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 § 112
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 2-18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, in part, “an activation signal detection circuit that detects an activation signal input from the first communication path”. Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites, in part, “a first activation signal generation circuit that generates and outputs the activation signal to the second communication path”. Claim 2 appears inconsistent with claim 1 because in claim 2 the first activation signal generation circuit generates and outputs the activation signal, whereas in claim 1 the activation signal is input from the first communication path. As best understood by the examiner in light of the disclosure (see, e.g., Fig. 2 and paragraphs 50-51 of published application), the activation signal input from the first communication path that is detected by the activation signal detection circuit and the activation signal generated and output to the second communication path by the first activation signal generation circuit are different activation signals. Clarification is required so that the scope of the claim is clear.
Claim 1 recites, in part, “an alarm generation circuit that, in the low-power mode, generates and outputs an alarm signal indicating an anomaly in the plurality of battery cells to the first communication path”. Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites, in part, “a first alarm detection circuit that detects the alarm signal input from the second communication path, and when the first alarm detection circuit detects the alarm signal, the alarm generation circuit outputs the alarm signal to the first communication path”. Claim 2 appears inconsistent with claim 1 because in claim 2 the alarm signal is input from the second communication path, whereas claim 1 the alarm signal is generated and output by the alarm generation circuit. As best understood by the examiner in light of the disclosure (see, e.g., Fig. 2 and paragraphs 47-48 of published application), the alarm signal generated by and output from the alarm generation circuit and the alarm signal input from the second communication path that is detected by the first alarm detection circuit are different alarm signals. Clarification is required so that the scope of the claim is clear. Claims 3-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependence from claim 2.
Claim 2 recites “a first alarm detection circuit that detects the alarm signal input from the second communication path”, whereas claim 3 depending from claim 2 recites “the first alarm detection circuit detects the alarm signal input from the first communication path”. Claim 3 therefore appears to be inconsistent with claim 2. Clarification is required so that the scope of the claim is clear.
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 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.
(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.
Claims 1 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by applicant-cited KR20190010003A. to Park (Park).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a voltage measurement device that measures a voltage of at least one battery cell among a plurality of battery cells connected in series, the voltage measurement device comprising:
one or more voltage detection circuits (Park, e.g., Fig. 1, voltage detection circuits in the form of sensing chips 100, 200, 300 connected in a daisy-chain configuration), wherein
each of the one or more voltage detection circuits includes:
a first communication path (Park, e.g., Fig. 2, first communication path in each of sensing chips 100, 200, 300 in the form of at least incoming/outgoing CL line);
a mode control circuit that switches a mode of operation of the voltage detection circuit between a normal mode and a low-power mode that consumes less power than the normal mode (Park, e.g., Fig. 6 and paragraphs 67-70, in Park’s example of Fig. 6, sensing chip 300 (see Fig. 1) detects a failure associated with its connected battery cells, which causes a first failure signal in the form of a wake-up signal to be received in sensing chip 200 from sensing chip 300; at this time, the operation mode of sensing chip 200 may be switched from the sleep mode to the standby mode in response to the first failure signal of the wake-up signal type; sensing chip 200 may generate a second fault signal in the form of a wake-up signal to transmit the fault signal to the MICOM in the standby mode (S120), after which sensing chip 200 may transmit a second fault signal in the form of a wake-up signal to neighboring sensing chip 100; thereafter, the operation mode of sensing chip 200 may be switched from the standby mode to the sleep mode; it is therefore implicit that each of Park’s sensing chips 100, 200, 300 comprises circuitry for switching its mode of operation between a standby (normal) mode and a sleep (low-power) mode that consumes less power than the normal mode; also see, e.g., paragraph 36 regarding the sleep and standby modes);
a first communication control circuit that transmits and receives a command signal to and from the first communication path (Park, e.g., Fig. 2 and paragraph 43, MICOM 600 may be implemented to control the sensing chips 100, 200, 300, and 400 and the transceiver 500; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand and such control is performed via instructions/commands transmitted from MICOM 600, and that the first interface circuit 101 of each sensing chip 100, 200, 300, and 400 coupled to CL line functions to receive instructions/commands and to transmit/propagate the instructions/commands through the daisy-chain to sensing chips upstream);
an activation signal detection circuit that detects an activation signal input from the first communication path (further regarding Park’s example of Fig. 6 and paragraphs 67-70 discussed above, the operation mode of sensing chip 200 may be switched from the sleep mode to the standby mode in response to the first failure signal of the wake-up signal type; Park discloses in Fig. 4 and paragraphs 57-59 a diagram of a failure signal generated in the failure signal generator 130, with the wake-up signal being a pulse signal of 50% duty cycle of 8 cycles, with the failure signal being a signal of repeating this wake-up signal 3 times in succession; one of ordinary skill in the art would therefore understand in Park’s example of Fig. 6 that sensing chip 200 (and the other sensing chips) necessarily comprise circuitry for recognizing/discerning a repeated wake-up signal pattern (such as disclosed in Fig. 4) as a failure signal, with such circuitry constituting an activation signal detection circuit that detects an activation signal input from the first communication path); and
an alarm generation circuit that, in the low-power mode, generates and outputs an alarm signal indicating an anomaly in the plurality of battery cells to the first communication path (Park, e.g., Fig. 2 and paragraphs 52-53, fault detector 120 may be implemented to detect a fault condition of a group of battery cells connected in series in the standby mode, and fault signal generator 130 may be implemented to generate a fault signal in the form of a wake-up signal in response to the detected fault; note in Fig. 2 that fault signal generated by fault signal generator 130 is output to first interface circuit 101), and
in the low-power mode, when the activation signal detection circuit detects the activation signal, the mode control circuit switches the mode of operation to the normal mode (further regarding Park’s example of Fig. 6 and paragraphs 67-70 discussed above, the operation mode of sensing chip 200 may be switched from the sleep mode to the standby mode in response to the first failure signal of the wake-up signal type; Park discloses in Fig. 4 and paragraphs 57-59 a diagram of a failure signal generated in the failure signal generator 130, with the wake-up signal being a pulse signal of 50% duty cycle of 8 cycles, with the failure signal being a signal of repeating this wake-up signal 3 times in succession; one of ordinary skill in the art would therefore understand in Park’s example of Fig. 6 that sensing chip 200 (and the other sensing chips) necessarily comprise circuitry for recognizing/discerning a repeated wake-up signal pattern (such as disclosed in Fig. 4) as a failure signal; such circuitry constitutes the activation signal detection circuit as claimed that causes the mode control circuitry to switch from sleep to standby mode when the repeated wake-up signal pattern is detected).
Regarding claim 18, Park discloses:
a communication circuit that is connected to the first communication path of a first voltage detection circuit which is one voltage detection circuit among the one or more voltage detection circuits, and communicates with the one or more voltage detection circuits (Park, e.g., Fig. 1 and paragraphs 40-41, transceiver 500); and
a control circuit that is connected to the communication circuit and controls the one or more voltage detection circuits (Park, e.g., Fig. 1 and paragraphs 40-43; MICOM 600; note paragraph 43 in particular, MICOM 600 may be implemented to control the sensing chips 100, 200, 300, and 400 and the transceiver 500).
Regarding claim 19, Park discloses a cell stack system comprising:
the voltage measurement device according to claim 1 (see Park as applied to claim 1); and
a cell stack including the plurality of battery cells (Park, e.g., paragraph 34, each of the plurality of sensing chips 100, 200, 300, and 400 may be configured to perform cell balancing of a plurality of battery cells connected in series; also see, e.g., Fig. 2, cell stack having a plurality of battery cells (unlabeled) shown at the right of sensing chip 100 within dashed box).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2012/0025769 to Kikuchi et al. relates to a battery system for a vehicle; see, e.g., Fig. 1.
US 2017/0010329 to Tang et al. relates to a wakeup sequence for a two-wire daisy-chain communication system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL R MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1964. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM 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, Lisa Caputo can be reached at (571) 272-2388. 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.
/DANIEL R MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863