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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 8, 15 and 17 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 8, and 15 similarly recite “prevent, if the plurality of battery modules are determined to be improperly assembled, operation of a component of a machine”. While applicant cites Par. 84 of applicant’s specification, “implementations described herein may prevent components of a work machine from operate in an undesired manner. For example, implementations described herein may prevent inaccurate battery state estimations, battery damage, and/or battery failure” does not describe “preventing the operation of a component of a machine” as preventing operation in an undesirable manner does not inherently describe preventing the operation of a component, as preventing the operation of a component itself can reasonably be considered operating in an undesired manner.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected based on their inherent deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) 1 and similarly 8 and 15 recite(s) to “detect mis-assembly of a battery pack” and “determine whether the plurality of battery modules are improperly assembled based on the first unique identifier information and the second unique identifier information” are directed to mental processes and/or mathematical concepts.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “a battery management system”, “the battery management system comprising: a data bus; a plurality of measurement devices configured to obtain measurements from a plurality of battery modules of the battery pack, wherein the plurality of measurement devices are connected to the data bus; and a controller, connected to the data bus, configured to: provide first instructions to the plurality of measurement devices”, “provide second instructions to the plurality of measurement devices”, “prevent, if the plurality of battery modules are determined to be improperly assembled, operation of a component of a machine” and “wherein the battery pack is configured to provide power to the component” and in claim 8 “a machine” are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and/or are considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The elements of “receive one or more first responses from one or more first measurement devices of the plurality of measurement devices based on providing the first instructions, wherein the one or more first responses include first unique identifier information identifying one or more first unique identifiers associated with the one or more first measurement devices;”, “receive one or more second responses from one or more second measurement devices of the plurality of measurement devices based on providing the second instructions, wherein the one or more second responses include second unique identifier information identifying one or more second unique identifiers associated with the one or more second measurement devices;”, and “wherein the first unique identifier information and the second unique identifier information are obtained by interrogating non-volatile memories of the measurement devices” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Examiner notes regarding “prevent, if the plurality of battery modules are determined to be improperly assembled, operation of a component of a machine” are not required by the claim per MPEP 2111.04(II) “claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”. While “a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur”, the possibility of integrating the practical application is not enough.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “a battery management system”, “the battery management system comprising: a data bus; a plurality of measurement devices configured to obtain measurements from a plurality of battery modules of the battery pack, wherein the plurality of measurement devices are connected to the data bus; and a controller, connected to the data bus, configured to: provide first instructions to the plurality of measurement devices”, “provide second instructions to the plurality of measurement devices”, “prevent, if the plurality of battery modules are determined to be improperly assembled, operation of a component of a machine” and “wherein the battery pack is configured to provide power to the component” and in claim 8 “a machine” are considered to be merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself per MPEP 2106.05(h) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i and see prior art of record) . The elements of “receive one or more first responses from one or more first measurement devices of the plurality of measurement devices based on providing the first instructions, wherein the one or more first responses include first unique identifier information identifying one or more first unique identifiers associated with the one or more first measurement devices;”, “receive one or more second responses from one or more second measurement devices of the plurality of measurement devices based on providing the second instructions, wherein the one or more second responses include second unique identifier information identifying one or more second unique identifiers associated with the one or more second measurement devices;”, and “wherein the first unique identifier information and the second unique identifier information are obtained by interrogating non-volatile memories of the measurement devices” are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) (i or ii) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)(see prior art of record). Examiner notes regarding “prevent, if the plurality of battery modules are determined to be improperly assembled, operation of a component of a machine” are not required by the claim per MPEP 2111.04(II) “claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”. While “a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur”, the possibility of amounting to significantly more is not enough.
Claims 2-4, 11-13, 16, 18-19 are further directed to the abstract ideas cited above.
In claim 5 and similarly 14, “determine, based on the one or more first responses, that at least one measurement device of the plurality of measurement devices has not provided a response;” are further directed to the abstract ideas cited above.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “provide the second instructions based on determining that the at least one measurement device has not provided a response” are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “provide the second instructions based on determining that the at least one measurement device has not provided a response” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d).
In claims 6-7 and 9-10, the elements are not integrated into a practical application or does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baglino (US 20110003183 A1).
In claim 1, Baglino discloses a battery management system (Fig. 1) configured to detect mis-assembly of a battery pack (Fig. 1, 1051-N Par. 34 “mis-installation”), the battery management system comprising: a data bus (Fig. 1, 130 Par. 29 “network bus”); a plurality of measurement devices (Fig. 1, 125) configured to obtain measurements from a plurality of battery modules of the battery pack (Fig. 1, 1051, 1052, ect, Par .32), wherein the plurality of measurement devices are connected to the data bus (See Fig. 1); and a controller (Fig. 1, 110), connected to the data bus, configured to: provide first instructions to the plurality of measurement devices (Par. 32), receive one or more first responses from one or more first measurement devices of the plurality of measurement devices based on providing the first instructions (Par. 32), wherein the one or more first responses include first unique identifier information identifying one or more first unique identifiers associated with the one or more first measurement devices (Par. 32-33, 36, “assigned ID.sub.1” Fig. 3 310, 315); provide second instructions to the plurality of measurement devices, receive one or more second responses from one or more second measurement devices of the plurality of measurement devices based on providing the second instructions (Par. 35-37, Fig. 3, 320), wherein the one or more second responses include second unique identifier information identifying one or more second unique identifiers associated with the one or more second measurement devices (Par. 35-37 “static IDs” “positional attributes”); and determine whether the plurality of battery modules are improperly assembled based on the first unique identifier information and the second unique identifier information (Fig. 3, 325 Par. 37 “compares the measured positional attribute with an implied positional attribute” “a mis-match”); wherein the first unique identifier information and the second unique identifier information are obtained by interrogating non-volatile memories of the measurement devices (Fig. 1, 125s Par. 22 “Processing sub-system includes a memory for saving/storing desired information” Par. 36 “process 200 reads the stored IDs from the memory of processing sub-system 125”); and prevent, if the plurality of battery modules are determined to be improperly assembled (Par. 37 “operation including deactivation of any potentially misbehaving battery module”), operation of a component (Par. 37 “potentially misbehaving battery module”) of a machine (Fig. 1, Par. 26 “battery modules are distributed in various locations in the vehicle or machine”), wherein the battery pack is configured to provide power to the component (Par. 18, 26 “battery modules are distributed in various locations in the vehicle or machine”).
In claim 2, Baglino further discloses determine that at least one unique identifier, identified by the first unique identifier information, is also identified by the second unique identifier information (Par. 37 “mis-match” examiner notes that some of the unique IDs can match, however the differences in ID are flagged); determine that a first number of battery modules, of the plurality of battery modules (Fig. 1 120s respective to each 105), exceeds a second number of battery modules (Fig. 1 120s respective to each 105) expected to be included in the battery pack (Par. 33, 37); and determine that the plurality of battery modules are improperly assembled based on determining that the first number of battery modules exceeds the second number of battery modules (Par. 34 “mis-installation”).
In claim 3, Baglino further discloses determine that at least one unique identifier, identified by the first unique identifier information, is not also identified by the second unique identifier information (Par. 37 “mis-match”); determine that a first number of battery modules, of the plurality of battery modules (Fig. 1 120s respective to each 105), is less than a second number of battery modules (Fig. 1 120s respective to each 105) expected to be included in the battery pack (Par. 33, 37); and determine that the plurality of battery modules are improperly assembled based on determining that the first number of battery modules is less than the second number of battery modules (Par. 34 “mis-installation”).
In claim 4, Baglino further discloses wherein the one or more first unique identifiers are a first plurality of unique identifiers (Par. 24 27 “unique ID”), and wherein the controller is further configured to: determine that an order of the first plurality of unique identifiers is incorrect (Par. 29, 34 “positional attributes” “are different”); and determine that the plurality of battery modules are improperly assembled based on determining that the order of the first plurality of unique identifiers is incorrect (Par. 34 “mis-installation”).
In claim 5, Baglino further discloses determine, based on the one or more first responses, that at least one measurement device of the plurality of measurement devices has not provided a response (Par. 36-37 “implies an expected ID”, “a discrepancy may indicate a short, an open, or other condition affecting the determined positional attribute”); and provide the second instructions based on determining that the at least one measurement device has not provided a response (Par. 37 “additional diagnostic”).
In claim 8, Baglino discloses a machine (Fig. 1), comprising: a data bus (Fig. 1, 130 Par. 29 “network bus”); a plurality of measurement devices (Fig. 1, 125) configured to obtain measurements from a plurality of battery modules (Fig. 1, 1051, 1052, ect, Par .32) of a battery pack (Fig. 1, 1051-N), wherein the plurality of measurement devices are connected to the data bus (See Fig. 1); and a controller (Fig. 1, 110), connected to the data bus, configured to: provide first instructions to the plurality of measurement devices (Par. 32), receive one or more first responses from one or more first measurement devices of the plurality of measurement devices based on providing the first instructions (Par. 32), wherein the one or more first responses include first unique identifier information identifying one or more first unique identifiers associated with the one or more first measurement devices (Par. 32-33, 36, “assigned ID.sub.1” Fig. 3 310, 315); provide second instructions to the plurality of measurement devices, receive one or more second responses from one or more second measurement devices of the plurality of measurement devices based on providing the second instructions, wherein the one or more second responses include second unique identifier information identifying one or more second unique identifiers associated with the one or more second measurement devices (Par. 35-37, Fig. 3, 320); compare the first unique identifier information and the second unique identifier information (Par. 37 “compares the measured positional attribute with an implied positional attribute” “a mis-match”); and determine whether the plurality of battery modules are improperly assembled based on comparing the first unique identifier information and the second unique identifier information (Par. 37 “compares the measured positional attribute with an implied positional attribute” “a mis-match”); wherein the first unique identifier information and the second unique identifier information are obtained by interrogating non-volatile memories of the measurement devices (Fig. 1, 125s Par. 22 “Processing sub-system includes a memory for saving/storing desired information” Par. 36 “process 200 reads the stored IDs from the memory of processing sub-system 125”); and prevent, if the plurality of battery modules are determined to be improperly assembled (Par. 37 “operation including deactivation of any potentially misbehaving battery module”), operation of a component (Par. 37 “potentially misbehaving battery module”) of a machine (Fig. 1, Par. 26 “battery modules are distributed in various locations in the vehicle or machine”), wherein the battery pack is configured to provide power to the component (Par. 18, 26 “battery modules are distributed in various locations in the vehicle or machine”).
In claim 10, Baglino further discloses wherein a measurement device, of the plurality of measurement devices, includes a non-volatile memory (Par. 24 “memory”), and wherein the non-volatile memory is configured to store a unique identifier of the measurement device (Par. 24 “an identifier (ID)”).
In claim 11, Baglino further discloses determine that at least one unique identifier, identified by the first unique identifier information, is also identified by the second unique identifier information (Par. 37 “mis-match” examiner notes that some of the unique IDs can match, however the differences in ID are flagged); and determine that a first number of battery modules, of the plurality of battery modules (Fig. 1 120s respective to each 105), exceeds a second number of battery modules (Fig. 1 120s respective to each 105) expected to be included in the battery pack (Par. 33, 37); and determine that the plurality of battery modules are improperly assembled based on determining that the first number of battery modules exceeds the second number of battery modules (Par. 34 “mis-installation”).
In claim 12, Baglino further discloses determine that at least one unique identifier, identified by the first unique identifier information, is not also identified by the second unique identifier information (Par. 37 “mis-match”); determine that a first number of battery modules, of the plurality of battery modules (Fig. 1 120s respective to each 105), is less than a second number of battery modules (Fig. 1 120s respective to each 105) expected to be included in the battery pack (Par. 33, 37); and determine that the plurality of battery modules are improperly assembled based on determining that the first number of battery modules is less than the second number of battery modules (Par. 34 “mis-installation”).
In claim 13, Baglino further discloses determine that the plurality of battery modules are improperly assembled (Par. 34 “mis-installation”); and provide a notification indicating that the plurality of battery modules are improperly assembled based on determining that the plurality of battery modules are improperly assembled (Par. 37 “indicate a reason for additional diagnostic, servicing, maintenance”).
In claim 14, Baglino further discloses determine, based on the one or more first responses, that at least one measurement device of the plurality of measurement devices has not provided a response (Par. 36-37 “implies an expected ID”, “a discrepancy may indicate a short, an open, or other condition affecting the determined positional attribute”); and provide the second instructions based on determining that the at least one measurement device has not provided a response (Par. 37 “additional diagnostic”).
In claim 15, Baglino discloses a method (Fig. 3) performed by a controller (Fig. 1, 110), the method comprising: providing first instructions to a plurality of measurement devices (Fig. 1, 125, Par. 32), wherein the plurality of measurement devices are configured to obtain measurements (Fig. 1 Par. 32-33, 36, “assigned ID.sub.1” Fig. 3 310, 315) from a plurality of battery modules (Fig. 1, 1051, 1052, ect, Par .32) of a battery pack (Fig. 1, 1051-N) ; receiving one or more first responses from one or more first measurement devices of the plurality of measurement devices based on providing the first instructions (Par. 32), wherein the one or more first responses include first unique identifier information identifying one or more first unique identifiers associated with the one or more first measurement devices (Par. 32-33, 36, “assigned ID.sub.1”); and determining, based on the one or more first unique identifiers, whether the plurality of battery modules are improperly assembled (Par. 37 “compares the measured positional attribute with an implied positional attribute” “a mis-match”); wherein the first unique identifier information is obtained by interrogating non-volatile memories of the measurement devices (Fig. 1, 125s Par. 22 “Processing sub-system includes a memory for saving/storing desired information” Par. 36 “process 200 reads the stored IDs from the memory of processing sub-system 125”); and prevent, if the plurality of battery modules are determined to be improperly assembled (Par. 37 “operation including deactivation of any potentially misbehaving battery module”), operation of a component (Par. 37 “potentially misbehaving battery module”) of a machine (Fig. 1, Par. 26 “battery modules are distributed in various locations in the vehicle or machine”), wherein the battery pack is configured to provide power to the component (Par. 18, 26 “battery modules are distributed in various locations in the vehicle or machine”).
In claim 16, Baglino further discloses wherein the one or more first unique identifiers are a first plurality of unique identifiers (Par. 24 27 “unique ID”), and wherein the method further comprises: determining that an order of the first plurality of unique identifiers is incorrect (Par. 37 “mis-match”); and determining that the plurality of battery modules are improperly assembled based on determining that the order of the first plurality of unique identifiers is incorrect (Par. 34 “mis-installation”).
In claim 17, Baglino further discloses providing second instructions to the plurality of measurement devices (Par. 35-37, Fig. 3, 320); receiving one or more second responses from one or more second measurement devices of the plurality of measurement devices based on providing the second instructions, wherein the one or more second responses include second unique identifier information identifying one or more second unique identifiers associated with the one or more second measurement devices (Par. 35-37, Fig. 3, 320); wherein the second unique identifier information is obtained by interrogating non-volatile memories of the one or more second measurement devices (Fig. 1, 125s Par. 22 “Processing sub-system includes a memory for saving/storing desired information” Par. 36 “process 200 reads the stored IDs from the memory of processing sub-system 125”); comparing the first unique identifier information and the second unique identifier information; and determining whether the plurality of battery modules are improperly assembled based on comparing the first unique identifier information and the second unique identifier information (Par. 37).
In claim 18, Baglino discloses all of claim 17. Baglino further discloses determining that at least one unique identifier, identified by the first unique identifier information, is also identified by the second unique identifier information (Par. 37 “mis-match” examiner notes that some of the unique IDs can match, however the differences in ID are flagged); determining that a first number of battery modules (Fig. 1 120s respective to each 105), of the plurality of battery modules, exceeds a second number of battery modules (Fig. 1 120s respective to each 105) expected to be included in the battery pack (Par. 33, 37); and determining that the plurality of battery modules are improperly assembled based on determining that the first number of battery modules exceeds the second number of battery modules (Par. 34 “mis-installation”).
In claim 19, Baglino discloses all of claim 17. Baglino further discloses determining that at least one unique identifier, identified by the first unique identifier information, is not also identified by the second unique identifier information (Par. 37 “mis-match”); determining that a first number of battery modules (Fig. 1 120s respective to each 105), of the plurality of battery modules, is less than a second number of battery modules (Fig. 1 120s respective to each 105) expected to be included in the battery pack (Par. 33, 37); and determining that the plurality of battery modules are improperly assembled based on determining that the first number of battery modules is less than the second number of battery modules (Par. 34 “mis-installation”).
In claim 20, Baglino further discloses determining that the plurality of battery modules are improperly assembled (Par. 34 “mis-installation”); and providing a notification indicating that the plurality of battery modules are improperly assembled based on determining that the plurality of battery modules are improperly assembled (Par. 37 “indicate a reason for additional diagnostic, servicing, maintenance”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baglino in view of Hunter (US 20060193095 A1).
In claim 6, Baglino does not explicitly disclose wherein the data bus is connected to a first port of the controller and connected to a second port of the controller, and wherein the controller is configured to provide the first instructions via the first port and provide the second instructions via the second port.
Hunter teaches wherein the data bus is connected to a first port of the controller and connected to a second port of the controller (Fig. 3, 45, 47/48, Par. 44 “connects a pair of output sense/feed lines 45 (each sense/feed line 45 being connected to one electrode of the selected cell)”), and wherein the controller is configured to provide the first instructions via the first port (Par. 44 “The sense mode selects a cell that is addressed by a cell selector 51 and connects a pair of output sense/feed lines 45”) and provide the second instructions via the second port (Par. 44 “The rate of feed is controlled by a PWM signal on PWM feed line 47”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filled to have wherein the data bus is connected to a first port of the controller and connected to a second port of the controller, and wherein the controller is configured to provide the first instructions via the first port and provide the second instructions via the second port as taught by Hunter in Baglino in order for feeding special perturbations for testing the cell's charge status (i.e. fully charged or not) (Hunter Par. 45) thus improving the managing the battery at float.
In claim 7, Baglino discloses all of claim 6. Baglino does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to receive the one or more first responses via the first port and receive the one or more second responses via the second port.
Hunter teaches wherein the controller is configured to receive the one or more first responses via the first port (Par. 44) and receive the one or more second responses via the second port (Par. 44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filled to have wherein the controller is configured to receive the one or more first responses via the first port and receive the one or more second responses via the second port as taught by Hunter in Baglino in order for feeding special perturbations for testing the cell's charge status (i.e. fully charged or not) (Hunter Par. 45) thus improving the managing the battery at float.
In claim 9, Baglino discloses all of claim 8. Baglino does not explicitly disclose wherein the data bus is connected to a first port of the controller and connected to a second port of the controller (Fig. 3, 45, 47/48, Par. 44 “connects a pair of output sense/feed lines 45 (each sense/feed line 45 being connected to one electrode of the selected cell)”), and wherein the controller is further configured to: store the first unique identifier information in a first data structure associated with the first port (Par. 42, 48 “cell data acquisition”, “data is buffered”); and store the second unique identifier information in a second data structure associated with the second port (Par. 48 “authority to enable or disable the individual messages within the group or the string nodes as shown in FIG. 5”, “data is buffered”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s 101 arguments on pages 9-13, the examiner respectfully disagrees. While applicant recites a technical problem, the cited sections do not describe a technological solution to said problem. Regarding “preventing physical harm through concrete technological action” applicant cites Par. 84 of their specification, notably “implementations described herein may prevent components of a work machine from operate in an undesired manner. For example, implementations described herein may prevent inaccurate battery state estimations, battery damage, and/or battery failure.” (emphasis added). The specification merely describes the possibility of in improvement, without describing how said improvement is enacted based on the method. Per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) “Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology” thus cannot be considered a technological improvement. In addition the “interrogating non-volatile memories of the measurement devices” are data gathering steps as cited above. Further the hardware as claimed is generically recited and well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Regarding applicant’s 102/103 arguments on pages 13-15, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the “wherein the first unique identifier information and the second unique identifier information are obtained by interrogating non-volatile memories of the measurement devices” examiner notes that Par. 36 explicitly states “process 200 reads the stored IDs from the memory of processing sub-system 125”, which as seen in Fig. 1, and described in Par. 25 “Each module 105.sub.i also includes a processing sub-system 125”. While applicant asserts “The IDs are the result of measuring positional attributes, not pre-existing identifiers” that is not what is recited in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, the amended elements are disclosed by the prior art and the 102 and 103 rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20160056510 A1, ASSEMBLED BATTERY SYSTEM, STORAGE BATTERY SYSTEM, AND METHOD FOR MONITORING AND CONTROLLING ASSEMBLED BATTERY SYSTEM; US 20170010330 A1 METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR LOCATING A BATTERY MODULE AMONG MULTIPLE BATTERY MODULES OF A TRACTION BATTERY THAT ARE ELECTRICALLY CONNECTED TO ONE ANOTHER.
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 BRANDON J BECKER whose telephone number is (571)431-0689. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/B.J.B/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857