DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment and Remarks filed 2026/04/07 have been fully considered. Claim 5 has been cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 6, and 10 have been amended. Claims 1–4 and 6–10 are pending, with claim 1 being independent.
The objection to the drawings has been rendered moot by Applicant's amendment to FIG. 1.
The objection to the title has been rendered moot by Applicant's amendment to the title.
The claim objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action identified claims 2, 6-8, and 10, but a defect was specifically identified only for claims 2, 6, and 10 (informal claim language in claim 2; a grammatical error in claim 6; a grammatical error in claim 10). Claims 7 and 8, as originally filed, contain no comparable informality, and their inclusion in that objection heading is hereby withdrawn as inadvertent. The objections to claims 2, 6, and 10 have been rendered moot by Applicant's amendment to those claims.
Claims 1–10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as set forth below. The rejection of amended claim 1 consolidates the rejections previously applied to original claims 1 and 5 to track Applicant's amendment cancelling claim 5 and incorporating its limitation into claim 1. This is not a new ground of rejection; it is necessitated by Applicant's own amendment, and relies on the same references (MAEDA and NAKATSUJI) and the same underlying rationale apply.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026/04/07 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9–10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that MAEDA's discharge ratio is determined by data structure 122, which tracks only SOH, SOC, battery discharge voltage, and battery discharge current for each battery pack, and that MAEDA does not disclose a discharge ratio updated by a plurality of cut-off battery cell voltages or cut-off battery cell voltages updated according to a minimum battery cell voltage in each battery pack. On this basis, Applicant contends MAEDA fails to teach amended claim 1's limitations of "obtaining a minimum battery cell voltage in each of the battery blocks respectively to update a plurality of cut-off battery cell voltages of each of battery blocks; and calculating a next discharge ratio of each of the battery blocks according to a current discharge ratio and the cut-off battery cell voltage of each of battery blocks".
Under MPEP § 2145(IV), one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references; a reply limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, without addressing the combined teaching, is treated as an individual attack.
Applicant's observation that MAEDA's data structure 122 does not itself track a per-cell cut-off voltage does not address the combination actually applied. The rejection of claim 1 did not rely on MAEDA alone to disclose cut-off-voltage-based tracking; this teaching is supplied by NAKATSUJI, applied in combination with MAEDA's discharge ratio adjustment framework. As explained in the rejection below, MAEDA discloses that its discharge ratio determination recurs at each next discharge process of the battery module (FIG. 2; ¶[0035]), and it is this recurring determination that NAKATSUJI's minimum-cell-voltage teaching is incorporated into.
Thus, these remarks are not persuasive.
On page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant similarly argues that NAKATSUJI, standing alone, discloses only that the discharge control portion stops discharge when the lowest terminal voltage among the secondary batteries drops to the cut-off voltage of discharge (¶[0063]), and does not disclose that a discharge ratio can be updated by a plurality of cut-off battery cell voltages.
Under MPEP § 2145(IV), one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references; a reply limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, without addressing the combined teaching, is treated as an individual attack.
This argument again attacks a single reference in isolation. NAKATSUJI was not relied upon alone to disclose a recalculated, updating discharge ratio; that iterative structure is supplied by MAEDA. The rejection relies on NAKATSUJI for its teaching of continuously detecting the terminal voltage of each secondary battery (¶[0041]) and identifying the lowest of those voltages as a cut-off/control parameter (¶[0020, 0047, 0063]). Because NAKATSUJI's voltage detection circuit continuously monitors the terminal voltages and the discharge control portion continuously evaluates the lowest voltage against the cut-off threshold, the minimum-voltage-based value it supplies is itself refreshed as monitoring continues. Incorporating that continuously-refreshed, minimum-voltage-based value into MAEDA's discharge ratio adjustment results in a combination that obtains a minimum battery cell voltage in each battery block to update a plurality of cut-off battery cell voltages.
Thus, these remarks are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 – 2 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the amendments
“of each of battery blocks” and
“calculating a next discharge ratio of each of the battery blocks according to a current discharge ratio and the cut-off battery cell voltage of each of battery blocks”
are grammatically incorrect. The amendments should read
“of each of the battery blocks” and
“calculating a next discharge ratio of each of the battery blocks according to a current discharge ratio and the cut-off battery cell voltage of each of the battery blocks”,
respectively.
Regarding claim 2, the amendment “and is same as a number of” does not fit grammatically with the claim. The amendment should read “is the same as the number of”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 6 – 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAEDA (US 2021/0159551 A1), and further in view of NAKATSUJI (US 2010/0019725 A1).
In re claim 1, MAEDA discloses a battery equipment discharge balancing method (¶[0015]: "an innovative battery management system (BMS) with multiple battery packs is provided."), the battery equipment includes a battery module, wherein the battery module includes a plurality of battery blocks connected in parallel (FIG. 1B; ¶[0032]: Battery Block 1 (102) and Battery Block 2 (104) feeding into a combined output I1+I2, depicting parallel connection architecture; "Output 138 and 140 are combined to provide a joint output 142."), comprising:
performing a discharge process of the battery module (Abstract, ¶[0032]: "… detecting by the processor, a discharge condition associated with at least one of the first battery pack and the second battery pack ... and controlling by the processor, based on the determined discharge ratio, a discharge rate of the first battery pack using a first voltage controller and a discharge rate of the second battery pack using a second voltage controller"; "Battery pack discharge occurs when a discharge condition is met ..."); and
calculating a next discharge ratio of each of the battery blocks according to a current discharge ratio (FIG. 2; ¶s [0028 – 0029]: "... the microcontroller 120 uses the monitored data to determine a discharge ratio from data structure 122"; "Based on the discharge ratio of data structure 122, the microcontroller 120 instructs the voltage converters 106 and 108 to adjust the output from each battery pack to balance the discharge between battery packs 110 and 112 ...").
MAEDA does not expressly disclose each of the battery blocks includes a plurality of battery cells connected in series; measuring a voltage of each of the battery cells in each of the battery blocks to generate a plurality of battery cell voltages; determining at least one of the plurality of battery cell voltages reaching a cut-off discharge voltage; obtaining a minimum battery cell voltage in each of the battery blocks respectively to update a plurality of cut-off battery cell voltages of each of battery blocks; calculating the next discharge of each of the batteries according to the cut-off battery cell voltage of each of the battery blocks.
NAKATSUJI teaches each of the battery blocks includes a plurality of battery cells connected in series (¶[0040]: "The set battery 14 includes a plurality of secondary batteries 141, 142, and 143 connected in series");
measuring a voltage of each of the battery cells in each of the battery blocks to generate a plurality of battery cell voltages (¶[0041]: "The terminal voltages Vb1, Vb2, and Vb3 across a plurality of the secondary batteries 141, 142, and 143, respectively, are detected by the voltage detection circuit 20 and inputted into the A/D converter 19 in the control IC 18.");
determining at least one of the plurality of battery cell voltages reaching a cut-off discharge voltage (¶[0007]: "... the discharge ends when the lowest voltage among the terminal voltages α11, α12, and α13 has dropped to the cut-off voltage of discharge, Vt ...");
obtaining a minimum battery cell voltage in each of the battery blocks respectively to update a plurality of cut-off battery cell voltages of each of battery blocks (¶[0020]: "... which is a lowest terminal voltage among the terminal voltages across the plurality of secondary batteries detected by the voltage detection portion ...").
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to incorporate NAKATSUJI’s per-cell voltage detection and minimum cell voltage identification as an additional parameter in MAEDA’s multi-block discharge ratio adjustment framework to improve the discharge management method and reduce battery degradation. Such a combination would result in a system that obtains a minimum battery cell voltage in each of the battery blocks respectively to generate a plurality of cut-off battery cell voltages, and adjusts the next discharge ratio of each battery block according to those cut-off battery cell voltages.
In re amended claim 2, MAEDA discloses wherein the plurality of battery blocks respectively have the same number of the battery cells (FIGS 1 A, 1B; ¶[0019]: each battery block has 1 battery pack)
MAEDA is silent to the number of the plurality of battery blocks and the plurality of cut-off battery cell voltages are the same.
NAKATSUJI teaches the number of the plurality of battery blocks and the plurality of cut-off battery cell voltages are the same (¶[0041]: "The terminal voltages Vb1, Vb2, and Vb3 across a plurality of the secondary batteries 141, 142, and 143, respectively, are detected by the voltage detection circuit 20 ...").
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to configure MAEDA’s plurality of battery blocks to be equal in number to the plurality of cut-off battery cell voltages in order to streamline the control logic, thereby lowering memory requirements and reducing computational complexity.
In re claim 3, MAEDA is silent to wherein at least one of the plurality of battery cell voltages reaches the cut-off discharge voltage, and the battery module is defined as fully discharged.
NAKATSUJI teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of battery cell voltages reaches the cut-off discharge voltage, and the battery module is defined as fully discharged (¶[0007, 0063]: "... the discharge ends when the lowest voltage among the terminal voltages α11, α12, and α13 has dropped to the cut-off voltage of discharge, Vt ..."; "When the terminal voltage Vb1, which is the lowest voltage among the terminal voltages Vb3, Vb2, and Vb1 obtained by the A/D converter 19, has dropped to the cut-off voltage of discharge, Vt, the switching element 12 is turned OFF ... to stop the discharge in order to prevent overdischarge of the set battery 14.").
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to modify the battery management system of MAEDA to include the discharging termination criteria of NAKATSUJI to prevent overdischarge of the set battery and prolong the life of the battery cells.
In re claim 4, MAEDA is silent to ranking the plurality of battery cell voltages of each of the battery blocks to obtain the cut-off battery cell voltage of each of the battery blocks.
NAKATSUJI teaches obtaining the cut-off battery cell voltage of each of the battery blocks (¶[0063]: "When the terminal voltage Vb1, which is the lowest voltage among the terminal voltages Vb3, Vb2, and Vb1 obtained by the A/D converter 19, has dropped to the cut-off voltage of discharge, Vt ...").
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to configure MAEDA’s battery equipment discharge balancing method to identify the lowest cell voltage, as taught by NAKATSUJI, to accurately detect the specific cell that reaches the cut-off threshold first, thereby preventing the battery from being over-discharged and ensuring the battery module is not damaged by over-discharge. The limitation of ranking the plurality of battery cell voltages of each of the battery blocks is inherent to the minimum voltage identification.
In re amended claim 6 and claim 7, MAEDA discloses the battery equipment discharge balancing method further comprising:
calculating the next discharge ratio of each of the battery blocks according to the temporary adjustment parameter of each of the battery blocks (¶[0028]: "... the microcontroller 120 uses the monitored data to determine a discharge ratio from data structure 122").
As to claim 7, MAEDA further discloses the battery equipment discharge balancing method further comprising: calculating the temporary adjustment parameter of each of the battery blocks according to a current discharge ratio (¶[0029]: "Based on the discharge ratio of data structure 122, the microcontroller 120 instructs the voltage converters 106 and 108 to adjust the output from each battery pack to balance the discharge between battery packs 110 and 112 ...").
MAEDA is silent to ranking the plurality of cut-off battery cell voltages to generating a minimum cut-off battery cell voltage; calculating a temporary adjustment parameter of each of the battery blocks according to the plurality of the cut-off battery cell voltages and the minimum cut-off battery cell voltage; each of the cut-off battery cell voltages, and the minimum cut-off battery cell voltage of each of the battery blocks.
NAKATSUJI teaches generating a minimum cut-off battery cell voltage (¶[0047, 0063]: "... a secondary battery having the terminal voltage higher than the lowest voltage among the terminal voltages Vb1, Vb2, and Vb3 ..."; "When the terminal voltage Vb1, which is the lowest voltage among the terminal voltages Vb3, Vb2, and Vb1 ...");
calculating a temporary adjustment parameter (discharge current/duty cycle) of each of the battery blocks according to the plurality of the cut-off battery cell voltages and the minimum cut-off battery cell voltage (Abstract; Fig. 2; ¶[0047]: "...discharging the secondary battery having the terminal voltage higher than the lowest voltage... with a discharge current larger than that of the secondary battery having the lowest voltage").
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to configure MAEDA with NAKATSUJI’s adjustment logic to calculate the discharge ratio based on the variance between individual cell voltages and the minimum voltage in order to reduce the discrepancy between cells through a balanced discharge operation, thereby preventing the module from being damaged by over-discharge and prolonging the life of the battery. The limitation that ranking the plurality of battery cell voltages of each of the battery blocks is inherent to the minimum voltage identification.
In re claim 8, MAEDA discloses obtaining the next discharge ratio of each of the battery blocks (¶[0035]: "... the microcontroller 120 uses these parameters to determine a discharge ratio for the battery packs").
MAEDA is silent to normalizing the temporary adjustment parameter of each of the battery blocks.
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to apply normalization to MAEDA's intermediate adjustment parameters to obtain discharge ratios for each battery block, as normalization is a fundamental mathematical principle for converting a set of raw values into proportional ratios and offers improved ease of comparison.
In re claim 9, MAEDA is silent to the battery equipment discharge balancing method further comprising: detecting the voltage of each of the battery cells by a processor to generate the plurality of battery cell voltages; and comparing whether the plurality of battery cell voltages being greater than the cut-off discharge voltage by the processor.
NAKATSUJI teaches the battery equipment discharge balancing method further comprising:
detecting the voltage of each of the battery cells by a processor to generate the plurality of battery cell voltages (¶[0041, 0045]: "The terminal voltages Vb1, Vb2, and Vb3 across a plurality of the secondary batteries 141, 142, and 143, respectively, are detected by the voltage detection circuit 20 and inputted into the A/D converter 19 in the control IC 18"; "The control portion 21 includes a CPU (Central Processing Unit) that performs, for example, predetermined arithmetic processing, a ROM (Read Only Memory) in which a predetermined control program is pre-stored, a RAM (Random Access Memory) in which data is stored temporarily ..."); and
comparing whether the plurality of battery cell voltages being greater than the cut-off discharge voltage by the processor (¶[0047]: "The imbalance reduction processing portion 212 performs imbalance reduction processing when at least one of the terminal voltages ... has dropped to or below the cut-off voltage of discharge, Vt").
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to incorporate NAKATSUJI's per-cell cut-off voltage identification into MAEDA's processor-implemented discharge ratio calculation framework to improve battery lifetime by reducing cell discrepancy through a balanced discharge operation, preventing any single cell from being damaged by over-discharge while prolonging the life of the battery set. The limitation that ranking the plurality of battery cell voltages of each of the battery blocks is inherent to the minimum voltage identification.
In re amended claim 10, MAEDA discloses the battery equipment discharge balancing method further comprising:
controlling each of the battery blocks to preforming the next discharge process respectively through a control circuit by the processor according to the next discharge ratio of each of the battery blocks (¶s [0029 – 0029]: "... the microcontroller 120 uses the monitored data to determine a discharge ratio from data structure 122"; "Based on the discharge ratio of data structure 122, the microcontroller 120 instructs the voltage converters 106 and 108 to adjust the output from each battery pack to balance the discharge between battery packs 110 and 112 ...").
MAEDA is silent to determining at least one of the plurality of battery cell voltages reaching the cut-off discharge voltage by the processor; ranking the plurality of cut-off battery cell voltages by the processor to generate a minimum cut-off battery cell voltage; and calculating the next discharge ratio of each of the battery blocks in the next discharge process according to each of the cut-off battery cell voltages and the minimum cut-off battery cell voltage by the processor.
NAKATSUJI teaches detecting the voltage of each of the battery cells by a processor to generate the plurality of battery cell voltages (¶[0041, 0045]: "The terminal voltages Vb1, Vb2, and Vb3 across a plurality of the secondary batteries 141, 142, and 143, respectively, are detected by the voltage detection circuit 20 and inputted into the A/D converter 19 in the control IC 18"; "The control portion 21 includes a CPU (Central Processing Unit) that performs, for example, predetermined arithmetic processing, a ROM (Read Only Memory) in which a predetermined control program is pre-stored, a RAM (Random Access Memory) in which data is stored temporarily ...");
comparing whether the plurality of battery cell voltages being greater than the cut-off discharge voltage by the processor, and determining at least one of the plurality of battery cell voltages reaching the cut-off discharge voltage by the processor (¶[0047, 0063]: "The imbalance reduction processing portion 212 performs imbalance reduction processing when at least one of the terminal voltages ... has dropped to or below the cut-off voltage of discharge, Vt"; "When the terminal voltage Vb1, which is the lowest voltage among the terminal voltages Vb3, Vb2, and Vb1 obtained by the A/D converter 19, has dropped to the cut-off voltage of discharge, Vt ...");
generating a minimum cut-off battery cell voltage (¶[0047, 0063]: "... a secondary battery having the terminal voltage higher than the lowest voltage among the terminal voltages Vb1, Vb2, and Vb3 ..."; "When the terminal voltage Vb1, which is the lowest voltage among the terminal voltages Vb3, Vb2, and Vb1 ...").
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to incorporate NAKATSUJI's per-cell cut-off voltage identification into MAEDA's processor-implemented discharge ratio calculation framework to improve battery lifetime by reducing cell discrepancy through a balanced discharge operation, preventing any single cell from being damaged by over-discharge while prolonging the life of the battery set. The limitation that ranking the plurality of battery cell voltages of each of the battery blocks is inherent to the minimum voltage identification.
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 JOHANN DJANAL-MANN whose telephone number is (571)272-4697. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 - 17:00.
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.
/D. JOHANN DJANAL-MANN/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights