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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 6/18/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 8-14 are withdrawn without traverse from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/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.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “a first voltage measurement value for combined resistance of the first type temperature measurement element” is unclear because the claim does not specify the relationship between the first voltage measurement value and the “combined resistance”. The limitation is unclear in the scope of the claim.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “resistance measurement value based on a first voltage measurement value for combined resistance” is unclear. The relationship between the voltage measurement and calculated resistance value is not defined. The meets and bounds of the limitation is unclear in the scope of the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “temperature resistance table calculated by substituting a value of the combined resistance… into a temperature calculation formula” is unclear. The claim does not specify how a table is “calculated by substituting a value” of the combined resistance into a formula. Substituting one value in a formula generates another value, not a table. The claim does not state how the claimed table is generated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a first measurement circuit unit and a second measurement circuit unit which are “configured to measure temperature information” and a battery management unit which is “configured to determine whether the battery cells are overheated based on the temperature information”. The battery management unit collects and analyzes temperature information to make a determination. The battery management unit does not alter the state of the battery, the structure of the battery pack, or the operation thereof. The claimed limitation ONLY allows the battery to 'gain a sense of itself' which falls under the judicial exception of an 'abstract idea'.
Claim 6 recites the battery management unit is configured to:
a. Obtain a temperature value from a second type temperature measurement element measured based on a measurement value of the second measurement circuit unit;
b. Calculate a resistance prediction value by applying the obtained temperature value to a resistance calculation formula;
c. Calculate a resistance measurement value based on voltage measurement value for combined resistance of the first type temperature measurement element measured by the first measurement circuit unit; and
d. Determine whether battery cells are overheated based on a comparison between the resistance prediction value and the resistance measurement value.
The claimed limitations are directed to the abstract idea because they involve mathematical relationships and calculations and therefore recite a mathematical concept.
The remaining recited elements, including the battery pack, battery management unit, first and second type temperature measurement elements, and first and second measurement circuit units merely provide the technological environment in which the mathematical calculations are performed. The claim does not recite a particular improvement to the operation of the battery pack, temperature measurement elements, or measurement circuit units resulting from the calculations. Rather, the claimed embodiments are used for their conventional functions of measuring temperature, measuring voltage/resistance, and managing battery operation. As such, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additionally, the determination of whether the battery cells are overheated is reliant on the results of the mathematical calculations. The claim does not recite a particular control operation performed in response to the determination. As such, the mathematical calculations are not integrated into a practical application and the claim is directed to a judicial exception.
Claim 7 recites the battery management unit is configured to: determine whether the battery cells are overheated by using “a temperature resistance table calculated by substituting a value of the combined resistance of the first type temperature measurement element into a temperature calculation formula derived as an inverse function of the resistance calculation formula”.
These additional limitations further emphasizes the claim is directed to abstract idea. Specifically, temperature-resistance table and inverse function are mathematical tools for correlating resistance values to temperature values. The claim does not recite a particular improvement in generating a table, measuring resistance or controlling battery operation.
The application of a table or inverse mathematical relationship to convert one measured value into another value in the context of battery temperature monitoring does not impose a meaningful limitation beyond the abstract idea. As such, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Souza et al. (US 20110210703 A1).
**Note: The claims require ONLY the following limitations: battery cells, a device capable of measuring, and a “management unit”. The remainder of the claim language is abstract and/or functional and does NOT further limit the structure of the battery pack. See 101 rejection above. However, the non-limiting language, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPACT PROSECUTION, is addressed below.
Regarding claim 1, Souza discloses a battery pack (para 25, “battery block”; fig. 1) comprising: battery cells 101 a-n; a first measurement circuit unit and a second measurement circuit unit configured to measure temperature information of the battery cells and respectively comprising a first type temperature measurement element (para 26, “PTC devices”) and a second type temperature measurement element (para 26, “NTC devices) having different characteristics of a resistance change according to a temperature change (fig. 1), the first measurement circuit unit and the second measurement circuit unit being on a common base substrate (para 31, “printed circuit board 103") or on different individual base substrates (fig 1); and a battery management unit (para 25, "Battery control electronics 160"; fig 1) configured to determine whether the battery cells are overheated based on the temperature information of the battery cells (para 27 and 35-37).
Regarding claim 2, Souza discloses a plurality of first type temperature measurement elements in series and respectively allocated to the battery cells in a direction in which the battery cells are arranged (para 6; fig 1); and a plurality of second type temperature measurement elements that is less in number than a number of the plurality of first type temperature measurement elements arranged in the direction in which the battery cells are arranged (para 26, fig 1).
Regarding claim 4, Souza discloses the first type temperature measurement element has a positive characteristic as a characteristic of the resistance change according to the temperature change and displays a nonlinear resistance change at an inflection point of a profile of the resistance change according to the temperature change (para 51; fig. 7C); and the second type temperature measurement element has a negative characteristic as a characteristic of the resistance change according to the temperature change and displays a linear resistance change in the profile of the resistance change according to the temperature change (para 50; fig. 7B).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Souza et al. (US 20110210703 A1), as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2013/0302651) and Schreiber et al. (US 20220399591 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Souza discloses the common base substrate or the individual base substrates comprise a flexible film or a rigid substrate, the first type temperature measurement element or the second type temperature measurement element are patterned or mounted on the common base substrate or the individual base substrates (para 31).
Souza does not disclose the common base substrate or the individual base substrates comprise an insulating film or an insulating substrate and the first type temperature measurement element or the second type temperature measurement element are in a form of a chip.
Kim discloses a circuit board including an insulative base board (para 12) and thermistor. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery pack comprising the common base substrate or the individual base substrates taught by Souza to comprise an insulating film or an insulating substrate as taught by Kim, in order to “support bus pattern” (para 35).
Souza and Kim do not disclose the first type temperature measurement element or the second type temperature measurement element are in a form of a chip.
Schreiber discloses NTC thermistor may include a “bead, disk, chip”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery pack comprising the first type temperature measurement element or the second type temperature measurement element the taught by Souza to be in a form of chip as taught by Schreiber as selecting among known forms of temperature measuring elements from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions would have predictably yielded the same temperature-sensing function (MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Souza et al. (US 20110210703 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Souza discloses series impedance of the PTC devices can be determined by connecting to analog to digital converter (ADC) (para 45). Souza teaches the impedance value “may indicate a particular cell that has exceeded the temperature threshold” (para 45). Accordingly, Souza discloses the battery management unit is further configured to determine whether the battery cells are overheated based on combined resistance of the first type temperature measurement element measured by the first measurement circuit unit. Souza also discloses the “ADC devices may also be used in the battery system to measure cell voltages, thereby contributing to such optimization and monitoring" (para 39).
Although Souza does not explicitly disclose determinization of whether the battery cells are overheated is based on a first voltage measurement value for combined resistance of the first type temperature measurement element, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to implement the ADC measurement of the PTC devices as a voltage measurement corresponding to the combined resistance of the first type temperature measurement element.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery pack comprising the battery management unit taught by Souza to be capable of determining whether the battery cells are overheated based on a first voltage measurement value for combined resistance of the first type temperature measurement element measured by the first measurement circuit unit as doing such represents applying known technique to improve a similar device in the same way to yield predictable result. The known ADC measurement technique obtains the desired PTC resistance information which predictably results in enabling the battery management unit to determine whether the battery cells are overheated. MPEP2143.
Regarding claim 6, Souza discloses “predictive thermal diagnostic algorithm” that monitors analog signals from the PTC and the NTC and compared them to a thermal model to “predict the onset of a thermal fault and reduce the load current before the fault condition is reached” (para 48). Souza also discloses the resistance versus temperature characteristics of NTC and PTC (para 49-51; fig. 7A-C)
Although Souza does not explicitly disclose calculating a resistance prediction value by substituting a temperature value of the second type temperature measurement element measured based on a measurement value of the second measurement circuit unit (“NTC”) into a resistance calculation formula derived based on a resistance profile according to a temperature of the first type temperature measurement element (“PTC”); it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the predictive thermal diagnostic algorithm in this manner. Specifically applying the NTC temperature to obtain an expected PTC resistance and compare it with the measured PTC resistance/impedance would provide a predictable implementation of the thermal model expressly taught by Souza and would facilitate prediction of a thermal fault.
Accordingly, the claimed calculation of the resistance measurement value based on a first voltage measurement value for combined resistance of the first type temperature measurement element measured by the first measurement circuit unit and determination of whether the battery cells are overheated based on the resistance prediction value and the resistance measurement value would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention as doing such would have involved use of known elements according to their established functions and would have yielded predictable results. MPEP 2143
Regarding claim 7, Souza discloses that the PTC devices have a temperature-dependent resistance and that series impedance of the PTC devices can be measured and used to determine whether a battery cell has exceeded the threshold (para 44-46). Souza also discloses the resistance-versus-temperature characteristics of the PTC devices (para 49-51).
Although the reference does not expressly disclose determining temperature by substituting the measured combined resistance of the first type temperature measurement element into an inverse resistance-versus-temperature function, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the disclosed PTC resistance-temperature relationship in reverse to obtain the corresponding temperature from the measured PTC resistance. Such an inverse calculation is predictable use of the disclosed relationship and would provide the temperature information needed for the disclosed thermal fault determination. The use of a table or equivalent calculation to implement known resistance-temperature relationship would similarly have been obvious implementation of the disclosed temperature dependent PTC characteristic.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-3 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1,4, 10, 12,13 and 21 of Application No.17/814,128. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARTI KHANAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8608. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-5pm.
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, Michael N Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/A.K./
Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights