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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/20/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
In the communication filed on 07/20/2026, claim 1 is pending. Claim 1 is amended. No claims are new. Claims 2-3 are presently cancelled.
Response to Arguments
The prior interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) is no longer applicable due to the amendments.
The prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn due to the amendments. However, new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to the amendments are detailed infra.
The applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior rejection of nonstatutory double patenting of claim 1 over Kato (US 12,212,178 B2) in view of the prior art have been considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues (pp. 6, 1st para.) that “the amendment makes it clear that Kato's (US 12,212,178 B2) and the claimed invention are completely different technical ideas”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. An updated nonstatutory double patenting rejection with respect to the current amendment is included infra.
The applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior rejection of claim 1 over the prior art have been considered but are not persuasive and/or are moot.
The applicant argues (pp. 8, item 2) that “Makino's calculation (paragraph [0062]) relates to determining the amount of additional energy/packs needed to supplement the power during a warm-up process. In contrast, the present invention calculates the minimum number required for travel at the start based on the vehicle state (loading amount). This allows the system to "squeeze" the number of active packs to the limit, maximizing self-heating efficiency from the very beginning. Makino lacks this concept of dynamic optimization for minimal-count startup based on vehicle-specific states like loading weight.”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner interprets that Makino’s calculation of the second predetermined number is “based on a minimum number of battery packs required for travel of the vehicle and a state of the vehicle including a loading amount of the vehicle”. Makino’s Fig. 10, steps 48-51 are performed to calculate and connect the number of battery packs necessary to supply “TW”, which is the power required to supply the propulsion motor “13”, thus being for travel. Additional details regarding Makino’s disclosure are included in the prior art rejection infra. Further, the applicant’s comments regarding “maximizing self-heating efficiency” and “dynamic optimization for minimal-count startup” are not specifically directed to the claimed subject matter.
The applicant’s argument (pp. 8, item 3) that “Saka in view of Makino fails to disclose the features of Claim 1 and further Teaches Away from the claimed invention” has been considered but is moot because the argument does not apply to the standalone, anticipatory reference Makino being used in the current rejection.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 08/17/2026 and 08/18/2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 4 recites “a plurality of contactor”, which should be revised to “a plurality of [[contactor]] contactors”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1’s second-to-last element recites “calculate and set the second predetermined number each time the power supply from the battery module to the load is started”.
This claim language is indefinite due to its conflict with prior limitations of the same claim. It is set forth prior in claim 1 that, “at a/the start of power supply from the battery module to the load”, only one of the “first predetermined number of battery packs” or the “second predetermined number of battery packs” is controlled to connect to the load. In contrast, the subject indefinite language indicates the “second predetermined number of battery packs” is to be connected “each time the power supply … is started”, thus conflicting with prior limitations.
Thus, for examination purposes, it is interpreted that the subject indefinite language is written definitely as “calculate and set the second predetermined number each time the power supply from the battery module to the load is started when the temperatures of all of the plurality of battery packs are lower than the lowest threshold temperature”, so as to agree with the prior limitations of claim 1.
Claim 1’s last element recites “when connecting the second predetermined number of battery packs to the load, prioritizes connecting a battery pack among the plurality of battery packs that has been judged to have a higher temperature based on detection values of the plurality of temperature sensors”.
This claim language is indefinite as to the meaning of “a higher temperature”. The term “higher” is commonly used as a comparison of a value to one or more other value(s). The claim language is clear that the value is the temperature of “a battery pack among the plurality of battery packs that has been judged to have a higher temperature”. However, the claim language is indefinite as to what this first temperature value is “higher” in comparison with.
The language “based on detection values of the plurality of temperature sensors” merely limits the prioritization to be based on, i.e., effected by, a plurality of detection values from the temperature sensors. This language does not explicitly require that the prioritized battery pack has a higher temperature in comparison to every detected temperature value of every other battery pack in the battery module.
Alternatively, one may interpret that the claimed “higher temperature” is in reference to some other temperature value, such as the prior-introduced “predetermined lowest threshold temperature”.
Also alternatively, one may more broadly interpret that the claimed “higher temperature” is simply in reference to any other temperature value which exists, even including absolute zero. This broad interpretation is considered for examination purposes.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Kato (US 12,212,178 B2) in view of Makino et al. (US 2022/0089051 A1).
The following table compares the instant application and Kato’s claims. The patentably indistinct claim language is identified with bold text.
Instant Application 18/015,164
Kato (US 12,212,178 B2)
Claim 1
A battery control system for a vehicle in which a battery module including a plurality of battery packs is mounted
and the plurality of battery packs are connected in parallel to a load including a drive motor that propels the vehicle,
the battery control system comprising:
a battery connection/disconnection circuit including a plurality of contactor interposed between the battery module and the load and capable of connecting and disconnecting each of the plurality of battery packs individually to and from the load;
a plurality of temperature sensors measuring a temperature of each of the plurality of battery packs;
and a hardware processor configured to: …
Claim 1
A battery control system for a vehicle in which a battery module including a plurality of battery packs is mounted
and the plurality of battery packs are connected in parallel to a load,
the battery control system comprising:
a battery connection and disconnection section interposed between the battery module and the load and capable of connecting and disconnecting each of the plurality of battery packs individually to and from the load;
an upper limit current calculation section configured to, for each battery pack of the plurality of battery packs, individually calculate an upper limit current value of said each battery pack using a temperature sensed for said each battery pack individually and a voltage value of said each battery pack;
(sensors are inherent for the later limitation: “a temperature sensed for said each battery pack individually”)
(no equivalent claim language for remaining limitations)
Regarding Claim 1, though Kato claims a load, does not claim “a load including a drive motor that propels the vehicle”.
Kato further does not claim “a hardware processor configured to: judge whether or not a temperature of each of the plurality of battery packs is equal to or higher than a predetermined lowest threshold temperature based on sensor values of the plurality of temperature sensors, control the battery connection/disconnection circuit such that a first predetermined number of battery packs are connected to the load when the temperature of at least one of the plurality of battery packs is equal to or higher than the lowest threshold temperature at a start of power supply from the battery module to the load, control the battery connection/disconnection circuit such that a second predetermined number of battery packs are connected to the load when the temperatures of all of the plurality of battery packs are lower than the lowest threshold temperature at the start of power supply from the battery module to the load, the second predetermined number being less than the first predetermined number, calculate and set the second predetermined number each time the power supply from the battery module to the load is started, based on a minimum number of battery packs required for travel of the vehicle and a state of the vehicle including a loading amount of the vehicle, and when connecting the second predetermined number of battery packs to the load, prioritizes connecting a battery pack among the plurality of battery packs that has been judged to have a higher temperature based on detection values of the plurality of temperature sensors”.
Makino teaches (see detailed claim mapping included infra in prior art rejection) the plurality of battery packs are connected in parallel to a load including a drive motor that propels the vehicle and a hardware processor configured to: judge whether or not a temperature of each of the plurality of battery packs is equal to or higher than a predetermined lowest threshold temperature based on sensor values of the plurality of temperature sensors, control the battery connection/disconnection circuit such that a first predetermined number of battery packs are connected to the load when the temperature of at least one of the plurality of battery packs is equal to or higher than the lowest threshold temperature at a start of power supply from the battery module to the load, control the battery connection/disconnection circuit such that a second predetermined number of battery packs are connected to the load when the temperatures of all of the plurality of battery packs are lower than the lowest threshold temperature at the start of power supply from the battery module to the load, the second predetermined number being less than the first predetermined number, calculate and set the second predetermined number each time the power supply from the battery module to the load is started, based on a minimum number of battery packs required for travel of the vehicle and a state of the vehicle including a loading amount of the vehicle, and when connecting the second predetermined number of battery packs to the load, prioritizes connecting a battery pack among the plurality of battery packs that has been judged to have a higher temperature based on detection values of the plurality of temperature sensors.
Makino teaches the hardware processor and associated control of the battery packs to improve the vehicle’s power performance in low temperature environments (¶ [18]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery control system of Kato’s claim 1 to incorporate the hardware processor and associated control of the battery packs, as taught by Makino, to improve the vehicle’s power performance in low temperature environments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Makino et al. (US 2022/0089051 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Makino discloses a battery control system (combo of “battery pack 20” and “battery controller 60”; Figs. 1-4) for a vehicle (“vehicle 11”; Figs. 1, 3-4) in which a battery module (combo of “battery stacks A-C” within “battery pack 20”; Figs. 1-4) including a plurality of battery packs (“battery stacks A-C”, comprising strings of “battery cells 30a-30c”; Figs. 1-4) is mounted.
Makino further discloses the plurality of battery packs (A-C) are connected in parallel to a load (combo of “motor generator 13” and “various electrical devices 23”; Figs. 1-4) including a drive motor (“motor generator 13”, coupled to “drive system 16”; Figs. 1-4) that propels the vehicle (11).
Makino further discloses the battery control system (20, 60) comprising the following.
Makino further discloses a battery connection/disconnection circuit (“switch selector 50”; Figs. 1-4) including a plurality of contactor (“switches SWa-SWc”; Figs. 1-4) interposed between the battery module (20) and the load (13, 23) and capable of connecting and disconnecting each (“A-C” are individually connected via “SWa-SWc”) of the plurality of battery packs (A-C) individually to and from the load (13, 23).
Makino further discloses a plurality of temperature sensors (“battery sensors 51a-51c”; Figs. 1-4) measuring a temperature (¶ [23]: “detect information about each of the battery stacks A to C, such as temperature”) of each of the plurality of battery packs (A-C).
PNG
media_image1.png
907
1233
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Makino further discloses a hardware processor (¶ [93]: “at least one processor (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU)) … configured … to perform all or a part of functions of … the battery controller 60”) configured to do the following.
Makino further discloses (see annotated Fig. 6, included infra) to judge (Fig, 6, step S20: “temperature (Ta, Tb, Tc) ≤ Tx?”; ¶ [43]) whether or not a temperature of each of the plurality of battery packs (Ta, Tb, Tc) is equal to or higher than a predetermined lowest threshold temperature (“predetermined temperature threshold Tx”) based on sensor values (outputs of “51a-51c”) of the plurality of temperature sensors (51a-51c).
PNG
media_image2.png
949
1001
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Makino further discloses to control the battery connection/disconnection circuit (50) such that a first predetermined number (all three of “A-C” connected in step S21) of battery packs (A-C) are connected to the load (via turning on all three of “SWa-SWc” in step S21) when the temperature of at least one (any of Ta, Tb, Tc) of the plurality of battery packs (A-C) is equal to or higher (when any one of “Ta-Tc” is higher than “Tx”, then follow “N” response to step S20) than the lowest threshold temperature (Tx) at a start of power supply (Fig. 6 is a “battery warm-up control” process, resulting in power being supplied to the load at either step S21 or S24) from the battery module (A-C) to the load (13, 23).
Makino further discloses to control the battery connection/disconnection circuit (50) such that a second predetermined number (one of “A-C” connected in step S24; but may allow a second one of “A-C” to be connected in S51 in order to meet the “target supply electric energy (TW)” in steps S48-S51 of Fig. 10; per ¶ [62], the number connected may be “one or more”; per example of ¶ [64], one of either “B” or “C” may be connected in addition to “A”; thus, the second predetermined number may be 1 or 2) of battery packs (A-C) are connected to the load (via turning on only one of “SWa-SWc” in step S24 or an additional switch in step S51) when the temperatures of all (Ta, Tb, Tc) of the plurality of battery packs (A-C) are lower (“Y” response to step S20; Fig. 6) than the lowest threshold temperature (Tx) at the start of power supply (Fig. 6 is a “battery warm-up control” process, resulting in power being supplied to the load at either step S21 or S24) from the battery module (A-C) to the load (13, 23).
Makino further discloses the second predetermined number (one of “A-C” connected in S24, but may allow a second one of “A-C” to be connected in S51 in order to meet the “target supply electric energy (TW)” in steps S48-S51 of Fig. 10) being less than the first predetermined number (all three of “A-C” connected in S21).
Makino further discloses to calculate and set the second predetermined number (may be one or two, depending on result of steps S48-S51; Fig. 10) each time the power supply from the battery module to the load (13, 23) is started (as addressed supra, this process is completed each time the power supply from the battery module to the load is started “when the temperatures of all of the plurality of battery packs are lower than the lowest threshold temperature”; also see the 112(b) section, included supra).
PNG
media_image3.png
839
930
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Makino further discloses this calculation is based on a minimum number of battery packs required (minimum number is iteratively determined based on the values of the available energy “Wp” and the required “TW”; Fig. 10; ¶ [62]; “Wp” is the sum of available energy from battery packs “A-C”; “TW” is the energy required to run the vehicle “over a predetermined period of time”) for travel (because “13” is the propulsion motor for the vehicle, the power required by “13” is the power required for travel) of the vehicle (11) and a state of the vehicle including a loading amount (“target supply electric energy TW”; ¶ [30]: “TW refers to the amount of electric energy consumed by the inverter 18 and the converter 22 over a predetermined period of time”; ¶ [62]: “TW is calculated based on the operating condition of the motor generator 13, the electrical devices 23, or other devices”; thus, “TW” is a loading amount of power to be delivered from “20” to the rest of “11”) of the vehicle (11).
Makino further discloses when connecting the second predetermined number (connects one or two of “A-C”, depending on result of steps S48-S51; Fig. 10) of battery packs (A, B, and/or C) to the load (13, 23), prioritizes connecting a battery pack (A, B, or C) among the plurality of battery packs (A-C) that has been judged to have a higher temperature (¶ [64]: “either one of the battery stacks B and C with a lower temperature than the other may be selected”; though a lower temperature in comparison to the other pack, the prioritized battery pack has been judged to have a temperature; in this automotive environment, this detected battery pack temperature would necessarily be higher than absolute zero; see the 112(b) section, included supra, regarding interpretation of the indefinite “higher temperature” language) based on detection values (plurality of battery pack temperatures is considered per ¶ [64]) of the plurality of temperature sensors (51a-51c).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel P McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM Eastern.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL P MCFARLAND/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights