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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tenorio (US20220271543 A1 filed in IDS 07/10/24).
Regarding claim 11, Tenorio discloses a battery system comprising: a first battery management system (112) including first switching circuitry configured to control the connectivity of a first battery cell in a battery pack [0070, 0089, 0095, fig. 1-2, Tenorio], and a second BMS (113) including second switching circuitry configured to control the connectivity of a second battery cell in the battery pack [0070, 0089, 0095, fig. 1-2, Tenorio].
For clarity of the record the examiner notes that Tenorio teaches that each battery pack internally supports a battery management system [0067, Tenorio], where each battery pack is provided with an electrical switch to control the electrical connectivity of the battery pack [0089, 0095, Tenorio]. This reads on the above claimed limitations.
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.
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) 1-5 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winters (US20200044461A1 filed in IDS 07/17/26 as WO2020028454A1) and in view of Tenorio (US20220271543 A1 filed in IDS 07/10/24).
Regarding claim 1, Winters discloses a battery system comprising: a first battery cell in a battery pack [0004, Winters]; a first battery management system in communication with the first battery cell [0004, Winters], the first BMS including: a first controller (106) configured to receive measurement data for the first battery cell [0004, 0051, 0053, Winters], to process the first battery cell measurement data [0018, 0035, Winters], and to produce a control signal based on the processed measurement data from the first battery cell [0004-0006, 0018-0019, 0034, Winters teachings include the controller measuring properties of the cells and responding based on the obtained results. This reads on producing “a control signal”]; a second battery cell in the battery pack [0004, Winters]; a second controller (106) configured to receive measurement data for the second battery cell [0004, 0051, 0053, Winters refers to both the first and second controller as (106)], to process the second battery cell measurement data [0018, 0035, Winters], and to produce a control signal based on the processed measurement data from the second battery cell [0004-0006, 0018-0019, 0034, Winters].
Winters is explicitly silent to the use of a second BMS.
However, Tenorio discloses a battery system with a first battery pack (102, “first battery cell”) and a second battery pack (103, “second battery cell”) along with a first battery management system (112) connected to the first battery pack and a second battery management system (113) connected to the second battery pack [0070, fig. 1 Tenorio].
Prior to the effective filing date one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Winters such that a second battery management system was responsible for the second battery cell. Doing this would allow for one to have an internal battery management system for each of the second set of batter(ies) [0070, Tenorio].
Regarding claim 2, Winters discloses the system wherein the “first” controller is configured to determine the state of charge of the “first” battery cell when processing the first battery cell measurement data [0019, Winters]; and wherein the “second” controller is configured to determine the state of charge of the “second” battery cell when processing the second battery cell measurement data [0019, Winters].
Winters is silent to the controller determining the state of health battery cell.
However, Tenorio discloses a battery management system that may measure both the state of charge and state of health of the battery cells [0083, Tenorio]
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the would find it obvious to modify Winters such that the “first controller” and “second controller” was able to determine the state of charge and state of health of the first and second battery cell respectively. Doing so may provide a determination whether the present battery conditions are suitable for an application and an estimate about the battery pack's useful lifetime for that application [0085, Tenorio].
Regarding claim 3, Winters discloses the system, wherein the first BMS further includes switching circuitry configured to disconnect the first battery cell from the battery pack [0018, 0021, 0025, Winters], wherein the switching circuitry is configured to receive the control signal based on the first battery cell measurement data and to disconnect the first battery cell from the battery pack for safety or performance [0025, Winters].
Regarding claim 4, Winters discloses the system, wherein the first controller is configured to process the first battery cell measurement data to determine if the first battery cell is experiencing a hazardous condition (e.g. physical shock) and to produce the control signal only if the “first” battery cell is experiencing a hazardous condition [0025, Winters].
Regarding claim 5, Winters discloses the system, wherein the “first” controller includes a “first” system memory configured to store the first battery cell measurement data [0034-0036, Winters], the processed measurement data from the first battery cell or the control signal provided by the first controller [0034-0039, Winters teaches of data obtained from the cells being stored in a memory, this reads on the claimed limitation]; and wherein the “second” controller includes a “second” system memory configured to store the second battery cell measurement data [0034-0036, Winters], the processed measurement data from the second battery cell, or the control signal provided by the second controller [0034-0036, Winters].
In regards to claim 7, the examiner notes that as presently modified, modified Winters discloses the properties of the cell data (“control signals”) measured by the first and second controllers [0004-0006, 0018-0019, 0034, Winters], are passed between the first and second controllers [0007-0010, De Greef].
This reads on the claimed limitation of wherein the control signals of the first and second controllers are also based on the information communicated between the first controller and the second controller. As the cell data (“control signals”) of the first and second controllers are communicated between the two controllers.
In regards to claim 8, modified Winters discloses the system, wherein the “first” BMS further includes a first temperature sensor configured to measure the temperature of the first battery cell [0015, 0039, Winters discloses the use of transistors/sensors to obtain data such as temperature], and the first battery cell measurement data includes temperature data [0015, 0019, Winters].
In regards to the limitation “and wherein the second controller is configured to produce the control signal based on both the processed measurement data from the second battery cell and the temperature data measured by the temperature sensor of the first BMS.” As discussed in the rejection of claims 6 and 7, collected information is passed between the first and second controller by the bi-directional communication interface.
In regards to claim 9, Modified Winters is silent to the first battery cell has a different battery chemistry type or a different cell capacity than the second battery cell.
However, Tenorio discloses that the battery system may include Lithium-ion (Li-ion), Nickel Cadmium (Ni—Cd), Nickel-Metal Hydride (Ni-MH), Lead-Acid, and other chemistries [0626, Tenorio]. Additionally they may share common battery chemistry (e.g., all Li-ion or all Ni—Cd or the like) and have combinations of battery packs may comprise different battery chemistries [0627, Tenorio].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Winters such that the first and second battery comprised different chemistries. Doing so would allow for one to have a combination of battery packs that can provide a high initial current from the first battery and then a sustained, albeit lower, current from the second battery [0627, Tenorio].
In regards to claim 10, modified Winters discloses the system wherein the first controller and the second controller are configured to operate autonomously without user intervention to produce the control signals [0016, 0021-0022, 0024-0025, Winters].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Winters as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of De Greef (US20150102943A1; filed in IDS 01/10/24 as EP2884701A1).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Winters discloses the first and second controller are in communication with one another via a communication link [0004, 0040, Winters].
Modified Winters is silent to the first and second BMS each having a bi-direction communication interface to communicate information between the first and second controller.
However, De Greef discloses a plurality of battery sections containing a battery cell and a first and second connection nodes [0009, De Greef]. The first and second connection nodes communicate cell-status data along one of two directions in a bi-directional data path [0007, De Greef]. Where multiple cells are connected via a “daisy chain” and the cell status of each is communicated in a first or second direction over the di-directional serial daisy-chain [0009-0010, De Greef].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Winters such that each BMS had a bi-directional communication interface to communicate information between the first and second controller. Doing so would allow for the cell-status data of each battery cell to be communicated across the other battery systems [0009, De Greef].
Claim(s) 12-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tenorio as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Tomar (US20200280108A1) and Yu (CN105489950A; filed in IDS 01/10/24).
Regarding claim 12, Tenorio discloses that the electrical switch may be used to minimize the in-rush of current to batteries that are damaged [0089, Tenorio].
Tenorio is silent to the switching circuitry being configured to connect, disconnect, bypass, and short the battery cells.
However, Tomar discloses a (smart) battery management system [0032, Tomar]. The battery management system features relays (“switching circuitry”) capable of energizing and de-energize relays, along with cut-off relays, bypass relays, and shutoff relays [0030, 0065, Tomar].
For clarity of the record the relays taught by Tomar read on a switching circuitry configured to connect, disconnect, and bypass a battery cell.
Prior to the effect filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify the switching circuitry of Tenorio such that they were able to connect, disconnect, and bypass the first battery cell. Doing so would allow for the battery management system to avoid using battery cells that have been detected or predicted to be close to failure [0065, Tomar].
Yu Discloses a series of batteries in series with a self-switching circuitry capable of short-circuiting (“short”) a battery [0015, Yu]. The shorting control circuit receives the voltage across the battery and provides a control signal according to the voltage across the battery to turn on or off the corresponding shorting switch [0015, Yu].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Yu such that the switching circuitry is further configured to short the battery cell. Doing so can lower the resistance of the battery path when the power of the battery is exhausted or damaged [0030, Yu].
Regarding claim 13, Modified Tenorio discloses the battery system wherein the first switching circuitry includes a cell switch configured to control the electrical connection between the first battery cell and the battery pack [0087-0089, Tenorio].
Modified Tenorio is silent to a bypass switch configured to control the electrical connection on an electrical pathway of the battery pack bypassing the first battery cell.
However, Tomar discloses a bypass relay (“switch”) capable of bypassing damaged or problematic cells while not disconnecting the rest of the cells [0063-0065, Tomar].
The examiner notes that this reads on “configured to control the electrical connection on an electrical pathway of the battery pack”
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Tenorio such that a bypass switch was configured to control the electrical connection on an electrical pathway of the battery pack bypassing the “first” battery cell. Doing so would allow for bypass problematic cells without disconnecting the rest of the cells [0063, 0065, Tomar].
Regarding claim 15, Modified Tenorio is silent to the BMS being configured to determine if the battery cell is experiencing a hazardous condition such that the BMS is configured to control the switching circuitry to disconnect or bypass the battery cell experiencing a hazardous condition.
However, Tomar teaches of a management system (BMS) capable of detecting a failure event (“hazardous event”) such as thermal runaway, dendrite growth, or other types of catastrophic failures [0042, 0046, Tomar].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Tenorio such that the first controller was able to determine if the battery cell is experiencing a hazardous state. Doing so can allow for one to isolate and bypass problematic cells by disconnect them [0063, Tomar].
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tenorio as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of What Is Parasitic Battery Drain and How to Test It.
Regarding claim 14, Modified Tenorio is silent to the BMS being configured to determine if the battery pack is not in use and to disconnect the battery cell if the battery pack is not in use.
However, prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would appreciate that parasitic battery drain is a known problem in which a battery in, for instance, a vehicle continues to discharge and drain battery power even when the vehicle is turned off [key points, uti.edu]. Parasitic battery drain occurs when continuous and/or abnormal discharge of power occurs even when the engine/vehicle is shut off [key points, uti.edu]. Where known common causes of parasitic battery drain are known to be circuits and devices remaining in the “on” position [common causes of parasitic battery drain, uti.edu].
For clarity of the record, the examiner notes that if the engine/vehicle is shut off then battery (“pack”) is not in use.
One of ordinary skill within the arts would further appreciate that if after a battery is no longer in use (e.g. vehicle off) but circuits and/or devices remaining in an “on” position then forcing them into an “off” position would prevent this parasitic drain. One could force an “off” position by disconnecting the battery cell when battery pack is not in use.
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Tenorio such that the BMS was configured to determine if the battery pack is not in use resulting in the battery cell being disconnected. Doing so would be a preventative measure to insure that power is not being continuously and/or abnormally discharged when not in use thus preventing parasitic battery drain [key points, uti.edu].
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eberhard (US20210384561A1; filed in IDS 07/17/26).
Regarding claim 16 Eberhard discloses a battery unit comprising: a battery cell [0021, Eberhard]; a housing (305A) enclosing the battery cell [0027, Eberhard], wherein the housing is configured to provide electrical access between the battery cell and at least one battery cell not contained within the housing [0036-0039 fig. 3b, Eberhard discloses a plurality of battery housing with their own battery cells and all electrically connected to each other via module to module power connectors]; a battery management system (500) coupled to the enclosure and in communication with the battery cell [0001, 0054, 0058, 0069, Eberhard discloses a BMS managing battery modules, this reads on coupled to as they are able to measure and monitor the specific battery module], the first BMS including: a controller configured to receive measurement data for the battery cell [0004, Eberhard], to process the battery cell measurement data [0004-0006, Eberhard], and to produce a control signal based on the processed measurement data from the battery cell [0060-0061, Eberhard].
Regarding claim 18, Eberhard discloses the battery unit, wherein the housing does not enclose an additional battery cell configured to be connected with the battery cell [fig. 3a, Eberhard discloses multiple battery modules. The housing of one module does not enclose an additional battery cell configured to be connected with the battery cell of a different module].
Regarding claim 19, Eberhard discloses the battery unit, wherein the housing includes at least one electrical port (205) configured to provide electrical access between the battery cell and at least one battery cell not contained within the housing [0025, fig. 2B, 3B, Eberhard].
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eberhard as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Tenorio (US20220271543 A1 filed in IDS 07/10/24).
Regarding claim 17, Eberhard discloses the use of a BMS and a housing [0027, 0054, Eberhard].
Eberhard is silent to where the BMS is located.
However, Tenorio discloses the use of a battery pack that internally supports a battery management system [0014, 0067, 0070, Tenorio].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Eberhard such that the battery management system was contained within the housing (“internally supported”) of the battery unit. Doing so would allow for one to circumventing the need of an external battery management [0067, Tenorio].
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eberhard as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of De Greef (US20150102943A1; filed in IDS 01/10/24 as EP2884701A1).
Regarding claim 20, Eberhard discloses that the battery management system has a low-voltage communication connectivity between modules [0060-0062, Eberhard]. Along with low voltage (LV) data port (210A/B, “communication port”) located on the housing to provide data collection obtained from the battery module [0025, fig. 2a-2b, Eberhard].
Eberhard is explicitly silent to 1) the use of a bi-directional communication interface to communication information between multiple battery management systems. 2) the housing including at least one communication port to provide electrical access between the bi-directional communication interface.
However, De Greef discloses a plurality of battery sections containing a battery cell and a first and second connection nodes [0009, De Greef]. The first and second connection nodes communicate cell-status data along one of two directions in a bi-directional data path [0007, De Greef]. Where multiple cells are connected via a “daisy chain” and the cell status of each is communicated in a first or second direction over the di-directional serial daisy-chain [0009-0010, De Greef].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Eberhard such that the low-voltage communication connectivity of the BMS included a bi-directional communication interface to communicate information between a BMS and an additional BMS. Doing so would allow for the cell-status data of each battery cell to be communicated across the other battery systems [0009, De Greef].
For clarity of the record, the examiner notes that the BMS and bi-directional communication interface (as presently modified) would use the LV data port to transmit data collection between battery modules.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 5712705256. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights