Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I in the reply filed on 01/17/2026 is acknowledged.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112448065, and in view of CN 1773876, hereinafter as ‘065 and ‘876.
Regarding claim 1, ‘065 teaches a system comprising:
a controller communicably coupled with current sensing and temperature sensor [para 20 detail description section], wherein the controller is configured to:
receive the indication of the increase in the loading on the battery system from current sensing [[para 15 20 detail description section] (when the battery is charged/discharged)
generate a control signal to activate the cooling assembly to cool one or more components of the battery system based on the increase in the loading on the battery system [[para 20 detail of invention section]. It is noted that since the battery cell is in operation (charged/discharged), it would lead to increase current in the load as well as the temperature in the system. Thus, it would require the controller to activate the cooling system to cool down the battery system to preventing overheat [para 20 detail description section and evidence in claim 9 of ‘876]
‘065 teaches current sensing for detecting the current flow in and from the battery system [para 20 detail description section], but ‘065 does not teach current sensor as claimed.
‘876 teaches a system comprising a battery state sensor which is considered to be current sensor where the battery state sensor senses that the current flowing from the battery is equal to or higher than a predetermined current threshold value, the controller determines that the battery overheating (claim 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the current sensor of ‘876 to be included in current sensing as taught by ‘065 for detecting the current flow in and from the battery system and indicating when the battery is overheated and the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A,KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
As for combination, the sensor configured to indicate an increase in a loading on the battery system [para 20 detail description section]
Regarding claim 2, modified ‘065 teaches the sensor (current sensing) is configured to generate a current signal indicative of a current flowing through the battery system to meet the loading on the battery system [para 15 20 detail description section].
Regarding claim 7, modified ‘065 teaches the temperature sensor being placed in the chamber 13 between battery system and load [para 20 of detail description section] where the load receive the power from battery system and power conversion system (DC to DC converter) [detail description section, but modified ‘065 does not teach the current sensor being between the battery system and load.
It is noted that there are two choices to place the current sensor where one is outside the battery and load and one is between the battery system and load.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to place the current sensor between the battery system and load since there are only two options to place the current sensor and the Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, "[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp." An obvious determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solution, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S......82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395- 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Regarding claim 8, ‘065 teaches a system comprising:
one or more battery modules [abstract];
a cooling assembly for the battery system [abstract]; and
a system for controlling the cooling assembly (description section), the system including:
a controller communicably coupled with current sensing and temperature sensor [para 20 detail description section], wherein the controller is configured to:
receive the indication of the increase in the loading on the battery system from current sensing [[para 15 20 detail description section] (when the battery is charged/discharged)
generate a control signal to activate the cooling assembly to cool one or more components of the battery system based on the increase in the loading on the battery system [[para 20 detail of invention section]. It is noted that since the battery cell is in operation (charged/discharged), it would lead to increase current in the load as well as the temperature in the system. Thus, it would require the controller to activate the cooling system to cool down the battery system to preventing overheat [para 20 detail description section and evidence in claim 9 of ‘876]
‘065 teaches current sensing for detecting the current flow in and from the battery system [para 20 detail description section], but ‘065 does not teach current sensor as claimed.
‘876 teaches a system comprising a battery state sensor which is considered to be current sensor where the battery state sensor senses that the current flowing from the battery is equal to or higher than a predetermined current threshold value, the controller determines that the battery overheating (claim 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the current sensor of ‘876 to be included in current sensing as taught by ‘065 for detecting the current flow in and from the battery system and indicating when the battery is overheated and the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A,KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
As for combination, the sensor configured to indicate an increase in a loading on the battery system [para 20 detail description section]
Regarding claim 9, modified ‘065 teaches the sensor (current sensing) is configured to generate a current signal indicative of a current flowing through the battery system to meet the loading on the battery system [para 15 20 detail description section].
Regarding claim 14, modified ‘065 teaches the temperature sensor being placed in the chamber 13 between battery system and load [para 20 of detail description section] where the load receive the power from battery system and power conversion system (DC to DC converter) [detail description section, but modified ‘065 does not teach the current sensor being between the battery system and load.
It is noted that there are two choices to place the current sensor where one is outside the battery and load and one is between the battery system and load.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to place the current sensor between the battery system and load since there are only two options to place the current sensor and the Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, "[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp." An obvious determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solution, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S......82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395- 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112448065, and CN 1773876 and further in view of US 20180222286, hereinafter as ‘286.
Regarding claim 3 and 10, modified ‘065 teaches that sensor senses that the current flowing from the battery is equal to or higher than a predetermined current threshold value or temperature threshold, the controller determines that the battery overheating and the controller would activate the pump to cool the battery system [para 20 detail description section, ‘065 and claim 9, ‘876] , but modified ‘065 does not teach the controller comparing a value of the current signal received from the sensor with a threshold current capacity value of the battery system.
‘286 teaches a system for cooling battery where the controller compared the value with the threshold value [para 34].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the controller of modified ‘065 to compare the current signal to the threshold value as taught by ‘286 for preventing overheating.
As for combination, the controller is configured to:
compare a value of the current signal received from the sensor with a threshold current capacity value of the battery system; and
activate the cooling assembly if the value of the current signal is greater than the threshold current capacity value of the battery system.
Regarding claim 4 and 11, modified ‘065 teaches the controller configured to:
monitor a surge rate of the current flowing through the battery system, based on a value of the current signal received from the sensor [para 20 detail description section, ‘065 and claim 9, ‘876]
activate the cooling assembly if the surge rate of the current flowing
through the battery system is greater than the threshold current surge rate [para 20 detail description section, ‘065 and claim 9, ‘876]
However, modified ‘065 does not teach the controller compare the surge rate of the current flowing through the battery system with a threshold current surge rate
‘286 teaches a system for cooling battery where the controller compared the value with the threshold value [para 34].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the controller of modified ‘065 to compare the current signal to the threshold value as taught by ‘286 for preventing overheating.
Claim(s) 5, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112448065, and CN 1773876 and further in view of US 20250076404, hereinafter as ‘404.
Regarding claim 5 and 12, modified ‘065 teaches the claimed limitation, but modified ‘065 does not teach a response time of the controller between the receipt of the current signal and the generation of the control signal being based on a C-rating of the battery system.
‘404 teaches the controller 404 is configured to control the rate of discharging of the cells 108b, 108c based on the battery C-rating [para 63].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the controller of ‘modified ‘065 to control the rate of the battery cells in operation based on C-rating of the battery system as taught by ‘404 for reducing an excessive rise of the temperature of the cell [para 63]. As for combination, teach a response time of the controller between the receipt of the current signal and the generation of the control signal is based on a C-rating of the battery system.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112448065, and CN 1773876 and further in view of Winter et al (PG pub 20200044461).
Regarding claim 6 and 13, modified ‘065 teaches the claimed limitation, but modified ‘065 does not teach the sensor includes a hall effect current sensor.
Winter et al teaches a battery system comprising a Hall Effect current sensor coupled to controller [para 20].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the sensor of ‘065 to be a Hall effect current sensor as taught by Winter et al since the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A,KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN M TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at 5712721307. 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.
/UYEN M TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights