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 . The rejections from the Office Action of 1/27/2026 are hereby withdrawn. New grounds for rejection are presented below.
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.
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:
The main control unit in claims 6-8, 10, 13, and 14. One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the MCU to be disclosed in the form of a general-purpose computer processor.
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 § 101
The instant claims were previously rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea. However, those rejections are overcome in light of the amended claim language of “performing, by the MCU, a protection operation by controlling a relay of the battery system to electrically disconnect a battery pack current path when the impact count reaches the threshold.”
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(s) 1-3, 5-8, and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper et al. (US 20230205300 A1)[hereinafter “Cooper”], Johnson (US 20090309745 A1), and Cheng (US 20210255787 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 and 6, Cooper discloses a method (and corresponding system including an accelerometer and MCU [See Fig. 1]) for measuring an impact for a battery, the method comprising: receiving an acceleration sensor signal from an acceleration sensor when the battery is either in use and not in use (i.e., being transported)[Abstract – “Battery management systems and methods for using the same to obtain battery shock and/or rollover data. An exemplary battery management system of the present disclosure comprises an accelerometer configured to obtain acceleration data, a microcontroller operably connected to the accelerometer and configured to receive the acceleration data from the accelerometer, and a data storage medium in communication with the microcontroller, the data storage medium configured to store the acceleration data therein, wherein when the battery management system is in communication with a battery, the accelerometer can obtain the acceleration data relating to the battery, and the microcontroller can operate to disconnect the battery from a load connected thereto should the acceleration data meet or exceed a threshold limit.”Paragraph [0045] – “As referenced herein, accelerometer 102 is configured to obtain accelerometer data in connection with a handling status of battery 150. For example, accelerometers 102, in various embodiments, are configured to determine whether or not a battery 150 has been tilted (and to what degree of tilt), experienced shock (a force against battery 150) and to what extent/degree, rolled over, and/or whether or not battery 150 has fallen, which can be determined based on potential forces/impacts and/or acceleration data, in various axes (x-, y-, and/or z-, as referenced herein), such that potential crash or other damage (including vibration damage) can be identified/determined. Said data can be obtained during transport of battery 150 and/or during use of battery 150, such as when battery 150 is connected to a load 175, and can be used to determine if battery 150 has been mishandled, inappropriately/improperly transported, damaged, etc., so that use of battery 150 can be discontinued if necessary. For example, accelerometer 102 can obtain acceleration data during transport (such as by use of a fork truck or other transport mechanism) and/or during use, as referenced herein. Said acceleration data could identify potential future concerns with battery 150, such as prolonged vibration, shock, etc., so that battery 150 can be disconnected from load 175 prior to battery 150 becoming potentially dangerous to use.”].
Cooper fails to disclose storing, by a main control unit (MCU), a previous operation mode of a battery system in a first area of a memory; storing, by the MCU, a current operation mode of the battery system in a second area of the memory; determining, by the MCU, whether the previous operation mode stored in the first area and the current operation mode stored in the second area are the same as each other; storing, by the MCU, a change flag in a third area of the memory to have a first value when the previous operation mode stored in the first area and the current operation mode stored in the second area are determined to be different from each other; and reducing power consumption of the battery system in the sleep mode when the change flag has a second value.
However, Johnson discloses tracking the state of a device (such as an “on,” “off,” or “sleep” state) in order to better track the manner in which the device has become damaged [Paragraph [0068] – “The abuse detection system 34 may also be configured to store device state information. For example, the device 10 may be configured to periodically write the state of the device 10 to the abuse detection system 34. State information may include, for example, an "on" state indicating that the device 10 is powered on, an "off" state indicating that the device 10 is powered off, or a "sleep" state indicating that the device 10 is powered but in a sleep or stand-by mode. Additional states may be defined based on the particular functionalities of the device 10. For example, a device 10 capable of placing cellular phone calls may include an "in-call" state to indicate that a user using the device 10 is currently on a telephone call. When an abuse event is detected by the abuse detection system 34, the above discussed timestamp and the last known state of the device 10 may be recorded into the storage device 64 of the abuse detection system 34. Additionally, the state information may be temporally correlated with the timestamp information. By analyzing state and timestamp information, a service technician may be able to determine how the device 10 was being used at the moment an abuse event was detected by the abuse detection system 34. This analysis may be particularly useful in verifying the occurrence or non-occurrence of consumer abuse.”] and in which an abuse detection system is put into a sleep mode where measurements shock measurement are not being taken [Paragraph [0108] – “The shock detection circuitry 158 may also be configured to place the abuse detection system into a sleep mode and to initiate a wake-up timer, which may be timed by the clock 62, to periodically wake the abuse detection system 34 after a predetermined amount of time in order to recheck the shock sensor 38f to determine if vibration or acceleration levels still exceed the above discussed threshold(s).”]. It would have been obvious to place the battery in a sleep state during transport to reduce power consumption and to wake it up during use in order to assess if a user’s behavior is the cause of any damage.
The combination discloses tracking the state of a battery through use of appropriate memory and change flag values [Johnson, Fig. 3B – and Fig. 4B – 94.See Column 5 lines 16-21 of Cooper, the use of state interrupts.], but fails to disclose doing so through use of the recited “change flag.”
However, Cheng discloses the use of state change flags in order to properly track the transition of a device from one state to another state [See Figs. 6 and 7.See Paragraphs [0055]-[0057], particularly in Paragraph [0056] that – “In the above example of the state incorrectly jumping from S1 to S2 without going through S3 (Flag3 being “0”), referring to FIG. 6, in the state S2, the pass flag will be set to 0 because it is checked that the state flags Flag1, Flag3, Flag2 do not indicate 1, 1, 1 respectively, regardless of whether the detection flag Veri_ok is passed or not. The state will then transition from S2 to S0 such that the power-up verification state machine is reset.”]. It would have been obvious to track a potential state change operation and to evaluate whether the battery can safely perform a proposed state change through use of a state change flag because doing so would have allowed for preventing the battery from making an unsafe state change.
The combination would disclose receiving, by the MCU, an acceleration sensor signal from an acceleration sensor when the current operation mode stored in the second area is a sleep mode and the change flag has the first value; and receiving, by the MCU, the acceleration sensor signal from the acceleration sensor when the current operation mode stored in the second area is not the sleep mode [Paragraph [0045] of Cooper – “[A]ccelerometer 102 can obtain acceleration data during transport (such as by use of a fork truck or other transport mechanism) and/or during use, as referenced herein.”].
Cooper discloses voiding a battery warranty if there are repeated detected shocks and/or rollovers [Paragraph [0048] – “A battery management system 100 of the present disclosure can be used to monitor levels of shock and/or rollover (tilt and the degree of the same) using accelerometer 102, and should accelerometer 102 detect high and or repeated levels of shock and/or rollover, that acceleration data can be the basis of voiding a warranty of guarantee of the battery 150 being monitored by battery management system 100.”] and disconnecting the battery when its operation could be dangerous [Paragraph [0002] – “Large battery systems are used in environments where high shock levels can be dangerous to the battery operation. In addition, due to the heavy weight of certain battery systems, they can be mishandled/dropped during transportation which can render the battery unsafe for usage. During handling the batteries may be rolled over which can also damage the internal components of the battery making them unsafe for operation.”Paragraph [0004] – “In view of the foregoing, a system for determining the extent of shock and/or rollover of a battery that can not only store said data to be accessed in the future, but also configured to disable said potentially damaged or dangerous battery, would be well received in the marketplace.”], but fails to disclose:
determining whether an impact count reaches a predetermined impact threshold; and
performing a protection operation by controlling a relay of the battery system to electrically disconnect a battery pack current path when the impact count reaches the predetermined impact threshold.
However, it would have been obvious to use the impact count that indicates that an impact has been repeated enough times to void the battery warranty in order to trigger disabling of that battery because a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a battery that has been damaged enough to void its warranty could also pose a safety risk requiring reassessment as to whether the battery can safely be continued to be used.
Regarding Claim 6, “pre-storing” an initial memory value is inherent in implementing the algorithm using the computer.
Regarding Claim 2, Cooper discloses determining, by the MCU, whether an acceleration value indicated by the acceleration sensor signal exceeds a reference value; and adding, by the MCU, 1 to the impact count stored in a fourth area of the memory when the acceleration value is determined to exceed the reference value [See Fig. 4 and Paragraph [0047] – “As shown therein, exemplary battery management systems 100 of the present disclosure are configured to not only obtain data relating to whether or not a threshold amount of shock (left side of FIG. 4) and/or rollover (right side of FIG. 4) of battery 150 has been met or exceeded, but also how many times the threshold has been met or exceeded. The number of times (and associated date, time, and or extent of shock or degree of rollover) can be obtained by accelerometer 102 and stored within data storage medium 106 as desired”].
Regarding Claim 3, the combination would disclose determining, by the MCU, whether the acceleration value indicated by the acceleration sensor signal exceeds the reference value [See Fig. 4 and Paragraph [0047] of Cooper – “As shown therein, exemplary battery management systems 100 of the present disclosure are configured to not only obtain data relating to whether or not a threshold amount of shock (left side of FIG. 4) and/or rollover (right side of FIG. 4) of battery 150 has been met or exceeded, but also how many times the threshold has been met or exceeded. The number of times (and associated date, time, and or extent of shock or degree of rollover) can be obtained by accelerometer 102 and stored within data storage medium 106 as desired”];
setting, by the MCU, the change flag stored in the third area to the second value and storing the second value in the third area when the acceleration value is determined to be equal to or less than the reference value, and storing, by the MCU, the current operation mode stored in the second area in the first area of the memory [Using appropriate memory and change flag values in order to better assess the cause of any impact detected to the battery through continual monitoring of device state and any changes thereto (in light of Johnson) where a lack of significant vibration indicates no impact has occurred (in light of Cooper).].
Regarding Claim 5, the combination would disclose setting, by the MCU, the change flag stored in the third area to a second value, and storing the second value in the third area when the impact count is determined to not have reached the predetermined impact threshold, and storing, by the MCU, the current operation mode stored in the second area in the first area [Using appropriate memory and change flag values in order to better assess the cause of any impact detected to the battery through continual monitoring of device state and any changes thereto (in light of Johnson) where a lack of repeated significant vibration indicates no impact has occurred (in light of Cooper).].
Regarding Claim 7, the combination would disclose that the MCU further includes the memory including the first area, the second area, the third area, and a fourth area [Use of appropriate memory and change flag values in order to better assess the cause of any impact detected to the battery through continual monitoring of device state and any changes thereto (in light of Johnson).],
and that the MCU stores the impact count in the fourth area indicating a number of times at which an acceleration value indicated by the acceleration sensor signal exceeds a reference value [See Fig. 4 and Paragraph [0047] of Cooper – “As shown therein, exemplary battery management systems 100 of the present disclosure are configured to not only obtain data relating to whether or not a threshold amount of shock (left side of FIG. 4) and/or rollover (right side of FIG. 4) of battery 150 has been met or exceeded, but also how many times the threshold has been met or exceeded. The number of times (and associated date, time, and or extent of shock or degree of rollover) can be obtained by accelerometer 102 and stored within data storage medium 106 as desired”].
Regarding Claim 8, the combination would disclose that the MCU: adds 1 to the impact count when the acceleration value indicated by the received acceleration sensor signal exceeds the reference value [See Fig. 4 and Paragraph [0047] – “As shown therein, exemplary battery management systems 100 of the present disclosure are configured to not only obtain data relating to whether or not a threshold amount of shock (left side of FIG. 4) and/or rollover (right side of FIG. 4) of battery 150 has been met or exceeded, but also how many times the threshold has been met or exceeded. The number of times (and associated date, time, and or extent of shock or degree of rollover) can be obtained by accelerometer 102 and stored within data storage medium 106 as desired”], and sets the change flag stored in the third area to the second value and stores the second value in the third area, and stores the current operation mode stored in the second area in the first area when the acceleration value indicated by the received acceleration sensor signal is equal to or less than the reference value [Paragraph [0004] of Cooper of switching the battery into a disabled state – “In view of the foregoing, a system for determining the extent of shock and/or rollover of a battery that can not only store said data to be accessed in the future, but also configured to disable said potentially damaged or dangerous battery, would be well received in the marketplace.”].
Regarding Claim 10, the combination would disclose setting, by the MCU, the change flag stored in the third area to a second value, and storing the second value in the third area when the impact count is determined to not reach the predetermined impact threshold, and storing, by the MCU, the current operation mode stored in the second area in the first area [Using appropriate memory and change flag values in order to better assess the cause of any impact detected to the battery through continual monitoring of device state and any changes thereto (in light of Johnson) where a lack of repeated significant vibration indicates no impact has occurred (in light of Cooper).].
Regarding Claims 11 and 13, the combination would disclose determining, by the MCU, whether the change flag stored in the third area of the memory has the first value [Tracking device state using state change flags per Chang], and either receiving the acceleration sensor signal from the acceleration sensor [Monitoring for vibrations per Cooper when the battery is in use and “on” per Johnson] or setting the change flag stored in the third area to a second value based on the determination of the change flag stored in the third area [Resetting the state change flag per Cheng (Paragraph [0056] – “in the state S2, the pass flag will be set to 0 because it is checked that the state flags Flag1, Flag3, Flag2 do not indicate 1, 1, 1 respectively”) because a state change would be unsafe based on vibrations indicating such a condition.].
Regarding Claims 12 and 14, the combination would disclose determining, by the MCU, whether the current operation mode stored in the second area is the sleep mode [Tracking “on,” “off,” and “sleep” states per Johnson], and either receiving the acceleration sensor signal from the acceleration sensor [Monitoring for vibrations per Cooper when the battery is in use and “on” per Johnson] or determining whether the change flag stored in the third area of the memory has the first value based on the determining of the current operation mode [Tracking device state using state change flags per Chang to check for state change requests].
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
183
862
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The corresponding rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
523
867
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The instant claims were previously rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea. However, those rejections are overcome in light of the amended claim language of “performing, by the MCU, a protection operation by controlling a relay of the battery system to electrically disconnect a battery pack current path when the impact count reaches the threshold.”
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image3.png
220
864
media_image3.png
Greyscale
…
PNG
media_image4.png
220
861
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
Applicant’s argument is found convincing. New grounds for rejection are presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jangamshetti, Design, Implementation and Testing of Theft and Maintenance Monitoring of Batteries of Stand-alone SPV systems, IEEE, 2015
Zanelli et al., Sensor Nodes for Continuous Monitoring of Structures Through Accelerometric Measurements, IEEE, 2020
US 11599180 B1 – Battery Management Systems And Methods To Use The Same To Obtain Battery Shock And/or Rollover Data
US 20070250732 A1 – PORTABLE DEVICE WITH AN AUTOMATIC POWER OFF PROTECTION AND METHOD FOR SAME
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 KYLE ROBERT QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4879. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at (571) 272-2619. 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.
/KYLE R QUIGLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights