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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-14, and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, a battery monitoring method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/20/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, an energy storage system, in the reply filed on 05/20 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that there was no explanation of the separate classifications,.
This is not found persuasive because as addressed in the restriction requirement mailed 04/17/2026, Invention I would require would require a search in at least CPC H01M 10/63 in addition to a unique text search while Invention II would not be searched as such and would require a search in at least CPC H01M 10/42 in addition to a unique text search. Despite relating to similar subject matter, the different CPC classifications establish a search burden.
Furthermore, Applicant argues that Invention I is directed to battery monitoring. Examine notes that while Invention I, an energy storage system”, can be used to practice Invention II, a battery monitoring method, Invention I can also be used to practice another materially different process such as a powering a vehicle, as addressed in the restriction requirement. Additionally, the method claims of Invention II do not require the specific structural limitations of the energy storage system claims of Invention I.
Applicant further argues that no serious examination issues were identified. The Examiner notes broadest reasonable interpretation of produce claims vs. process claims are different such as contingency claim limitations and product-by-process limitations, thus establishing an examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 2-3, “the temperature field model is used for a simulation based on the abnormal temperature signal” should read, “the temperature field model is used for the simulation by the battery monitoring unit based on the abnormal temperature signal” for consistency with claim 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "the battery monitoring unit is configured to…" in claim 1, and "the battery monitoring unit is further configured to…" in claims 2-4 and 15-16.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-7, and 15-18 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 the limitation "the adjacent temperature signal" in line 11 and 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which of the “plurality of adjacent temperature signals” Applicant is referring to. For the purposes of this Office Action, “the adjacent temperature signal” is interpreted to mean any of the plurality of adjacent temperature signals.
Claims 2-7, and 15-18 are similarly rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the adjacent temperature signal" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which of the “plurality of adjacent temperature signals” as claimed in claim 1, line 10, Applicant is referring to, the adjacent temperature signal corresponding a second battery area, the adjacent temperature signal that is greater than a second preset temperature threshold, or otherwise. For the purposes of this Office Action, “the adjacent temperature signal” is interpreted to mean any of the plurality of adjacent temperature signals.
Claims 15-18 are similarly rejected as being dependent on claim 2.
Claim 3 and 15 recite the limitation "the adjacent temperature signal" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which of the “plurality of adjacent temperature signals” as claimed in claim 1, line 10, Applicant is referring to, the adjacent temperature signal corresponding a second battery area, the adjacent temperature signal that is greater than a second preset temperature threshold, or otherwise. For the purposes of this Office Action, “the adjacent temperature signal” is interpreted to mean any of the plurality of adjacent temperature signals.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the battery area" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether Applicant is referring to the “first battery area”, the “second battery” area or another of the “at least two battery areas” claimed in claim 1. For the purposes of this Office Action, the claim limitation is interpreted to mean any of the “at least two battery areas”.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woll et al. (DE102018217680A1, cited in IDS filed 10/30/2024, see Examiner provided machine translation for citations).
Regarding claim 1, Woll discloses an energy storage system (i.e. device, pg. 16, line 15)comprising:
a battery monitoring unit (i.e. evaluation unit, pg. 2, lines 30-31);
a battery module (i.e. battery, pg. 12, lines 15-17, 20), wherein the battery module comprises at least two battery areas (i.e. plurality of modules, M1-M4, pg. 12, lines 15-17) ; and
a temperature sensor, wherein the temperature sensor is disposed in each battery area and each battery area comprises at least one battery.
Woll further discloses wherein the battery monitoring unit is configured to receive a plurality of temperature signals (i.e. evaluation unit receives first and second signals, pg. 12, lines pg. 12, lines 23-24), wherein each of the plurality of temperature signals comes from temperature sensors in different battery areas (i.e. first and second signals from plurality of modules M1-M4, pg. 12, lines 19-24, Fig. 4).
Woll further discloses the absence of errors in respective first and second signals of modules M1-M4 is checked where the check includes comparing the first and second temperature values of the respective modules with a predefined range of permissible temperatures (i.e. first preset temperature threshold) (pg. 12, lines 25-28).
Woll further discloses that once a fault in sensor S1 of the first module M1 (i.e. first battery area) is assumed as a result of being outside the predefined range of permissible temperatures sensor (i.e. abnormal temperature signal that reaches a first preset temperature, pg. 13, lines 3-6), a second temperature value of the second sensor S2 of the first module M1 is compared with the second temperature values of modules M2-M4 (i.e. adjacent temperature signal corresponding to second battery area), where the comparison is on the basis of a maximum permissible deviation of the second temperature value (i.e. second preset temperature threshold) of the first module M1 from the respective second temperature values of modules M2-M4 (pg. 13, lines 3-9). Thus, Woll satisfies the claim limitation, “when there is an abnormal temperature signal that reaches a first preset temperature threshold in the plurality of temperature signals, obtain a plurality of adjacent temperature signals, wherein the adjacent temperature signal is a temperature signal corresponding to a second battery area”.
Furthermore, Woll discloses the modules M2-M4 are connected to the M1 (i.e. second battery area connected to first battery area, Fig. 4), satisfying the claim limitation, “a second battery area that is connected to a first battery area corresponding to the abnormal temperature signal, and there are one or more second battery areas”.
Woll further discloses if there is a deviation detected for the second temperature value of first module M1 with respect to the second temperature values of modules M2-M4 that is greater than the predefined maximum permissible deviation of the temperature values (i.e. adjacent temperature), a cell defect is assumed.
Furthermore, Woll discloses due to the defect of the first module M1, the means of transport continues to be operated with reduced power. A skilled artisan would recognize that in being able to receive adjacent temperature values and compare them to predefined maximum permissible values (i.e. first and second preset temperature thresholds) as well as operate at reduced power as a result of a sensed deviation from the predefined value, the evaluation unit of Woll would be configured such that when the adjacent temperature signal is greater than a second preset temperature threshold, reduce rated power of the battery module.
Regarding claim 3, Woll discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Woll discloses the battery monitoring unit upon receiving an abnormal temperature signal from battery M1 (i.e. first battery area corresponding to abnormal temperature signal), the temperature is then compared to the temperature of M2, M3, and M4 ([0023]), wherein M2 (i.e. second battery area that is connected to first battery area) is adjacent to M1 (Fig. 4).
Therefore, Woll satisfies the limitation “wherein the battery monitoring unit is further configured to: determine the first battery area corresponding to the abnormal temperature signal, determine the second battery area that is connected to the first battery area, and obtain the adjacent temperature signal based on a temperature sensor corresponding to the second battery area.
Regarding claims 5, Woll discloses all limitations as set forth above.
The limitation “wherein the second preset temperature threshold is obtained by performing a simulation by the battery monitoring unit based on the abnormal temperature system” of claim 5 is a product-by-process limitation (MPEP 2113). Thus, the product, the energy storage system of claim 1, is defined by its implied structure where the second preset temperature can be obtained using any method.
Woll discloses the second preset temperature (i.e. threshold values) can be stored in the memory unit and when the temperature falls below and/or exceeds the threshold values evaluation unit can detect an existing error ([0008]). Thus, Woll satisfies claim 5.
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.
Claims 2, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woll et al. (DE 102018217680 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Wang et al. (US20230304951A1).
Regarding claim 2, Woll discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Woll discloses a second preset temperature threshold (i.e. maximum permissible deviation of second temperature value, [0023]) wherein exceeding the threshold leads to operation at reduced power ([0024]).
Woll further teaches that the system can give the user of the means of transport a warning message about the existing measurement error of the first and second signal of first battery module 1. Thus, Woll satisfies the claim limitation, “wherein the battery monitoring unit is further configured to…report fault information, wherein the fault information indicates that a temperature sensor corresponding to the abnormal temperature signal is faulty.”
However, Woll does not explicitly disclose that fault information is reported “when the adjacent temperature signal is less than the second preset temperature threshold.
Wang teaches a similar energy storage device (i.e. battery pack, Abstract) with a control board configured to attain a temperature gradient using a first and second temperature sensor ([0005]). Wang further teaches that the control board is configured to transmit an alert if the temperature gradient exceeds a first temperature gradient ([0005]) and disable the electronic device powered by the battery when the temperature gradient exceeds a second temperature gradient threshold ([0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have improved Woll through having the battery monitoring unit transmit an alert when the adjacent temperature signal exceeds the first preset temperature threshold but is less than the second preset temperature threshold, as this is a common thermal management configuration well-known in the art, as taught by Wang.
Regarding claim 15, modified Woll discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Woll discloses the battery monitoring unit upon receiving an abnormal temperature signal from battery M1 (i.e. first battery area corresponding to abnormal temperature signal), the temperature is then compared to the temperature of M2, M3, and M4 (Woll, [0023]), wherein M2 (i.e. second battery area that is connected to first battery area) is adjacent to M1 (Woll, Fig. 4).
Therefore, Woll satisfies the limitation “wherein the battery monitoring unit is further configured to: determine the first battery area corresponding to the abnormal temperature signal, determine the second battery area that is connected to the first battery area, and obtain the adjacent temperature signal based on a temperature sensor corresponding to the second battery area.
Regarding claim 17, modified Woll discloses all limitations as set forth above.
The limitation “wherein the second preset temperature threshold is obtained by performing a simulation by the battery monitoring unit based on the abnormal temperature system” of claim 5 is a product-by-process (MPEP 2113). Thus, the product, the energy storage system of claim 1, is defined by its implied structure where the second preset temperature can be obtained using any method.
Modified Woll discloses the second preset temperature (i.e. threshold values) can be stored in the memory unit and when the temperature falls below and/or exceeds the threshold values evaluation unit can detect an existing error (Woll, pg. 4, lines 15-17). Thus, modified Woll satisfies claim 17.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woll et al. (DE102018217680A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Shaw et al. (GB2566308A).
Regarding claim 4, Woll discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Woll further discloses that when there is a temperature signal from battery module M1 is compared to the temperature values of M2, M3, and M4, and the deviation is greater than the predefined maximum permissible deviation of the temperature values, a cell defect is assumed for the first module ([0023-0024]) and this results in reduced power to the mode of transport in which the module is powering ([0024]).
However, Woll does not disclose when there is still a temperature signal that reaches the first preset temperature threshold in the plurality of temperatures signals of the battery module whose rated power is reduced, shut down the battery module whose rater power is reduced.
Shaw teaches a similar device comprising a battery management system (Abstract) with a controller which is able to turn off or isolate a cell if the controller determines, based on the temperature signal obtained from the sensor of that cell, that the temperature of the cell is above a certain threshold value (pg. 11, lines 20-23).
Shaw further teaches that controlling the current supplied to teach cell based on their temperature may prevent overheating of the cell and the battery as a whole and may improve the safety of the battery (pg. 11 lines 24-26).
A skilled artisan would recognize that in being able to turn off or isolate a cell when the temperature signal is above a certain threshold, the battery monitoring unit would be capable of turning off or isolating a cell when the battery module has a reduced rated power.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further improved the device of Woll such that the battery module is shut down upon a temperature signal still reaching the first preset temperature threshold, for the benefit of preventing overheating of the battery modules and battery as well as improving safety of the battery, as taught by Shaw and desired by Woll.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woll et al. (DE102018217680A1) and Wang et al. (US 20230304951 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Shaw et al. (GB2566308A)
Regarding claim 16, modified Woll discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Woll further discloses that when there is a temperature signal from battery module M1 is compared to the temperature values of M2, M3, and M4, and the deviation is greater than the predefined maximum permissible deviation of the temperature values, a cell defect is assumed for the first module (Woll, pg. 14, lines 1-4) and this results in reduced power to the mode of transport in which the module is powering (Woll, pg. 14, lines 6-8).
However, Woll does not disclose when there is still a temperature signal that reaches the first preset temperature threshold in the plurality of temperatures signals of the battery module whose rated power is reduced, shut down the battery module whose rater power is reduced.
Shaw teaches a similar device comprising a battery management system (Abstract) with a controller which is able to turn off or isolate a cell if the controller determines, based on the temperature signal obtained from the sensor of that cell, that the temperature of the cell is above a certain threshold value (pg. 11, lines 20-23).
Shaw further teaches that controlling the current supplied to teach cell based on their temperature may prevent overheating of the cell and the battery as a whole and may improve the safety of the battery (pg. 11 lines 24-26).
A skilled artisan would recognize that in being able to turn off or isolate a cell when the temperature signal is above a certain threshold, the battery monitoring unit would be capable of turning off or isolating a cell when the battery module has a reduced rated power.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further improved the device of modified Woll such that the battery module is shut down upon a temperature signal still reaching the first preset temperature threshold, for the benefit of preventing overheating of the battery modules and battery as well as improving safety of the battery, as taught by Shaw and desired by modified Woll.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woll et al. (DE102018217680A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Riedmann et al. (EP3270454A1).
Regarding claim 6, Woll discloses all limitations as set forth above.
The limitation, “the temperature field model is used for a simulation based on the abnormal temperature signal to obtain the second preset temperature threshold, the temperature field model is a simulation model comprising temperature gradients that are formed based on temperature diffusion, and the temperature gradients are gradients distinguished by temperatures” of claim 6 appears to not impart any further limitations on the structure of the energy storage system or battery monitoring unit. Thus, the implied structure is simply the energy storage system further comprising a temperature field model disposed in one of the at least two battery areas.
Woll discloses the second preset temperature (i.e. threshold values) can be stored in the memory unit and when the temperature falls below and/or exceeds the threshold values evaluation unit can detect an existing error (pg. 4, lines 15-17). However, Woll does not disclose a temperature field model disposed in one of the at least two battery areas.
Riedmann discloses a mathematical model which calculates a maximum temperature within the battery module and is implemented in the control unit ([0018]). Riedmann further discloses the control unit to be part of the battery module, such that the control unit is disposed in a battery area (Fig. 2, 50, 60). Riedmann further discloses that the mathematical model is implemented to check the plausibility of measurements of the different temperature sensors ([0042-0043])
Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized a mathematical model for the maximum temperature within a battery and disposed it within a battery module, for the benefit of checking the plausibility of measurements by the temperature sensors.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woll et al. (DE102018217680A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimizu (US20130099793A1).
Regarding claim 7, Woll discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Woll discloses the battery for the means of transport comprises two or more modules, each of which is made up of a plurality of cells (pg. 2, lines 19-21), but does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of battery area are equally sized areas.
Shimizu teaches a similar assembled battery with a battery monitoring apparatus (Abstract). Furthermore, Shimizu further discloses the assembled battery is a series connection of a plurality of battery cells divided into a plurality of battery blocks, each of the battery blocks each being a series connection of an equal number of battery cells ([0017]). A skilled artisan would reasonably expect a plurality of battery blocks each comprising an equal number of battery cells to be equally sized.
Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the battery modules of Woll to each be comprised of an equal number of battery cells such that the battery modules are equally sized, as this is a well-known configuration in the art for batteries, as taught by Shimizu.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woll et al. (DE102018217680A1) and Wang et al. (US20230304951A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Shimizu (US 20130099793 A1).
Regarding claim 18, modified Woll discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Woll discloses the battery for the means of transport comprises two or more modules, each of which is made up of a plurality of cells (Woll, pg. 2, lines 19-21), but does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of battery area are equally sized areas.
Shimizu teaches a similar assembled battery with a battery monitoring apparatus (Abstract). Furthermore, Shimizu further discloses the assembled battery is a series connection of a plurality of battery cells divided into a plurality of battery blocks, each of the battery blocks each being a series connection of an equal number of battery cells ([0017]). A skilled artisan would reasonably expect a plurality of battery blocks each comprising an equal number of battery cells to be equally sized.
Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the battery modules of modified Woll to each be comprised of an equal number of battery cells such that the battery modules are equally sized, as this is a well-known configuration in the art for batteries, as taught by Shimizu.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESTHER J TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3479. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/E.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights