Status of Claims
In the communication filed on 03/17/2026, claim 1 is pending. Claim 1 is amended. No claims are new. Claims 2-3 are presently cancelled.
Response to Arguments
The prior interpretation of the term “a temperature judgment section” under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) is no longer applicable due to the amendments. The prior interpretation of the term “a battery connection/disconnection section” under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) is maintained.
The prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn due to the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The term “battery connection/disconnection section” of claim 1 is interpreted in accordance with the structural definition provided by the instant application’s specification ¶ [0017], which defines “Battery connection/disconnection section 3 is composed of the same number of contactors 6 as battery packs 2” and specification ¶ [0018], which defines this as part of the “battery control apparatus 10”, which is “an Electronic Control Unit (ECU)”.
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 does not provide sufficient antecedent basis in the claim language for the following terms:
“each time” (line 23)
“the minimum number of battery packs required to run the vehicle” (lines 23-24)
“the state of the vehicle” (line 24)
“the battery pack with the highest temperature” (line 26)
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) and Sakakibara (JP 2009-302030 A; hereinafter “Saka”).
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 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;
a plurality of temperature sensors measuring a temperature of each of the plurality of battery packs;
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 section 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 section 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 based on the minimum number of battery packs required to run the vehicle and the state of the vehicle,
and when connecting the second predetermined number of battery packs to the load, prioritizes connecting the battery pack with the highest temperature among the plurality of battery packs.
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 section 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 section 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 based on the minimum number of battery packs required to run the vehicle and the state of the vehicle, and when connecting the second predetermined number of battery packs to the load, prioritizes connecting the battery pack with the highest temperature among the plurality of battery packs”.
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 section 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 section 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 based on the minimum number of battery packs required to run the vehicle and the state of the vehicle.
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.
Saka teaches (see detailed claim mapping included infra in prior art rejection) when connecting the second predetermined number of battery packs to the load, prioritizes connecting the battery pack with the highest temperature among the plurality of battery packs.
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 prioritize connecting the battery pack with the highest temperature, as taught by Saka, to improve the battery life by avoiding the deterioration of battery packs that occurs from discharging at low temperatures.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino et al. (US 2022/0089051 A1) in view of Sakakibara (JP 2009-302030 A; hereinafter “Saka”).
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 section (“switch selector 50”, including “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]: “51a to 51c serve to 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
933
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 section (50, SWa-SWc) 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 section (50, SWa-SWc) 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) 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 based on the 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”) to run the vehicle (11) and the state (¶ [62]: “TW is calculated based on the operating condition of the motor generator 13, the electrical devices 23, or other devices”) of the vehicle (11).
Makino does not disclose “when connecting the second predetermined number of battery packs to the load, prioritizes connecting the battery pack with the highest temperature among the plurality of battery packs”.
Saka teaches when connecting the second predetermined number (¶ [86]: “output is permitted for at least one battery pack, and output is not permitted for other battery packs”; thus, the second predetermined number may be one) of battery packs (¶ [153]: “plurality of battery packs in parallel”; ¶ [243]: “Fig. 15 … showing three battery packs 100-2A, 100-2B and 100-2C are connected in parallel to each other”) to the load (load associated with the “load current of the electrical device”, as described in ¶ [238]), prioritizes connecting (¶ [86]: “output is permitted for at least one battery pack, and output is not permitted for other battery packs”; ¶ [83]: “if the battery pack is closer to a predetermined reference temperature than that represented by the second information, the battery pack is allowed to output to the electrical device”; ¶ [222, 237]: “the battery packs may be discharged preferentially … and the other two battery packs may be in a standby group”) the battery pack with the highest temperature (¶ [85]: “closer to a predetermined reference temperature” means having the highest temperature when the other battery packs are a “a low temperature that is far away from room temperature”; ¶ [86]: “reference temperature (for example, room temperature)”)among the plurality of battery packs (100-2A, -2B, -2C).
Saka further teaches to prioritize connecting the battery pack with the highest temperature to improve the battery life by avoiding the deterioration of battery packs that occurs from discharging at low temperatures (¶ [84]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the hardware processor’s operation of connecting the second predetermined number of battery packs to the load disclosed by Makino to prioritize connecting the battery pack with the highest temperature, as taught by Saka, to improve the battery life by avoiding the deterioration of battery packs that occurs from discharging at low temperatures.
Conclusion
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 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