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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-39 in the reply filed on December 18, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 40-55 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because portions of Figs. 1-11 are not legible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
Figures 1-4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (see specification, page 29, lines 10-16). See MPEP § 608.02(g).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the energy regulating element (in addition to the protection and balancing unit, claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: control, monitoring, and communication unit (claim 1); management device (claim 1), display device (claim 1), energy regulating element (claim 1).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-39 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, “the voltage” (line 3), “the current” (line 6), “the temperature” (line 8), “the flow of energy” (64) lack antecedent basis. Examiner suggests deleting “the”.
Claim 1, “the at least one control, monitoring, and communication unit” (lines 12-13) lacks antecedent basis. Examiner suggests deleting “the” (line 12).
Claim 1, “comparing …with at least one range of preset values for each of them in the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit and in the at least one management device;” (lines 41-47) is unclear. Examiner interprets the limitation to read -- “comparing …with at least one range of preset values for each of the obtained data --.
Claim 1, “the obtained data” (lines 42-43) lack antecedent basis. Examiner suggests deleting “obtained data on” (line 43).
Claim 1, “for each of them” (lines 44-45) lack antecedent basis. Examiner suggests replacing “for each of them”” with – respectively --.
Claim 1, “them” (line 46) lacks antecedent basis. Examiner interprets “them” to read -- voltage, current, temperature, charge state, state of health, estimated charging time, estimated discharging time and estimated time of replacement --.
Claim 1, “it” (e.g., line 48) lacks antecedent basis. Examiner suggests deleting “it corresponds” (line 48).
Claim 1, “them” (line 46) lacks antecedent basis. Examiner interprets “them” to read -- voltage, current, temperature, charge state, state of health, estimated charging time, estimated discharging time and estimated time of replacement --.
Claim 1, “the at least one energy regulating element” (line 65) lacks antecedent basis. Examiner interprets the limitation to read – the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit --.
Claims 2, 3, 24-28, 38, and 39, “the data” lack antecedent basis. Examiner suggests deleting “data”.
Claim 2, “an audible alert … when at least one of the data on voltage, current, temperature, estimated charging time, and estimated discharging time are outside of the at least one preset range for each of them” is indefinite. Examiner interprets the limitation to read -- an audible alert … when at least one of the data on voltage, current, temperature, estimated charging time, and estimated discharging time are outside of the at least one preset range for at least one of them --.
Claim 3, “when at least one of the data on voltage, current, temperature, estimated charging time and estimated discharging time are outside of the at least one preset range for each of them” is unclear. Examiner interprets the limitation to read -- when at least one of the data on voltage, current, temperature, estimated charging time and estimated discharging time are outside of [[the]] at least one preset range for at least one of them”.
Claims 4, 7-23, and 32, “the … data”, lack antecedent basis. Examiner suggests deleting “data”.
Claim 7, “the charge state data” (line 2) lack antecedent basis. Examiner suggests deleting “the”.
Claims 14, 15, “its” (claim 14, lines 3, 5; claim 15, line 18) lacks antecedent basis. Examiner interprets “its” to read – the at least one cell”.
Claim 15, “it” (line 10) lacks antecedent basis. Examiner interprets “its” to read – the at least one cell”.
Claim 21, “in case the data of state of health for the at least one cell is below the at least one preset range, decreasing a charge cycles” is indefinite. Examiner interprets the limitation to read -- in case the data of state of health for the at least one cell is below the at least one preset range, increasing [[a]] charge cycles --.
Claim 22, “in case the data of state of health for the at least one cell is above the at least one preset range, increasing a discharge cycles” is indefinite. Examiner interprets the limitation to read -- in case the data of state of health for the at least one cell is above the at least one preset range, decreasing [[a]] discharge cycles --.
Claim 25, “in case the data on estimated time of replacement for the at least one cell is below the at least one preset range, decreasing a charge/discharge cycles in the at least one cell” is indefinite. Examiner interprets the limitation to read -- in case the data on estimated time of replacement for the at least one cell is below the at least one preset range, decreasing [[a]] discharge cycles in the at least one cell --
Claim 25, “in case the data on estimated time of replacement for the at least one cell is above the at least one preset range, increasing charge/discharge cycles in the at least one cell” is indefinite. Examiner interprets the limitation to read -- in case the data on estimated time of replacement for the at least one cell is above the at least one preset range, increasing discharge cycles in the at least one cell --.
Claim 28, “its” (line 3) lacks antecedent basis. Examiner interprets “its” to read – a --.
Claim 29, “the impedance” (line 2) lacks antecedent basis. Examiner suggests deleting “the”.
Claim 30, “the humidity” (line 2) lacks antecedent basis. Examiner suggests deleting “the”.
Claim 31, “the salinity” (line 2) lacks antecedent basis. Examiner suggests deleting “the”.
Claim 33, “the vibrations” (line 2) lack antecedent basis. Examiner suggests deleting “the”.
Claim 34, “the position” (line 2) lacks antecedent basis. Examiner suggests deleting “the”.
Claim 35, “the pressure” (line 2) lacks antecedent basis. Examiner suggests deleting “the”.
Claim 36, “the opening and closing” (line 2) lacks antecedent basis. Examiner suggests deleting “the”.
Claim 37, “the obtained data”, “them” lack antecedent basis. Examiner suggests deleting “the”.
Claim 37, “comparing at least one of the obtained data on vibrations, position, pressure and opening and closing of the outer casing with at least one range of preset values for each of them” is indefinite. Examiner interprets the limitation to read -- comparing at least one of the obtained data on vibrations, position, pressure and opening and closing of the outer casing with at least one range of preset values for at least one of the obtained data --.
Claim 39, “the event” lacks antecedent basis. Examiner suggests deleting “the”.
The remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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, 5, 6, and 29-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites an abstract idea of “determining a charge state of the at least one cell … using at least one of the voltage, current and temperature data of the at least one cell” (mental process/mathematical concept), “determining a state of health of the at least one cell … using at least one of the voltage, current and temperature data of the at least one cell” (mental process/mathematical concept); “determining an estimated charging time of the at least one cell … using at least one of the voltage, current and temperature data of the at least one cell” (mental process/mathematical concept), “determining an estimated discharging time of the at least one cell … using at least one of the voltage, current and temperature data of the at least one cell” (mental process/mathematical concept), “determining an estimated time of replacement of the at least one cell … using at least one of the voltage, current and temperature data of the at least one cell” (mental process/evaluation), “comparing, by the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit and/or by the at least one management device, at least one of the obtained data on voltage, current, temperature, charge state, state of health, estimated charging time, estimated discharging time and estimated time of replacement with at least one range of preset values for each of them in the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit and in the at least one management device” (mental process/mathematical concept), “assessing whether it corresponds to initiate at least one preventive action and/or a corrective action in the at least one cell” (mental process), “using at least one of the data on voltage, current, temperature, charge state, state of health, estimated charging time, estimated discharging time and estimated time of replacement for the at least one cell, in evaluating future preventive and/or corrective actions” (mental process).
Under step 2A, prong 2, Under step 2A, prong 2, the claim limitations are not integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)). The abstract idea is not applied in a meaningful way: “when appropriate to initiate at least one preventive and/or corrective action, carrying out said preventive and/or corrective action” wherein “initiating at least one preventive action and/or a corrective action at least comprises regulating the flow of energy entering or leaving the at least one cell, by means of the at least one energy regulating element, comprising the at least one protection and balancing unit”.
Measuring the voltage of at least one cell, the current of the at least one cell, the temperature of the at least one cell, storing/sending … data/abstract idea are directed to insignificant extra solution activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(A)).
Measuring the voltage of at least one cell, the current of the at least one cell, the temperature of the at least one cell, storing/sending … data/abstract idea are well-understood, routine and conventional activities known in the industry (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Further, carrying out said preventive and/or correction action comprises regulating the flow of energy entering or leaving the cell is directed to a well-understood, routine and conventional activity known in the industry (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Dependent claims 5, 6, and 29-37 do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claims 5 and 6 are directed to conventional activities.
Claims 29-31 and 33-36 are directed to conventional insignificant extra solution activities.
Claims 32 and 37 are directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, claims 1 and its dependent claims 5, 6, and 29-37 are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 2-4, 7-28, 38, and 39 are integrated into a practical application. Thus, claims 2-4, 7-28, 38, and 39 are patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida et al. (US 2016/0377686) in view of Seol et al. (US 2019/0023146) and Lee et al. (US 2019/0356138).
Regarding claim 1, Uchida et al. discloses a method of monitoring and controlling at least one rechargeable battery (paragraph 0029, lines 1-2; Fig. 1A), comprising the following steps:
measuring the voltage of at least one cell (measuring cell of battery 101 via 111, Fig. 1A), arranged inside the rechargeable battery (101), by at least one voltage sensor (111);
measuring the current of at least one cell (measuring cell of battery 101 via 112, Fig. 1A), arranged inside the rechargeable battery (101), by at least one current sensor (112);
measuring the temperature of the at least one cell (measuring cell of battery 101 via 113, Fig. 1A), by at least one temperature sensor (113);
sending at least one of the voltage, current and temperature data to the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit (110) (Fig. 1A);
determining a charge state (via 124) of the at least one cell (cell of battery 101), by the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit (110), using at least one of the voltage (via 121), current (via 123) and temperature data (via 122) of the at least one cell (101);
determining an estimated charging time of the at least one cell (paragraph 0073, lines 1-5), by the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit (110, Fig. 1A; paragraph 0073, lines 1-5), using at least one of the voltage, current (Fig. 1A) and temperature data of the at least one cell;
determining an estimated discharging time of the at least one cell (paragraph 0073, lines 1-7), by the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit (110, Fig. 1A; paragraph 0073, lines 1-7), using at least one of the voltage, current and temperature data of the at least one cell (charge/discharge time is adopted as a degradation coefficient to become a degradation unit that uses voltage, current and temperature to calculate degradation, Fig. 1A; paragraph 0073, lines 7-9);
storing in the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit (110) at least one of the data on voltage, current, temperature, charge state, [state of health, estimated charging time, estimated discharging time and estimated time of replacement] (Fig. 1A);
It is noted that storing in the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit (110) at least one of the data on state of health, estimated charging time, estimated discharging time and estimated time of replacement are alternative limitations because they are recited in the alternative form.
displaying at least one of the data on voltage, current, temperature, by at least one display device (The storage apparatus 1502 stores information (a coefficient table and a use condition map) needed for the degradation calculation and life estimation, paragraph 0129, lines 1-3, where the information comprises voltage, current, temperature, Fig. 5; the information from the storage apparatus 1502 is displayed, Fig. 15);
It is noted that displaying at least one of the data on charge state, state of health, estimated charging time, estimated discharging time and estimated time of replacement for the at least one cell are alternative limitations because they are recited in the alternative form.
assessing whether it corresponds to initiate at least one preventive action (review charge/discharge pattern to prolong life, paragraph 0130, lines 5-6) in the at least one cell, by means of the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit (610);
It is noted that
assessing whether it corresponds to initiate at least one corrective action in the at least one cell, by means of the at least one management device are alternative limitations because they are recited in the alternative form.
when appropriate to initiate at least one preventive action, carrying out said preventive action (review charge/discharge pattern to prolong life, paragraph 0130, lines 5-6) in the at least one cell by the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit (610);
It is noted that when appropriate to initiate at least one corrective action, carrying out said corrective action in the at least one cell by the at least one management device are alternative limitations because they are recited in the alternative form.
using at least one of the data on voltage (via voltage detector, Figs. 1A, 6A), current (via current detector, Figs. 1A, 6A), temperature (via temperature detector, Figs. 1A, 6A), charge state (via SOC calculation unit, Figs. 1A, 6A) in evaluating future preventive (review future charge/discharge patterns, paragraph 0130, lines 5-6) in said at least one cell (cell(s) of battery 101, 601) by the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit (110, 610);
It is noted that using at least one of the data on state of health, estimated charging time, estimated discharging time and estimated time of replacement for the at least one cell, in evaluating future corrective actions in said at least one cell by the at least one management device are alternative limitations because they are recited in the alternative form.
initiating at least one preventive action at least comprises: regulating the flow of energy entering or leaving the at least one cell (review charge/discharge pattern, paragraph 0130, lines 5-6), by means of the at least one energy regulating element (paragraph 0029, lines 1-2), comprising the at least one protection and balancing unit (implied by the battery control apparatus controls charge/discharge of battery, paragraph 0029, lines 1-2).
It is noted that initiating at least one corrective action is an alternative limitation because it is recited in the alternative form.
While Uchida et al. does not disclose determining an estimated time of replacement of the at least one cell, Uchida et al. discloses determining battery end of life (paragraph 0076, lines 3-4) by the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit (battery control apparatus, Fig. 5), using at least one of the voltage, current and temperature data of the at least one cell (Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to determine an estimated time of replacement of the at least one cell based on battery end of life.
While Uchida et al. does not disclose comparing an estimated time of replacement, Uchida et al. discloses comparing, by the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit (610, 661 is of 610; 510, 561 is of 510), at least one of the obtained data on battery life (paragraph 0083, lines 1-3) with at least one range of preset values for each of them (paragraph 0083, lines 1-3) in the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit (510, Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to determine an estimated time of replacement of the at least one cell based on battery life.
It is noted that comparing, by the at least one management device, at least one of the obtained data on voltage, current, temperature, charge state, state of health, estimated charging time, estimated discharging time with at least one range of preset values for each of them are alternative limitations because they are recited in the alternative form.
While Uchida et al. does not disclose sending from the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit at least one of the data on estimated time of replacement, to the at least one management device, Uchida et al. discloses sending from the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit (510, 610) at least one of the data on battery end of life to the at least one management device (host system; paragraph 0076, lines 1-6). It would have been obvious to determine an estimated time of replacement of the at least one cell based on battery end of life.
It is noted that sending from the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit at least one of the data on voltage, current, temperature, charge state, state of health, estimated charging time, estimated discharging time are alternative limitations because they are recited in the alternative form.
Uchida et al. does not disclose measuring the voltage, current, and temperature of at least one cell by means of at least one protection and balancing unit, comprising at least one voltage sensor, current sensor, and temperature sensor.
Seol et al. discloses means of at least one protection and balancing unit (100), comprising at least one voltage sensor, current sensor (overvoltage, overcurrent, overheat are detected for 120 to control charge/discharge switches, paragraph 0060, lines 4-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Uchida et al. with a protection and balancing unit, comprising at least one voltage sensor, current sensor, temperature sensor as suggested by Seol et al. for the purpose of providing overvoltage, overcurrent, overheat protection.
Uchida et al. does not disclose determining a state of health of the at least one cell, by the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit, using at least one of the voltage, current and temperature data of the at least one cell.
Lee et al. discloses determining a state of health of the at least one cell (paragraph 0044, line 3), by the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit (100), using at least one of the voltage, current and temperature data of the at least one cell (paragraph 0044, lines 1-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Uchida et al. with determining a state of health of the at least one cell based on voltage, current, temperature as disclosed by Lee et al. for the purpose of controlling charge/discharge of the battery.
Regarding claim 5, Uchida et al. does not disclose the regulating the flow of energy entering or leaving the at least one cell by the at least one energy regulating element is performed between an open and closed state.
Seol et al. discloses regulating the flow of energy entering (via charging switch 140, paragraph 0060, lines 4-5) or leaving the at least one cell (via discharging switch 140, paragraph 0060, line 5) by the at least one energy regulating element (120) is performed between an open and closed state (open/closed states of charging/discharging switches).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Uchida et al. with at least one energy regulating element as disclosed by Seol et al. for the purpose of controlling charge/discharge of the battery.
Regarding claim 6, Uchida et al. does not disclose regulating the flow of energy entering or leaving the at least one cell, by the at least one energy regulating element, is performed among 0% flow of energy entering or leaving 100% energy entering or leaving.
Seol et al. discloses regulating the flow of energy entering or leaving the at least one cell, by the at least one energy regulating element, is performed among 0% flow of energy entering or leaving 100% energy entering or leaving (amount of charging/discharging is based on charging switch 140, paragraph 0060, lines 4-5 or discharging switch 140, paragraph 0060, line 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Uchida et al. with at least one energy regulating element as disclosed by Seol et al. for the purpose of controlling charge/discharge of the battery.
Regarding claim 17, while Uchida et al. does not expressly disclose in case the charge state data for the at least one cell is at its maximum value, stopping the flow of energy to the at least one cell, by the at least one energy regulating element, it is well-known to stop charging the battery when the battery is full.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Uchida et al. with stop charging the battery when the battery is full since the limitation is well-known for controlling charging of the battery.
Regarding claim 18, while Uchida et al. does not expressly disclose in case the charge state data for the at least one cell is at or below a minimum value, stopping the flow of energy discharging from the at least one cell, by the at least one energy regulating element, it is well-known to stop discharging the battery when the battery is empty.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Uchida et al. with stop discharging the battery when the battery is empty since the limitation is well-known for controlling discharging of the battery.
Regarding claim 19, Uchida et al. discloses emitting an audible alert by the at least one audible alarm (paragraph 0076, lines 9-10).
While Uchida does not expressly disclose when the charge state data for the at least one cell is at or below the minimum value, emitting an audible alert by the at least one audible alarm, it is well-known to provide an alert that the battery is empty.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Uchida et al. with emitting an audible alert by the at least one audible alarm since the limitation is well-known for alerting that the battery is empty.
Claims 2, 3, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida et al. in view of Seol et al. and Lee et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sun et al. (US 2020/0395640).
Regarding claim 2, Uchida et al. as modified by Seol et al. and Lee et al. discloses the limitations imitations as discussed above.
Uchida et al. further discloses comprising issuing an audible alert, by at least one audible alarm (the notification can be a buzzer, paragraph 0076, lines 9-10).
Uchida et al. as modified by Seol et al. and Lee et al. does not disclose issuing the audible alert when at least one of the data on voltage, current, temperature, estimated charging time, and estimated discharging time are outside of the at least one preset range for each of them.
Sun et al. discloses issuing an alert when at least one of the data on temperature is outside of the at least one preset range for at least one of them (paragraph 0075, lines 2-10).
It is noted that issuing the audible alert when at least one of the data on voltage, current, estimated charging time, and estimated discharging time are outside of the at least one preset range for each of them are alternative limitations because they are recited in the alternative form.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Uchida et al. as modified with issuing the audible alert when at least one of the data on temperature is outside of the at least one preset range for at least one of them as disclosed by Sun et al. for the purpose of providing a warning for overheat protection.
Regarding claim 3, Uchida et al. as modified by Seol et al. and Lee et al. discloses the limitations imitations as discussed above.
Uchida et al. further discloses sending an alert from the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit (paragraph 0076).
It is noted that sending an alert from the at least one management device is an alternative limitation because it is recited in the alternative form.
However, Uchida et al. as modified by Seol et al. and Lee et al. does not disclose sending the alert to the at least one display device, when at least one of the data on voltage, current, temperature, estimated charging time and estimated discharging time are outside of the at least one preset range for each of them.
Sun et al. discloses sending an alert to the at least one display device (paragraph 0075, lines 9-10), when at least one of the data on temperature is outside of the at least one preset range for at least one of them (paragraph 0075, lines 2-10).
It is noted that sending an alert to the at least one display device when at least one of the data on voltage, current, estimated charging time and estimated discharging time are outside of the at least one preset range for each of them are alternative limitations because they are recited in the alternative form.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Uchida et al. as modified with sending an alert to the at least one display device, when at least one of the data on temperature is outside of the at least one preset range for at least one of them as disclosed by Sun et al. for the purpose of providing a warning for overheat protection.
Regarding claim 20, Uchida et al. discloses sending an alert from the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit (paragraph 0076).
It is noted that sending an alert from the at least one management device is an alternative limitation because it is recited in the alternative form.
Uchida et al. as modified by Seol et al. and Lee et al. does not expressly disclose when the charge state data for the at least one cell is at or below the minimum value, sending an alert from the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit, towards the at least one display device.
Sun et al. discloses when the charge state data for the at least one cell is at or below the minimum value, sending an alert from the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit, towards the at least one display device (paragraph 0075, lines 9-10) since it is well-known to provide an alert that the battery is empty.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Uchida et al. as modified with a display device as suggested by Sun et al. for the purpose of providing an alert that the battery is empty.
Claims 24 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida et al. in view of Seol et al. and Lee et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iyer et al. (US 2022/0065941).
Regarding claim 24, Uchida et al. as modified by Seol et al. and Lee et al. discloses the limitations imitations as discussed above except in case the data of state of health for the at least one cell is at or below its minimum value, sending an alert from the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit (computing apparatus, paragraph 0015, line 1) and/or from the at least one management device, towards the at least one display device indicating the need for replacement for the at least one cell (paragraph 0015).
Iyer et al. discloses in case the data of state of health for the at least one cell is at or below its minimum value, sending an alert from the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit (computing apparatus, paragraph 0015, line 1), towards the at least one display device indicating the need for replacement for the at least one cell (paragraph 0015).
It is noted that sending an alert from the at least one management device is an alternative limitation because they are recited in the alternative form.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Uchida et al. as modified with sending an alert from the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit, towards the at least one display device as disclosed by Iyer et al. for the purpose of indicating the need for replacement for the at least one cell.
Regarding claim 28, Uchida et al. as modified by Seol et al. and Lee et al. discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above, except in case the data on estimated time of replacement for the at least one cell is at or below its minimum value, sending an alert from the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit, towards the at least one display device indicating the need for replacement for the at least one cell.
Iyer et al. discloses in case the data on estimated time of replacement for the at least one cell is at or below its minimum value (replace the electrochemical cell in the device in response to the determined state of health of the electrochemical cell indicating an end of life of the electrochemical cell, paragraph 0015, lines 3-6), sending an alert from the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit (computer apparatus, paragraph 0015, line 1), towards the at least one display device indicating the need for replacement for the at least one cell (paragraph 0015, lines 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Uchida et al. as modified with emitting an audible alert by the at least one audible alarm as disclosed by Iyer et al. for the purpose of providing an alert to replace the battery.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida et al. in view of Seol et al. and Lee et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ranieri et al. (EP 3097428).
Regarding claim 29, Uchida et al. as modified by Seol et al. and Lee et al. discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above, except measuring the impedance of the at least one cell, by the at least one protection and balancing unit, comprising at least one impedance sensor.
Ranieri et al. discloses measuring the impedance of the at least one cell, by the at least one protection and balancing unit, comprising at least one impedance sensor for monitoring state of aging of the battery (page 3, paragraph5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Uchida et al. as modified with measuring the impedance of the at least one cell, by the at least one protection and balancing unit, comprising at least one impedance sensor as disclosed by Ranieri et al. for the purpose of monitoring state of aging of the battery.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida et al. in view of Seol et al. and Lee et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (CN 214775478).
Regarding claim 30, Uchida et al. as modified by Seol et al. and Lee et al. discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above, except measuring the humidity outside the at least one cell, by means of the at least one protection and balancing unit, comprising at least one humidity sensor.
Yang et al. discloses measuring the humidity outside the at least one cell (page 3, paragraph 8, line 2), by means of the at least one protection and balancing unit (BMS, page 5, paragraph 1, line 1), comprising at least one humidity sensor (page 5, paragraph 1) for enabling the BMS to work (page 5, paragraph 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Uchida et al. as modified with measuring the humidity outside the at least one cell as disclosed by Yang et al. for the purpose of enabling the BMS to work.
Claims 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida et al. in view of Seol et al. and Lee et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takatsuka et al. (US 2018/0048032).
Regarding claim 33, Uchida et al. as modified by Seol et al. and Lee et al. discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above, except measuring the vibrations in the rechargeable battery, by means of a vibration sensor.
Takatsuka et al. discloses measuring the vibrations in the rechargeable battery, by means of a vibration sensor (Abstract, lines 8-9) for determining damage of a battery (paragraph 0007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Uchida et al. as modified with measuring the vibrations in the rechargeable battery, by means of a vibration sensor as disclosed by
Takatsuka et al. for the purpose of determining damage of the battery.
Regarding claim 34, Uchida et al. as modified by Seol et al. and Lee et al. discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above, except monitoring the position of the rechargeable battery, by means of a locating element.
Takatsuka et al. discloses monitoring the position of the rechargeable battery, by means of a locating element (paragraph 0011, lines 11-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Uchida et al. as modified with a position sensor as disclosed by Takatsuka et al. for the purpose of monitoring the position of the rechargeable battery.
Regarding claim 35, Uchida et al. as modified by Seol et al. and Lee et al. discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above, except measuring the pressure inside the rechargeable battery, by means of a pressure sensor.
Takatsuka et al. discloses measuring the pressure inside the rechargeable battery, by means of a pressure sensor (Abstract, lines 11-12) for determining damage of a battery (paragraph 0007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Uchida et al. as modified with measuring the vibrations in the rechargeable battery, by means of a vibration sensor as disclosed by
Takatsuka et al. for the purpose of determining damage of the battery.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida et al. in view of Seol et al. and Lee et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inai et al. (US 2022/0103006).
Regarding claim 36, Uchida et al. as modified by Seol et al. and Lee et al. discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above, except monitoring the opening and closing of an outer casing of the rechargeable battery, by means of an opening sensor.
Inai et al. discloses monitoring the opening and closing of an outer casing of the rechargeable battery (140) (paragraph 0044, lines 1-2), by means of an opening sensor (paragraph 0044, lines 3-4) for displaying a message whether the battery cover is open (paragraph 0044, lines 7-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Uchida et al. as modified with monitoring the opening and closing of an outer casing of the rechargeable battery, by means of an opening sensor as disclosed by Inai et al. for the purpose of displaying a message whether the battery cover is open.
Claims 23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida et al. in view of Seol et al. and Lee et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sun et al. and Iyer et al. (US 2022/0065941).
Regarding claim 23, Uchida et al. as modified by Seol et al., Lee et al., and Sun et al. does not expressly disclose the health state data for the at least one cell is at or below a minimum value, emitting an audible alert by the at least one audible alarm.
Iyer et al. discloses a health state data for the at least one cell is at or below a minimum value, emitting an audible alert by the at least one audible alarm (paragraph 0015).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Uchida et al. as modified with emitting an audible alert by the at least one audible alarm as disclosed by Iyer et al. for the purpose of providing an alert that the health state data for the at least one cell is at or below a minimum value.
Regarding claim 27, Uchida et al. as modified by Seol et al., Lee et al., and Sun et al. discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above, except when the data on estimated time of replacement for the at least one cell is at or below a minimum value, emitting an audible alert by the at least one audible alarm.
Iyer et al. discloses when the data on estimated time of replacement for the at least one cell is at or below a minimum value (replace the electrochemical cell in the device in response to the determined state of health of the electrochemical cell indicating an end of life of the electrochemical cell, paragraph 0015, lines 3-6), emitting an audible alert by the at least one audible alarm (paragraph 0015, lines 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Uchida et al. as modified with emitting an audible alert by the at least one audible alarm as disclosed by Iyer et al. for the purpose of providing an alert to replace the battery.
Claims 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida et al. in view of Seol et al. and Lee et al. as applied to claims 1, 2, and 27 above, and further in view of Sun et al., Iyer et al., and Inai et al. (US 2022/0103006).
Regarding claim 37, Uchida et al. as modified by Seol et al., Lee et al., Sun et al., and Iyer et al. discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above, except comparing at least one of the obtained data on vibrations, position, pressure and opening and closing of the outer casing with at least one range of preset values for one or more of them in the at least one control and monitoring unit and in the at least one management device.
He et al. discloses comparing at least one of the obtained data on vibrations, position (Abstract, lines 6-7), with at least one range of preset values for at least one or more of them (Abstract, lines 6-7) in the at least one control and monitoring unit (GPS module, Abstract) and in the at least one management device (battery car alarm system, Abstract).
It is noted that comparing at least one of the obtained data on pressure and opening and closing of the outer casing with at least one range of preset values for each of them are alternative limitations because they are recited in the alternative form.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Uchida et al. as modified with comparing at least one of the obtained data on vibrations, position, with at least one range of preset values for at least one or more of them as disclosed by He et al. for the purpose of providing an alarm (Abstract, lines 8-9).
Regarding claim 38, Uchida et al. as modified by Seol et al., Lee et al., Sun et al., and Iyer et al. discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above.
Uchida et al. discloses emitting an audible alert by the at least one audible alarm (the notification can be a buzzer, paragraph 0076, lines 9-10).
Uchida et al. as modified by Seol et al., Lee et al., Sun et al., and Iyer et al. does not disclose in the event of one or more of the data on vibrations, position, pressure and opening and closing of the outer casing are outside the at least one range of preset values for each of them, emitting an audible alert by the at least one audible alarm.
He et al. discloses in the event of one or more of the data on vibrations, position, are outside the at least one range of preset values for at least one of them, emitting an audible alert by the at least one audible alarm (Abstract, lines 6-9) in view of Uchida et al..
It is noted that in the event of one or more of the data on pressure and opening and closing of the outer casing are outside the at least one range of preset values for each of them are alternative limitation because they are recited in the alternative form.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Uchida et al. as modified with an audible alarm as suggested by He et al. for the purpose of providing an alarm that the data on vibrations, position, are outside the at least one range of preset values for at least one of them.
Regarding claim 39, Uchida et al. as modified by Seol et al., Lee et al., Sun et al., and Iyer et al. discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above.
Uchida et al. further discloses sending an alert from the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit (paragraph 0076).
Sun sending an alert towards the at least one display device (paragraph 0075, lines 9-10).
Uchida et al. as modified by Seol et al., Lee et al., Sun et al., and Iyer et al. does not disclose that the alert is sent in the event of one or more of the data on vibrations, position, pressure and opening and closing of the outer casing are outside the at least one range of preset values for each of them.
He et al. discloses in the event of one or more of the data on vibrations, position, are outside the at least one range of preset values for at least one of them, sending an alert from the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit (GPS module, Abstract, lines 6-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Uchida et al. as modified with sending an alert to a display as suggested by He et al. and Uchida for the purpose of providing an alarm that the data on vibrations, position, are outside the at least one range of preset values for at least one of them.
Prior Art Note
Claims 31 and 32 do not have prior art rejections.
The combination as claimed wherein a method of monitoring and controlling at least one rechargeable battery comprising measuring the salinity on the outside of the at least one cell (claim 31) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4, 7-16, 21, 22, 25, and 26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons For Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The combination as claimed wherein a method of monitoring and controlling at least one rechargeable battery comprising when at least one of the current, voltage and temperature data for the at least one cell is outside the at least one preset range for each of them, cutting the connection between the at least one rechargeable battery and the outside, by at least one disconnecting element (claim 4) or increasing the flow of energy to the at least one cell (claims 7, 8) or decreasing the flow of energy to the at least one cell in which the charge state data is within or above the at least one preset range, by its at least one energy regulating element (claim 10) or decreasing the flow of energy being discharged from the at least one cell in which the charge state data is below the at least one preset range (claims 12, 13) or increasing the flow of energy being discharged from the at least one cell in which the charge state data is within or above the at least one preset range, by its at least one energy regulating element (claim 15) or decreasing a discharge cycles in the at least one cell, by the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit … until the data of state of health for the at least one cell is within the at least one preset range (claims 21, 25) or increasing the charge cycles in the at least one cell, by the at least one control, monitoring and communication unit … until the data of state of health for the at least one cell is within the at least one preset range (claims 22, 26) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 January 20, 2026