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 § 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. US 20110273180 in view of NH Research 9300 Series High-Voltage Battery Test System data sheet Pub. 02/15/2017 (hereinafter NHR).
With regards to claim 1 Park discloses, a battery control device of a battery system [fig 1 system 100] including at least one battery, comprising:
a storage device [memory 114] configured to store, and
a threshold setting value for the parameter [¶59 “Any test settings may be retrieved and modified in conjunction with the present invention. In one exemplary embodiment, a user may retrieve, input, and/or modify test settings such as levels, limits, rates, and/or ranges of: time, voltage, current, and/or power”];
a communication device configured to communicate with a test device [¶16 “system 100 depicted in FIG. 1 comprises a control system 110 in communication with a battery testing system 130 via network 120”]; and
a controller [control system 110] configured to:
operate a protection function of the battery system based on the threshold setting value [¶60 “Elements of the charge test may include, for example, whether the accumulated power in the battery is above a predetermined threshold, whether the maximum current during charging exceeded a predetermined threshold, whether the charging completed within a predetermined time frame, whether a battery cutoff circuit is operating properly, and/or any other suitable test”];
change the threshold setting value based on a change value received from the test device if a change of the threshold setting value is requested [¶56 above “modify test settings”].
Park fails to disclose a safety limit range for a parameter related to a state of the at least one battery and limit the change of the threshold setting value if the change value is out of the safety limit range.
However, NHR disclose, a safety limit range for a parameter related to a state of the at least one battery [pg. 2 fig 3 safety limits], and
limit the change of the threshold setting value if the change value is out of the safety limit range [pg. 2 “Operator setting errors and UUT malfunctions are caught through programmable safety limits (fig. 3), which will disconnect the UUT from the tester”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the battery testing of Park with NHR to include safety limits to further protect the battery and system from unsafe/dangerous settings.
With regards to claim 2 the combination discloses, the battery control device as claimed in claim 1, wherein to limit the change of the threshold setting value, the controller is configured to maintain the threshold setting value as a previous value if the change value is out of the safety limit range [Park ¶59 “retrieve, input, and/or modify test settings such as levels, limits, rates, and/or ranges” which reasonably reads that the system is configured to maintain a previous value and NHR discloses the safety limit ranges].
With regards to claim 3 the combination discloses, the battery control device as claimed in claim 1, wherein to limit the change of the threshold setting value, the controller is configured to change the threshold setting value to a value corresponding to the safety limit range if the change value is out of the safety limit range [NHR fig 3 reasonably discloses that the setting values can be changed to a value within the safety limits if the attempted change is outside of the safety limits, where the user inputs the changes and the controller would then change the values].
With regards to claim 4 the combination discloses, the battery control device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to notify the test device that the change value is not a valid value if the change value is out of the safety limit range [NHR pg. 2 “trigger an appropriate warning message to the controlling device”].
With regards to claim 5 the combination discloses, the battery control device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: change an operation mode of the battery system to a test mode when requested to enter the test mode by the test device [Park abstract “identifying, by a computer system comprising a user interface, a provided battery to be tested; receiving, through the user interface, a selection one or more tests to perform on the battery; and performing, using a battery testing system, the one or more tests on the battery” which discloses a test mode selected by the user]; and
allow the threshold setting value to be changed only while the battery system operates in the test mode [Park fig 2 discloses that the settings are modified S240 after the test(s) are selected S220 reasonably readying that the threshold setting values are changed only during testing].
With regards to claim 6 the combination discloses, the battery control device as claimed in claim 5, wherein, if the threshold setting value is changed while the battery system operates in the test mode, the controller is further configured to control an operation of the protection function based on the changed threshold setting value [NHR pg. 2 safety limits reasonably reads on the settings being changed and a protection operation].
With regards to claim 7 the combination discloses, the battery control device as claimed in claim 5, wherein the controller is further configured to change an operation mode of the battery system to a normal mode if connection between the battery system and the test device is disconnected, or if a termination of the test mode is requested by the test device [NHR pg. 2 “the user can abort testing and disconnect the UUT through an emergency manual or remote power-off switch” which reasonably discloses that the UUT or battery unit would then be released from the testing mode to a “normal mode”].
With regards to claim 8 the combination discloses, the battery control device as claimed in claim 7, wherein the controller is further configured to change the threshold setting value to a default value if the operation mode of the battery system is changed to the normal mode, and
wherein the default value is a value outside the safety limit range [Park and NHR reasonably disclose the battery system reverting the threshold settings back to default ranges when being taken out of the test mode since that is the standard operating state of a battery system, where the ranges of allowable values would then be outside of the “testing mode” ranges so as to allow the system to operate within its full range].
With regards to claim 9 the combination discloses, the battery control device as claimed in claim 8, wherein the parameter is a cell voltage, a module voltage, a current, or a temperature of the at least one battery [Park ¶31 “The window 400 may include any desired information on the status of one or more tests, including: a test result, an elapsed time, a total expected time, a voltage, a current, an accumulated power, a consumed power, and/or a remaining power”], and
wherein the threshold setting value is an overvoltage threshold value, a low voltage threshold value [Park ¶59 “determine whether the voltage for each battery is below a predetermined threshold”], an overcurrent threshold value [Park ¶60 “above a predetermined threshold, whether the maximum current during charging exceeded a predetermined threshold”], or an overtemperature threshold value of the at least one battery [NHR pg. 2 “under/over-range conditions” and pg. 4 Safety section discloses over-voltage/current/power/temperature, and V min/max and I max limits].
10. The battery control device as claimed in claim 9, wherein the threshold setting value is the overvoltage threshold value, and the default value of the overvoltage threshold value is higher than an upper voltage limit of the safety limit range [NHR over-voltage protections/limits pg. 4, and where the default value of the battery system would be higher during a normal operation than during testing of the battery in order to utilize the full voltage level of the battery. This appears to be a routine optimization, where selecting a default value higher than the upper voltage limit of the safety limit range is a matter of routine design choice and engineering optimization. Doing so provides the predictable result of ensuring the system does not prematurely trigger a fault while operating within its designated safety limits, see MPEP § 2144].
With regards to claim 11 the combination discloses, the battery control device as claimed in claim 9, wherein the threshold setting value is the low voltage threshold value [Park ¶59 “voltage for each battery is below a predetermined threshold”], and the default value of the low voltage threshold value is lower than a lower voltage limit of the safety limit range [NHR V min safety limits pg. 4. This also appears to be a routine optimization, where selecting a default value lower than the lower voltage limit of the safety limit range is a matter of routine design choice and engineering optimization. Doing so provides the predictable result of ensuring the system does not prematurely trigger a fault while operating within its designated safety limits, see MPEP § 2144].
With regards to claim 12 the combination discloses, the battery control device as claimed in claim 9, wherein the threshold setting value is the overcurrent threshold value [Park ¶60 and NHR pg. 4], and the default value of the overcurrent threshold value is higher than an upper current limit of the safety limit range [This also appears to be a routine optimization, where selecting a default value higher than the upper current limit of the safety limit range is a matter of routine design choice and engineering optimization. Doing so provides the predictable result of ensuring the system does not prematurely trigger a fault while operating within its designated safety limits, see MPEP § 2144].
With regards to claim 13 the combination discloses, the battery control device as claimed in claim 9, wherein the threshold setting value is the overtemperature threshold value [NHR pg. 4 over-temperature], and the default value of the overtemperature threshold value is higher than an upper temperature limit of the safety limit range [This also appears to be a routine optimization, where selecting a default value higher than the upper temperature limit of the safety limit range is a matter of routine design choice and engineering optimization. Doing so provides the predictable result of ensuring the system does not prematurely trigger a fault while operating within its designated safety limits, see MPEP § 2144].
With regards to claim 14 the combination discloses, the battery control device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the protection function comprises a function of opening a switch connected between the at least one battery and a load of the battery system [NHR pg. 2 “the user can abort testing and disconnect the UUT through an emergency manual or remote power-off switch”].
With regards to claim 15 the combination discloses, the battery system comprising:
the at least one battery [Park fig 1 battery interfaces 137]; and
the battery control device according to claim 1 [control system 110].
With regards to claim 16 the combination discloses, a control method of a battery system including at least one battery, comprising:
receiving a change request for a threshold setting value of a parameter related to a state of the at least one battery [Park ¶59 “Any test settings may be retrieved and modified in conjunction with the present invention. In one exemplary embodiment, a user may retrieve, input, and/or modify test settings such as levels, limits, rates, and/or ranges of: time, voltage, current, and/or power”];
determining whether or not a change value of the threshold setting value is out of a safety limit range [NHR pg. 2 fig 3 safety limits];
if the change value is within the safety limit range, changing the threshold setting value to the change value [NHR reasonably reads on the changing of the threshold being allowed as long as it is within the safety range];
if the change value is out of the safety limit range, limiting a change of the threshold setting value [NHR reasonably discloses that if the requested change is not within the allowable range the change is “limited”]; and
controlling an operation of a protection function of the battery system based on the threshold setting value [Park ¶59 above and ¶60 “Elements of the charge test may include, for example, whether the accumulated power in the battery is above a predetermined threshold, whether the maximum current during charging exceeded a predetermined threshold, whether the charging completed within a predetermined time frame, whether a battery cutoff circuit is operating properly, and/or any other suitable test”].
With regards to claim 17 the combination discloses, the control method as claimed in claim 16, wherein the limiting of the change of the threshold setting value comprises:
maintaining the threshold setting value as a previous value if the change value is out of the safety limit range [Park ¶59 “retrieve, input, and/or modify test settings such as levels, limits, rates, and/or ranges” which reasonably reads that the system is configured to maintain a previous value and NHR discloses the safety limit ranges]; or
changing the threshold setting value to a value corresponding to the safety limit range if the change value is out of the safety limit range [NHR fig 3 reasonably discloses that the setting values can be changed to a value within the safety limits if the attempted change is outside of the safety limits, where the user inputs the changes and the controller would then change the values].
With regards to claim 18 the combination discloses, the control method as claimed in claim 16, further comprising: receiving a change request to a test mode; and changing an operation mode of the battery system to the test mode [Park abstract “identifying, by a computer system comprising a user interface, a provided battery to be tested; receiving, through the user interface, a selection one or more tests to perform on the battery; and performing, using a battery testing system, the one or more tests on the battery” which discloses changing an operation mode of the battery to a test mode],
wherein the change of the threshold setting value is allowed only while the battery system operates in the test mode [Park fig 2 discloses that the settings are modified S240 after the test(s) are selected S220 reasonably readying that the threshold setting values are changed only during testing].
With regards to claim 19 the combination discloses, the control method as claimed in claim 16, further comprising: changing an operation mode of the battery system to a normal mode if a connection between the battery system and a test device is disconnected, or if termination of a test mode is requested [NHR pg. 2 “the user can abort testing and disconnect the UUT” which reasonably discloses that the UUT or battery unit would then be released from the testing mode to a “normal mode”]; and
changing the threshold setting value to a default value if the operation mode of the battery system is changed to the normal mode, wherein the default value is a value outside the safety limit range [Park and NHR reasonably disclose the battery system reverting the threshold settings back to default ranges when being taken out of the test mode since that is the standard operating state of a battery system, where the ranges of allowable values would then be outside of the “testing mode” ranges so as to allow the system to operate within its full range].
With regards to claim 20 the combination discloses, the control method as claimed in claim 19, wherein: the parameter is at least one of a cell voltage, a module voltage, a current, or a temperature of the at least one battery [Park ¶31 “The window 400 may include any desired information on the status of one or more tests, including: a test result, an elapsed time, a total expected time, a voltage, a current, an accumulated power, a consumed power, and/or a remaining power”];
the threshold setting value is at least one of an overvoltage threshold value, a low voltage threshold value [Park ¶59 “determine whether the voltage for each battery is below a predetermined threshold”], an overcurrent threshold value [Park ¶60 “above a predetermined threshold, whether the maximum current during charging exceeded a predetermined threshold”], or an overtemperature threshold value of the at least one battery [NHR pg. 2 “under/over-range conditions” and pg. 4 Safety section discloses over-voltage/current/power/temperature, and V min/max and I max limits];
the default value of the overvoltage threshold value is higher than an upper voltage limit of the safety limit range [NHR over-voltage protections/limits pg. 4, and where the default value of the battery system would be higher during a normal operation than during testing of the battery in order to utilize the full voltage level of the battery. This appears to be a routine optimization, where selecting a default value higher than the upper voltage limit of the safety limit range is a matter of routine design choice and engineering optimization. Doing so provides the predictable result of ensuring the system does not prematurely trigger a fault while operating within its designated safety limits, see MPEP § 2144];
the default value of the low voltage threshold value is lower than a lower voltage limit of the safety limit range [NHR V min safety limits pg. 4. This also appears to be a routine optimization, where selecting a default value lower than the lower voltage limit of the safety limit range is a matter of routine design choice and engineering optimization. Doing so provides the predictable result of ensuring the system does not prematurely trigger a fault while operating within its designated safety limits, see MPEP § 2144];
the default value of the overcurrent threshold value is higher than an upper current limit of the safety limit range [Park ¶60 and NHR pg. 4. This also appears to be a routine optimization, where selecting a default value higher than the upper current limit of the safety limit range is a matter of routine design choice and engineering optimization. Doing so provides the predictable result of ensuring the system does not prematurely trigger a fault while operating within its designated safety limits, see MPEP § 2144]; and
the default value of the overtemperature threshold value is higher than an upper temperature limit of the safety limit range [NHR pg. 4 over-temperature. This also appears to be a routine optimization, where selecting a default value higher than the upper temperature limit of the safety limit range is a matter of routine design choice and engineering optimization. Doing so provides the predictable result of ensuring the system does not prematurely trigger a fault while operating within its designated safety limits, see MPEP § 2144].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathaniel Instone whose telephone number is (571)272-1563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 EST.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/NATHAN J INSTONE/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights