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 .
Status of the Claims
In the communication filed on 02/06/2026 claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 7, 10-11, and 13-15 are amended to correct objections and a 112(a) rejection. Claim 1 is independent.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 02/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on pages 10-11 of the Remarks dated 02/06/2026 that based on 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) Commonly Owned Disclosure that Paryani et al. (USPGPN 20200282853) is not a prior art and therefore the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection should be withdrawn. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Paryani was published on 09/10/2020 and the effective filing date of the application 18/091,289 is 12/29/2021. A grace period for the inventors extends this to 12/29/2020. However, the 09/10/2020 publication date of Paryani occurred before the grace period date of 12/29/2020. Therefore, Paryani qualifies as a 102(a)(1) prior reference because it was published 110 days prior to the grace period date, see MPEP 2153.01(a) Grace Period Inventor-Originated Disclosure Exception. Thus, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections remain.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection is withdrawn due to the amendments made by the applicant.
The claim objections and the drawing objection are withdrawn due to the amendments made by the applicant.
The specification objection remains. A marked-up copy must be submitted along with the clean copy as outlined in 37 C.F.R. 1.121.
This Office Action is made Final.
Specification
Note: The substitute specification filed 02/06/2026 has not been approved for entry because a marked-up copy and a clean copy of the amendments must be submitted in accordance with 37 C.F.R. 1.121.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in ¶ [16] the cited U.S. Patent number is incorrect. Amend the specification to include the correct U.S. Patent Number.
Appropriate correction is required. A marked-up copy and a clean copy of the amendments must be submitted in accordance with 37 C.F.R. 1.121.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-9, 12, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paryani et al. (USPGPN 20200282853) and further in view of Yang et al. (USPGPN 20130332085).
With respect to claim 1, Paryani teaches an Energy Management Unit (EMU) which combines a battery management system (BMS) and On-Board Charger (OBC) and optional DC-DC for managing a battery (Fig. 1; BCD 100 short for combined BMS/Charger/DC-DC (i.e., EMU) combines a BMS 122/124, an OBC 126, and a DC-DC 132 for managing a battery 112/104).
Paryani teaches a plurality of communications to current sensors (Fig. 1; a plurality of communications to current sensors 140, 142, 144, and 146).
Paryani teaches a power-electronics assembly designed to take AC grid power and charge the battery (Fig. 1; a bi-directional OBC 114 designed to take AC power 150 and charge the battery 112/104).
However, Paryani fails to explicitly teach Analog Front End (AFE) application-specific integrated circuit (ASICs).
Yang teaches Analog Front End (AFE) application-specific integrated circuit (ASICs) (¶ [291]; analog front end integrated circuit which is a custom ASIC used to implement EIS diagnostics).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Paryani’s BMS/Charger/DC-DC apparatus by adding Yang’s AFE ASIC sensor, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to be aware that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
With respect to claim 2, Paryani teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Paryani teaches wherein the OBC comprises a low output capacitance charger (Fig. 2; the OBC comprises a low output capacitance charger, see ¶ [56]).
With respect to claim 3, Paryani teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Paryani teaches wherein one DC output of the OBC are connected to a battery side of main contactors of the battery (Fig. 1; one DC output of the OBC 114 are connected to a battery contactor 110/148 of the battery 112/104).
With respect to claim 5, Paryani teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Paryani teaches wherein the OBC is configured to control an output current at various sinusoidal frequencies (Fig. 3; ¶ [56]; it is understood by one of ordinary skill that the OBC 126 is configured to regulate the output current as a sinusoidal waveform at various frequencies by using its H-bridge PWM carrier frequency to generate synchronized triggers for precise waveform regulation).
With respect to claim 8, Paryani teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Paryani teaches wherein synchronized samples of battery current and voltage are acquired through the system and the current sensor, when the OBC is configured to output current of various sinusoidal frequencies (¶ [56]; the OBC 126 is configured to regulate output current as a sinusoidal waveform at various frequencies and the BMS acquires synchronized samples of cell voltages at the peaks of the waveform by deriving the sample trigger from the OBC’s H-bridge PWM carrier frequency. Table 3; ¶ [49]; the battery current is measured continuously by the current sensors).
However, Paryani fails to explicitly teach samples acquired through the AFE ASICs.
Yang teaches samples acquired through the AFE ASICs (¶ [291]; analog front end integrated circuit which is a custom ASIC used to implement EIS diagnostics which is understood by one of ordinary skill to include acquiring voltage and current samples of the battery).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Paryani’s BMS/Charger/DC-DC apparatus by adding Yang’s AFE ASIC sensor, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to be aware that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
With respect to claim 9, Paryani teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Paryani fails to explicitly teach further configured to compute battery impedance (magnitude and phase angle) of various frequencies, and re-create a Nyquist Plot data and parameters.
Yang teaches further configured to compute impedance (magnitude and phase angle) of various frequencies, and re-create a Nyquist Plot data and parameters (Fig. 16A; ¶ [181-182]; a Nyquist Plot illustrating data and parameters is created using computed impedance including magnitude and phase angle of various frequencies).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Paryani’s BMS/Charger/DC-DC apparatus by adding Yang’s EIS method and apply it towards a battery, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to be aware that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
With respect to claim 12, Paryani teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 9. Further, Paryani teaches wherein the OBC is further configured to trigger a BMS ADC sample request via a hardwired output / input interrupt (¶ [50; 54-56]; the OBC 126 synthesizes an output waveform by driving an H-bridge to generate sinusoidal waveforms at different frequencies through PWM carrier control and in Table 4 the ADC 136 directly monitors signals and employs digital filtering techniques to the measured signals including SPI or i2C. SPI and i2C are known to one of ordinary skill to be hardwired output / input interrupt based standards).
With respect to claim 15, Paryani teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Paryani teaches wherein the OBC is configured to communicate to the BMS of its output current frequency (Fig. 1; the OBC 126 is configured to communicate to BMS 122/124 the output current frequency through measurement from the current sensors 140, 142, 144, and 146 which include hall-effect and flux-gate capabilities as describe in Table 3. One of ordinary skill understands hall-effect and flux-gate capabilities would measure the output current frequency).
With respect to claim 18, Paryani teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Paryani teaches further comprising a low-voltage battery charger that converts power form a high-voltage battery and charge a low-voltage battery (Fig. 1; a single DC-DC 106 (i.e., a low-voltage battery charger) that converts power from a HV battery 112 and charge a LV Batt 104).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paryani et al. (USPGPN 20200282853), in view of Yang et al. (USPGPN 20130332085), and further in view of Golriz et al. (USPGPN 20220281335).
First, the examiner notes the limitation “without the signal being altered by a DC bus capacitance” is disclosed by the applicant in ¶ [17-18] as the isolation of the OBC 102/102’ and the HV battery 106 from the motor loads EDS 110 and HV compressor 112 which cause a large amount of bus capacitance on HV bus 108. Therefore, for examination purposes this limitation will be interpreted as the isolation of loads that cause high capacitance from the OBC and the battery.
With respect to claim 4, Paryani teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Paryani teaches wherein only one DC output of the OBC is connected to a battery side of main contactors of the battery while maintaining functional safety against over-charge (Fig. 1; one DC output of the OBC 114 are connected to a battery contactor 110/148 of the battery 112/104 while maintaining functional safety against over-charge as explained in Table 4 BMS LV 122 and BMS HV 124).
However, Paryani fails to explicitly teach while being able to measure a battery frequency response without the signal being altered by a DC bus capacitance.
Yang teaches while being able to measure a battery frequency response (¶ [291]; EIS diagnostics is known to one of ordinary skill in the art to be a measurement of battery frequency response).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Paryani’s BMS/Charger/DC-DC apparatus by adding Yang’s AFE ASIC sensor for EIS measurements of the battery, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to be aware that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
However, Paryani fails to explicitly teach without the signal being altered by a DC bus capacitance.
Golriz teaches without the signal being altered by a DC bus capacitance (Fig. 4; OBC 110 and battery 106 are isolated from capacitor load 116 at contactors 112/114/406/408. One of ordinary skill understands the signal from the OBC would not be altered by the DC bus capacitance caused by the capacitor load 116).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Paryani’s BMS/Charger/DC-DC apparatus with Yang’s AFE ASIC sensor for EIS measurements of the battery by adding Golriz’s DC bus capacitance isolation method, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
With respect to claim 6, Paryani teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Paryani teaches when the OBC is configured to output current of various sinusoidal frequencies (Fig. 3; ¶ [56]; it is understood by one of ordinary skill that the OBC 126 is configured to regulate the output current as a sinusoidal waveform at various frequencies by using its H-bridge PWM carrier frequency to generate synchronized triggers for precise waveform regulation).
However, Paryani fails to explicitly teach when one or more of main contactors of the battery are in open state.
Golriz teaches when one or more of main contactors of the battery are in open state (Fig. 4; OBC 110 and battery 106 are isolated from capacitor load 116 at contactors 112/114/406/408. One of ordinary skill understands the signal from the OBC would not be altered by the DC bus capacitance caused by the capacitor load 116).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Paryani’s BMS/Charger/DC-DC apparatus by adding Golriz’s DC bus capacitance isolation method, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paryani et al. (USPGPN 20200282853), in view of Yang et al. (USPGPN 20130332085), and further in view of Hoenig et al. (USPGPN 20020193953).
With respect to claim 7, Paryani teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Paryani teaches the OBC (Fig. 1; OBC 126).
However, Paryani fails to explicitly teach configured to control DC pulses and directly measure the high voltage battery and / or low voltage battery power available.
Hoenig teaches configured to control DC pulses and directly measure the high voltage battery and / or low voltage battery power available (¶ [11; 35]; the available energy of a battery at different voltage levels (high or low) is determined based on applying a charging current pulse to a battery. One of ordinary skill understands the available power may be determined from the determined available energy).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Paryani’s BMS/Charger/DC-DC apparatus by adding Hoenig’s battery DC pulse method, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paryani et al. (USPGPN 20200282853), in view of Yang et al. (USPGPN 20130332085), and further in view of Keaveney et al. (USPGPN 20120062297).
With respect to claim 10, Paryani teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 8. Further, Paryani teaches wherein the OBC is configured to synthesize an output waveform via frequency adjustable sine wave generator and send analog to digital converter (ADC) sample commands depending on measured signals (¶ [50; 54-56]; the OBC 126 synthesizes an output waveform by driving an H-bridge to generate sinusoidal waveforms at different frequencies through PWM carrier control and in Table 4 the ADC 136 directly monitors signals and employs digital filtering techniques to the measured signals).
However, Paryani fails to explicitly teach an output waveform via frequency adjustable sawtooth generator, internally track angle, and send commands depending on a corresponding output angle.
Keaveney teaches an output waveform via frequency adjustable sine wave / sawtooth generator, internally track angle, and send commands depending on a corresponding output angle (Fig. 1; ¶ [10-12, 24-27]; a frequency sweep generator 160 capable of outputting a saw-tooth frequency ramp, the phase detector 110 tracks phase angle by comparing Fout to FREF, and the control loop acts on the phase comparison which depends on Fout. One of ordinary skill understands the VCO output is a sine wave so this PLL can also work on sinusoidal wave forms).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Paryani’s BMS/Charger/DC-DC apparatus by adding Keaveney’s phase locked loop circuit for phase angle tracking and control, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paryani et al. (USPGPN 20200282853), in view of Yang et al. (USPGPN 20130332085), and further in view of Karippumannil Prasad et al. (USPGPN 20180321324).
With respect to claim 11¸ Paryani teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Paryani fails to explicitly teach wherein parameters are extracted to fit 2RC model.
Karippumannil Prasad teaches wherein parameters are extracted to fit 2RC model (Fig. 5; ¶ [32]; dynamic parameters are applied to fit a particular battery type comprising a 2RC model).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Paryani’s BMS/Charger/DC-DC apparatus by adding Karippumannil Prasad’s 2RC model of a battery for parameter monitoring, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paryani et al. (USPGPN 20200282853), in view of Yang et al. (USPGPN 20130332085), and further in view of Laletin et al. (USPGPN 20030206021).
With respect to claim 13, Paryani teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Paryani teaches wherein parameters are extracted to indicate a short failure (¶ [49]; short-circuit detection is enabled via hardware comparator circuit 3. One of ordinary skill understands it would be imminent).
However, Paryani fails to explicitly teach indicate imminent cell short failure, via phase angle analysis and cell anomaly.
Laletin teaches indicate imminent cell short failure, via phase angle analysis and cell anomaly (¶ [205]; an imminent cell failure mechanism may be identified based on frequency response measured data (i.e., which includes phase angle analysis) and anomalous response data of the cell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Paryani’s BMS/Charger/DC-DC apparatus by adding Laletin’s method for imminent battery cell failure determination based on phase angle analysis and cell anomaly, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to be aware that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paryani et al. (USPGPN 20200282853), in view of Yang et al. (USPGPN 20130332085), and further in view of Dick et al. (USPN 6333649).
With respect to claim 14, Paryani teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 12. Further, Paryani teaches wherein the BMS is configured to use an input interrupt to trigger isoSPI/current sensor start of a conversion command; and wherein, after each ADC conversion is complete and the BMS is ready, the OBC is configured to send a next sample trigger (¶ [19, 49, 56]; the OBC is configured to communicate sample triggers to the BMS using standard serial interfaces, including SPI, i2C, and isoSPI, thereby enabling synchronized ADC conversions).
However, Paryani fails to explicitly teach a next sample trigger theta(n) = theta(n-1) + d_theta.
Dick teaches a next sample trigger theta(n) = theta(n-1) + d_theta (Fig. 1; phase increment d_theta is added to the previous phase value in register 102 (i.e., theta(n-1)) resulting in theta(n)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Paryani’s BMS/Charger/DC-DC apparatus by adding Dick’s direct digital synthesizer for adding a phase increment to a phase accumulator resulting in a trigger that updates through an increment the previous value, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to be aware that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paryani et al. (USPGPN 20200282853), in view of Yang et al. (USPGPN 20130332085), and further in view of Benz et al. (USPN 7864303).
With respect to claim 16, Paryani teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Paryani fails to explicitly teach wherein voltages are sampled at a lower frequency and then stitched together to recreate a higher frequency signal.
Benz teaches wherein voltages are sampled at a lower frequency and then stitched together to recreate a higher frequency signal (Figs. 1-2; low frequency signals are added together through heterodyne mixing creating a high-frequency signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Paryani’s BMS/Charger/DC-DC apparatus by adding Benz’s low frequency heterodyne mixing method to recreate a high frequency signal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to be aware that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paryani et al. (USPGPN 20200282853), in view of Yang et al. (USPGPN 20130332085), and further in view of Takechi (WIPO Patent WO-2021053976-A1).
With respect to claim 17, Paryani teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Paryani fails to explicitly teach allows improved measurements of State of Charge, State of Health and State of Power.
Takechi teaches allows improved measurements of State of Charge, State of Health and State of Power (¶ [57]; improved measurements of State of Charge, State of Health, and State of Power are allowed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Paryani’s BMS/Charger/DC-DC apparatus by adding Takechi’s measurements of State of Charge, State of Health, and State of Power, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to be aware that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
With respect to claim 19, Paryani teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 17. Further, Paryani teaches wherein the low-voltage battery charger comprises a DC/DC converter (Fig. 1; the low-voltage battery charger is a single DC-DC 106).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paryani et al. (USPGPN 20200282853), in view of Yang et al. (USPGPN 20130332085) and Takechi (WIPO Patent WO-2021053976-A1), and further in view of Laletin et al. (USPGPN 20030206021).
With respect to claim 20, Paryani teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 17.
Paryani teaches wherein the EMU extracts parameters to indicate a short failure (¶ [49]; short-circuit detection is enabled via hardware comparator circuit 3. One of ordinary skill understands it would be imminent).
However, Paryani fails to explicitly teach current injection of various frequencies into the low-voltage battery, and extracts battery parameters to indicate an imminent cell short failure, via phase angle analysis.
Laletin teaches current injection of various frequencies into the battery, and extracts parameters to indicate imminent cell short failure, via phase angle analysis (¶ [205]; an imminent cell failure mechanism may be identified based on frequency response measured data (i.e., which includes phase angle analysis) and anomalous response data of the cell. One of ordinary skill understands signals at varying frequencies are injected into the battery to determine the frequency response).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Paryani’s BMS/Charger/DC-DC apparatus by adding Laletin’s method for imminent battery cell failure determination based on phase angle analysis and cell anomaly, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to be aware that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following were identified by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) dated 02/06/2026 and were cited in the Extended European Search Report dated 11/07/2025, however, were not relied upon for citation purposes in this Office Action:
Szubbocsev (USPGPN 20190294173) discloses a system and method for navigating an autonomous driving vehicle (ADV) that utilizes an-onboard computer and/or one or more ADV control system nodes in an ADV network platform.
Ing (USPGPN 20210237578) discloses methods, systems, and devices of an electrical vehicle are provided that recognize a catastrophic power system fault with one or more drive power sources of the vehicle and in response driving to an identified safe ejection location, ejecting the faulty drive power sources, and driving to a safe parked location or outside a predetermined safe range.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank A Silva whose telephone number is (703)756-1698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 09:30 am -06:30 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/FRANK ALEXIS SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859