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 with traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 12 May 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the allegation that Inventions I and II could be classified in different classes/sub-classes does not automatically mean that there is a serious or undue search burden on the Examiner to search the above-cited features across multiple classes. This is not found persuasive because each invention requires a substantially non-overlapping burdensome search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12 May 2026.
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 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad US20230068153A1 in view of Wang US20230040212A1.
Regarding claim 1, Prasad discloses a battery management system (BMS) (Prasad, Fig. 1, 50) for detection and mitigation of a thermal runaway event of a high voltage battery system configured to power one or more electric traction motors of an electrified vehicle (Prasad, Fig. 1, 12), the BMS comprising:
a relay (Prasad, Fig. 2, 44) connected between two battery modules (Prasad, Fig. 2, 160C) of the high voltage battery system (Prasad, Fig. 2, 16), and
control logic (Prasad, [0030]) for the relay, the control logic configured to: determine a voltage between the two battery modules (Prasad, [0033]),
detect an imminent thermal runaway event of the high voltage battery system (Prasad, [0025])
and open/close the relay (Prasad, [0031]) in response to detecting the imminent thermal runaway event (Prasad, [0031),
wherein the detection of the imminent thermal runaway event and the responsive opening of the relay prevents or mitigates thermal propagation outside of the high voltage battery system (Prasad, [0043]), the examiner notes the disclosure of Prasad of mitigating thermal runaway event, including opening the relay, would be understood by the skilled artisan to satisfy the functional limitation. Prasad does not teach detect an imminent thermal runaway event of the high voltage battery system based on a change in the voltage over a period.
Wang teaches detect an imminent thermal runaway event of the high voltage battery system (Wang, [0041]) based on a change in the voltage over a period (Wang, [0042]). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Prasad by detecting an imminent thermal runaway event as taught by Wang thereby prompting an immediate warning (Wang, [0064]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Prasad does not teach a manual service disconnect (MSD) associated with the high voltage battery system, satisfying the claim limitation, wherein the electrified vehicle does not include a manual service disconnect (MSD) associated with the high voltage battery system.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad US20230068153A1 in view of Wang US20230040212A1 and further in view of Kim US20130249492A1 and Wilton US20040245947A1.
Regarding claim 2, modified Prasad does not explicitly teach wherein the control logic is also configured to open the relay (i) when the electrified vehicle is asleep to save energy and (ii) during maintenance servicing to protect a service technician from high voltage conditions.
Kim teaches wherein the control logic is also configured to open the relay (i) when the electrified vehicle is asleep to save energy (Kim, [0108]). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by modified Prasad by opening the relay when the vehicle is asleep, as taught by Kim, thereby blocking dark current (Kim, [0108]). Modified Prasad as modified by Kim does not teach wherein the control logic is also configured to open the relay (ii) during maintenance servicing to protect a service technician from high voltage conditions.
Wilton teaches wherein the control logic (Wilton, Fig. 1, 200) is also configured to open the relay (Wilton, [0100]) during maintenance servicing to protect a service technician from high voltage conditions (Wilton, [0100]). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by modified Prasad as further modified Kim by opening the relay during maintenance, as taught by Wilton, thereby preventing the system from presenting an injury hazard to the operator or service personnel (Wilton, [0100]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad US20230068153A1 in view of Wang US20230040212A1 and further in view of Mensch US20190296541A1.
Regarding claim 3, modified Prasad does not teach wherein the control logic is further configured to perform a diagnostic of the relay to verify that it is functioning properly to improve robustness of the BMS.
Mensch teaches wherein the control logic is further configured to perform a diagnostic of the relay to verify that it is functioning properly (Mensch, [0498]), satisfying the functional limitation to improve robustness of the BMS. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by modified Prasad by performing a diagnostic, as taught by Mensch, thereby managing opening and closing control (Mensch, [0498]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad US20230068153A1 in view of Wang US20230040212A1 and Mensch US20190296541A1 and further in view of Wang, Cheng, et al. "Identification of typical sub-health state of traction battery based on a data-driven approach." Batteries 8.7 (2022): 65 (hereafter referred to as Wang-2022).
Regarding claim 4, modified Prasad as modified by Mensch above does not teach wherein the control logic is configured to perform the diagnostic of the relay as: the relay is stuck closed when the relay should be open and (i) a difference between (a) the voltage and (b) a sum of cell voltages of a set of battery cells in one of the battery modules is less than or equal to (ii) a threshold, and the relay is stuck open when the relay should be closed and (i) the difference between (a) the voltage and (b) the sum of cell voltages of the set of battery cells in one of the battery modules is less than or equal to (ii) the threshold.
Mensch teaches wherein the control logic is configured to perform the diagnostic of the relay to provide a selected configuration of the relay in response to the current flow through the motive electrical power path of the vehicle, where providing the selected configuration includes providing a contactor activation command (Mensch, [0397]), satisfying the limitation perform the diagnostic of the relay as: the relay is stuck closed when the relay should be open and the relay is stuck open when the relay should be closed. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by modified Prasad modified by Mensch by performing the diagnostic of the relay, as taught by Mensch, thereby determining current flow is below/above a motive electrical power path current protection value (Mensch, [0398]). Modified Prasad as further modified by Mensch above does not teach the relay is stuck closed when the relay should be open/closed (i) a difference between (a) the voltage and (b) a sum of cell voltages of a set of battery cells in one of the battery modules is less than or equal to (ii) a threshold.
Wang-2022 teaches (i) a difference between (a) the voltage (Wang-2022, overall voltage) and (b) a sum of cell voltages (Wang-2022, single-cell voltage) of a set of battery cells in one of the battery modules (Wang-2022, series connection) is less than or equal to (Wang-2022, Fig. 1) (ii) a threshold (Wang-2022, ICC, section 3.2.2). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by modified Prasad as further modified by Mensch by performing a voltage difference, as taught by Wang-2022, thereby determining the health state (Wang-2022, abstract).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad US20230068153A1 in view of Wang US20230040212A1, Mensch US20190296541A1 and Wang-2022 and further in view of Yount US20110254502A1 and Gallegos US20130221919A1.
Regarding claim 5, modified Prasad does not teach wherein the threshold is equal to a sum of voltage tolerances of the battery modules and a voltage tolerance of the relay voltage- side.
Yount teaches wherein the threshold is equal to a sum of voltage tolerances of the battery modules (Yount, [0097]). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by modified Prasad by the sum of voltage tolerances, as taught by Yount, thereby triggering balancing (Yount, [0097]). Modified Prasad as further modified by Yount does not teach a voltage tolerance of the relay voltage-side.
Gallegos teaches wherein the threshold comprises a voltage tolerance of the relay voltage-side (Gallegos, [0038]). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by modified Prasad as modified above by Yount, by the threshold comprises a voltage tolerance of the relay voltage-side, as taught by Gallegos, thereby manufacturer's specifications are not be exceeded (Gallegos, [0038]), satisfying the claim limitation wherein the threshold is equal to a sum of voltage tolerances of the battery modules and a voltage tolerance of the relay voltage-side.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad US20230068153A1 in view of Wang US20230040212A1, Mensch US20190296541A1, Wang-2022, Yount US20110254502A1 and Gallegos US20130221919A1 and further in view of Masias US20170054311A1.
Regarding claim 6, modified Prasad does not teach further comprising a voltage sensor configured to measure the voltage between the two battery modules on the relay voltage-side.
Masias teaches further comprising a voltage sensor configured to measure the voltage between the two battery modules on the relay voltage-side (Masias, [0026], Fig. 2, 80). It would therefore be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the sensors of Masias to the device taught by modified Prasad, thereby measuring various characteristics, such as voltage (Masias, [0026]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad US20230068153A1 in view of Wang US20230040212A1 and further in view of Mensch US20190296541A1.
Regarding claim 7, modified Prasad does not teach wherein the relay is a solenoid-controlled switch.
Mensch teaches wherein the relay is a solenoid-controlled switch (Mensch, [0309]). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the switch of Mensch to the device taught by modified Prasad, thereby design choices may inform or dictate the decision of whether the relay is normally open or closed (Mensch, [0309]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/JARED HANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights