Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/592,522

BATTERY MONITORING DEVICE, RESISTANCE VALUE DERIVATION METHOD, AND CELL VOLTAGE DERIVATION METHOD

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 01, 2024
Priority
Mar 01, 2023 — JP 2023-031330
Examiner
GONZALEZ, MILTON
Art Unit
2852
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Lapis Technology Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2m
Est. Remaining
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allowance Rate
500 granted / 642 resolved
+9.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
12 currently pending
Career history
656
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
73.5%
+33.5% vs TC avg
§102
9.6%
-30.4% vs TC avg
§112
8.7%
-31.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 642 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al. (US 8,981,732) in view of Suzuki (US 9,970,990). Regarding claim 1, Ono et al. discloses a battery monitoring device (element 10, Fig. 1) comprising: an analog-digital converter (element 112, Fig. 1); and a plurality of cell selection switches (element 111, Fig. 1) that selectively connect any of a plurality of battery cells (element 12, Fig. 1) to the analog-digital converter, wherein each of the cell selection switches comprises: a first switch part (elements T1, T2, Fig. 6) that is provided on a conduction path leading from one of the plurality of battery cells to the analog-digital converter, brings the conduction path into a conductive state in an on-state of the first switch part (see col. 9, line 54 through col. 10, line 21 and Fig. 6), and brings the conduction path into a non-conductive state in an off-state of the first switch part; a second switch part (element SW, Fig. 6) that switches on and off of the first switch part (see col. 9, line 54 through col. 10, line 21 and Fig. 6).; a third switch part (element T3, Fig. 6) that switches a magnitude of a current flowing into the first switch part with the first switch part being in the on-state (see col. 9, line 54 through col. 10, line 21 and Fig. 6). Even assuming arguendo, without conceding, that Ono et al. does not disclose a resistor element that is provided on the conduction path, Suzuki shows that this feature is well known in the art, Suzuki discloses a resistor element (element R1, Fig. 2) that is provided on the conduction path. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, such as removing noise from the battery voltage before detection. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tanaka et al. (US 8,120,209) discloses a voltage sensing device for an individual cell of a group of battery cells. Allowable Subject Matter No art has been found for a prior art rejection of claims 2-6 at this time. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILTON GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7914. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. 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, WALTER LINDSAY can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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. /WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852 /M.G/Examiner, Art Unit 2852 3/16/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 01, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12638520
MAGNETIC SENSOR
1y 11m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12625463
PROCESS CARTRIDGE AND ELECTROPHOTOGRAPHIC IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS
1y 12m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12618875
CURRENT SENSOR WITH MAGNETIC AND RESISTIVE SENSING AND SHARED CALIBRATION
1y 11m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12613109
ANGLE DETECTION APPARATUS, ANGLE DETECTION SYSTEM, PARK LOCK SYSTEM, AND PEDAL SYSTEM
4y 2m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12613108
BUTTON PRESS DETECTION SYSTEM
2y 4m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+12.2%)
2y 5m (~2m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 642 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month