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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10, 12-19, & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 13, & 16 in lines 27-30, lines 20-23, & lines 25-28 (respectively) recites the limitation "such that a series configuration of cells is reconfigured to a parallel configuration of cells, and selectively reconfiguring the battery pack such that the parallel configuration of cells is reconfigured to a series configuration of cells.". It is unclear how “series configuration of cells is reconfigured to a parallel configuration of cells” & “the parallel configuration of cells is reconfigured to a series configuration of cells” can both be true at the same time. The limitation is likely intended to mean something like ‘a first set of the cell are in a parallel configuration with respect to each other while a second set of cells (as a combination) is in series with respect to the first set of cells’.
Claims 2-10, 12, & 21 and claims 14-15 and claims 17-19 are rejected for their dependence on a rejected base claim without rectifying the issue(s) for which the base claim was rejected.
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.
Regarding “Description requirement and new matter situations”:
Claims 1-10, 12-19, & 21 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.
Independent claim 1 lines 25 to 30 has been amended to read “and one of selectively reconfiguring the battery pack using a set of sold state switches such that the ith cell is disconnected in response to the ith cell having an unacceptable SEI layer state-of-health selectively reconfiguring the battery pack such that a series configuration of cells is reconfigured to a parallel configuration of cells, and selectively reconfiguring the battery pack such that the parallel configuration of cells is reconfigured to a series configuration of cells.”. Additionally, independent claim 13 lines 18-23 and claim 16 lines 23 to 28 have been amended to recite equivalent limitations. The Examiner was unable to find support for these amendments within the originally filed specification. In particular, there is no support for at least the limitation of “reconfiguring the battery pack using a set of sold state switches such that the ith cell is disconnected in response to the ith cell having an unacceptable SEI layer state-of-health”. There would be sufficient support for the para 0041 recitation of “The battery manager module 114 may be responsible for charge and discharge control, monitoring and diagnostics of the RESS 104, and selective reconfiguration of the RESS through control of a plurality of switches by issuing switch state commands 156 to the switches.”.
Note: claims are interpreted under their broadest reasonable interpretation and all limitations must be supported by the originally filed specification. Therefore, amendments should be directly from the specification with little to no modification.
Claims 2-10, 12, & 21 and claims 14-15 and claims 17-19 are rejected for their dependence on a rejected base claim without rectifying the issue(s) for which the base claim was rejected.
Comments
The prior art of record found as a result of the search, does not teach alone or in combination all of the elements recited in claims 1, 13, & 16. In specific, the prior art of record does not teach claimed limitation: in claim 1 of “and one of selectively reconfiguring the battery pack using a set of sold state switches such that the ith cell is disconnected in response to the ith cell having an unacceptable SEI layer state-of-health selectively reconfiguring the battery pack such that a series configuration of cells is reconfigured to a parallel configuration of cells, and selectively reconfiguring the battery pack such that the parallel configuration of cells is reconfigured to a series configuration of cells.” (and equivalently in claims 13 & 16). Therefore, no prior art rejection for claims 1-10, 12-19, & 21 is presented in this action. However, Claims 1-10, 12-19, & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) & 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Note: The Examiner contacted the Applicant’s Representative on 17 December 2025 (see Examiner Interview Summary Record filed 12/22/2025) to discuss the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) of claims 1-10, 12-19, & 21.
The Examiner tried to contact the Applicant’s Representative on 1 January 2026 to discuss the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) & 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of claims 1-10, 12-19, & 21. Since Applicant’s Representative was not available (a voicemail message was left), it is suggested to contact the Examiner for any clarification with respect to the rejection.
Note: other possible amendments can be discussed in order to avoid the rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9397370 B2 "Single And Multiple Cell Battery With Built-in Controller" (Nebrigic) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 2.
US 8330420 B2 "Dynamically Reconfigurable Framework For A Large-scale Battery System" (Kim) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 2 & Fig. 3.
US 11708005 B2 "Systems And Methods For Individual Control Of A Plurality Of Battery Cells" (Nguyen) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 2 & Fig. 4.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. 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.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights