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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 10/31/2023 have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449 forms).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: slave units, master unit, first slave unit, second slave unit, in claims 1-8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a system for communication between a master and a slave in a supercap system, comprising: a plurality of slave units that are connected to each other in series, generate sensing data, and provide the sensing data to the slave units connected in series; and a master unit that is connected to a last slave unit among the plurality of slave units and receives the sensing data sensed by each of the plurality of slave units from the last slave unit.
Claim 6 recites a method of performing communication between a master and a slave in a supercap system, comprising: generating, by a first slave unit among a plurality of slave units connected to each other in series, first sensing data, and then providing the first sensing data to a second slave unit; receiving, by the second slave unit, the first sensing data from the first slave unit, generating second sensing data, and then providing the first sensing data and the second sensing data to a third slave unit; when the third slave unit is connected to a master unit, generating, by the third slave unit, third sensing data, and then transmitting the first sensing data, the second sensing data, and the third sensing data to the master unit; and monitoring, by the master unit, a battery using the first sensing data, the second sensing data, and the third sensing data from the third slave unit…
and thus grouped as Mental Processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) - a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, the data gathering step, (claims 1 and 6) “generate sensing data” are mere data gathering that do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the additional elements (claims 1 and 6) the “salve units and master unit” are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions amount to no more than using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional element, “supercap and monitoring a battery” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. All of which are considered not indicative of integration into a practical application (see “Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4/ Monday, January 7, 2019 / Notices” – page 55, second column).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of the data gathering steps are mere data collect steps which fall under insignificant extra solution activity and deemed insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” - see MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional elements of the units are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and deemed insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” see MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements, “supercap and monitoring a battery” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and deemed insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claims 2-4 and 7 when analyzed as a whole are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea as they are directed mathematical concepts and/or mental processes and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
To note: Claims 5 and 8 are patent eligible with regards to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. The claims, taken as a whole amount to a practical application of the judicial exception see MPEP 2106.04(d) (a claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize 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 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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LEE et al. [US 2019/0361075 A1; hereinafter “LEE”].
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a system for communication between a master and a slave in a supercap system (figure 1, battery pack - 0038), comprising:
a plurality of slave units that are connected to each other in series (slave BMUs 100, connected in series – 0039), generate sensing data (detects the overall state of the battery modules - 0042) (each slave BMU may include a sensing unit – 0045), and provide the sensing data to the slave units connected in series (sensing unit may be received by the communication unit - 0049); and
a master unit that is connected to a last slave unit among the plurality of slave units (The plurality of slave BMUs and the master BMU may be in communication connection with each other via a wired network such as Daisy Chain - 0043) and receives the sensing data sensed by each of the plurality of slave units from the last slave unit (figure 1 shows master BMU connected to slave BMU “100-n” via DC and receiving sensed data – 0083, 0110, 0126) .
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches the plurality of slave units include: a first slave unit that generates and provides first sensing data; and a second slave unit that generates second sensing data and then provides the first sensing data received from the first slave unit and the second sensing data (each slave BMU may include a sensing unit – 0045) (sensing unit may be received by the communication unit - 0049) (communication connection with each other via a wired network such as Daisy Chain - 0043).
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches when the second slave unit is connected to the master unit, the second slave unit provides the first sensing data and the second sensing data to the master unit (each slave BMU may include a sensing unit – 0045) (sensing unit may be received by the communication unit - 0049) (communication connection with each other via a wired network such as Daisy Chain - 0043) (figure 1 shows master BMU connected to slave BMU “100-n” via DC and receiving sensed data – 0083, 0110, 0126).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches the master unit receives voltage sensing data of each of the plurality of slave units received from the last slave unit, generates a voltage balancing control signal using the voltage sensing data of each of the plurality of slave units, and provides the control balancing control signal to each of the plurality of slave units connected in series through the last slave unit (Each of the plurality of slave BMUs 100-1˜100-n detects the overall state (for example, voltage, current, temperature) of the battery module 20-j electrically connected to each of the plurality of slave BMUs 100-1˜100-n, and performs a variety of control functions (for example, charging, discharging, balancing) to adjust the state of the battery module 20. In this instance, each control function may be performed directly by the slave BMU 100 based on the state of the battery module 20, or may be performed according to the command from the master BMU 200 – 0042).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches the master unit receives temperature sensing data of each of the plurality of slave units received from the last slave unit, uses the temperature sensing data of each of the plurality of slave units to generate a charge/discharge blocking control signal to block charging/discharging of a corresponding cell, and provides the charge/discharge blocking control signal to each of the plurality of slave units connected in series through the last slave unit (Each of the plurality of slave BMUs 100-1˜100-n detects the overall state (for example, voltage, current, temperature) of the battery module 20-j electrically connected to each of the plurality of slave BMUs 100-1˜100-n, and performs a variety of control functions (for example, charging, discharging, balancing) to adjust the state of the battery module 20. In this instance, each control function may be performed directly by the slave BMU 100 based on the state of the battery module 20, or may be performed according to the command from the master BMU 200 – 0042).
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches a method of performing communication between a master and a slave in a supercap system, comprising:
generating, by a first slave unit among a plurality of slave units connected to each other in series(slave BMUs 100, connected in series – 0039), first sensing data, and then providing the first sensing data to a second slave unit (detects the overall state of the battery modules - 0042) (each slave BMU may include a sensing unit – 0045);
receiving, by the second slave unit, the first sensing data from the first slave unit (The plurality of slave BMUs and the master BMU may be in communication connection with each other via a wired network such as Daisy Chain - 0043),
generating second sensing data, and then providing the first sensing data and the second sensing data to a third slave unit (figure 1 shows master BMU connected to slave BMU “100-n” via DC and receiving sensed data – 0083, 0110, 0126);
when the third slave unit is connected to a master unit, generating, by the third slave unit, third sensing data, and then transmitting the first sensing data, the second sensing data, and the third sensing data to the master unit (The plurality of slave BMUs and the master BMU may be in communication connection with each other via a wired network such as Daisy Chain - 0043); and
monitoring, by the master unit, a battery using the first sensing data, the second sensing data, and the third sensing data from the third slave unit (figure 1 shows master BMU connected to slave BMU “100-n” via DC and receiving sensed data – 0083, 0110, 0126).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches the monitoring, by the master unit, of the battery using the first sensing data, the second sensing data, and the third sensing data from the third slave unit includes: receiving, by the master unit, voltage sensing data of each of the plurality of slave units received from the last slave unit; generating a voltage balancing control signal using the voltage sensing data of each of the plurality of slave units; and providing the control balancing control signal to each of the plurality of slave units connected in series through the last slave unit (Each of the plurality of slave BMUs 100-1˜100-n detects the overall state (for example, voltage, current, temperature) of the battery module 20-j electrically connected to each of the plurality of slave BMUs 100-1˜100-n, and performs a variety of control functions (for example, charging, discharging, balancing) to adjust the state of the battery module 20. In this instance, each control function may be performed directly by the slave BMU 100 based on the state of the battery module 20, or may be performed according to the command from the master BMU 200 – 0042).
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches the monitoring, by the master unit, of the battery using the first sensing data, the second sensing data, and the third sensing data from the third slave unit includes: receiving, by the master unit, temperature sensing data of each of the plurality of slave units received from the last slave unit; generating a charge/discharge blocking control signal to block charging and discharging of a corresponding cell using the temperature sensing data of each of the plurality of slave units; and providing the charge/discharge blocking control signal to each of the plurality of slave units connected in series through the last slave unit (Each of the plurality of slave BMUs 100-1˜100-n detects the overall state (for example, voltage, current, temperature) of the battery module 20-j electrically connected to each of the plurality of slave BMUs 100-1˜100-n, and performs a variety of control functions (for example, charging, discharging, balancing) to adjust the state of the battery module 20. In this instance, each control function may be performed directly by the slave BMU 100 based on the state of the battery module 20, or may be performed according to the command from the master BMU 200) – 0042)
Relevant Prior Art / Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
LEE et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0356143 A1) discloses a battery management unit and battery pack;
KIM et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0265304 A1) discloses a wireless battery management system and battery pack.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICKY GO whose telephone number is (571)270-3340. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arleen M. Vazquez can be reached on (571) 272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICKY GO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857