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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8, 11, 13-15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kam (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0204537).
Regarding Claim 1, Kam teaches an apparatus for diagnosing a battery (Fig. 1), the apparatus comprising: a plurality of battery modules (Fig. 1, battery modules 111); sensing units respectively matched with the battery modules on a one-to-one basis and configured to detect voltages of the battery modules (paragraph [0040], the detection device 12 and control device 14 of Fig. 1 may detect the voltage of each individual battery module 111 included in the battery 11); and a processor (control device 14, paragraph [0074]) configured to: detect a replacement module provided for replacement among the battery modules (Fig. 2, S12), enter a first diagnosis mode based on detection of the replacement module (Fig. 2, S13) to distinguish a replacement group including the replacement module and a reference group including battery modules other than the replacement module among the battery modules (Fig. 2, S12, paragraph [0062]; and Fig. 2, S14, and Fig. 3, module imbalance protection function), and determine battery cell performance of the reference group and battery cell performance of the replacement group separately from the battery cell performance from the reference group in the first diagnosis mode (Fig. 3, paragraphs [0066]-[0068], voltage and SOC are determined separately for each battery module).
Regarding Claim 3, Kam teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Kam further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine the battery cell performance of the reference group and to perform voltage balancing to reduce a voltage deviation between the reference group and the replacement group after determining the battery cell performance of the replacement group separately from the reference group in the first diagnosis mode (balancing device 13, paragraph [0065], S16).
Regarding Claim 4, Kam teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 3. Kam further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a representative voltage value of the reference group and a representative voltage value of the replacement group (paragraph [0040], the detection device 12 and control device 14 of Fig. 1 may detect the voltage of each individual battery module 111 included in the battery 11), and perform the voltage balancing to reduce the voltage deviation between the reference group and the replacement group when a deviation between the representative voltage value of the reference group and the representative voltage value of the replacement group is greater than or equal to a preset first threshold voltage (paragraphs [0009], [0020], [0022], [0054], [0056], [0071], protection operation performed if voltage difference is greater than threshold value; Figs. 3-4).
Regarding Claim 5, Kam teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 4. Kam further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to skip a process of performing diagnosis as to whether external factors affecting sensing voltages of the battery modules are in normal states and to perform the voltage balancing (Fig. 2, S16, S17, diagnosis as to whether external factors are in normal states is not performed).
Regarding Claim 8, Kam teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Kam further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to enter a second diagnosis mode based on no detection of the replacement module and to perform voltage balancing to improve a voltage deviation between the battery modules (S11, normal mode; paragraphs [0008]-[0009], [0021], [0057], pack imbalance protection function and module imbalance protection function, which are performed based on ΔV being greater than threshold, see paragraphs [0054 and [0056], may operate in the normal mode).
Regarding Claim 11, Kam teaches a method for diagnosing a battery (Figs. 2-4), the method comprising: detecting, by a processor (control device 14, paragraph [0074]), a replacement module provided for replacement among battery modules (Fig. 2, S12); entering, by the processor, a first diagnosis mode based on detection of the replacement module (Fig. 2, S13) to distinguish a replacement group including the replacement module and a reference group including battery modules other than the replacement module among the battery modules (Fig. 2, S12, paragraph [0062]; and Fig. 2, S14, and Fig. 3, module imbalance protection function); and performing, by the processor, battery module diagnosis to determine battery cell performance of the reference group and battery cell performance of the replacement group separately from the battery cell performance from the reference group in the first diagnosis mode (Fig. 3, paragraphs [0066]-[0068], voltage and SOC are determined separately for each battery module).
Regarding Claim 13, Kam teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 11. Kam further teaches wherein the performing of the battery module diagnosis in the first diagnosis mode includes: performing voltage balancing to reduce a voltage deviation between the reference group and the replacement group (balancing device 13, paragraph [0065], S16).
Regarding Claim 14, Kam teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 13. Kam further teaches wherein the performing of the voltage balancing in the first diagnosis mode includes: determining a representative voltage value of the reference group; determining a representative voltage value of the replacement group (paragraph [0040], the detection device 12 and control device 14 of Fig. 1 may detect the voltage of each individual battery module 111 included in the battery 11); determining a representative value deviation between the representative voltage value of the reference group and the representative voltage value of the replacement group; and reducing a voltage deviation between the reference group and the replacement group when the representative value deviation is greater than or equal to a preset first threshold voltage (paragraphs [0009], [0020], [0022], [0054], [0056], [0071], protection operation performed if voltage difference is greater than threshold value; Figs. 3-4).
Regarding Claim 15, Kam teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 14. Kam further teaches wherein the performing of the voltage balancing in the first diagnosis mode includes: skipping, by the processor, a process of performing diagnosis as to whether external factors affecting sensing voltages of the battery modules are in normal states (Fig. 2, S16, S17, diagnosis as to whether external factors are in normal states is not performed).
Regarding Claim 18, Kam teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 11. Kam further teaches further including: entering, by the processor, a second diagnosis mode based on no detection of the replacement module and performing voltage balancing to improve a voltage deviation between the battery modules (S11, normal mode; paragraphs [0008]-[0009], [0021], [0057], pack imbalance protection function and module imbalance protection function, which are performed based on ΔV being greater than threshold, see paragraphs [0054 and [0056], may operate in the normal mode).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 7, 12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kam in view of Brochhaus (DE-102012217971-A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Kam teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Kam further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: receive the identification numbers from the sensing units (paragraphs [0046-[0047]), and determine an unidentified battery module matched with an unidentified sensing unit which does not transmit an identification number among the sensing units, as the replacement module (paragraphs [0046]-[0047], [0062], if serial number does not match, i.e. the matching serial number was not transmitted, replacement is detected).
Kam does not specifically teach transmit identification numbers to the sensing units. However, Brochhaus teaches, on page 2 in the 3rd paragraph from the bottom, that when a sensor control unit (equated to the claimed sensing units) of a battery system is replaced that a new unique identifier is assigned that is stored in the storage 18 in the sensor control unit 13 (see Fig. 1 and the paragraph spanning pages 3-4). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the identifier assignments of Brochhaus in the system of Kam, in order to reduce the risk of inconsistencies with stored identifiers in the battery control unit and the sensor control unit (see Brochhaus, page 2, 3rd full paragraph).
Regarding Claim 7, Kam teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 3. Kam does not specifically teach wherein the processor is further configured to assign identification numbers to battery modules of the replacement group after the voltage balancing has been performed. However, Kam does teach performing cell balancing repeatedly throughout the operation of the battery system (paragraphs [0050]-[0051], [0057], [0065]; it is noted that the balancing would be performed both before and after batteries are replaced in the system). Further, Brochhaus teaches assigning identification numbers to battery modules of the replacement group (on page 2 in the 3rd paragraph from the bottom). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the identifier assignments of Brochhaus in the system of Kam, in order to reduce the risk of inconsistencies with stored identifiers in the battery control unit and the sensor control unit (see Brochhaus, page 2, 3rd full paragraph).
Regarding Claim 12, Kam teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 11. Kam further teaches wherein the detecting of the replacement module includes: receiving, by the processor, the identification numbers from the sensing units (paragraphs [0046-[0047]); and determining, by the processor, an unidentified battery module matched with an unidentified sensing unit which does not transmit an identification number among the sensing units, as the replacement module (paragraphs [0046]-[0047], [0062], if serial number does not match, i.e. the matching serial number was not transmitted, replacement is detected).
Kam does not specifically transmitting, by the processor, identification numbers to sensing units matched with the battery modules on a one-to-one basis. However, Brochhaus teaches, on page 2 in the 3rd paragraph from the bottom, that when a sensor control unit (equated to the claimed sensing units) of a battery system is replaced that a new unique identifier is assigned that is stored in the storage 18 in the sensor control unit 13 (see Fig. 1 and the paragraph spanning pages 3-4). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the identifier assignments of Brochhaus in the system of Kam, in order to reduce the risk of inconsistencies with stored identifiers in the battery control unit and the sensor control unit (see Brochhaus, page 2, 3rd full paragraph).
Regarding Claim 17, Kam teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 13. Kam does not specifically teach further including: assigning, by the processor, identification numbers to battery modules of the replacement group after the voltage balancing in the first diagnosis mode has been performed. However, Kam does teach performing cell balancing repeatedly throughout the operation of the battery system (paragraphs [0050]-[0051], [0057], [0065]; it is noted that the balancing would be performed both before and after batteries are replaced in the system). Further, Brochhaus teaches assigning identification numbers to battery modules of the replacement group (on page 2 in the 3rd paragraph from the bottom). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the identifier assignments of Brochhaus in the system of Kam, in order to reduce the risk of inconsistencies with stored identifiers in the battery control unit and the sensor control unit (see Brochhaus, page 2, 3rd full paragraph).
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kam in view of Kim (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0141026).
Regarding Claim 6, Kam teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 5. Kam does not specifically teach wherein the processor is further configured to maintain an active state even after ignition-off. However, Kim teaches, in paragraphs [0037] and [0038], monitoring of battery systems in a vehicle when the ignition of the vehicle is off. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the monitoring of batteries after ignition off that is taught in Kim in the system of Kam, in order to perform voltage balancing when necessary (see Kim, paragraph [0018]).
Regarding Claim 16, Kam teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 15. Kam does not specifically teach wherein the performing of the voltage balancing in the first diagnosis mode includes: monitoring whether an ignition-off is entered; and maintaining an active state of the processor even after the ignition-off has been entered. However, Kim teaches monitoring whether an engine off is entered (Fig. 2, S210), and monitoring of battery systems in a vehicle when the ignition of the vehicle is off (paragraphs [0037] and [0038]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the monitoring of batteries after ignition off that is taught in Kim in the system of Kam, in order to perform voltage balancing when necessary (see Kim, paragraph [0018]).
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kam in view of Ota (JP-2021058062-A).
Regarding Claim 9, Kam teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 8. Kam further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: perform the voltage balancing after the processor concludes that a voltage deviation between the battery modules exceeds a preset second threshold voltage (S11, normal mode; paragraphs [0008]-[0009], [0021], [0057], pack imbalance protection function and module imbalance protection function, which are performed based on ΔV being greater than threshold, see paragraphs [0054 and [0056], may operate in the normal mode).
Kam does not specifically teach determine whether external factors affecting sensing voltages of the battery modules are in normal states, and perform the voltage balancing after the processor concludes that the external factors are in the normal states. However, Kam does teach detection of temperature (detection device 12 and paragraph [0040], which is equated to an external factor). Further, Ota teaches determine whether external factors affecting sensing voltages of the battery modules are in normal states (page 8, 3rd full paragraph, determine whether semiconductor relay 112 is operating normally, which is equated to an external factor), and perform the voltage balancing after the processor concludes that the external factors are in the normal states (page 8, 3rd full paragraph, balancing is performed when relay is operating normally, and is not performed when relay 112 is not operating normally). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the relay checking of Ota in the system of Kam in order to notify the vehicle control system that the balancing cannot be performed due to the abnormality of the relay circuit (see Ota, page 3, 5th and 6th full paragraphs).
Regarding Claim 19, Kam teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 18. Kam further teaches wherein the voltage balancing is performed when the processor concludes that a voltage deviation between the battery modules exceeds a preset second threshold voltage (S11, normal mode; paragraphs [0008]-[0009], [0021], [0057], pack imbalance protection function and module imbalance protection function, which are performed based on ΔV being greater than threshold, see paragraphs [0054 and [0056], may operate in the normal mode).
Kam does not specifically teach wherein performing the voltage balancing in the second diagnosis mode further includes performing, by the processor, diagnosis as to whether external factors affecting sensing voltages of the battery modules are in normal states, and performing the voltage balancing when the processor concludes that the external factors are in the normal states. However, Kam does teach detection of temperature (detection device 12 and paragraph [0040], which is equated to an external factor). Further, Ota teaches determine whether external factors affecting sensing voltages of the battery modules are in normal states (page 8, 3rd full paragraph, determine whether semiconductor relay 112 is operating normally, which is equated to an external factor), and perform the voltage balancing after the processor concludes that the external factors are in the normal states (page 8, 3rd full paragraph, balancing is performed when relay is operating normally, and is not performed when relay 112 is not operating normally). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the relay checking of Ota in the system of Kam in order to notify the vehicle control system that the balancing cannot be performed due to the abnormality of the relay circuit (see Ota, page 3, 5th and 6th full paragraphs).
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kam in view of Loftus (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0266063)
Regarding Claim 10, Kam teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 8. Kam does not specifically teach wherein the processor is further configured to stop voltage balancing when ignition-off is detected. However, Loftus teaches, in paragraph [0003], inhibiting voltage balancing when a vehicle if OFF. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the balancing inhibition of Loftus in the system of Kam, in order to inhibit battery depletive events during periods of inactivity (see Loftus, paragraphs [0019]-[0020]).
Regarding Claim 20, Kam teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 18. Kam does not specifically teach wherein the performing of the voltage balancing in the second diagnosis mode includes monitoring whether an ignition-off is entered; and stopping the voltage balancing based on the ignition-off. However, Loftus teaches, detecting key-off events (paragraph [0019]), and in paragraph [0003], inhibiting voltage balancing when a vehicle if OFF. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the balancing inhibition of Loftus in the system of Kam, in order to inhibit battery depletive events during periods of inactivity (see Loftus, paragraphs [0019]-[0020]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA L DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am to 3pm.
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/CYNTHIA L DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857