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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 01/22/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
A connected device of claims 4 and 13,
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
The drawings are objected to because
“Braking” should be –Breaking—in several instances of fig.6.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because
Line 5, “to detects” should be –to detect--.
Line 8, “fixe the relay” should be –fix the relay--.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 14 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 4, “a relay” should be –the relay--.
Claim 1 line 6, “detect the output current” should be -- detect an output current--.
Claim 1 line 8, “to detects a state” should be –to detect a state--.
Claim 1 line 11, “and fixe the relay” should be -- and fix the relay--.
Claim 3 lines 2-3, “the current” should be --the output current--. Similar correction is required in claims 5-6, 14, 18.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-12, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane (US 20230305059 A1), and further in view of Zotter (US 20160295652 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamane teaches a battery pack control apparatus (abstract, sticking diagnosis apparatus) for fixing a failure of a relay (abstract, diagnosing a presence of sticking at a positive-electrode relay and at a negative-electrode relay), the battery pack control apparatus comprising:
a battery module (e.g. module comprising two battery packs 1A and 1B, fig.4) comprising a plurality of battery cells (two battery packs 1A and 1B, fig.4);
the relay configured to selectively conduct or block an output current of the battery module ([0024], Battery 10 is a secondary battery that is chargeable and dischargeable) ([0025], P relay 11 is a high-voltage relay) ([0026], N relay 12 is a high-voltage relay);
a current sensor (i.e. Current sensor 18, fig.4) configured to detect the output current of the battery module ([0037], Current sensor 18 detects the value of the current flowing inside battery pack 1);
a voltage sensor (i.e. Voltmeter 15, 16, 17, fig.4) configured to measure voltages at both ends of the relay ([0031], voltage between the point downstream of P relay 11 and the point upstream of N relay 12) (e.g. voltmeter 16 is connected across relay 12, fig.4) ([0034] Voltmeter 17 is a meter that has one end connected to a point upstream of P relay 11 … and the other end connected to a point upstream of N relay 12); and
a processor (i.e. sticking diagnosis apparatus 100, fig.2) configured to control the relay ([0075], a switching operation of alternately turning the P relay and the N relay ON and OFF) and to detects a state of the relay based on at least one of the current detected by the current sensor ([0083], First, obtaining section 110 obtains detected current Ia from current sensor 18) ([0091], in this modification, the presence or absence of the stuck OFF state is determined by using not voltage values but current values, and therefore, this improves the accuracy of diagnosis) or the voltages measured by the voltage sensor ([0050], Obtaining section 110 obtains detected voltages Va, Vb, and Vc from voltmeters 15, 16, and 17) ([0053] Determination section 120 compares detected voltage Va with the first threshold and determines the presence or absence of the stuck ON state in P relay 11 on the basis of the result of comparison).
Yamane does not teach, in response to determining that the relay malfunctions, to check and fix the relay.
Zotter teaches in a similar field of endeavor of stuck relay detection, in response to determining that a relay malfunctions (abstract, a relay is stuck closed), to check (abstract, determine that the relay is stuck closed) and fix the relay (abstract, control the relay in order to attempt to fix the relay).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included that in response to determining that the relay malfunctions, to check and fix the relay in Yamane, as taught by Zotter, as it provides the advantage of automatically correcting faults without human intervention.
Regarding claim 2, Yamane and Zotter teach the battery pack control apparatus of claim 1, wherein, in response to detecting that the relay is in a closed state (Zotter, abstract, configured to detect that a relay is stuck closed), the processor is configured to determine that the relay malfunctions (Zotter, abstract, control circuit may be configured to determine that the relay is stuck closed) and to perform checking and fixing of the relay a number of times (Zotter, abstract, control the relay in order to attempt to fix the relay by repeatedly closing and opening the relay).
Regarding claim 3, Yamane and Zotter teach the battery pack control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the relay is in an open state (Yamane, [0044], a stuck OFF diagnosis method) based on any one of the output current (Yamane, [0088], when detected current Ib is greater than the third threshold and detected current Ia is less than the fourth threshold, determination section 120 determines that the stuck OFF state is occurring).
Regarding claim 7, Yamane and Zotter teach the battery pack control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to check a state of the relay based on the voltages (Yamane, [0067], determination section 120 determines the presence or absence of the stuck ON state in each of P relay 11 and N relay 12 on the basis of the results of comparisons in step S3), and in response to determining that the relay is in an open state (Yamane, [0068], determination section 120 determines when detected voltage Va is higher than or equal to the first threshold, that the stuck ON state is occurring in P relay 11), the processor is configured to determine that the relay operates normally (it is necessarily true that if detected voltage Va is less than first threshold, then determination section 120 knows that there is no stuck ON status or status is normal).
Regarding claim 8, Yamane and Zotter teach the battery pack control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to check a state of the relay based on the voltage (Yamane, [0067], determination section 120 determines the presence or absence of the stuck ON state in each of P relay 11 and N relay 12 on the basis of the results of comparisons in step S3), and in response to determining that the relay is not in an open state (Yamane, [0068], determination section 120 determines when detected voltage Va is higher than or equal to the first threshold, that the stuck ON state is occurring in P relay 11), the processor is configured to fix the relay (Zotter, abstract, control the relay in order to attempt to fix the relay).
Regarding claim 9, Yamane and Zotter teach the battery pack control apparatus of claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to fix the relay by repeatedly turning on and off an operating voltage of the relay a number of times (Zotter, [0025], (e.g., attempt to close and open the relay), for example, approximately five times).
Regarding claim 10, Yamane and Zotter teach the battery pack control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to fix the relay first in response to determining that the relay is in a closed state (Zotter, [0025], the control circuit 112 may repeatedly perform the relay stuck closed procedure), and to finally check the relay (Zotter, [0025], while monitoring the switched-hot detect signal V.sub.D-SH to see if the relay 110 successfully opened).
Regarding claim 11, Yamane and Zotter teach the battery pack control apparatus of claim 10, wherein the processor is configured to finally check the relay, and in response to determining that the relay is in a closed state, the processor is configured to finally determine that the relay has a permanent failure (Zotter, [0025], before finally marking the relay as stuck).
Regarding claim 12, Yamane teaches a battery pack control method (abstract, sticking diagnosis apparatus) for fixing a failure of a relay (abstract, diagnosing a presence of sticking at a positive-electrode relay and at a negative-electrode relay), the method comprising:
controlling, by a processor (i.e. sticking diagnosis apparatus 100, fig.2), a relay configured to be opened in response to a state or request signal of a battery module (e.g. module comprising two battery packs 1A and 1B, fig.4) ([0075], a switching operation of alternately turning the P relay and the N relay ON and OFF);
detecting, by the processor, a state of the relay based on at least one of a current ([0083], First, obtaining section 110 obtains detected current Ia from current sensor 18) ([0091], in this modification, the presence or absence of the stuck OFF state is determined by using not voltage values but current values, and therefore, this improves the accuracy of diagnosis) and a voltage ([0050], Obtaining section 110 obtains detected voltages Va, Vb, and Vc from voltmeters 15, 16, and 17) ([0053] Determination section 120 compares detected voltage Va with the first threshold and determines the presence or absence of the stuck ON state in P relay 11 on the basis of the result of comparison).
Yamane does not teach, checking and fixing, by the processor, the relay in response to determining that the relay malfunctions;
stopping, by the processor, the checking and fixing in response to determining that the relay operates normally while the checking and fixing of the relay are performed; and
determining, by the processor, that the relay has a permanent failure in response to determining that the relay has a failure.
Zotter teaches in a similar field of endeavor of stuck relay detection, checking and fixing, by the processor (abstract, control the relay in order to attempt to fix the relay), the relay in response to determining that the relay malfunctions (abstract, a relay is stuck closed);
stopping, by the processor, the checking and fixing in response to determining that the relay operates normally while the checking and fixing of the relay are performed ([0025], while monitoring the switched-hot detect signal V.sub.D-SH to see if the relay 110 successfully opened); and
determining, by the processor, that the relay has a permanent failure in response to determining that the relay has a failure ([0025], finally marking the relay as stuck).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the checking and fixing, by the processor, the relay in response to determining that the relay malfunctions; stopping, by the processor, the checking and fixing in response to determining that the relay operates normally while the checking and fixing of the relay are performed; and determining, by the processor, that the relay has a permanent failure in response to determining that the relay has a failure in Yamane, as taught by Zotter, as it provides the advantage of automatically correcting faults without human intervention.
Regarding claim 16, Yamane and Zotter teach the method of claim 15, wherein the detecting of the state of the relay comprises: determining, by the processor, that the relay is in the closed state in response to the voltages at both ends of the relay being the same (Zotter, [0030], the control circuit determines that the relay is open at 206, for example, by detecting that the switched-hot voltage is not present); and determining, by the processor, that the relay is in the open state in response to the voltages at both ends of the relay being different (Zotter, [0023], the magnitude of the switched-hot voltage is approximately zero volts) at the end of the detect time period, the control circuit 112 may determine that the relay 110 opened properly and continue normal operation).
Regarding claim 17, Yamane and Zotter teach the method of claim 12, wherein the checking and fixing of the relay comprises: checking the state of the relay in response to the voltages (Zotter, [0023], if the switched-hot voltage is present at the switched-hot terminal SH, the control circuit 112 may determine that the relay 110 is stuck closed); and fixing the relay according to a checking result (ZOtter, [0024], the control circuit 112 may attempt to fix the stuck relay by performing a relay stuck closed procedure).
Regarding claim 19, it is rejected for the same reason as stated above for claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, it is rejected for the same reason as stated above for claims 9 and 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 13-15 and 18 are 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 claim 4, Yamane (US 20230305059 A1) and Zotter (US 20160295652 A1) teach the battery pack control apparatus of claim 3.
Yamane and Zotter do not teach, wherein the processor is configured to check a state of the relay based on the voltages in response to a connected device being in an operational state, and to check a state of the relay based on the current in response to the connected device being in a stopped state.
Prior art Wada (US 20180238968 A1), Bemrich (US 20130093427 A1) and Katsuda (US 20020070608 A1) have been found to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “wherein the processor is configured to check a state of the relay based on the voltages in response to a connected device being in an operational state, and to check a state of the relay based on the current in response to the connected device being in a stopped state.”
Regarding claim 5, Yamane (US 20230305059 A1) and Zotter (US 20160295652 A1) teach the battery pack control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to check a state of the relay based on the output current (Yamane, [0088], determination section 120 determines that the stuck OFF state is occurring in at least one of P relay 11 or N relay 12 of a battery pack from which the detected current Ia is obtained).
Yamane and Zotter do not teach, in response to determining that the relay is in an open state, the processor is configured to recheck a state of the relay based on the voltages.
Prior art Wada (US 20180238968 A1), Bemrich (US 20130093427 A1) and Katsuda (US 20020070608 A1) have been found to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “in response to determining that the relay is in an open state, the processor is configured to recheck a state of the relay based on the voltages.”
Regarding claim 6, Yamane (US 20230305059 A1) and Zotter (US 20160295652 A1) teach the battery pack control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine a state of the relay based on the output current (Yamane, [0088], determination section 120 determines that the stuck OFF state is occurring in at least one of P relay 11 or N relay 12 of a battery pack from which the detected current Ia is obtained).
Yamane and Zotter do not teach, in response to determining that the relay is in a closed state, the processor is configured to determine that the relay has a failure.
Prior art Wada (US 20180238968 A1), Bemrich (US 20130093427 A1) and Katsuda (US 20020070608 A1) have been found to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “in response to determining that the relay is in a closed state, the processor is configured to determine that the relay has a failure.”
Regarding claim 13, Yamane (US 20230305059 A1) and Zotter (US 20160295652 A1) teach the method of claim 12, wherein the detecting of the state of the relay comprises:
detecting, by a current sensor, an output current of the battery module (Yamane, [0037], Current sensor 18 detects the value of the current flowing inside battery pack 1)
determining that the relay operates normally in response to the relay being in an open state according to the output current (Yamane, [0088], when detected current Ib is greater than the third threshold and detected current Ia is less than the fourth threshold, determination section 120 determines that the stuck OFF state is occurring in at least one of P relay 11 or N relay 12) (it is necessarily true that the currents meeting the normal threshold levels indicates that relay operates normally); and
determining that the relay has the failure in response to the relay malfunctioning (Yamane, [0091], the stuck OFF diagnosis method described above, the stuck OFF state can be detected).
Yamane and Zotter do not teach, while a connected device operates;
determining that the relay malfunctions in response to the relay being in a closed state according to the output current.
Prior art Wada (US 20180238968 A1), Bemrich (US 20130093427 A1) and Katsuda (US 20020070608 A1) have been found to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “while a connected device operates; determining that the relay malfunctions in response to the relay being in a closed state according to the output current”.
Claim 14 is indicated as allowable, as it depends on allowable claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, Yamane (US 20230305059 A1) and Zotter (US 20160295652 A1) teach the method of claim 12, wherein the detecting of the state of the relay comprises:
measuring, by a voltage sensor (i.e. Voltmeter 15, 16, 17, fig.4), voltages at both ends of the relay ([0031], voltage between the point downstream of P relay 11 and the point upstream of N relay 12) (e.g. voltmeter 16 is connected across relay 12, fig.4) ([0034] Voltmeter 17 is a meter that has one end connected to a point upstream of P relay 11 … and the other end connected to a point upstream of N relay 12);
comparing the voltages at both ends of the relay (Yamane, [0053] Determination section 120 compares detected voltage Va with the first threshold and determines the presence or absence of the stuck ON state in P relay 11);
determining that the relay malfunctions in response to the relay being in a closed state according to the voltages at both ends of the relay (Yamane, [0050], [0050] Obtaining section 110 obtains detected voltages Va, Vb, and Vc from voltmeters 15, 16, and 17) (Yamane, [0053], determines the presence or absence of the stuck ON state in P relay 11 on the basis of the result of comparison); and
determining that the relay operates normally (Yamane, [0054], determination section 120 determines that the stuck ON state is not occurring in P relay 11) in response to the relay being in an open state according to the voltages at both ends of the relay (Yamane, [0054], when detected voltage Va is lower than the first threshold).
Yamane and Zotter do not teach, in response to a connected device being stopped.
Prior art Wada (US 20180238968 A1), Bemrich (US 20130093427 A1) and Katsuda (US 20020070608 A1) have been found to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “in response to a connected device being stopped”.
Regarding claim 18, Yamane (US 20230305059 A1) and Zotter (US 20160295652 A1) teach the method of claim 12.
Yamane and Zotter do not teach, wherein the checking and fixing of the relay comprises: rechecking a state of the relay in response to the voltages in response to determining that the relay is normal based on the output current; and fixing the relay according to a rechecking result.
Prior art Wada (US 20180238968 A1), Bemrich (US 20130093427 A1) and Katsuda (US 20020070608 A1) have been found to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “wherein the checking and fixing of the relay comprises: rechecking a state of the relay in response to the voltages in response to determining that the relay is normal based on the output current; and fixing the relay according to a rechecking result.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SREEYA SREEVATSA whose telephone number is (571)272-8304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm ET.
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, Thienvu V Tran can be reached at (571) 270-1276. 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.
/SREEYA SREEVATSA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838 11/24/2025