DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is in response to an amendment/response filed on 8/5/2026
Hereon, claims 1-14,16-20 are currently pending; claims 1-14,16-20 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS)(s) file on have been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy is attached herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1,3-7,9-14,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White in view of Tai et al, (Tai), (USNO.2021/0075229)
As for claim 1, White discloses and shows in Figs. 1-2 a method of predicting a remaining charge time to charge a plurality of battery packs connected in parallel with one another, each via a corresponding relay among a plurality of relays, up to a final target state of charge (SOC), the method comprising: estimating, by a battery management system (BMS) (ref’s controller), an SOC of each of the plurality of battery packs; assigning (via lowest to highest capacity), by the BMS, an ordering number (via ref’s walking pattern) in order of the SOC for the plurality of battery packs; determining among the plurality of battery packs, by the BMS; a connected pack group including n battery packs, each to be connected to a charging device with a closed state (via selecting sub-group); among the plurality of battery packs, and an available pack group including a battery pack m battery packs, each to be not connected to the charging device with the corresponding relay in an open state; predicting, by the BMS, a first remaining charge time required for a battery pack having a largest ordering number (via lowest capacity determination), among the n battery packs constituting the connected pack group, to reach the final target SOC; predicting, by the BMS, m remaining charge times respectively for the m battery packs constituting the available pack group (switching to a different sub-group of battery cells), and calculating a second remaining charge time by adding the m remaining charge times (determine charging time interval of the sub-group); and predicting, by the BMS, a final remaining charge time by adding the first remaining charge time and the second remaining charge time (via ref’s end is reached); and transmitting, by the BMS, a control signal for charging or discharging the plurality of battery packs wherein n and m are natural numbers greater than or equal to 2 (par.[0017-0018,0031-0034,0053-0055]).
White discloses all limitations, but differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose assign, by the BMS, an ordering number ascending order of the SOC for the plurality of battery packs.
Tai discloses assign, by the BMS, an ordering number ascending order of the SOC for the plurality of battery packs (par.[0074-0076])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of White by assign, by the BMS, an ordering number ascending order of the SOC for the plurality of battery packs for advantages such as providing less time-consuming imbalance (par.[0007]) as taught by Tai.
As for claim 3, White discloses and shows in Figs. 1-2 the determining of the connected pack group and the available pack group includes: determining, by the BMS, a battery pack the n battery packs having the estimated SOC value less than a reference SOC value (via lowest capacity determination), among the plurality of battery packs, as the connected pack group.
As for claim 4, White discloses and shows in Figs. 1-2 the determining of the connected pack group and the available pack group includes: the determining, by the BMS, a battery pack the m battery packs having the estimated SOC value equal to or greater than a reference SOC value (via highest capacity determination), among the plurality of battery packs, as the available pack group.
As for claim 5, White discloses and shows in Figs. 1-2 the calculating of the second remaining charge time (via charging determination of difference sub-group) includes: predicting, by the BMS, a remaining charge time of a first battery pack, excluding a battery pack having a largest ordering number, among the m battery packs, as a charge time required for an estimated SOC of each of the first battery pack packs to reach an estimated SOC of a second battery pack corresponding to a next ordering number (par.[0017-0018,0031-0034,0053-0055]).
As for claim 6, White discloses and shows in Figs. 1-2 the calculating of the second remaining charge time includes (via charging determination of difference sub-group): predicting, by the BMS, a remaining charge time of a third battery pack having a largest ordering number, among the m battery packs, as a charge time required for an estimated SOC of the third battery pack to reach the final target SOC (par.[0017-0018,0031-0034,0053-0055])..
As for claim 7, White discloses and shows in Figs. 1-2 a battery system, comprising: a plurality of battery packs connected in parallel with one another, each via a corresponding relay among a plurality of relays; and a battery management system (BMS) (ref’s controller) configured to: estimating an estimate a state of charge (SOC) value of each of the plurality of battery packs, assigning assign (via lowest to highest capacity), an ordering number (via ref’s walking pattern) in order of the SOC for the plurality of battery packs, determining determine among the plurality of battery packs a connected pack group including a battery pack n battery packs to be connected to a charging device with the corresponding relay in a closed state (via selecting sub-group); an available pack group including m battery packs to be not connected to the charging device with the corresponding relay in an open state, predict a first remaining charge time of the connected pack group and calculating calculate a second remaining charge time (determine charging time interval of the sub-group) of the available pack group (switching to a different sub-group of battery cells), predict a final remaining charge time for charging the plurality of battery packs to a final target SOC by adding the first remaining charge time and the second remaining charge time, and transmit a control signal for charging or discharging the plurality of battery packs or for controlling a cell balancing operation among the plurality of battery packs wherein n and m are natural numbers numbers (via ref’s end is reached) (par.[0017-0018,0031-0034,0053-0055]).
White discloses all limitations, but differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose assign, by the BMS, an ordering number ascending order of the SOC for the plurality of battery packs.
Tai discloses assign, by the BMS, an ordering number ascending order of the SOC for the plurality of battery packs (par.[0074-0076])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of White by assign, by the BMS, an ordering number ascending order of the SOC for the plurality of battery packs for advantages such as providing less time-consuming imbalance (par.[0007]) as taught by Tai.
As for claim 9, White discloses and shows in Figs. 1-2 the BMS sets a battery pack is further configured to set the n battery packs having the estimated SOC value less than a reference SOC value (via lowest capacity determination), among the plurality of battery packs, as the connected pack group.
As for claim 10, White discloses and shows in Figs. 1-2 the BMS sets a battery pack is further configured to set the m battery packs having the estimated SOC value equal to or greater than a reference SOC value (via highest capacity determination), among the plurality of battery packs, as the available pack group.
As for claim 11, White discloses and shows in Figs. 1-2 the BMS predicts is further configured to predict a time required for a battery pack having a largest ordering number, among the n battery packs constituting the connected pack group, to reach the final target SOC, as the first remaining charge time, wherein n is a natural number (par.[0017-0018,0031-0034,0053-0055]).
As for claim 12, White discloses and shows in Figs. 1-2 the BMS predicts is further configured to predict m remaining charge times respectively for the m battery packs constituting the available pack group, and calculates and to calculate a second remaining charge time by adding the m remaining charge times, wherein m is a natural number (par.[0017-0018,0031-0034,0053-0055]).
As for claim 13, White discloses and shows in Figs. 1-2 the BMS is further configured to predict a charge time required for an estimated SOC of a first battery pack, excluding a battery pack having [[the]] a largest ordering number, among the m battery packs, to reach an estimated SOC of a second battery pack corresponding to a next ordering number, as a remaining charge time of the first battery pack (par.[0017-0018,0031-0034,0053-0055]).
As for claim 14, White discloses and shows in Figs. 1-2 the BMS is further configured to predict a remaining charge time of a third battery pack having the largest ordering number, among the m battery packs, as a charge time required for the estimated SOC of the third battery pack to reach the final target SOC, and calculates and to calculate the second remaining charge time by adding the remaining charge time of the first battery pack and the remaining charge time of the third battery pack (par.[0017-0018,0031-0034,0053-0055]).
As for claim 16, White discloses and shows in Figs. 1-2a battery monitoring integrated circuit (BMIC) in each of the plurality of battery packs, the BMIC being configured to control opening and closing of the corresponding relay based on the control signal from the BMS (par.[0017-0018,0031-0034,0053-0055])
As for claim 14, White discloses and shows in Figs. 1-2 the third battery pack is the second battery pack
As for claim 18, White discloses and shows in Figs. 1-2 at least one of n and m is greater than or equal to 2
As for claim 19, White discloses and shows in Figs. 1-2 controlling, via a battery monitoring integrated circuit (BMIC) in each of the plurality of battery packs, opening and closing of the corresponding relay based on the control signal from the BMS.
As for claim 20, White discloses and shows in Figs. 1-2 the second battery pack is the battery pack having the largest ordering number among the m battery packs.
Claim(s) 2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White in view Tai in further in view of Zhang et al, (USNO.2014/0232346)
As for claims 2 and 8 , White in combination with Tai discloses all limitations, but differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose the estimating of the SOC of each of the plurality of battery pack includes: estimating, by the BMS, the SOC of each of the plurality of battery packs based on a cell voltage of each of the plurality of battery cells received from a battery monitoring integrated circuit (BMIC) included in each of the plurality of battery packs, battery currents of the plurality of battery packs, and temperature information of the plurality of battery packs.
Zhang discloses the estimating of the SOC of each of the plurality of battery pack includes: estimating, by the BMS, the SOC of each of the plurality of battery packs based on a cell voltage of each of the plurality of battery cells received from a battery monitoring integrated circuit (BMIC) included in each of the plurality of battery packs, battery currents of the plurality of battery packs, and temperature information of the plurality of battery packs (par.[0024,0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined teachings of White and Tai by estimating, by the BMS, the SOC of each of the plurality of battery packs based on a cell voltage of each of the plurality of battery cells received from a battery monitoring integrated circuit (BMIC) included in each of the plurality of battery packs, battery currents of the plurality of battery packs, and temperature information of the plurality of battery packs for advantages such as providing the ability to length battery operational life (par.0004]) as taught by Zhang.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicants’ argument that
White does not discuss determining charge time in any of the other portions cited by the Office, and the Office thus appears to rely on the above disclosure in [0032] of White to meet the"predicting a first remaining charge time" feature as recited in claim 1. However, "the group of battery cells with the lowest capacity or voltage" in White does not correspond to "a battery pack having a largest ordering number, among the n battery packs " recited in claim 1. As noted
above, claim 1 also recites "assigning an ordering number in ascending order of the SOC for the plurality of battery packs" (emphasis added), meaning that the "battery having a largest ordering number, among the n battery packs " in claim 1 has the largest, not the lowest, estimated SOC, among "the n battery packs." Thus, even if, arguendo, the "lowest capacity or voltage" in White is assumed to correspond to the lowest SOC, "the group of battery cells with the lowest capacity or voltage" in White does not correspond to the "battery pack having a largest ordering number, among the n battery packs," much less "among the n battery cells constituting the connected pack group" as recited in claim 1, and White fails to disclose or render obvious the above-noted "predicting a first remaining charge time" feature of claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagree and submits,
White discloses and shows in Figs. 1-2 a method of predicting a remaining charge time to charge a plurality of battery packs connected in parallel with one another, each via a corresponding relay among a plurality of relays, up to a final target state of charge (SOC), the method comprising: estimating, by a battery management system (BMS) (ref’s controller), an SOC of each of the plurality of battery packs; assigning (via lowest to highest capacity), by the BMS, an ordering number (via ref’s walking pattern) in order of the SOC for the plurality of battery packs; determining among the plurality of battery packs, by the BMS; a connected pack group including n battery packs, each to be connected to a charging device with a closed state (via selecting sub-group); among the plurality of battery packs, and an available pack group including a battery pack m battery packs, each to be not connected to the charging device with the corresponding relay in an open state; predicting, by the BMS, a first remaining charge time required for a battery pack having a largest ordering number (via lowest capacity determination), among the n battery packs constituting the connected pack group, to reach the final target SOC; predicting, by the BMS, m remaining charge times respectively for the m battery packs constituting the available pack group (switching to a different sub-group of battery cells), and calculating a second remaining charge time by adding the m remaining charge times (determine charging time interval of the sub-group); and predicting, by the BMS, a final remaining charge time by adding the first remaining charge time and the second remaining charge time (via ref’s end is reached); and transmitting, by the BMS, a control signal for charging or discharging the plurality of battery packs wherein n and m are natural numbers greater than or equal to 2 (par.[0017-0018,0031-0034,0053-0055]). White in combination with Tai discloses assign, by the BMS, an ordering number ascending order of the SOC for the plurality of battery packs (par.[0074-0076]) in the new rejection above necessitated by amendment.
For at least the reasons provided above, the applicant arguments regarding independent claims are not persuasive. The applicant argues that dependent claims are patentable for similar reasons and are also not persuasive. The applicant further argues that since dependent claims depend on the argued independent claim; they are patentable at least by virtue of their dependencies. Since the applicant's arguments regarding independent claims are not persuasive, the applicant's arguments regarding dependent claims are also not persuasive.
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 ARUN C WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9765. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian Huffman can be reached on 571-272-2147. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARUN C WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights