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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 66, on page 12, lines 27 and 28, the specification lists 10 time points and states that the count value is 20 times. Figure 4 appears to show 10 other time points between start time point t1 and end time point t2 that are not listed in paragraph 66.
Similarly in par. 76, on page 14, lines 25 and 26, the specification lists 11 time points and states that the count value is 21 times. Figure 4 appears to show 10 other time points between the start time point t102 and the end time point t122.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106), claim 1 is directed to measuring device, which is a product and falls within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
Per step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites receive the measured voltage signal from the voltage measurer to derive a voltage value, wherein the voltage value varies in response to periodic sensing operations performed by the BMS, to count a number of times the voltage value reaches a reference voltage during a measuring period, and to determine a state of the BMS as one of a normal state of a first mode, a normal state of a second mode, or an abnormal state based on the number of times. The claim limitations require counting and comparison of the count to a range, which are mathematical operation and can be performed in the human mind and thus fall into the mathematical concepts grouping (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsections I. and III).
The additional elements are a voltage measurer configured to measure a voltage from a node on a wire connected to a battery management system (BMS); and a controller.
Per step 2A, prong 2, The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The recitation of a voltage measurer and its function is mere data collection in conjunction with the abstract idea which is insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recitation of the controller amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). When considered in combination, the controller and the voltage measurer do not result in anything further.
Per step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason. Further, with regard to the voltage measurer, the courts have recognized that data collection in various manners is well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II).
Claim 2 recites further details of the measurement, which is an additional element. These limitations further define the data collection, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, claim 2 is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 3-5 only recite further details of the abstract idea. Claims 3-5 do not recite any further additional elements. Therefore, claims 3-5 are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 6 is an independent claim that recites an abstract idea and additional elements similar to those found in claim 1. Claim 6 recites a further additional element for an output device configured to receive a signal indicating the state of the BMS from the measuring device, and to output a diagnostic result including the state of the BMS based on the signal indicating the state of the BMS. Outputting the result is insignificant extra-solution activity. Considered in combination with the measurement and the controller does not result in anything further. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 7 recites further details of the measurement, which is an additional element. These limitations further define the data collection, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 8-10 only recite further details of the abstract idea. Claims 8-10 do not recite any further additional elements. Therefore, claims 8-10 are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 11 recites that the output device includes a display. The display is insignificant extra-solution activity. Further outputting the result of an abstract idea in various manners has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine and conventional. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same reason.
Independent claim 12 recites an abstract idea and additional elements similar to those found in claims 1, 3 and 4. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 13 recites further details of the measurement, which is an additional element. These limitations further define the data collection, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 14-18 recite further details of the abstract idea. Claims 14-18 do not recite any further additional elements. Therefore, claims 14-18 are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 19 and 20 a further additional element for outputting a diagnostic result and outputting the result visually through a display. Outputting the result is insignificant extra-solution activity. Considered in combination with the measurement and the controller does not result in anything further. Therefore, claims 19 and 20 are rejected for the same reason.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2020-017813 to Kim in view of US Patent Application Publication 2020/0200805 to Khlat et al. (Khlat).
Claims 1,6 and 12
With regard to a voltage measurer configured to measure a voltage from a node on a wire connected to a battery management system (BMS); Kim teaches a voltage measuring unit that measures the voltage of a battery connected to a BMS (Fig. 3, voltage measurement part 304, battery module 20; pars. 44, 47).
With regard to a controller configured to receive the measured voltage signal from the voltage measurer to derive a voltage value, wherein the voltage value varies in response to periodic sensing operations performed by the BMS, Kim teaches a control unit that receives the measured voltage (Fig. 3, control unit 308, par. 47), and that the voltage measures are performed on a cycle (pars. 53, 54, 65).
With regard to determine a state of the BMS as one of a normal state of a first mode, a normal state of a second mode, or an abnormal state based on the number of times; Kim teaches using a first algorithm and a second algorithm to determine the battery status and determine if there is an abnormality (pars. 49-51, 53-55).
Kim does not teach to count a number of times the voltage value reaches a reference voltage during a measuring period. Khlat teaches counting the number of times a voltage reaches a threshold (pars. 5, 6, 34-37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify diagnostic, as taught by Kim, to include counting the number of times a voltage crosses a threshold, as taught by Khlat, because then the battery would have been more accurately monitored (Khlat, par. 6).
Further in claim 6, with regard to an output device configured to receive a signal indicating the state of the BMS from the measuring device, and to output a diagnostic result including the state of the BMS based on the signal indicating the state of the BMS; Kim teaches a communication circuit that transmits a notification signal of the battery state (Fig. 3, communication circuit 312; par. 52).
Claims 2, 7 and 13
Kim teaches the wire is connected to one end of a thermistor (temperature measuring unit 302; par. 46),
the first mode is a power mode in which the BMS is configured to measure a temperature from the thermistor at a cycle of a first period (par. 49), and
the second mode is a power mode in which the BMS is configured to measure the temperature from the thermistor at a cycle of a second period longer than the first period (pars. 49, 53, describes a first algorithm and a second algorithm that operate in a predetermined time or predetermined cycle).
Claim 19
Kim teaches outputting a diagnostic result including the state of the BMS determined as one of the normal state of the first mode, the normal state of the second mode, or the abnormal state (Fig. 3, communication circuit 312; par. 52).
Claim(s) 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Khlat as applied to claims 6 and 19 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2023/0356624 to Jang et al. (Jang).
Claims 11 and 20
Kim and Khlat teach all the limitations of claim 6 upon which claim 11 depends and claim 19 upon which claim 20 depends. Kim and Khlat do not teach that the output device includes a display configured to visually output the diagnostic result. Jang teaches displaying a notification (par. 77). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify diagnostic combination, as taught by Kim and Khlat, to include a display, because then more options for communicating the result would have been available.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the objections to the Specification, Applicant states that the Specification has been amended accordingly. However, there are no amendments ot the Specification.
With regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant states that the claims operate directly on physical signals within a battery system and improve diagnosis of BMS hardware operation. Further, Applicant states that the claimed counting operations are not performed on abstract data, but instead are performed on measured electrical signals obtained from physical hardware components within the battery system. Further, Applicant states that the claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea because the claims require specific hardware components operating in a particular manner. However, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement (MPEP 2106.05(a), sixth paragraph). The only recited additional elements in the independent claims are the voltage measurer and the controller. The recitation of a voltage measurer and its function is mere data collection in conjunction with the abstract idea which is insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recitation of the controller amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). When considered in combination, the controller and the voltage measurer do not result in anything beyond their functions of measurement and a generic computer to perform the calculations required by the abstract idea.
With regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C 103, Applicant states that Kim does not appear to disclose, or even suggest, measuring voltage behavior generated by a sensing operation of a BMS, counting occurrences in which a voltage value reaches a reference voltage during a measuring period, or determining the BMS is operating in different operating modes based on the counted occurrences. However, Kim teaches a voltage measuring unit that measures the voltage of a battery connected to a BMS (Fig. 3, voltage measurement part 304, battery module 20; pars. 44, 47). Kim does not teach to count a number of times the voltage value reaches a reference voltage during a measuring period. However, Khlat teaches counting the number of times a voltage reaches a threshold (pars. 5, 6, 34-37).
Applicant states that Khlat appear to be silent regarding the voltage value varying in response to sensing operation performed by a BMS, nor does Khlat disclose determining a BMS operating mode or abnormal BMS state based on the measured voltage behavior. However, Kim teaches periodic measurements which would capture varying voltage (pars. 53, 54, 65).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL L BARBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5:30..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL L BARBEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights