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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed on 10/19/2023 are acceptable subject to correction of the informalities indicated below. In order to avoid abandonment of this application, correction is required in reply to the Office action. The correction will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as being informal. In figure 14, the term “communication device” is misspelled as “communicatoin device”. Applicant is required to correct the spelling error in the drawings.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 is objected to for informal language (missing clear subject). The phrase “in a case where failing in reception of the present measurement instruction” should be revised for clarity, for example, to “in a case where reception of the present measurement instruction fails”.
Claim 12 is objected to for informal language. The phrase “controller configure to” should be corrected to “controller configured to”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims have been evaluated under 35 U.S.C. 101 and are found to be directed to patent eligible subject matter. In particular, claim 1 is directed to a battery monitoring system comprising physical components that perform operations related to synchronized measurement and data acquisition. The claim does not recite an abstract idea but instead is directed to a technological system and improvement in battery monitoring. Accordingly, the claims are considered to be eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1-15 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: The phrase “in a case where transmitting” is unclear and renders the scope of the claim ambiguous. It is unclear whether this language is intended to recite a condition or an ongoing operation; thus, the phrase should be clarified (for example, to “while transmitting”). Additionally, the subsequent phrase “in a case where the stand-by time” is unclear in context and should be clarified (for example, to “when the stand-by time”).
Further, the phrase “instruction of the cell state” is unclear and lacks proper grammatical structure, as it is unclear what relationship the instruction has to the cell state; it should be amended to “instruction for the cell state” or similar clarifying language.
Moreover, the term “the measurement timing” lacks proper antecedent basis, as a measurement timing is not previously introduced in a manner that clearly supports the later reference.
Additionally, the phrase “the stand-by time interval being a time interval from reception of the measurement instruction until the measurement timing” is unclear because it does not specify which measurement timing is being referenced; it should be clarifying to recite that the interval corresponds to “the measurement timing of the respective measurement device”.
Claims 12-15 are rejected as being indefinite for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1.
Claim 2-11 are rejected because these claims depend from claim 1, they incorporate the same unclear language and therefore the scope of claims 2-11 is also unclear.
Claim 4: the phrase “pieces of the state information that is respectively measured” lacks proper grammatical agreement, as the plural subject “pieces” is improperly paired with the singular verb “is”. The phrase should be amended to “pieces of the state information that are respectively measured”.
Claim 5: the phrase “a timing going to past” is unclear and does not provide a definite meaning for determining the scope of the claim. It is not clear whether this refers to a time earlier than a reference time, a delay compensation, or a retroactive reference point. Applicant may amend, for example, to: “… a timing earlier than a communication timing by a time interval equal or longer than a processing time interval …”
Claim 5 is rejected also because it depends from claim 4; thus, it incorporates the same unclear language.
Claim 9: the phrase “in a case where failing in reception of the present measurement instruction” is unclear and lacks proper grammatical structure. The phrase should be corrected to “when the reception of the present instruction fails”.
Claim 10: the phrase “in a case where the received present measurement instruction is abnormal” is unclear. The phrase should be corrected to “when the received measurement instruction is abnormal”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-5, 8-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 2019/0212397 A1) hereinafter Yamada in view of Terada (JP 2016-012954) hereinafter Terada, see English Translation.
Regarding claim 1 Yamada teaches A battery monitoring system (a secondary battery degradation determination device ¶ [18]) comprising: a plurality of measurement devices (a plurality of voltage sensor units 7, ¶[18]) each of which measures a cell state (each configured to individually detect inter-terminal voltages of the plurality of batteries 2 (Each battery 2 may be a single cell or may be a battery including a plurality of cells connected in series, ¶ [42]) in the corresponding battery group 3 ¶ [18]) of a corresponding one ( individually detects inter-terminal voltages of the plurality of batteries in the corresponding battery group, individually calculates AC components from detected signals thereof ¶ [18]) of a plurality of cells constituting a battery (battery groups 3 each including a plurality of batteries 2 that are secondary batteries and are connected in series ¶[18] ).
A battery monitoring device (a controller 11, ¶[19] ) configured to: by using wireless communication (each voltage sensor unit 7 wirelessly transmits the voltages of the individual batteries 2 to the controller 11, ¶ [20]), sequentially communicate with the plurality of measurement devices ( the controller 11 sequentially transmits a data transmission request command to each voltage sensor unit 7, ¶ [67]).
While Yamada discloses a sequential process of sending and receiving messages to multiple nodes that constitutes a timeframe for communication, Yamada does not teach that the sequential communication occurs “during a communication period”.
Yamada does not teach that the sequential communication occurs “during a communication period”; and Yamada does not teach to acquire state information indicating the cell state from each of the plurality of measurement devices, wherein in a case where transmitting a corresponding measurement instruction of the cell state to each of the plurality of measurement devices, the battery monitoring device transmits, to each of the plurality of measurement devices, a corresponding stand-by time interval such that measurement timings of the plurality of measurement devices synchronize with each other, the stand-by time interval being a time interval from reception of the measurement instruction until the measurement timing, and
each of the plurality of measurement devices measures the corresponding cell state in a case where the stand-by time interval has elapsed since reception of the measurement instruction.
Terada describes a wireless battery monitoring system designed to monitor and control a plurality of batteries. The system uses an overall management device (master) that coordinates multiple intermediate management devices and terminal management devices (slaves) by providing instructions for measurement content, timing, and frequency hopping patterns.
Terada explicitly defines a communication period during which measurement instructions are sent (fig 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Yamada to include a defined communication period of Terada to provide an organized timeframe for coordinating communication and measurements and further reducing communication conflicts, and ensure reliable synchronization of measurement operations across multiple devices.
Yamada in view of Terada further teaches that the sequential communication occurs during a communication period (Terada, fig 3); and Yamada in view of Terada teaches to acquire state information indicating the cell state from each of the plurality of measurement devices (Yamada, controller 11 which receives the measurement values transmitted from each voltage sensor unit 7, ¶ [45]), wherein in a case where transmitting a corresponding measurement instruction of the cell state to each of the plurality of measurement devices, the battery monitoring device (controller 11) transmits, to each of the plurality of measurement devices (the sensor unit 7).
Yamada teaches that the delay is locally implemented or predetermined, not transmitted as a corresponding interval from the controller. The controller transmits a measurement start command, and the wireless unit executes a delay function for delaying the start of measurement by a predetermined time with respect to the command (¶48), thereby providing a stand-by time interval associated with the measurement instruction.
Yamada does not teach transmitting a corresponding stand-by time interval.
Yamada does not teach transmitting a corresponding stand-by time interval such that measurement timings of the plurality of measurement devices synchronize with each other, the stand-by time interval being a time interval from reception of the measurement instruction until the measurement timing, and each of the plurality of measurement devices measures the corresponding cell state in a case where the stand-by time interval has elapsed since reception of the measurement instruction.
Terada explicitly teaches that the stand-by time interval referred to as time difference T2 is transmitted as information from the management device to the sensor units ¶ [35].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Yamada to transmit a corresponding stand-by time interval from the controller to each measurement device, as taught by Terada to improve synchronization accuracy among distributed measurement devices, by ensuring that each device receives an explicit stand-by time interval.
Yamada in view of Terada further teaches transmitting a corresponding stand-by time interval (Terada, ¶ [35]) such that measurement timings of the plurality of measurement devices (Yamada, voltage sensor units 7) synchronize with each other [Yamada, the timing of start of measurement of the multiple detection units 7a can be synchronized with each other, ¶[67]) , and each of the plurality of measurement devices measures the corresponding cell state in a case where the stand-by time interval (Yamada, measurement delay time) has elapsed since reception of the measurement instruction (Yamada, sensor unit 7 waits for end of the measurement delay time of each own detection unit 7a (step S5) and measures the DC voltage (inter-terminal voltage) of each battery 2, ¶ [59], and performs measurement after the measurement start delay time elapses, ¶ [67] ).
Claims 12-15 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth for claim 1.
Yamada in view of Terada teaches the corresponding system and method steps, including transmitting a measurement start command , delaying, and measuring (Yamada, fig. 8, steps S1-S22), while Terada teaches communication timing and transmission of a stand-by time interval (Terada, fig. 3, 13, and 16).
Claims 12 and 13 are the apparatus-level counterparts to the system described in claim 1, and the technical mapping remains identical.
With respect to claim 15, although Yamada in view of Terada do not explicitly disclose a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, it is well known in the art to implement such monitoring methods as computer programs stored on a non-transitory medium. Official notice is taken that storing and executing control logic for device operation on a computer-readable medium is a routine practice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to implement the method of Yamada in view of Terada as a computer-readable medium.
Regarding claim 2, Yamada in view of Terada teaches the battery monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein stand-by time intervals are different between the plurality of measurement devices (Yamada teaches that measurements are performed after elapse of a measurement start delay time that is predetermined for each detection unit 7a (¶ [68]). It further discloses that the system may be configured such that the transmission order is preset with a transmission delay time and values are sequentially transmitted in the set order as the transmission delay time elapses (¶ [48]). Because the sensors are addressed sequentially but must measure at the same time, the delay times must mathematically be different for each unit based on their position in the communication sequence to achieve the stated goal of “being synchronized with each other”(¶ [67])).
Regarding claim 3, Yamada in view of Terada teaches the battery monitoring system according to claim 1, further comprising: an electric-current sensor (Yamada, current sensor 8, ¶ [45]) that measures a current value of the battery (Yamada, battery group 3, ¶ [45]), wherein the battery monitoring device (Yamada, controller 11A, ¶ [58]) determines the synchronized measurement timings (Yamada, transmits a measurement start command to synchronized all units ¶ [58 &67]) as respective timings for acquiring the current value from the electric-current sensor (Yamada, transmit said command specifically to each current sensor 8 to trigger its acquisition ¶ [18, 55 & 58]).
Regarding claim 4, Yamada in view of Terada teaches the battery monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of measurement devices (Yamada, sensor units 7) sequentially communicates with the battery monitoring device (Yamada, controller 11) in a predetermined order (Yamada, ¶ [48]), and
Yamada teaches that the battery monitoring device (controller 11) acquire measurement values from the devices. However, Yamada does not explicitly disclose communication periods separating measurement and acquisition.
Yamada does not teach the battery monitoring device acquires, during a second communication period, pieces of the state information that is respectively measured by the plurality of measurement devices during a first communication period, the second communication period being a period of the first communication period or a period after the first communication period.
Terada teaches a communication cycle (fig 3, “Period”) in which measurement instructions are transmitted during one timing and measurement results are transmitted at a later timing, thereby defining a first communication period and a second communication period. Furthermore, Terada’s system is configured to perform measurements during cycle N but not to collect the measurement result signal S2 immediately (fig 3 and ¶ [60-61] and ¶ [111]). In the next period (Cycle N+1) the controller instructs the subsystem to collect the measurement results in the previous cycle N together with the measurement results in the cycle N+1 (¶ [113]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply Trada’s communication period framework to Yamada in order to organize communication and improve synchronization and data acquisition efficiency.
Therefore, Yamada in view of Terada teaches the battery monitoring device (Yamada, controller 11) acquires, during a second communication period (Terada, Period, fig 3 and cycle N+1, ¶ [113]) , pieces of the state information (Yamada, measurement values transmitted from each voltage sensor unit and received by controller, ¶ [45]) that is respectively measured by the plurality of measurement devices (Yamada, sensor units 7) during a first communication period (Terada, Period fig. 3 and Cycle N, ¶ [111]), the second communication period being a period of the first communication period or a period after the first communication period (Terada, (frequency channel hoping pattern that spans multiple cycles )¶ [110-111 & 113]).
Regarding claim 5, Yamada in view of Terada teaches the battery monitoring system according to claim 4.
Yamada does not teach wherein the battery monitoring device decides, as the measurement timing, a timing going back to past by a time interval equal to or longer than a processing time interval needed for transmitting the state information elapsed from a communication timing with a first one of the measurement devices during second communication period.
Terada teaches that in cycle N+1 (the second period), the device is instructed to collect the measurement results in the previous cycle N. Since cycle N occurred before cycle N+1, the measurement timing is going back to the past relative to the current transmission window ¶ [111-113]. Terada manages this using the time differences T2 and T3, and specifically through the time difference recalculation logic ¶ [104, 106]. It teaches that if a signal is not received and must be re-sent, the measurement device performs a recalculation to subtract the time required for this passage (Elapsed processing/ transit time) from original timing values ¶ [143]. By retrieving cycle N data in cycle N+1, the system inherently sets a look-back interval that is at minimum one full cycle length, a duration that is longer than the time needed for a terminal to process or transmit its packet (fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine the measurement timing in Yamada based on a prior measurement cycle, as taught by Terada, in order to account for processing and transmission delays and ensure accurate and synchronized data acquisition.
Yamada in view of Terada further teaches wherein the battery monitoring device decides (Yamada, controller 11 issues commands that result in execution of measurement after a delay), as the measurement timing (Terada, measurement execution timing t4, ¶ [50]), a timing going back to past (Terada, ¶ [111-113]) by a time interval equal to or longer than a processing time interval needed for transmitting the state information (Terada, fig3) elapsed from a communication timing with a first one of the measurement devices during second communication period ¶ [143].
Regarding claim 8, Yamada in view of Terada teaches the battery monitoring system according to claim 1.
Yamada teaches the handling failures by waiting for data to not arrive and then issuing a retransmission request. This is a reactive, master-side process that adds latency to error detection. Yamada also utilizes a controller that sequentially transmits data request commands.
Yamada does not teach wherein the battery monitoring device periodically transmits, to each of the plurality of measurement devices, the corresponding measurement instruction, and each of the plurality of measurement devices determines whether or not reception of the present measurement instruction fails based on an elapsed time interval from reception of the last measurement instruction.
Terada teaches the intermediate management device (master) transmits a measurement instruction signal S1 to terminal management device (slaves) at a preset communication timing and follows a frequency channel hoping pattern defined by cycles (¶ [65]). The use of preset timings and defined periods confirms the periodic nature of the transmission.
Terada teaches the node side failure determination by disclosing that terminal management devices a and b can determine reception failure when a terminal management device fails to receive the measurement instruction signal S1 (¶ [65]). Terada further utilizes node-side timers, timer 10 (¶ [36 & 57]), to manage the timing of the measurements and wireless communications. Since the preset communication timing represents the expected interval between periodic instructions, a device using a timer to check if that timing has passed without a signal arrival is functionally identifying the failure based on the elapsed time interval since the last valid instruction.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply local timer-based failure detection to Yamada’s sensor units to allow the sensor nodes immediately identify a missed instruction without waiting for controller to time out, enabling faster execution of fail-safe operations to maintain system synchronization.
Yamada in view of Terada further teaches wherein the battery monitoring device (Yamada, controller 11) periodically transmits (Terada, ¶ [65]), to each of the plurality of measurement devices (Yamada, sensor units 7), the corresponding measurement instruction (Terada, measurement instruction signal S1), and each of the plurality of measurement devices determines whether or not reception of the present measurement instruction fails based on an elapsed time interval from reception of the last measurement instruction (Terada, ¶ [36, 57 & 65]).
Regarding claims 9, Yamada in view of Terada teaches the battery monitoring system according to claim 8.
Yamada teaches a reactive system , if a command is missed, the controller waits for data that never arrives and then issues a transmission request.
Yamada does not teach a proactive node-side solution.
Yamada does not teach wherein in a case where failing in reception of the present measurement instruction, each of the plurality of measurement devices measures the cell state at the measurement timing based on the last stand-by time interval.
Terada teaches utilizing the preset communication timing or the communication timing (time difference T3) instructed by the measurement instruction signal S1 received earlier to execute its next action (¶ [63]). Although Terada explicitly illustrates this fallback for the transmission of the result signal T3, it establishes the technical principle of the slave node autonomously falling back to previously received interval (the last stand by interval) to stay in sync with the master’s schedule. Terada also teaches that the reception failure may be determined because the signal cannot be received at the preset communication timing (¶ [65]). Furthermore, Terada Identifies failure when data of the received signal is incorrect (abnormal) even if the signal is detected. (¶ [65]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the previously received (last) timing logic to Yamada’s sensor units to allow them to autonomously execute measurements at the expected interval to maintain the high simultaneity.
Yamada in view of Terada teaches wherein in a case where failing in reception of the present measurement instruction, each of the plurality of measurement devices measures (Yamada, sensor units 7) the cell state (Yamada, voltage ¶ [18]) at the measurement timing based on the last stand-by time interval (Terada, ¶ [63 &65]).
Claim 10 differs in that it recites that the received measurement instruction is abnormal. This limitation is already addressed in claim 9 rejection. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8 and 9.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Terada and Sato (US20150180754A1) hereinafter Sato.
Regarding claims 6, Yamada in view of Terada teaches the battery monitoring system according to claim 1.
Yamada in view of Terada teaches that each measurement device transmits state information to the controller (Yamada, ¶ [20 & 45]) and operates based on timing and delay values associated with measurement execution.
However, Yamada in view of Terada does not teach transmitting time interval information indicating elapsed time between measurements.
Yamada in view of Terada does not teach wherein each of the plurality of measurement devices transmits, to battery monitoring device, time interval information in association with the state information, the time interval information being information on an elapsed time interval from a last measurement time point until a present measurement time point of the cell state.
Sato teaches that the first device sends a synchronization signal along with the state quantity ¶ [7] and the system performs a check to determine if this signal is updated outside a specified cycle range set in advance ¶ [72] and it identifies abnormalities if the signal update occurs in a cycle longer than the specified cycle range ¶ [72]. A cycle of a signal represents the elapsed time interval between its update points (measurement points).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include timing-related information with the transmitted measurement data in Yamada in view of Terada, as taught by Sato, in order to allow the controller to verify measurement timing, and improve reliability of synchronized operation.
Yamada in view of Terada and Sato further teaches wherein each of the plurality of measurement devices transmits (Yamada, sensor units 7), to battery monitoring device (Yamada controller 11), time interval information in association with the state information (Sato ¶ [7]), the time interval information being information on an elapsed time interval (Sato, synchronization signal, ¶ [72]) from a last measurement time point until a present measurement time point of the cell state (Sato, ¶ [72]).
Regarding claim 7, Yamada in view of Terada and Sato teaches the battery monitoring system according to claim 6.
Yamada in view of Terada does not teach wherein the battery monitoring device determines, for each of the measurement devices, whether or not a measuring process at a last measurement fails based on the time interval information.
Sato teaches a monitoring device (comparative diagnostic unit 53) that is responsible for identifying anomalies in the system’s operational timing and determines presence or absence of a fault by comparing state quantities (Sato, ¶ [51-53]). Sato explicitly teaches identifying an abnormality when a signal is updated in a cycle longer than the specified cycle range set in advance (¶ [72]). Monitoring a signal’s cycle is identical to monitoring the elapsed time interval since the last measurement. If the interval (cycle) is longer than a set threshold (the specified range ¶ [72]), the system determines that the regular measuring process has failed and cancels the diagnostic operation (¶ [73]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply Sato’s timing-check method to the Yamada in view of Terada’s system to ensure that the monitoring device can distinguish between current, valid measurements and old or skipped data resulting from a local sensor failure as synchronized (not skipped) measurement is essential for the high-precision battery monitoring.
Yamada in view of Terada and Sato further teaches wherein the battery monitoring device (Yamada, controller 11) determines, for each of the measurement devices (Yamada, each of sensor units 7), whether or not a measuring process at a last measurement fails based on the time interval information (Sato, ¶[72-73]).
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Terada, Sumitomo (JPWO2020084817) hereinafter Sumitomo (see English Translation) and Nakano (US20190217870A1) hereinafter Nakano.
Regarding claim 11, Yamada in view of Terada teaches the battery monitoring system according to claim 1.
Yamada teaches transmitting measurement data while Terada teaches cycle-based communication and failure detection. However, Yamada and Terada do not disclose transmitting a sequence number associated with a communication period.
Yamada in view of Terada does not teach wherein each of the plurality of measurement devices transmits, to the battery monitoring device, a corresponding sequence number associated with a communication period in association with the corresponding state information, and based on the sequence number, the battery monitoring device determines whether or not a measuring process of the cell state fails, for each of the measurement devices.
Sumitomo explicitly teaches that the (slave) transmission unit adds a time measured by the communication metering unit to the physical quantity (state information) and transmits the time to the battery monitoring device ¶ [7]. Because this time is used by the master to identify the specific acquisition cycle (10ms, 20ms, or 100ms periods) (¶[24 & 67]), it serves as a functional sequence number that allows the system to distinguish between data packets from different communication periods.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply Sumitomo’s time tagging to Yamada in view of Terada’s wireless massages to enable the system to distinguish between data belong to the current communication period versus stale data from previous period to improve simultaneity.
Yamada in view of Terada and Sumitomo further teaches wherein each of the plurality of measurement devices (Yamada, sensor units 7) transmits, to the battery monitoring device (controller 11), a corresponding sequence number associated with a communication period (Sumitomo, ¶ [7] ) in association with the corresponding state information (Sumitomo, physical quantity is directly associated with the sequence identifier(time/cycle index) ¶ [7])
Yamada in view of Terada and Sumitomo does not teach the battery monitoring device determines whether or not a measuring process of the cell state fails, for each of the measurement devices.
Nakano teaches a monitoring apparatus (100, fig 1) and its determination unit (104, fig 2). It discloses that determination unit configured to determine presence or absence of anomaly in the operation of the master control device by determining whether the input data and the output data correspond to the determination data (abstract). The determination unit calculates an output cycle of data, which is determined and tracked specifically for each identification information (¶ [96]). Nakano defines output rule 2 (the cycle rule) as a predetermined range for the output cycle associated with each identification information (¶ [92]). The determination unit identifies an anomaly if this rule is not satisfied, such as when an operation is temporarily suspended (¶ [98]). By calculating cycles for each ID, the system identifies failure for specific slave control devices (measurement devices).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine Nakano’s teachings with Yamada in view of Terada and Sumitomo teachings to determine failure based on the sequence information in order to reliably detect missing or delayed data and improve system safety and synchronization accuracy.
Yamada in view of Terada, Sumitomo and Nakano teaches the battery monitoring device determines whether or not a measuring process of the cell state fails, for each of the measurement devices.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lemkin et al. (US 2019/0242949 A1) discloses a wireless sensing system for batteries. A primary focus of the reference is the synchronization of local clocks across different nodes to enable synchronous sampling of multiple battery modules.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAEEDE NAFOOSHE whose telephone number is (571)272-8629. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am -5:00pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/SAEEDE NAFOOSHE/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights