DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a Final Office Action in response to amendment filed on July 7, 2026.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 14 are amended; Claims 15-18 are added; Claims 1-18 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is withdrawn in light of the amendment.
New 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) rejections are added in light of the amendment.
35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is maintained in light of the amendment.
New 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is added with respect to new claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the examiner asserts that the Specification, as originally filled fails to disclose with enough specificity, the following limitations:
Claims 1, 4, 8, and 11 recite balancing involves distributing charge “without using a separate power source” (italic emphasis included). The original specification does not provide description for “separate power source,” nor excluding one. The specification only states the invention “does not require additional hardware” in para. [0003], [0005]. “Additional hardware” and “separate power source” are not synonymous. Further, the specification teaches the opposite of the amendment. In para. [0006] explicitly states the system uses the LV battery system to provide the SOC for distribution among the HV cells. The LV battery is a separate power source from the HV battery. Because the original disclosure relies on a separate power source (LV battery) to perform the balancing, claiming that it is done without one introduces new matter that contradicts the original disclosure. If the claim is interpreted to mean the system does not use the LV battery or any other separate source to balance the cells, the specification does not provide technical disclosure for how the HV cells balance themselves. Alternatively, if the claim is interpreted to include the LV battery, then the claim is factually inaccurate and internally contradictory (see 112(b) rejection), because the invention claims it does not use a separate power source while simultaneously relying on one.
Claims 16 and 18 recite “increasing a duty cycle of the PWM control signals from a base duty cycle to a maximum duty cycle” which is new matter. The specification does not provide support for the new claims. In para. [0021] of the specification states only that celling balancing could be performed by “controlling pulse-width modulation (PWM) control signals (e.g., duty cycles) provided to each of the various battery cells 140.” The specification is silent regarding a base duty cycle, a maximum duty cycle, or the specific algorithmic step of increasing from one to the other. Thus, the new claims 16 and 18 are considered new matter.
Claims 2-7 and 9-18 depend on claims 1 and 8 above and therefore inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112 deficiencies of their parent claim.
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 1-18 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.
Claims 1 and 8 recite balancing involves distributing charge “without using a separate power source.” However, dependent claims 6 and 13 recite that the balancing requires an “amount of SOC from the LV battery system for distribution amongst the plurality of HV battery cells.” It is unclear what is constitutes a “separate power source.” If the LV battery is used to distribute charge to the HV battery cells as claimed in claims 6 and 13, the system is using a separate power source (wherein the LV battery is separate from the HV battery). If the LV battery is not considered a separate power source, the claim boundary is ambiguous. The claim is internally inconsistent.
Claims 2-7 and 9-18 depend on claims 1 and 8 above and therefore inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112 deficiencies of their parent claim.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohnuki (US 20120306266 A1) in view of Roberts (US 20170355268 A1) and further in view of Le (US 20190296561 A1).
Claims 1 and 8, Ohnuki discloses a battery management system (BMS) and methodd for a high voltage (HV) battery system of an electrified vehicle (Ohnuki: Abstract and para. [0032] disclosing power supply system for an electric vehicle including a high voltage battery (HB) and a leveling circuit (BMS)), the BMS comprising:
a set of sensors configured to determine a set of measured parameters including at least (i) voltages of a plurality of HV battery cells of the HV battery system and a low voltage (LV) battery system of the electrified vehicle (para. [0029] and [0031] disclosing high voltage battery and low battery. In para. [0036] disclosing “leveling the voltage of the respective single cells” which is monitoring voltage of plurality of HV battery cells of the HV battery system and LV battery system); and
a controller (para. [0038] control circuit) configured to:
detect an ignition-off transition whereby the electrified vehicle is transitioned to a park state and subsequently powered off (Abstract and para. [0038], “vehicle V is inactive (when the ignition switch is OFF)”);
after the electrified vehicle is subsequently powered off, perform cell balancing of voltages of the plurality of HV battery cells of the HV battery system using the set of measured parameters (para. [0013] disclose “while the vehicle is inactive (when the ignition switch is OFF),… the electric power is supplied to the leveling circuit to level the voltages of the respective single cells in the high voltage battery),
wherein the performing of cell balancing of the voltages of the plurality of HV battery cells involves distributing charge amongst the plurality of HV battery cells without using a separate power source (para. [0031] discloses a leveling circuit 22 that distributes charge to level the voltages of the HV battery cells. Para. [0042]-[0043] Ohnuki performs the cell balancing using the onboard 12V battery (LB) and/or an onboard solar cell 11. Para. [0047], “the leveling circuit 22 is exclusively used, which eliminates the necessity of a high voltage generating circuit correspondingly provided for the whole of the high voltage battery HB, so that a low cost system can be provided” discloses distributing charge to level the cells using the onboard system, explicitly without requiring a separate/external high-voltage power source, as described in the Applicant’ system)
However, Ohnuki does not expressly teach (italic emphasis):
(ii) a state of charge (SOC) of a low voltage (LV) battery system of the electrified vehicle;
during the ignition-off transition, obtain the set of measured parameters from the set of sensors;
Roberts is analogous in the field, specifically teaches,
(ii) a state of charge (SOC) of a low voltage (LV) battery system of the electrified vehicle (para. [0015], [0028], [0037], [0039] teaches SOC of a low voltage battery in battery electric vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system and method of Ohnuki to include sensor identifying SOC in low-voltage battery to ensure the 12V system has enough energy to support the BMS logic during the balancing process and reduces the chance that the battery is depleted before the next wakeup (para. [0038]).
However, the combination fails to expressly teach,
during the ignition-off transition, obtain the set of measured parameters from the set of sensors;
Nonetheless, Le is analogous in the field, which specifically teaches,
during the ignition-off transition, obtain the set of measured parameters from the set of sensors (para. [0050]-[0051] teaches when the system detects the vehicle transitions from key-on to a key-off position (i.e., ignition-off transition), obtain/determine voltage and state of charge of the battery).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system and method of Ohnuki to include the feature of capturing the condition or snapshot of HV cell voltages and LV SOC during the ignition-off transaction as taught by Le to provide the most current data for the subsequent balancing session. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar battery cell balancing in electric vehicle field of endeavor. In such combination each element merely would have performed the same battery cell balancing in electric vehicle related function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Roberts and Le, the results of the combination were predictable (See MPEP 2143 A).
Claims 2 and 9, the combination of Ohnuki, Roberts, and Le make obvious of the BMS of claim 1 and the method of claim 8.
wherein the controller is configured to perform cell balancing while the electrified vehicle is asleep and prior to the electrified vehicle being awoken and powered on (Ohnuki, abstract, para. [0012]-[0013], [0045] disclosing cell balancing when the ignition switch is OFF (i.e. inactive)).
Claims 3 and 10, the combination of Ohnuki, Roberts, and Le make obvious of the BMS of claim 1 and the method of claim 8.
wherein the controller is not configured to perform cell balancing during steady-state highway operating conditions of the electrified vehicle (Ohnuki abstract, para. [0012]-[0013], [0045] disclosing cell balancing when the ignition switch is OFF (i.e. inactive) which is opposite of configured to cell balancing when the active operation of the electrified vehicle).
Claims 4 and 11, the combination of Ohnuki, Roberts, and Le make obvious of the BMS of claim 3 and the method of claim 10.
wherein the BMS does not require the separate power source or a separate cell balancing system to perform cell balancing during operation of the electrified vehicle (Roberts teaches the BMS does not require a separate cell balancing system to perform celling balancing, para. [0038]; “Vehicles have many maintenance modes, which can include High-Voltage battery cell balancing, evaporative emission systems diagnostic tests, or software updates. Duration of the modes and power consumption while in these modes is generally fixed and known. Data associated with the duration and power consumption may be hard coded into the controller so that an accurate sleep period may be calculated. If the vehicle is in a maintenance mode, the controller will branch to operation 404 and set the time value based on that mode and proceed to operation 313. If the vehicle is not in a maintenance mode, controller will branch to operation 406. In operation 406, the controller will determine what modules are awake. It will then use this data to determine the vehicle current draw.” Roberts teaches integrating the balancing logic into the main vehicle controller rather than requiring separate dedicated system). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to integrate the balancing logic into the primary BMS controller as taught by Roberts to reduce the vehicle’s Bill of Materials (BOM) cost and weight.
Claims 5 and 12, the combination of Ohnuki, Roberts, and Le make obvious of the BMS of claim 1 and the method of claim 8.
wherein the controller is configured to perform cell balancing when the measured SOC of the LV battery system satisfies a minimum SOC threshold (Roberts: Abstract, [0038], and [0039]). The rationales to modify/combine the teachings of Ohnuki with/and the teachings of Roberts are presented in the examining of independent claims 1 and 8 and incorporated herein.
Claims 6 and 13, the combination of Ohnuki, Roberts, and Le make obvious of the BMS of claim 5 and the method of claim 12.
wherein the minimum SOC threshold corresponds to a required amount of SOC from the LV battery system for distribution amongst the plurality of HV battery cells as part of the cell balancing (Ohnuki, abstract, para. [0012]-[0013], [0045]. Additionally and alternately, Roberts: para. [0038]). The rationales to modify/combine the teachings of Ohnuki with/and the teachings of Roberts are presented in the examining of independent claims 1 and 8 and incorporated herein.
Claims 7 and 14, the combination of Ohnuki, Roberts, and Le make obvious of the BMS of claim 1 and the method of claim 8.
wherein the BMS does not perform the cell balancing of the voltages of the HV battery cells during operation of the electrified vehicle (Ohnuki, para. [0004] identifies the problem of cell dispersion occurring “while the vehicle is not operating” and provides the solution of operating the leveling circuit “when the ignition switch is OFF”; para. [0013], [0045], thereby intentionally omitting balancing during active vehicle operation).
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohnuki (US 20120306266 A1) in view of Roberts (US 20170355268 A1), in view of Le (US 20190296561 A1), and further in view of Loncarevic (US 20100052615 A1).
Claims 15 and 17, the combination of Ohnuki, Roberts, and Le make obvious of the BMS of claim 1 and the method of claim 8. The combination fails to teach,
wherein the controller is further configured to perform the cell balancing of voltages of the plurality of HV battery cells by controlling pulse-width modulation (PWM) control signals to each of the plurality of HV battery cells.
Loncarevic is in similar field of battery management system, which specifically teaches, wherein the controller is further configured to perform the cell balancing of voltages of the plurality of HV battery cells by controlling pulse-width modulation (PWM) control signals to each of the plurality of HV battery cells (para. [0054] and [0160], “computes the duty cycle for the cell balancing PWM. If the cell voltage is lower than the received voltage from the master the PWM is set to zero.” Loncarevic teaches the controller is further configured to perform the cell balancing of voltages of the plurality of HV battery cells by controlling pulse-width modulation (PWM) control signals to each of the plurality of HV battery cells).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the celling balancing system and method of Ohnuki to include the PWM duty cycle control taught by Loncarevic for the motivation of providing precise software-driven control over the amount of current bled from each cell during the balancing process.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohnuki (US 20120306266 A1) in view of Roberts (US 20170355268 A1), in view of Le (US 20190296561 A1), in view of Loncarevic (US 20100052615 A1), and further in view of Barsukov et al. (US 20140077752 A1).
Claims 16 and 18, the combination of Ohnuki, Roberts, Le, and Loncarevic make obvious of the BMS of claim 15 and the method of claim 17. The combination fails to teach,
wherein the performing of the cell balancing of the plurality of HV battery cells is performed by increasing a duty cycle of the PWM control signals from a base duty cycle to a maximum duty cycle.
Barsukov is in similar field of system and method for battery pack management using predictive balancing, which specifically teaches, wherein the performing of the cell balancing of the plurality of HV battery cells is performed by increasing a duty cycle of the PWM control signals from a base duty cycle to a maximum duty cycle (para. [0024] and [0038] teaches the active cell balancing controller that provides duty cycle on/off signals and dynamically adjusts the signals to accommodate higher bypass current requirements while mitigating voltage spikes associated with maximum currents. Which teaches starting at a base duty cycle and increasing it to a maximum duty cycle limit safely manage the balancing current).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the celling balancing system and method of Ohnuki to include the dynamic base-to-maximum duty cycle ramping as taught by Barsukov for the motivation of increasing the duty cycle to a maximum limit ensures efficient balancing while preventing sudden current in-rushes that could cause thermal overload or voltage spikes in the BMS circuitry (para. [0038]).
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) Rejections:
Previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been corrected, however, the amended and newly added claim limitations raise new 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) rejections.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection:
The remarks have been fully considered, however, are found unpersuasive.
On page 8, the Applicant argues that Ohnuki reference only generally mentions ignition OFF and fails to disclose the vehicle transitioning to a park state and being powered off.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In automotive arts, turning the “ignition OFF” results in the vehicle being powered off. Furthermore, Le explicitly teaches detecting the state where the vehicle is parked and powered down. Le describes the controller monitoring the vehicle as it “transitions from a key-on to a key-off position”. A person of ordinary skilled in the art would understand that “ignition OFF” in Ohnuki and “key-off” in Le are synonymous with the vehicle being transitioned to a parked and powered-off state.
Regarding the argument that Ohnuki, Roberts, and Le only generally discuss parameter monitoring and do not explicitly disclose determining parameters during the transition (i.e., before the electrified vehicle is subsequently powered off).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant has mischaracterized the teaching of Le. The rejection does not rely on Ohnuki for this limitation, instead, the Office Action relies on Le for teaching the limitation, during the ignition-off transition, obtain the set of measured parameters from the set of sensors (para. [0050]-[0051] teaches when the system detects the vehicle transitions from key-on to a key-off position (i.e., ignition-off transition), obtain/determine voltage and state of charge of the battery).
Regarding the argument, “Ohnuki reference fails to disclose the cell balancing involves “distributing charge amongst the plurality of HV battery cells without using a separate power source” as amended.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrase “without using a separate power source” is ambiguous, as noted in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection.
If the Applicant consider Ohnuki’s onboard 12V battery or onboard solar cell to be a “separate power source” then it contradicts the Applicant’s own specification for using a “separate power source” indicated in para. [0006]. Specifically in Applicant’s dependent claim 6 explicitly requires taking SOC from the LV battery system to distribute amongst the HV battery cells. Ohnuki teaches balancing the cells using the vehicle’s standard onboard auxiliary 12V battery, without requiring a separate/external high-voltage power source, as described exactly in the Applicant’s invention.
Regarding claims 15-18 arguments are deemed moot and are rejected with new references
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The additional cited art, including but not limited to the excerpts below, further establishes the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention and shows the following was known:
V. Vardwaj, V. Vishakha, V. K. Jadoun, N. S. Jayalaksmi and A. Agarwal, "Various Methods Used for Battery Balancing in Electric Vehicles: A Comprehensive Review," 2020 International Conference on Power Electronics & IoT Applications in Renewable Energy and its Control (PARC), Mathura, India, 2020, pp. 208-213, doi: 10.1109/PARC49193.2020.236594; teaches similar invention of battery balancing in electric vehicles.
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 WENREN CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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, Nathan C Uber can be reached on (571) 270-3923. 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.
/WENREN CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights