltage protection…”.
Further, the specification provides a description that conflicts with the replacement Fig. 2. The specification seems to describe the functions of the two voltage thresholds and associated protection states to be integrated in with other steps of the Fig. 2 method, but is not fully clear how they are integrated.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) and/or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). The specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for the following terms used in the claims:
“preset number of seconds” (claims 1, 7)
“first voltage protection threshold value” (claims 1, 7)
“second voltage protection threshold value” (claims 1, 7)
“first preset delay time” (claims 1, 7)
“second preset delay time” (claims 1, 7)
The specification is further objected to for not providing proper description for how the functions of the two voltage thresholds and associated protection states are integrated in with other steps of the Fig. 2 method.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 improperly introduces the method steps. It is suggested to make the following revisions for clarity and to ensure proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 Lines
Current Text
Suggested New Text
Lines 6-7
“the under-voltage protection method comprising the steps of:”
“the under-voltage protection method comprising:”
Line 8
“(S101) writing …”
“in a step S101, writing …”
Line 13
“(S102) stopping …”
“in a step S102, stopping …”
Line 15
“(S201) confirming …”
“in a step S201, confirming …”
Line 21
“proceeding with step S302”
“proceeding with a step S302”
Line 24
“proceeding with step S301”
“proceeding with a step S301”
Line 28
“(S301) judging …”
“in the step S301, judging …”
Line 32
“proceeding with step S302”
“proceeding with the step S302”
Line 37
“proceeding with step S401”
“proceeding with a step S401”
Line 39
“(S401) checking …”
“in the step S401, checking …”
Line 42
“proceeding with step S403”
“proceeding with a step S403”
Line 43
“(S403) writing …”
“in the step S403, writing …”
Line 45
“(S302) activating …”
“in the step S302, activating …”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 5, and 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, lines 39-42, i.e. step S401, recite “connected for a preset number of seconds” and “disconnected for a predetermined time”. This language is unclear whether “a preset number of seconds” and “a predetermined time” are equivalent. Thus, the claim is indefinite as to whether two different time thresholds are used to confirm the “connected” condition versus the “disconnected” condition. For examination purposes, it is interpreted the “preset number of seconds” and the “predetermined time” may be the same or different.
Claim 1, line 51 recites “a voltage of the battery management system”. This language is indefinite is indefinite as to whether this voltage is one of the prior-recited “voltage values of various series of battery cells”. For examination purposes, it is broadly interpreted that these voltages may be the same or different.
Claim 5, line 47 recites “a first voltage protection threshold value”. This language is unclear as to whether the “first voltage protection threshold value” and the prior-recited “recharging threshold” are different or intended to be the same. The specification appears to use these two terms synonymously.
Claim 5, lines 51-62 recite “wherein when a voltage of the battery management system drops … second preset delay time”.
This language is indefinite as to how these limitations are modifying the prior-recited “under-voltage protection method” comprising explicit steps S101, S102, S201, S301, S302, S401, and S403. The language is unclear if these new limitations are claiming additional operations as part of one or more of the prior-recited steps or if they are additional steps which are independent of the prior-recited steps. For examination purposes, the language is broadly interpreted such that any of these interpretations may be used.
Claim 7 preamble recites “A battery management system having a first section under-voltage protection and a second section under-voltage protection”. This language is unclear whether the “first section under-voltage protection” and the “second section under-voltage protection” are features of the “battery management system” or simply processes/operations that the “battery management system” is configured to perform (as interpreted for examination).
Claims 2-3 are further rejected for their dependency on other rejected claims.
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 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sultenfuss et al. (US 2014/0068310 A1, hereinafter “Sult”) in view of Lee et al. (US 2008/0180264 A1), Kubo et al. (US 2009/0198399 A1), Noda et al. (US 2013/0113427 A1), and Sun et al. (US 2018/0172770 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Sult discloses an under-voltage protection method (“methodology 400”; Figs. 4A-4B; ¶ [5]: “methods for implementing a persistent system shutdown condition at a battery pack voltage … that is above a pre-determined permanent failure operating voltage threshold”) applied in a battery management system (“information handling system 200” for managing “battery cell circuitry 324”; Figs. 1-2).
Sult further discloses the battery management system (200) including a control module (“embedded controller (EC) 280”; Figs. 1-2), an analog front-end unit (“analog front end (AFE)” within “BMU 266” per ¶ [17]), a monitoring unit (“battery management unit (BMU) 266”; Figs. 1-2; ¶ [22]: “monitors voltage of battery cell circuitry 324”), and a charging and discharging unit (combo of “charge FET 380” and “discharge FET 382”; Fig. 2).
Sult further discloses the control module (“EC 280”) being connected (connected via “battery system data bus (SMBus) 281”; Figs. 1-2) to the analog front-end unit (“AFE” within “BMU 266”).
Sult further discloses the analog front-end unit (“AFE” within “BMU 266”) being connected to the monitoring unit (“BMU 266”; “AFE” is within “BMU 266” per ¶ [17] and is thus connected to “BMU 266”; ¶ [21]: “380 … is controlled by … AFE”; ¶ [21]: “382 … is controlled by … AFE”) and the charging and discharging unit (380 & 382).
Sult further discloses the under-voltage protection method (Figs. 4A-4B) comprising steps of the following.
Sult further discloses (S101) writing an instruction ( “persistent memory 211” indicates whether there is a “persistent shutdown indication” stored, which dictates the instructions for the under-voltage protection sequence to be performed; ¶ [10]) of an under-voltage protection (Figs. 4A-4B) to the analog front-end unit (“AFE” within “BMU 266”; per ¶ [24-25], “266” can perform the processing to execute the disclosed methods; “AFE” is the portion of “266” which measures analog signals, such as battery voltage, and controls the charging and discharging unit in accordance with the disclosed methods and is thus used for all I/O to/from “266”) by a micro-controller (“microcontroller” serves as processing device for “EC 280” per ¶ [44]; stored information from “211” passes through “280” for use by other processors in the system) of the control module (“EC 280”).
Sult further discloses the under-voltage protection (Figs. 4A-4B) having a first section under-voltage protection (evaluation of battery voltage with respect to the “predetermined safe shut off voltage threshold for EC” and the “predetermined safe shut off voltage threshold for BMU”; ¶ [35-36]; Figs. 4A-4B, steps 410-414) controlled by the micro-controller (“microcontroller” within “EC 280”; ¶ [35]: “EC 280 checks in step 410 whether the current charge level of battery pack 265 is below the predetermined safe shut off voltage threshold for EC 280”).
Sult further discloses the under-voltage protection (Figs. 4A-4B) having a second section under-voltage protection (¶ [37-38]: evaluation of battery voltage with respect to “pre-determined permanent failure operating voltage threshold”; Fig. 4B, step 424: “battery/cells above permanent failure threshold”) controlled by the analog front-end unit (“AFE” within “BMU 266”; “266” evaluates battery voltage with respect to “pre-determined permanent failure operating voltage threshold” and thus controls the second section UVP).
Sult further discloses (S102) stopping the second section under-voltage protection (“permanent failure threshold” evaluation by “266” is stopped during steps 410-414; later on, “266” starts the second section UVP, after step 420 “power applied”) by the analog front-end unit (“AFE” within “BMU 266”).
Sult further discloses (S201) (Fig. 4A, step 404) confirming whether a previous shutdown cause of the battery management system (“200”, shut down in step 402) is an under-voltage protection shutdown (step 404: “shut down due to critically low battery”) by the micro-controller (“microcontroller” within “EC 280” checks “persistent memory 211” in steps 404-406 to identify whether “shut down due to critically low battery”; ¶ [27]).
Sult further discloses the micro-controller (“microcontroller” within “EC 280”) reading an electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (“persistent storage 211”; Figs. 1-2; “EEPROM” per ¶ [15]) in advance to check whether the previous shutdown cause of the battery management system (“200”, shut down in step 402) is the under-voltage protection shutdown (“microcontroller” within “EC 280” checks “persistent memory 211” in steps 404-406 to identify whether “shut down due to critically low battery”; ¶ [27]).
Sult further discloses if the previous shutdown cause (shutdown in step 402; Fig. 4A) of the battery management system (200) is the under-voltage protection shutdown (determined by steps 404-406; Fig. 4A), proceeding with step S301 (step 410; Fig. 4A; ¶ [35]; detailed mapping for step S301 included infra for Sult).
Sult further discloses (S301) (step 410; Fig. 4A; ¶ [35]) judging whether a voltage value (¶ [35]: “current charge level of battery pack 265” ; “charge level” and “voltage” are used as synonymous terms by Sult) of battery cells (“battery cells” within “265” per ¶ [17]) reach a recharging threshold (“EC shutoff” of Fig. 4, step 410; also referred to as the “predetermined safe shut off voltage threshold for EC 280” per ¶ [35]) of the under-voltage protection (Figs. 4A-4B) by the monitoring unit (“BMU 266”).
Sult further discloses if the voltage value (¶ [35]: “current charge level of battery pack 265”) of the battery cells (“battery cells” within “265” per ¶ [17]) reach the recharging threshold (“No” to step 410: “battery state below EC shutoff?”; Fig. 4A) of the under-voltage protection (Figs. 4A-4B), proceeding with step S302 (Fig. 4B, steps 422-424; executed after first section UVP ends in step 414; executed if “no” response to step 410).
Sult further discloses if the voltage value (¶ [35]: “current charge level of battery pack 265”) of the battery cells (“battery cells” within “265”) are lower (“yes” response to step 410; Fig. 4A) than the recharging threshold (step 410: “EC shutoff”) of the under-voltage protection (Figs. 4A-4B), proceeding with step S401 (Fig. 4A, step 408; follows after a “Yes” response to step 410 and “no response to “414”; detailed mapping for step S401 included infra for Sult).
Sult further discloses (S401) (Fig. 4A, step 408) checking whether a charger (“AC adapter 255”; Figs. 1-2; per ¶ [33]: “capable of … charging battery cells of battery pack 265”) is connected (Fig. 4A, step 408: “external power provided?”; if external power is provided by “255”, it is inherent that “255” is connected via “mating interconnection terminals 290 and 292”; thus, step 408 is also checking whether charger “255” is connected with the rest of “200”).
Sult further discloses if the charger is connected (“yes” response to step 408: “external power provided?”; Fig. 4A), entering a charging mode (Fig. 4B, step 444; ¶ [38-39]) through the charging and discharging unit (“380” + “382”; ¶ [21]: “380 is a charge FET switching element … to allow or disallow charge current to the battery cell circuitry 324”).
Sult further discloses if the charger is disconnected (“no” response to step 408: “external power provided?”; Fig. 4A), proceeding with step S403 (Fig. 4A, step 412; detailed mapping for step S401 included infra for Sult).
Sult further discloses (S403) (Fig. 4A, step 412; ¶ [35]) writing a battery status (¶ [35]: “persistent EC shutdown flag may be stored in persistent memory”; occurs during step 412) to the electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (“persistent storage 211”; Figs. 1-2; “EEPROM” per ¶ [15]), and then shutting the battery management system down (Fig. 4, step 416: “BMU powers itself down”).
Sult further discloses (S302) (Fig. 4B, steps 422-424) activating the second section under-voltage protection (¶ [37-38]: evaluation of battery voltage with respect to “pre-determined permanent failure operating voltage threshold”; Fig. 4B, step 424: “battery/cells above permanent failure threshold”) by the analog front-end unit (“AFE” within “BMU 266”).
Sult further discloses the battery management system (200) has a first voltage protection threshold value (“EC shutoff” of Fig. 4, steps 410 & 434; also referred to as the “predetermined safe shut off voltage threshold for EC 280” per ¶ [35]).
Sult further discloses the battery management system (200) has a second voltage protection threshold value (“permanent failure threshold” of Fig. 4B, step 424; also referred to as “pre-determined permanent failure operating voltage threshold” in ¶ [37-38]) lower (per ¶ [8], the “EC minimum acceptable operating voltage threshold value” is above the “BMU minimum acceptable operating voltage threshold value”, which is above the “pre-determined permanent failure operating voltage threshold”; thus, the “permanent failure threshold” is lower than the “EC shutoff threshold”) than the first voltage protection threshold value (“EC shutoff threshold”).
Sult further discloses the recharging threshold (“EC shutoff threshold” of Fig. 4, steps 410 & 434; also referred to as the “EC minimum acceptable operating voltage threshold value” per ¶ [8] and the “predetermined safe shut off voltage threshold for EC 280” per ¶ [35]) is higher (per ¶ [8], the “EC minimum acceptable operating voltage threshold value” is above the “BMU minimum acceptable operating voltage threshold value”, which is above the “pre-determined permanent failure operating voltage threshold”; thus, the “EC shutoff threshold” is higher than the “permanent failure threshold”) than the second voltage protection threshold value (“permanent failure threshold”).
Sult further discloses that when a voltage (voltage of “battery cell circuitry 324” within “200”) of the battery management system (200) drops to the first voltage protection threshold value (“yes” response to step 410 indicates battery voltage is “below EC shutoff”; Fig. 4A), the battery management system (200) enters a first section under-voltage protection state (Fig. 4A, step 412: “power disconnected from MB and EC battery and BMU only are powered”).
Sult further discloses that when the voltage (voltage of battery “324”) of the battery management system (200) is lower than the second voltage protection threshold value (“no” response to step 424 indicates battery voltage is below “permanent failure threshold”; Fig. 4A), the battery management system (200) enters a second section under-voltage protection state (Fig. 4B, step 440: “assert permanent failure indication in battery and blow inline fuse”).
As addressed supra, Sult discloses step 302 (activating the second section under-voltage protection by the analog front-end unit). However, Sult does not disclose “if the previous shutdown cause of the battery management system is not the under-voltage protection shutdown, proceeding with step 302.
As also addressed supra, Sult discloses evaluating a voltage value of the battery cells. However, Sult does not disclose evaluating “voltage values of various series of battery cells” (applicable to multiple limitations).
As addressed supra, Sult discloses that if the charger is connected, entering a charging mode through the charging and discharging unit. However, Sult does not disclose the underlined portion of “if the charger is connected for a preset number of seconds, entering a charging mode through the charging and discharging unit”.
As addressed supra, Sult discloses that if the charger is disconnected, proceeding with step S403 (write a battery status to memory & shutdown). However, Sult does not disclose the underlined portion of “if the charger is disconnected for a predetermined time, proceeding with step S403;
Sult further does not disclose “the battery management system is shut down if the voltage of the battery management system is between the first voltage protection threshold value and the second voltage protection threshold value and a first preset delay time is reached”.
Sult further does not disclose “the battery management system is shut down if the voltage of the battery management system is kept below the second voltage protection threshold value and a second preset delay time is reached, the first preset delay time being longer than the second preset delay time”.
Lee teaches if the previous shutdown cause of the battery management system (“power control apparatus” of Fig. 1 is used to manage “battery 10”) is not the under-voltage protection shutdown (“No” response to step S130: “Is flag set?”; ¶ [30]: “if the flag is set, the system has been shut down by the cutoff mode”; ¶ [12]: “shutting down a system if the voltage of the battery is lower than a reference value”; see annotated Fig. 3, included infra), proceeding with step 302, i.e., activating the second section under-voltage protection (second section: step S140: “Is battery voltage higher than first cutoff voltage?”; first section: step S150: “Is battery voltage higher than second cutoff voltage?”; ¶ [14]: “second cutoff voltage … higher than the first cutoff voltage”) by the analog front-end unit (“A/D converter 20” is used to measure voltage of “battery 10”; Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
851
1810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee further teaches this order of steps to save the charging time of the battery, while also employing the second section under-voltage protection to extend the life span of the battery (¶ [18]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the under-voltage detection method and analog front-end unit disclosed by Sult to proceed to step S302 (activate the second section under-voltage protection) if the previous shutdown cause is not the under-voltage protection shutdown, as taught by Lee, for the advantages of reducing charging time and extending life span of the battery.
Kubo teaches an under-voltage protection method (Fig. 14) applied in a battery management system (Fig. 1 system for managing “battery unit 9”), which includes evaluating voltage values (evaluates voltages “VCCA”, “VCCB”, and “VCCC” of cell groups, as shown in Fig. 3; by another interpretation of the claim, Kubo also evaluates voltage values of individual cells within the various series) of various series (“battery cell groups GB1, GB2, GB3”; Fig. 3; ¶ [82]: “each include a plurality of serially connected battery cells”) of battery cells (“battery cells BC1-BC4”; Fig. 3).
Kubo further teaches evaluating voltage values of various series of battery cells to enable the diagnosis of abnormalities, such as under-voltages, in cells and cell groups (¶ [9]), which improves the reliability of the battery management system and the safety of its use, such as in vehicle applications (¶ [9])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the under-voltage protection method and battery management system disclosed by the combo of Sult & Lee to evaluate voltage values of various series of battery cells, as taught by Kubo, to improve the reliability of the battery management system and the safety of its use.
Noda teaches if the charger (“charger 20”; Figs. 1-2) is connected for a preset number seconds (“predetermined period of time or more” in step S160 of Fig. 4; per ¶ [133]: “for example, one second”; thus, “a few seconds” meets the criteria for a “yes” response to step S160), entering a charging mode (Fig. 4, step S130; follows a “yes” response to step S160; step S130 causes switch “40” to open, which allows “72” to charge “battery 31”; Fig. 2) through the charging and discharging unit (“switching power supply circuit 72 for charging”; Fig. 2; ¶ [103]).
Noda further teaches if the charger (20) is disconnected for a predetermined time (“No” response to step S160; Fig. 4), proceeding with a next step (Fig. 4, step S170; shuts down the system per ¶ [136-137]).
Noda further teaches using a predetermined time threshold to check whether the charger is connected as a clear criterion to quickly determine the charger is connected (¶ [133-135]), so the system can be shut down if the charger is not connected, which helps protect the battery from overdischarge (¶ [136-137]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the under-voltage protection method’s step 401 of checking whether the charger is connected, as disclosed by the combo of Sult, Lee, & Kubo, to be based on a predetermined time, as taught by Noda, to help protect the battery from overdischarge in the event the charger is not connected for the required minimum time.
Sun teaches (see annotated Fig. 18, included infra) the battery management system (“battery management system 1” of Fig. 1 or “battery management system 2” of Fig. 3) is shut down (opening a fuse and/or switch as part of step S321, which follows the “buffer time” in step S3111 of the “local protection process”; Fig. 18) if the voltage (voltage of “power supply module 11” or “battery pack 21”; Figs. 1, 3) of the battery management system (1, 2) is between (“yes” response to Fig. 18, step S31, indicates voltage is below the “protection activation threshold of the local protection process” and above the “protection activation threshold of the global protection process”) the first voltage protection threshold value (“protection activation threshold of the local protection process”) and the second voltage protection threshold value (“protection activation threshold of the global protection process”) and a first preset delay time (Fig. 18, step S3111: “buffer time”) is reached (¶ [11]: “activate a local protection process to turn off the switch module after a buffer time”).
Sun further teaches the battery management system (1, 2) is shut down (opening a fuse and/or switch, which is performed in the “global protection process” of step S321; Fig. 18) if the voltage of the battery management system is kept below the second voltage protection threshold value (“yes” response to step S32 indicates voltage is below the “protection activation threshold of the global protection process”) and a second preset delay time is reached (inherent delay time associated with opening the switch and/or fuse as part of step S321; ¶ [11]: “activate a global protection process to turn off the switch module”; inherent delay time is evidenced by Fig. 4’s depiction of the “current” curve sloping from a negative discharging current to zero over a short delay time during the “global protection process”; further, every datasheet for any MOSFET device includes a delay time parameter to turn off).
PNG
media_image2.png
930
1298
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sun further teaches the first preset delay time (“buffer time” for the “local protection process”) being longer (annotated Fig. 4, included infra, shows the “buffer time” is longer than the time to fully open the switch) than the second preset delay time (delay time to fully open the switch in step S321 in Fig. 18; depicted by the current ramping from a negative discharging level to zero in Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image3.png
878
1329
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Sun further teaches the first and second preset delay times for shut down operations, with the first preset delay time being longer than the second preset delay times for shut down operations to enable the user to take some emergency measures under less dangerous battery conditions, such as parking a vehicle powered by the battery (¶ [44]). Thus, the safety of the battery management system is enhanced (¶ [49]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the under-voltage protection method disclosed by the combo of Sult, Lee, Kubo, & Noda to incorporate the first and second preset delay times for shut down operations, as taught by Sun, to improve the safety of the battery management system.
Regarding Claim 3, the combo of Sult, Lee, Kubo, Noda, & Sun teaches the under-voltage protection method as claimed in claim 1.
Sult further discloses in step 401 (Fig. 4A, step 408), the analog front-end unit (“AFE” within “BMU 266”) confirms whether the charger (255) is connected with the battery management system (200) in advance (step 408 is completed in advance of entering charging mode in step 444; Figs. 4A-4B).
Sult further discloses the micro-controller (“microcontroller” within “EC 280”) communicates (via the “battery system data bus (SMBus) 281”; Figs. 1-2; ¶ [17]: “281 is coupled … to provide … battery voltage … from BMU 266 … to EC 280”) with the analog front-end unit (“AFE” within “BMU 266”) to monitor the voltage (“battery voltage”, detected by “AFE”) of the battery management system (“200”).
Sult further discloses if an electric quantity (¶ [39]: “current battery charge level”) of the battery management system (“200”, includes “battery pack 265”) approaches a full charge condition (¶ [39]: “sufficient battery charge level has met or exceeded the predetermined minimum acceptable operating voltage threshold value”; reaching this threshold indicates the battery voltage has increased, or, in other words, approached a full charge condition), the analog front-end unit (“AFE” within “BMU 266”) proceeds with a confirmation (“AFE” is used to measure battery voltage; the confirmation is sent from “AFE”/“BMU 266” to clear the “persistent shutdown flag” per ¶ [39]).
Regarding Claim 5, the combo of Sult, Lee, Kubo, Noda, & Sun teaches the under-voltage protection method as claimed in claim 1.
Sult discloses that in entering the charging mode (Fig. 4B, step 444; ¶ [38-39]) through the charging and discharging unit (“380” + “382”), the charging and discharging unit activates the charging mode (¶ [21]: “380 is a charge FET switching element … to allow or disallow charge current to the battery cell circuitry 324”).
PNG
media_image4.png
429
505
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Excerpt of Sult Fig. 2
Sult further discloses in the charging mode (Fig. 4B, step 444), a discharging field effect transistor switch (“discharge FET switching element 382”; Fig. 1) is switched on at first (“382” is in closed state during discharging and an open state during charging; thus, at the start of charging, “382” changes from the closed state to the open state; thus, at the start of charging, “382” is in a switched on state, followed soon after by switching off), and then the charging field effect transistor switch (“charge FET switching element 380”; Fig. 1) is switched on (during charging, “C-FET 380” is controlled into the closed-state to allow current).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sultenfuss et al. (US 2014/0068310 A1, hereinafter “Sult”) in view of Lee et al. (US 2008/0180264 A1), Kubo et al. (US 2009/0198399 A1), Noda et al. (US 2013/0113427 A1), Sun et al. (US 2018/0172770 A1), and Takahiro (JP 2007274846 A; hereinafter “Taka”).
Regarding Claim 2, the combo of Sult, Lee, Kubo, Noda, & Sun teaches the under-voltage protection method as claimed in claim 1.
The combo of Sult, Lee, Kubo, Noda, & Sun (as set forth prior) teaches in step S401 (Sult: Fig. 4A, step 408; modified per Noda’s Fig. 4, step S160) the battery management system (Sult: “200”; modified per Noda, as addressed supra) waits a predetermined period (incorporated from Noda: “predetermined period of time or more” in step S160 of Fig. 4) before checking whether the charger (Sult: “255”; Noda equivalent: “20”) is connected.
Sult does not disclose “in step S401 the battery management system waits ten seconds before checking whether the charger is connected”.
Taka teaches that in a step (¶ [17-18]; occurs prior to charging that starts in ¶ [19]), the system waits ten seconds (¶ [18]: “standby unit waits for a predetermined time”; ¶ [72]: “may be about 3 to 10 seconds”) before checking whether the charger (“31”) is connected (¶ [17]: “determining whether or not a battery is connected to the charger”).
Takahiro further teaches to wait ten seconds in the step of checking whether the charger is connected to mitigate risk of electric spark generation which may occur at the start of charging when the charger is not completely connected (¶ [20, 54]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the under-voltage protection method’s step 401 of checking whether the charger is connected, as disclosed by the combo of Sult, Lee, Kubo, Noda, & Sun, to wait ten seconds, as taught by Taka, to reduce risk of electric spark generation from a charger that is not completely connected.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sultenfuss et al. (US 2014/0068310 A1, hereinafter “Sult”) in view of Kubo et al. (US 2009/0198399 A1) and Sun (US 2018/0172770 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Sult discloses a battery management system (“information handling system 200” for managing “battery cell circuitry 324”; Figs. 1-2) having a first section under-voltage protection (evaluation of battery voltage with respect to the “predetermined safe shut off voltage threshold for EC” and the “predetermined safe shut off voltage threshold for BMU”; ¶ [35-36]; Figs. 4A-4B, steps 410-414) and a second section under-voltage protection (¶ [37-38]: evaluation of battery voltage with respect to “pre-determined permanent failure operating voltage threshold”; Fig. 4B, step 424: “battery/cells above permanent failure threshold”), comprising the following.
Sult further discloses a control module (“embedded controller (EC) 280”; Figs. 1-2) having a system communication function (communicates via “battery system data bus (SMBus) 281” and other connected communications lines; Figs. 1-2).
Sult further discloses the control module (“EC 280”) including a micro-controller (“microcontroller” serves as processing device for “EC 280” per ¶ [44]).
Sult further discloses an electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (“persistent storage 211”; Figs. 1-2; “EEPROM” per ¶ [15]) connected with the micro-controller (“microcontroller” within “EC 280”).
Sult further discloses the micro-controller (“microcontroller” within “EC 280”) controlling (¶ [35]: “EC 280 checks in step 410 whether the current charge level of battery pack 265 is below the predetermined safe shut off voltage threshold for EC 280”) the first section under-voltage protection (evaluation of battery voltage with respect to the “predetermined safe shut off voltage threshold for EC” and the “predetermined safe shut off voltage threshold for BMU”; ¶ [35-36]; Figs. 4A-4B, steps 410-414).
Sult further discloses an analog front-end unit (“AFE” within “BMU 266”; per ¶ [24-25], “266” can perform the processing to execute the disclosed methods; “AFE” is the portion of “266” which measures analog signals, such as battery voltage, and controls the charging and discharging unit in accordance with the disclosed methods and is thus used for all I/O to/from “266”) connected to the micro-controller (“microcontroller” within “EC 280”).
Sult further discloses the analog front-end unit (“AFE” within “BMU 266”) being used for communicating (via the “battery system data bus (SMBus) 281”; Figs. 1-2) with the micro-controller (“microcontroller” within “EC 280”).
Sult further discloses the analog front-end unit (“AFE” within “BMU 266”) controlling (“266” evaluates battery voltage with respect to “pre-determined permanent failure operating voltage threshold” and thus controls the second section UVP) the second section under-voltage protection; (¶ [37-38]: evaluation of battery voltage with respect to “pre-determined permanent failure operating voltage threshold”; Fig. 4B, step 424: “battery/cells above permanent failure threshold”).
Sult further discloses a monitoring unit (“battery management unit (BMU) 266”; Figs. 1-2; ¶ [22]: “monitors voltage of battery cell circuitry 324”) connected (“AFE” is within “BMU 266” per ¶ [17] and is thus connected to “BMU 266”) to the analog front-end unit (“AFE” within “BMU 266”).
Sult further discloses the monitoring unit (“BMU 266”, including “AFE”) being used for monitoring a voltage (¶ [22]: “monitors voltage of battery cell circuitry 324”) and a current (“266” monitors current using “current sense resistor 390”; ¶ [22]) of the battery management system (200).
Sult further discloses a charging and discharging unit (combo of “charge FET 380” & “discharge FET 382”; Fig. 2) for controlling and protecting the battery management system (200).
Sult further discloses the charging and discharging unit (“380” + “382”) including a charging switch which is a charging field effect transistor (“charge FET 380”; ¶ [21]), and a discharging switch which is a discharging field effect transistor (“discharge FET 382”; ¶ [21]).
Sult further discloses the monitoring unit (“BMU 266”), and the charging and discharging unit (“380” + “382”) being connected with the analog front-end unit (“AFE” is within “BMU 266” per ¶ [17] and is thus connected to “BMU 266”; ¶ [21]: “380 … is controlled by … AFE”; ¶ [21]: “382 … is controlled by … AFE”).
Sult further discloses the battery management system (200) has a first voltage protection threshold value (“EC shutoff” of Fig. 4, steps 410 & 434; also referred to as the “predetermined safe shut off voltage threshold for EC 280” per ¶ [35]).
Sult further discloses the battery management system (200) has a second voltage protection threshold value (“permanent failure threshold” of Fig. 4B, step 424; also referred to as “pre-determined permanent failure operating voltage threshold” in ¶ [37-38]) lower (per ¶ [8], the “EC minimum acceptable operating voltage threshold value” is above the “BMU minimum acceptable operating voltage threshold value”, which is above the “pre-determined permanent failure operating voltage threshold”; thus, the “permanent failure threshold” is lower than the “EC shutoff threshold”) than the first voltage protection threshold value (“EC shutoff threshold”).
Sult further discloses a recharging threshold (“EC shutoff threshold” of Fig. 4, steps 410 & 434; also referred to as the “EC minimum acceptable operating voltage threshold value” per ¶ [8] and the “predetermined safe shut off voltage threshold for EC 280” per ¶ [35]) higher (per ¶ [8], the “EC minimum acceptable operating voltage threshold value” is above the “BMU minimum acceptable operating voltage threshold value”, which is above the “pre-determined permanent failure operating voltage threshold”; thus, the “EC shutoff threshold” is higher than the “permanent failure threshold”) than the second voltage protection threshold value (“permanent failure threshold”).
Sult further discloses that when a voltage (voltage of “battery cell circuitry 324” within “200”) of the battery management system (200) drops to the first voltage protection threshold value (“yes” response to step 410 indicates battery voltage is “below EC shutoff”; Fig. 4A), the battery management system (200) enters a first section under-voltage protection state (Fig. 4A, step 412: “power disconnected from MB and EC battery and BMU only are powered”).
Sult further discloses that when the voltage (voltage of battery “324”) of the battery management system (200) is lower than the second voltage protection threshold value (“no” response to step 424 indicates battery voltage is below “permanent failure threshold”; Fig. 4A), the battery management system (200) enters a second section under-voltage protection state (Fig. 4B, step 440: “assert permanent failure indication in battery and blow inline fuse”).
Sult does not disclose the monitoring unit being used for monitoring “a temperature of the battery management system”.
Sult further does not disclose “the battery management system is shut down if the voltage of the battery management system is between the first voltage protection threshold value and the second voltage protection threshold value and a first preset delay time is reached”.
Sult further does not disclose “the battery management system is shut down if the voltage of the battery management system is kept below the second voltage protection threshold value and a second preset delay time is reached, the first preset delay time being longer than the second preset delay time”.
Kubo teaches the monitoring unit (“integrated circuit 3a”; Figs. 1-2) being used for monitoring a temperature (Fig. 14, step 805: “measure overall voltage, current and temperature”) of the battery management system (Fig. 1 system for managing “battery unit 9”) to enable the diagnosis of abnormalities, such as abnormal rise in temperature in cells and cell groups (¶ [88]), which improves the reliability of the battery management system and the safety of its use, such as in vehicle applications (¶ [9])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery management system and monitoring unit disclosed by Sult to monitor a temperature of the battery management system, as taught by Kubo, to improve the reliability of the battery management system and the safety of its use.
Sun teaches (see annotated Fig. 18, included supra in the claim 1 section) the battery management system (“battery management system 1” of Fig. 1 or “battery management system 2” of Fig. 3) is shut down (opening a fuse and/or switch as part of step S321, which follows the “buffer time” in step S3111 of the “local protection process”; Fig. 18) if the voltage (voltage of “power supply module 11” or “battery pack 21”; Figs. 1, 3) of the battery management system (1, 2) is between (“yes” response to Fig. 18, step S31, indicates voltage is below the “protection activation threshold of the local protection process” and above the “protection activation threshold of the global protection process”) the first voltage protection threshold value (“protection activation threshold of the local protection process”) and the second voltage protection threshold value (“protection activation threshold of the global protection process”) and a first preset delay time (Fig. 18, step S3111: “buffer time”) is reached (¶ [11]: “activate a local protection process to turn off the switch module after a buffer time”).
Sun further teaches the battery management system (1, 2) is shut down (opening a fuse and/or switch, which is performed in the “global protection process” of step S321; Fig. 18) if the voltage of the battery management system is kept below the second voltage protection threshold value (“yes” response to step S32 indicates voltage is below the “protection activation threshold of the global protection process”) and a second preset delay time is reached (inherent delay time associated with opening the switch and/or fuse as part of step S321; ¶ [11]: “activate a global protection process to turn off the switch module”; inherent delay time is evidenced by Fig. 4’s depiction of the “current” curve sloping from a negative discharging current to zero over a short delay time during the “global protection process”; further, every datasheet for any MOSFET device includes a delay time parameter to turn off).
Sun further teaches the first preset delay time (“buffer time” for the “local protection process”) being longer (annotated Fig. 4, included supra, shows the “buffer time” is longer than the time to fully open the switch) than the second preset delay time (delay time to fully open the switch in step S321 in Fig. 18; depicted by the current ramping from a negative discharging level to zero in Fig. 4).
Sun further teaches the first and second preset delay times for shut down operations, with the first preset delay time being longer than the second preset delay times for shut down operations to enable the user to take some emergency measures under less dangerous battery conditions, such as parking a vehicle powered by the battery (¶ [44]). Thus, the safety of the battery management system is enhanced (¶ [49]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the battery management system disclosed by the combo of Sult, Lee, Kubo, & Noda to incorporate the first and second preset delay times for shut down operations, as taught by Sun, to improve the safety of the battery management system.
Conclusion
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 Daniel P McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM Eastern.
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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/DANIEL P MCFARLAND/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights