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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 03/26/2024. Claims 1-7 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/26/2024 and 03/13/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to due to the following informalities:
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to identify the elements as described in the specification.
Specifically figures 1,3-4 and 6 contain elements with no description (i.e. the generic box elements). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
• (a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings.
• (b) When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
• (c) Where the drawings in a nonprovisional application do not comply with the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the examiner shall require such additional illustration within a time period of not less than two months from the date of the sending of a notice thereof. Such corrections are subject to the requirements of § 1.81(d).
[31 FR 12923, Oct. 4, 1966; 43 FR 4015, Jan. 31, 1978; paras. (a) and (c) revised, 60 FR 20195, Apr. 25, 1995, effective June 8, 1995; para. (a) revised, 69 FR 56481, Sept. 21, 2004, effective Oct. 21, 2004; para. (a) revised, 78 FR 62368, Oct. 21, 2013, effective Dec. 18, 2013]
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d) If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP 2013240142) in view of Yano (US 20110074354). Note: Examiner uses Tanaka (JP 2013240142) to make rejection but relies on machine translation to clarify position.
As to claim 1, Tanaka discloses a battery system (Fig. 1, 100) comprising: a plurality of battery units connected in parallel (battery packs 101(#1) and 101(#2) [0011] - [0015] and Figs. 1 and 2); a battery unit voltage detector ( [0013] voltage measuring unit 103) detecting a voltage value of each of the plurality of battery units (Each voltage measuring unit 103 (#1 and #2) measures the output voltage of each battery pack 101 (#1 and #2)); a plurality of unit relays respectively connected in series to the plurality of battery units (Fig. 2 relays A and B) ; and at least one balancing circuit ([0013]-[0017] and Fig. 2 relays C, D and Resistor R of balance unit 102 identified as balancing circuit), wherein: each of the plurality of battery units includes a plurality of battery cells connected in series ([0011] …each of which is configured by connecting multiple battery cells (for example, tens to hundreds of cells) in series.); the balancing circuit includes a resistor (Fig. 2 Resistor R); one end of the balancing circuit is connected to a connection point between one of the battery units and one of the unit relays, the one of the battery units and the one of the unit relays being connected in series to each other ([0015]-[0018] and Fig. 3 one end of switch C connected between battery 101(#1) and switch A which are connected in series); and the other end of the balancing circuit is connected to a connection point between another one of the battery units and another one of the unit relays, the other one of the battery units and the other one of the unit relays being connected in series to each other ([0015]-[0018] Fig. 3 one end of switch D connected between battery 101(#2) and switch B which are connected in series).
Tanaka does not disclose/teach a cell voltage detector detecting respective voltage values of the plurality of battery cells, and an equalizer equalizing remaining capacities of the plurality of battery cells based on the voltage values detected by the cell voltage detector.
Yano teaches a cell voltage detector detecting respective voltage values of the plurality of battery cells ([0033] Each circuit module 12 is provided with a cell voltage detection circuit 25 to detect the cell voltages of the battery cells 11 that make up the battery unit 10), and an equalizer equalizing remaining capacities of the plurality of battery cells based on the voltage values detected by the cell voltage detector ([0033] a cell capacity equalizing circuit 20 to suppress variation in the remaining capacities of battery cells 11 that make up the battery unit 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery system of Tanaka to a cell voltage detector detecting respective voltage values of the plurality of battery cells, and an equalizer equalizing remaining capacities of the plurality of battery cells based on the voltage values detected by the cell voltage detector in order to prevent non-uniformity which can cause over-charging or over-discharging of a particular battery ([0004]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claim 2, Although the prior art discloses the limitations of claim 1, the prior art of record does not disclose or teach the further combination of:
“wherein the balancing circuit includes a balancing relay connected in series to the resistor.”
Dependent claims 3-7 are allowable for the reasons set forth supra with respect to the independent claims from which they depend.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion and Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Krause et al (US 20120326671) is cited for having one end of the balancing circuit is connected to a connection point between one of the battery units and one of the unit relays, the one of the battery units and the one of the unit relays being connected in series to each other; and the other end of the balancing circuit is connected to a connection point between another one of the battery units and another one of the unit relays, the other one of the battery units and the other one of the unit relays being connected in series to each other. However Krause does not disclose or teach the combination wherein the balancing circuit includes a balancing relay connected in series to the resistor.
Jeon et al (US 20250007012) is cited for having the balancing circuit includes a balancing relay connected in series to the resistor. However Jeon one end of the balancing circuit is connected to a connection point between one of the battery units and one of the unit relays, the one of the battery units and the one of the unit relays being connected in series to each other; and the other end of the balancing circuit is connected to a connection point between another one of the battery units and another one of the unit relays, the other one of the battery units and the other one of the unit relays being connected in series to each other.
Shiraishi (20180093581) is cited for having one end of a circuit (SW1b, Fig. 6) is connected to a connection point between one of the battery units and one of the unit relays, the one of the battery units and the one of the unit relays being connected in series to each other; and the other end of the circuit is connected to a connection point between another one of the battery units and another one of the unit relays, the other one of the battery units and the other one of the unit relays being connected in series to each other. However, Shiraishi does not disclose or teach the combination of the circuit is a balancing circuit including a resistor in series with a balancing relay.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYNESE V MCDANIEL whose telephone number is (313)446-6579. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F, 9am to 530pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/TYNESE V MCDANIEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights