DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 11 and 12-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 11 recites the limitation “A non-transitory machine-readable medium,……facilitate performance of operations”. It is not clear what is actually on the computer readable medium. Claim 11 recites the limitations “in response” which are not clearly tied to anything.
4. Claims 12-15 are rejected as depending from claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
6. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites monitoring.
The claim(s) recite(s) monitoring which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic components such as a monitoring system such as a circuit and a controller. That is, other than reciting “a battery monitoring system” and “a primary controller”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generally claimed components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements such as a battery monitoring system which can be a circuit, a primary controller which is not claimed as specially programmed or configured so it is general purpose. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a battery monitoring system and a primary controller amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generally claimed components as is already known within the art as seen by Kadam et al. (EP4108508A1) below. The claim is not patent eligible.
7. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites monitoring.
The claim(s) recite(s) monitoring which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components such as a non-transitory machine readable medium. That is, other than reciting “a non-transitory machine readable medium”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites a non-transitory machine readable medium which is not claimed as specially programmed or configured so it is general purpose and is already known within the art as seen by Kadam et al. (EP4108508A1) below. Accordingly, the element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the element of using a non-transitory machine readable medium that “monitor” or facilitate monitoring are well understood, routine and conventional and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim is not patent eligible.
8. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites monitoring.
The claim(s) recite(s) monitoring which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components such as a processor. That is, other than reciting “a processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The general purpose processor as claimed is used for data gathering, which is insignificant extra solution activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites a processor for monitoring a metric of a battery cell which is well understood, routine and conventional and is already known within the art as seen by Kadam et al. (EP4108508A1) below. Accordingly, the element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the element of using a processor is well understood, routine and conventional and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claim(s) 1-7, 11-14 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kadam et al. (EP4108508A1) as cited in IDS dated 6/23/25.
Regarding claim 1, Kadam discloses a battery pack(302, Fig. 3, [0037]), comprising: a battery monitoring system (battery cell management, Fig. 4) that: monitors a battery metric ([0042]) of a battery cell (306, Fig. 3, [0040]) of a battery system cluster board(304, Fig. 3, [0037], [0013]), in response to a determination that the battery metric ([0042]) satisfies a first bypass condition([0021]), enables a bypass mode ([0027]-[0028]) applicable to the battery system cluster board(304, Fig. 3), and in response to a determination that the battery metric no longer satisfies the first bypass condition, exits the bypass mode([0029]); and a primary controller (404, Fig. 4) that: in response to a determination that a second bypass condition applicable to the battery system cluster board has been satisfied([0032]), sends an instruction to the battery monitoring system to enter the bypass mode([0044], claims 7-9, & 14), and in response to a determination that the second bypass condition is no longer satisfied([0032]), sends an override instruction to the battery monitoring system to exit the bypass mode([0029]).
Regarding claim 2, Kamdam discloses the first bypass condition comprises a battery cell temperature exceeding a defined battery cell temperature threshold([0021], [0023]).
Regarding claim 3, Kadam discloses the first bypass condition comprises a battery cell current exceeding a defined battery cell current threshold([0021], [0023]).
Regarding claim 4, Kadam discloses the first bypass condition comprises a battery cell voltage exceeding a defined battery cell voltage threshold([0021], [0023]).
Regarding claim 5, Kadam discloses the primary controller comprises an automotive safety integrity level D primary controller([0021], [0023], [0042]).
Regarding claim 6, Kadam discloses the battery monitoring system comprises an automotive safety integrity level D battery monitoring system([0021], [0023], [0042]).
Regarding claim 7, Kadam discloses further comprising: a quality management integrity level cluster controller communicatively coupled to the battery monitoring system and the primary controller(Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, Kadam discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, facilitate performance of operations([0022], [0057]-[0061]), comprising: monitoring (battery cell management, Fig. 4) a battery metric ([0042]) of a battery cell (306, Fig. 3, [0040]) of a battery system cluster board (304, Fig. 3, [0037], [0013]); in response to a determination that the battery metric satisfies a first bypass condition ([0021]), enabling a bypass mode applicable to the battery system cluster board ([0027]-[0028]); in response to a determination that the battery metric no longer satisfies the first bypass condition, exiting the bypass mode ([0029]); in response to a determination that a second bypass condition applicable to the battery system cluster board has been satisfied ([0032]), sending an instruction, via a primary controller (404, Fig. 4), to a battery monitoring system to enter the bypass mode ([0044], claims 7-9, & 14); and in response to a determination that the second bypass condition is no longer satisfied ([0032]), sending an override instruction to the battery monitoring system to exit the bypass mode ([0029]).
Regarding claim 12, Kadam discloses the primary controller comprises an automotive safety integrity level D primary controller ([0021], [0023], [0042]).
Regarding claim 13, Kadam discloses the battery monitoring system comprises an automotive safety integrity level D battery monitoring system ([0021], [0023], [0042]).
Regarding claim 14, Kadam discloses a quality management integrity level cluster controller is communicatively coupled to the battery monitoring system and the primary controller (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 16, Kadam discloses a method([0008]), comprising: monitoring, by a system comprising a processor([0022], [0057]-[0061]), a battery metric ([0042]) of a battery cell (306, Fig. 3, [0040]) of a battery system cluster board(304, Fig. 3, [0037], [0013]); in response to a determination that the battery metric satisfies a first bypass condition([0021]), enabling, by the system, a bypass mode applicable to the battery system cluster board; ([0027]-[0028]) in response to a determination that the battery metric no longer satisfies the first bypass condition, exiting, by the system, the bypass mode([0029]); in response to a determination that a second bypass condition applicable to the battery system cluster board has been satisfied([0032]), sending, by the system, an instruction to a battery monitoring system to enter the bypass mode([0044], claims 7-9, & 14); and in response to a determination that the second bypass condition is no longer satisfied([0032]), sending, by the system, an override instruction to the battery monitoring system to exit the bypass mode([0029]).
Regarding claim 17, Kadam discloses the first bypass condition comprises a battery cell temperature exceeding a defined battery cell temperature threshold([0021], [0023]).
Regarding claim 18, Kadam discloses the first bypass condition comprises a battery cell current exceeding a defined battery cell current threshold([0021], [0023]).
Regarding claim 19, Kadam discloses the first bypass condition comprises a battery cell voltage exceeding a defined battery cell voltage threshold([0021], [0023]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadam et al. (EP4108508A1) as cited in IDS dated 6/23/25 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Espaillat et al. (US 2023/0155727).
Regarding claim 8, Kadam does not explicitly disclose the override instruction comprises a black channel type communication channel.
Espaillat teaches functional safety in a battery management system(title). Espaillat teaches functional safety in a battery management system includes a module monitoring system of the battery management system generating battery sensor data and generating a message encoding the battery sensor data([0004]). Espaillat teaches the module monitoring system sends the message, via a wireless black communication channel, to a wireless network controller of the battery management system([0004]). Espaillat teaches one skilled in the art would appreciate that the approaches set forth to detect data freshness by shifting the order of data included in messages can be applied to both wired and wireless systems to improve black channel communication([0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery pack of Kadam with the override instruction comprises a black channel type communication channel as taught by Espaillat as applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143.
15. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadam et al. (EP4108508A1) as cited in IDS dated 6/23/25 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ramezan Pour Safaei et al. (US 2020/0150185).
Regarding claim 9, Kadam does not explicitly disclose the primary controller sends the override instruction in response to the second bypass condition being determined to have ended for at least a threshold duration of time.
Ramezan Pour Safaei teaches a method, system, and non-transitory computer readable medium for determining a pseudo-optimal charging algorithm for a specific battery (abstract). Ramezan Pour Safaei teaches in functional blocks utilizing a time trigger condition, the control strategy of the respective functional block is ended in response to the time since beginning the functional block exceeding a value defined by the time duration threshold parameter ttrigger ([0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery pack of Kadam with the primary controller sends the override instruction in response to the second bypass condition being determined to have ended for at least a threshold duration of time as taught by Ramezan Pour Safaei as obvious to try choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
16. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadam et al. (EP4108508A1) as cited in IDS dated 6/23/25 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0089019).
Regarding claim 10, Kadam does not explicitly disclose the primary controller sends the instruction based on a comparison of an output from the battery monitoring system to another output of another battery system cluster board, other than the battery system cluster board.
Lee teaches a battery pack diagnostic apparatus includes a communication port, a measurer, and a controller(abstract). Lee teaches the controller 140 may compare a first measurement value, which is a value of the voltage and the current of the battery pack 200, the value being analyzed by the battery management system, with the second measurement value, the value being analyzed by the measurer 130 and provided to the controller 140([0043], Fig. 3). Lee teaches when the controller 140 determines that it is necessary to correct the offset value, the controller 140 may output a correction signal for correcting the offset value to the battery management system([0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery pack of Kadam with the primary controller sends the instruction based on a comparison of an output from the battery monitoring system to another output of another battery system cluster board, other than the battery system cluster board as taught by Lee as obvious to try choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
17. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadam et al. (EP4108508A1) as cited in IDS dated 6/23/25 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Espaillat et al. (US 2023/0155727).
Regarding claim 15, Kadam does not explicitly disclose the override instruction comprises a black channel type communication channel.
Espaillat teaches functional safety in a battery management system(title). Espaillat teaches functional safety in a battery management system includes a module monitoring system of the battery management system generating battery sensor data and generating a message encoding the battery sensor data([0004]). Espaillat teaches the module monitoring system sends the message, via a wireless black communication channel, to a wireless network controller of the battery management system([0004]). Espaillat teaches one skilled in the art would appreciate that the approaches set forth to detect data freshness by shifting the order of data included in messages can be applied to both wired and wireless systems to improve black channel communication([0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the non-transitory machine-readable medium of Kadam with the override instruction comprises a black channel type communication channel as taught by Espaillat as applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143.
18. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadam et al. (EP4108508A1) as cited in IDS dated 6/23/25 as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Ramezan Pour Safaei et al. (US 2020/0150185).
Regarding claim 20, Kadam does not explicitly disclose the instruction is sent in response to the second bypass condition being determined to have ended for at least a threshold duration of time.
Ramezan Pour Safaei teaches a method, system, and non-transitory computer readable medium for determining a pseudo-optimal charging algorithm for a specific battery (abstract). Ramezan Pour Safaei teaches In functional blocks utilizing a time trigger condition, the control strategy of the respective functional block is ended in response to the time since beginning the functional block exceeding a value defined by the time duration threshold parameter ttrigger ([0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kadam with the instruction is sent in response to the second bypass condition being determined to have ended for at least a threshold duration of time.as taught by Ramezan Pour Safaei as obvious to try choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA HOM LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-0489. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/VICTORIA H LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights