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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed 6/2/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4 and 5 , filed 6/2/2026, with respect to claims 1-3,5,7,9,10 and 13-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1 and 10 has been withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6/2/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3,5,7,9,10,13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, the original disclosure does not provide adequate support for the claimed functions of sequentially opening and closing the plurality of contactors to connect each of the batteries in the second set of parallel battery packs one at a time to the circuit. The limitation appears to suggest that each battery is connected with its own respective contactor.
The following paragraphs 0026 -0027 of the US. PGPUB appear to disclose the sets of battery packs being connected to the circuits.
[0026] In another embodiment, step 240 may comprises including batches of the plurality of battery packs in a circuit with the isolation monitor 160, in order to narrow down the location of the ground fault. For example, in the event that the aggregated battery comprises x battery packs, step 240 may comprise including a first batch of x/2 battery packs in the circuit with the isolation monitor 160 and then including the second batch of x/2 battery packs in the circuit with the isolation monitor 160. It may then be determined which batch of x/2 battery packs comprises the faulty battery pack. The batch of x/2 battery packs that comprises the faulty battery pack may be included one by one in the circuit with the isolation monitor 160 or split into further batches of x/4 battery packs. In this way, the isolation monitor 160 may need to make fewer tests than when including each battery pack in the circuit with the isolation monitor 160 one by one. It will be understood that this method may be carried out with different numbers of batches of battery packs containing different proportions of the total number of battery packs. There may be fewer or more iterations of splitting into batches. The smallest batch size may be larger than one. There may be overlap between batches, such that a particular battery pack is included in more than one batch in a given iteration.
[0027] An example of testing of battery packs in batches is illustrated in FIG. 4. The aggregated battery 510 comprises twelve battery packs 401 to 412. The aggregated battery 510 may be split into a first batch 520 comprising six battery packs 401 to 406, and a second batch 530 comprising six battery packs 407 to 412. To test the first batch 520, the first batch 520 may be included in the circuit with the isolation monitor 160 by closing all contactors of the first batch 520 and opening a contactor in each battery pack of the second batch 530. To test the second batch 530, the second batch 530 may be included in the circuit with the isolation monitor 160 by closing all contactors of the second batch 530 and opening a contactor in each battery pack of the first batch 520. Once it has been determined which batch contains the faulty battery pack, that batch may be split into two sub-batches each containing 3 battery packs. In the exemplary scenario illustrated in FIG. 4, the first batch 520 is found to be faulty and is split into a first sub-batch 540 comprising battery packs 401 to 403 and a second sub-batch 550 comprising battery packs 404 to 406. To test the first sub-batch 540, the first sub-batch 540 may be included in the circuit with the isolation monitor 160 by closing all contactors of the first sub-batch 540 and opening a contactor in each battery pack of the second sub-batch 550. To test the second sub-batch 550, the second sub-batch 550 may be included in the circuit with the isolation monitor 160 by closing all contactors of the second sub-batch 550 and opening a contactor in each battery pack of the first sub-batch 540. Once it has been determined which sub-batch contains the faulty battery pack, each battery pack within the sub-batch may be tested one by one by including it in the circuit with isolation monitor 160. In the exemplary scenario illustrated in FIG. 4 the faulty battery pack is found to be in the first sub-batch 540, and battery packs 401, 402 and 403 are included one by one in the circuit with the isolation monitor. In this way, the isolation monitor makes seven tests (rather than the twelve tests required if each of the twelve battery packs is tested in turn). The aggregated battery 510 may alternatively be split into three batches each containing four battery packs. Each batch of four battery packs may be split into two sub-batches of two battery packs.
The paragraphs do not appear to disclose contactors connecting each battery to the circuit. The above limitation appears to be new matter.
Claims 2-3,5,7,9,13-24 are rejected for containing 112 rejections above and for depending on rejected base claim.
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 1-3,5,7,9,10,13-24 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.
Regarding claim 1, the metes and bounds of sequentially opening and closing the plurality of contactors to connect each of the batteries in the second set of parallel battery packs one at a time to the circuit is unclear. It is unclear if the applicant meant “to connect each of the batteries” or “connect each of the battery packs”. The claim appears to suggest that each battery has a contactor for connecting the batteries to the circuit one at a time. If this is the case then this would appear to be new matter because the specification does not appear to provide support for this interpretation of the limitation.
Regarding claim 1, the metes and bounds of sequentially opening and closing the plurality of contactors to connect each of the batteries in the second set of parallel battery packs one at a time to the circuit is unclear. It is unclear if the applicant meant “to connect each of the batteries” or “connect each of the batter packs”. The claim appears to suggest that each battery has a contactor for connecting the batteries to the circuit one at a time. If this is the case then this would appear to be new matter because the specification does not appear to provide support for this interpretation of the limitation.
Regarding claim 10, the metes and bounds of sequentially opening and closing the plurality of contactors to connect each of the batteries in the second set of parallel battery packs one at a time to the circuit is unclear. It is unclear if the applicant meant “to connect each of the batteries” or “connect each of the batter packs”. The claim appears to suggest that each battery has a contactor for connecting the batteries to the circuit one at a time. If this is the case then this would appear to be new matter because the specification does not appear to provide support for this interpretation of the limitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the batteries" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the batteries" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-3,5,7,9,13-24 are rejected for containing 112 rejections above and for depending on rejected base claim.
Examiner’s Note:
Claims 1-3,5,7,9,10,13-24 stand rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as outlined above. Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 USC 112(a) as outlined above. No prior art rejection has been applied to these claims because the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fails to teach the following features recited in these claims:
Regarding claim 1, closing the plurality of contactors to connect a first set of parallel battery packs of the plurality of parallel battery packs to the circuit; determining that the first set of parallel battery packs does not include a faulty battery pack; closing the plurality of contactors to connect a second set of parallel battery packs of the plurality of parallel battery packs to the circuit; determining that at least one battery pack of the second set of parallel battery packs includes a faulty battery pack experiencing the first ground fault; sequentially opening and closing the plurality of contactors to connect each of the batteries in the second set of parallel battery packs one at a time to the circuit to determine that at least one battery pack of the second set of parallel battery packs is a faulty battery pack, wherein the faulty battery pack causes the first ground fault; and disconnecting the faulty battery pack from the circuit as claimed in combination with all other limitations.
Regarding claim 10, determine that a first set of parallel battery packs of the plurality of parallel battery packs does not include a faulty battery pack; close the plurality of contactors to connect a second set of parallel battery packs of the plurality of parallel battery packs to the circuit; determine that at least one battery pack of the second set of parallel battery packs includes a faulty battery pack experiencing the ground fault; sequentially open and close the plurality of contactors to connect each of the batteries in the second set of parallel battery packs one at a time to the circuit to determine with the isolation monitor that at least one battery pack of the second set of parallel battery packs is a faulty battery pack, wherein the faulty battery pack causes the ground fault; and disconnect the faulty battery pack from the circuit as claimed in combination with all other limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-3441. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 5:30-1:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights