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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 12-21 are pending in the office action.
Claims 1, 16, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 4,10, and 11 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Claim objection is withdrawn.
35 U.S C 112:
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 05/06/2026, with respect to claims 1-3, 5-9, and 16-21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C 112 first paragraph and second paragraph is withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 05/06/2026, with respect to claims 1-3 and 16-21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C 103 is withdrawn.
However, regarding to claims 5-8, Applicant did not argue, assuming that Applicant agrees with Examiner’s position. Hence, claim rejection is sustained.
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Pat. 8,330,469) (see reproduction fig. 8 as below).
PNG
media_image1.png
736
1060
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per claim 5: Miyamoto teaches a method, comprising:
comparing a voltage across each battery cell of multiple battery cells with a non-zero threshold voltage (fig. 8, COMP1 compares first battery terminal V6 and second battery terminal V7 of the cell C5 with a non-zero threshold voltage at the threshold terminal Vref); and
responsive to the comparing, determining at least one of: whether a fault condition exists in any of the multiple battery cells, or a fault condition exists in processing circuitry that processes results of the comparing (fig. 4A-4B, fig. 7, T23, fig. 11, col. 2, ll. 9-44, abnormal potential to detect disconnection, detect defects of excess voltage for detecting disconnect; col. 8, line 43 – col. 9, line 20, leak current; col. 9, ll. 35-48, detecting disconnect).
As per claim 6: Miyamoto teaches the method of claim 5, wherein comparing a voltage across each battery cells of multiple cells with a threshold includes comparing the voltage across each battery cell of the multiple battery cells with threshold using multiple comparators (fig. 8, multiple battery cells C5-C8, each cell has voltage across to be compared with Vref), and the method further comprises processing output signal of the multiple comparators with the processing circuitry (fig. 8, multiple comparator SEN1-SEN4 and processing circuitry LOG1 and LOG2, such as IC2).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyamoto et al., (U.S. Pat. 8,330,469) in view of Izawa (U.S. Pub. 20180024198).
As per claim 7: Miyamoto teaches the method of claim 5, wherein comparing a voltage across each battery cells of multiple cells with a threshold (fig. 8, COMP1 compares first battery terminal V6 and second battery terminal V7 of the cell C5 with a non-zero threshold voltage at the threshold terminal Vref) includes connecting each battery cell of the multiple battery cells to comparator (see fig. 8, COMP1 and COMP2), and processing an output signal of the comparator for each battery cell with the processing circuitry (fig. 8, 1st and 2nd processing circuitries, LOG1 and LOG2)
Miyamoto does not teaches connecting each battery cell of the multiple battery cells to comparator using a multiplexer.
Izawa teaches connecting each battery cell of the multiple battery cells to comparator using a multiplexer (fig. 1, fig. 3, and fig. 6, battery cells, mux 11, comparator 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art at the time of the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine Izawa and Miyamoto to modify Miyamoto’s voltage monitoring apparatus using Izawa’s a battery monitoring system connecting each battery cell of the multiple battery cells to comparator using a multiplexer for selecting voltage values (voltage signal in a first route and voltage signal second route) to be measure with respective measuring circuits and comparator 13 for comparing output values from the respective measuring circuits that detects the presence/absence of disconnection of the input and failure of the multiplexer (Izawa’s, par. [0039] [0040]).
As per claim 8: Miyamoto and Izawa teach the method of claim 7, further comprising storing output signal of the comparator for each battery cell in a respective register of multiple register, and providing the stored output signal to the processing circuitry from the multiple register (Izawa, fig. 1, fig. 3, and fig. 6, control unit 14).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if claim 9 is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach the combination of limitations recited claim 9, comprise: wherein the processing circuitry includes a logical AND gate and a logical OR gate; wherein whether the fault condition exists in any of the multiple battery cells is determined responsive to an output state of the AND gate; and wherein whether the fault condition exists in the processing circuitry is determined responsive to an output state of the OR gate
Claims 1-3 and 16-21 are allowed based on Applicant’s argument.
Claims 12-15 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: see the previous office action mailed on 02/13/2025.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NGHIA M DOAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5973. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Jack Chiang can be reached on 571-272-7483. 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.
NGHIA M. DOAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2851
/NGHIA M DOAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights