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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below.
Under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the
four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a process.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the
examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that
the abstract idea belongs to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical
concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Independent Claim 1 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an
abstract idea highlighted in bold; the remaining limitations are ''additional elements''.
A battery monitoring method for monitoring a battery having a plurality of cells, comprising:
obtaining a first difference value between a state of charge (SOC) of each of the plurality of cells and an average SOC of the plurality of cells according to first time information;
obtaining a second difference value between the SOC of each of the plurality of cells and the average SOC of the plurality of cells according to second time information;
determining a self-discharge rate of each of the plurality of cells according to the first difference value and the second difference value; and
sending a prompt message when the self-discharge rate meets a preset condition.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion).
Steps of “obtaining a first difference value between a state of charge (SOC) of each of the plurality of cells and an average SOC of the plurality of cells according to first time information”, “obtaining a second difference value between the SOC of each of the plurality of cells and the average SOC of the plurality of cells according to second time information”, and “determining a self-discharge rate of each of the plurality of cells according to the first difference value and the second difference value” are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical concept grouping, and the step “when the self-discharge rate meets a preset condition” is treated as a combination of mathematical and mental concepts.
Limitation of “sending a prompt message” is treated as an extra solution activity recited in generality (e.g., mere data outputting).
Prong 2 of Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite additional elements or a combination of additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This requires additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The additional elements in Claim 1 of “a battery”, “a plurality of cells”, and “prompt message” are generally recited and do not qualify as a particular machine.
The preamble of Claim 1: “A battery monitoring method for monitoring a battery
having a plurality of cells, comprising” is a generically recited preamble.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Under Step 2B, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
Step 2B of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2A, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Essentially, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because they are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art of US20220111732 to He et al. (hereinafter He) and US2015349387 to Inaba et al. (hereinafter Inaba).
Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The independent claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Same considerations were applied to independent Claim 11.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-10 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (Step 2A, Prong One), recite no additional elements reflecting a practical application (Step2A, Prong Two), and fail a “significantly more” test under the step 2B for the same reasons as discussed with regards to the independent claims.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also ineligible.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220176845 to Lee (hereinafter Lee) in view of US20160099587 to Becker et al. (hereinafter Becker) and in further view of US20230266399A1 to Ishii (hereinafter Ishii).
Regarding Claim 1: Lee discloses:
“A battery monitoring method for monitoring a battery having a plurality of cells, comprising” (para 0009 – “a battery management method for effectively reducing the computational amount required for state of charge (SOC) estimation of each of all battery cells by grouping a plurality of battery cells”);
“obtaining a first difference value between a state of charge (SOC) of each of the plurality of cells and an average SOC of the plurality of cells according to first time information; obtaining a second difference value between the SOC of each of the plurality of cells and the average SOC of the plurality of cells according to second time information” (para 0011 – “The control unit is configured to classify the plurality of battery cells into at least one group based on a State Of Charge (SOC) of each battery cell estimated in a previous cycle (i.e. first time information, added by examiner). The control unit is configured to estimate an average polarization voltage of a current cycle of each group based on an average SOC of the previous cycle, a first cell current and a second cell current of each group using a first Kalman filter. The first cell current denotes a cell current measured in the previous cycle (interpreted as the first difference value ), and the second cell current denotes a cell current measured in the current cycle. The control unit is configured to estimate the SOC of the current cycle of each battery cell, based on the first cell current, the second cell current and the average polarization voltage of the current cycle of each group, using a second Kalman filter”).
Lee does not specifically disclose:
“a difference value”;
“determining a self-discharge rate of each of the plurality of cells according to the first difference value and the second difference value; and sending a prompt message when the self-discharge rate meets a preset condition”.
However, Becker discloses:
“a difference value; determining a self-discharge rate of each of the plurality of cells according to the first difference value and the second difference value” (paras 0006 – 0009 – “a) determining the state of charge of each battery cell in the plurality of battery cells at a time t1 on condition that predefined constraints for ascertaining the states of charge of the battery cells exist; b) determining the state of charge of each battery cell in the plurality of battery cells at a time t2, there being a selectable period between t1 and t2, on condition that predefined constraints for ascertaining the states of charge of the battery cells exist; c) determining a relative difference for the self-discharge rates of the plurality of battery cells (interpreted as the difference value between a state of charge (SOC) and average SOC, since the self-discharge rate is determined based on these values, added by examiner) on the basis of the states of charge ascertained under method steps a) and b);”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Lee, as taught by Becker, in order to determine the self-discharge rate of a battery with high level of accuracy to ensure the safety use of the battery.
Lee/Becker combination does not specifically disclose:
“sending a prompt message when the self-discharge rate meets a preset condition”.
However, Ishii discloses:
“sending a prompt message when the self-discharge rate meets a preset condition” (para 0062 – “When rapid deterioration determination unit 4615 detects the rapid deterioration of battery module 41 (i.e. preset condition, added by examiner), data transmission unit 4616 notifies vehicle controller 30 of a rapid deterioration detection signal via the in-vehicle network. Upon receiving the rapid deterioration detection signal of battery module 41, (i.e. prompt message, added by examiner) vehicle controller 30 turns on a warning lamp indicating an abnormality of battery module 41”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Lee/Becker combination, as taught by Ishii, in order to ensure the not interrupted and safe operation of a battery.
Regarding Claim 2: Lee/Becker/Ishii combination discloses the battery monitoring method according to claim 1, wherein determining the self-discharge rate of each of the plurality of cells according to the first difference value and the second difference value comprises.
Lee does not specifically disclose:
“determining a first time interval between the first time information and the second time information; determining a third difference value between the first difference value and the second difference value; and determining the self-discharge rate of each of the plurality of cells according to a ratio of the third difference value to the first time interval”.
However, Becker discloses:
“determining a first time interval between the first time information and the second time information” (para 0008 – “b) determining the state of charge of each battery cell in the plurality of battery cells at a time t2, there being a selectable period between t1 and t2 (i.e. first time interval, added by examiner)”);
“determining a third difference value between the first difference value and the second difference value” (para 0009 – “c) determining a relative difference (i.e. third difference, added by examiner) for the self-discharge rates of the plurality of battery cells on the basis of the states of charge ascertained under method steps a) and b)”); and
“determining the self-discharge rate of each of the plurality of cells according to a ratio of the third difference value to the first time interval” (para 0013 – “e2) the cell balancing for the battery cells is effected on the basis of a need that is ascertained by taking account of the relative difference in the self-discharge rates of the plurality of battery cells when the state of charge of the battery cells at a time t3 cannot be ascertained on condition that predefined constraints for ascertaining the states of charge of the battery cells exist.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Lee/Becker/Ishii combination, as taught by Becker, in order to determine the self-discharge rate of a battery with high level of accuracy to ensure the safety use of the battery.
Regarding Claim 3: Lee/Becker/Ishii combination discloses the battery monitoring method according to claim 2, wherein determining first time interval between the first time information and the second time information comprises:
Lee does not specifically disclose:
“determining the first time interval according to a time point corresponding to the first time information and a second time point corresponding to the second time information”.
However, Becker discloses:
“determining the first time interval according to a time point corresponding to the first time information and a second time point corresponding to the second time information” (para 0007 – “a) determining the state of charge of each battery cell in the plurality of battery cells at a time t1”; para 0008 – “b) determining the state of charge of each battery cell in the plurality of battery cells at a time t2, there being a selectable period between t1 and t2 (i.e. first time interval, added by examiner)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Lee/Becker/Ishii combination, as taught by Becker, in order to determine the self-discharge rate of a battery with high level of accuracy to ensure the safety use of the battery.
Regarding Claim 4: Lee/Becker/Ishii combination discloses the battery monitoring method according to claim 2, wherein determining first time interval between the first time information and the second time information comprises:
Lee does not specifically disclose:
“determining the first time interval according to a period length corresponding to the second time information”.
However, Becker discloses:
“determining the first time interval according to a period length corresponding to the second time information” (para 0007 – “a) determining the state of charge of each battery cell in the plurality of battery cells at a time t1”; para 0008 – “b) determining the state of charge of each battery cell in the plurality of battery cells at a time t2, there being a selectable period between t1 and t2 (i.e. period length, added by examiner)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Lee/Becker/Ishii combination, as taught by Becker, in order to determine the self-discharge rate of a battery with high level of accuracy to ensure the safety use of the battery.
Regarding Claim 5: Lee/Becker/Ishii combination discloses the battery monitoring method according to claim 1.
Lee does not specifically disclose:
“wherein the first time information is related to a time when a battery management system (BMS) of the plurality of cells enters a dormant state or a power-off state”.
However, Becker discloses:
“wherein the first time information is related to a time when a battery management system (BMS) of the plurality of cells enters a dormant state or a power-off state” (para 0038 – “As a further constraint, it is alternatively or additionally possible to select that at least one battery cell, preferably all of the battery cells, has passed through a predefined relaxation and hence a predefined idle phase in which no loads are supplied with power or the supply of power to loads is at least below a predefined threshold value or the battery cell has not been charged (i.e. dormant or a power-off state, added by examiner)… This may be the case particularly when the at least one battery cell is at a state of charge level that is optimum for the measurement and/or when the battery cell has passed through a predefined idle state or is in an idle state”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Lee/Becker/Ishii combination, as taught by Becker, in order to determine the self-discharge rate of a battery with high level of accuracy to ensure the safety use of the battery.
Regarding Claim 6: Lee/Becker/Ishii combination discloses the battery monitoring method according to claim 1.
Lee does not specifically disclose:
“wherein the second time information is related to a second time interval; the second time interval includes a time interval between a time when the BMS enters the dormant state and a time when the BMS enters a wake-up state from the dormant state; or the second time interval includes a time interval between a time when the BMS enters the power-off state and a time when the BMS enters the wake-up state from the power-off state”.
However, Becker discloses:
“wherein the second time information is related to a second time interval; the second time interval includes a time interval between a time when the BMS enters the dormant state and a time when the BMS enters a wake-up state from the dormant state; or the second time interval includes a time interval between a time when the BMS enters the power-off state and a time when the BMS enters the wake-up state from the power-off state” (para 0022 – “provision may be made for the battery cells to have at least one predetermined state of charge or to be in a relaxed state, that is to say to have passed through a certain idle phase or recovery phase. In this case, the corresponding predetermined constraints can match the specific instance of application, so that particularly precise determination of the states of charge is possible for any application and for any incident”; para 0038 – “As a further constraint, it is alternatively or additionally possible to select that at least one battery cell, preferably all of the battery cells, has passed through a predefined relaxation and hence a predefined idle phase in which no loads are supplied with power or the supply of power to loads is at least below a predefined threshold value or the battery cell has not been charged (i.e. power-off state, added by examiner)… This may be the case particularly when the at least one battery cell is at a state of charge level that is optimum for the measurement and/or when the battery cell has passed through a predefined idle state or is in an idle state).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Lee/Becker/Ishii combination, as taught by Becker, in order to determine the self-discharge rate of a battery with high level of accuracy to ensure the safety use of the battery.
Regarding Claim 8: Lee/Becker/Ishii combination discloses the battery monitoring method according to claim 1.
Lee does not specifically disclose:
“wherein the preset condition comprises: the self-discharge rate exceeding a preset range; or the self-discharge rate exceeding a threshold value”.
However, Becker discloses:
“wherein the preset condition comprises: the self-discharge rate exceeding a preset range; or the self-discharge rate exceeding a threshold value” (para 0038 – “it is alternatively or additionally possible to select that at least one battery cell, preferably all of the battery cells, has passed through a predefined relaxation and hence a predefined idle phase in which no loads are supplied with power or the supply of power to loads is at least below a predefined threshold value or the battery cell has not been charged”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Lee/Becker/Ishii combination, as taught by Becker, in order to determine the self-discharge rate of a battery with high level of accuracy to ensure the safety use of the battery.
Regarding Claim 9: Lee discloses:
“A battery monitoring device” (para 0011 – “A battery management system”),
“comprising: a processor and a storage device, wherein the storage device stores computer instructions, that, when executed by the processor, cause the battery monitoring device to implement a method for monitoring a battery having a plurality of cells” (para 0046 – “The control unit 120 … the memory unit 130… The control unit 120 may be implemented in hardware using at least one of application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), digital signal processors (DSPs), digital signal processing devices (DSPDs), programmable logic devices (PLDs)”; para 0047 – “The memory unit 130 is operably coupled to the control unit 120. The memory unit 130 may store programs and data necessary to perform the steps of the SOC estimation method”);
“wherein the method comprises: obtaining a first difference value between a state of charge (SOC) of each of the plurality of cells and an average SOC of the plurality of cells according to first time information; obtaining a second difference value between the SOC of each of the plurality of cells and the average SOC of the plurality of cells according to second time information” (para 0011 – “The control unit is configured to classify the plurality of battery cells into at least one group based on a State Of Charge (SOC) of each battery cell estimated in a previous cycle (i.e. first time information, added by examiner). The control unit is configured to estimate an average polarization voltage of a current cycle of each group based on an average SOC of the previous cycle, a first cell current and a second cell current of each group using a first Kalman filter. The first cell current denotes a cell current measured in the previous cycle (interpreted as the first difference value ), and the second cell current denotes a cell current measured in the current cycle. The control unit is configured to estimate the SOC of the current cycle of each battery cell, based on the first cell current, the second cell current and the average polarization voltage of the current cycle of each group, using a second Kalman filter”).
Lee does not specifically disclose:
“a difference value”;
“determining a self-discharge rate of each of the plurality of cells according to the first difference value and the second difference value; and sending a prompt message when the self-discharge rate meets a preset condition”.
However, Becker discloses:
“a difference value; determining a self-discharge rate of each of the plurality of cells according to the first difference value and the second difference value” (paras 0006 – 0009 – “a) determining the state of charge of each battery cell in the plurality of battery cells at a time t1 on condition that predefined constraints for ascertaining the states of charge of the battery cells exist; b) determining the state of charge of each battery cell in the plurality of battery cells at a time t2, there being a selectable period between t1 and t2, on condition that predefined constraints for ascertaining the states of charge of the battery cells exist; c) determining a relative difference for the self-discharge rates of the plurality of battery cells (interpreted as the difference value between a state of charge (SOC) and average SOC, since the self-discharge rate is determined based on these values, added by examiner) on the basis of the states of charge ascertained under method steps a) and b);”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Lee, as taught by Becker, in order to determine the self-discharge rate of a battery with high level of accuracy to ensure the safety use of the battery.
Lee/Becker combination does not specifically disclose:
“sending a prompt message when the self-discharge rate meets a preset condition”.
However, Ishii discloses:
“sending a prompt message when the self-discharge rate meets a preset condition” (para 0062 – “When rapid deterioration determination unit 4615 detects the rapid deterioration of battery module 41 (i.e. preset condition, added by examiner), data transmission unit 4616 notifies vehicle controller 30 of a rapid deterioration detection signal via the in-vehicle network. Upon receiving the rapid deterioration detection signal of battery module 41, (i.e. prompt message, added by examiner) vehicle controller 30 turns on a warning lamp indicating an abnormality of battery module 41”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Lee/Becker combination, as taught by Ishii, in order to ensure the not interrupted and safe operation of a battery.
Regarding Claim 10: Lee/Becker/Ishii combination discloses a battery, comprising the battery monitoring device according to claim 9.
Lee further discloses:
“further comprising the plurality of cells” (para 0009 – “a battery management method for effectively reducing the computational amount required for state of charge (SOC) estimation of each of all battery cells by grouping a plurality of battery cells).
Regarding Claim 11: Lee discloses:
“A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer instructions, that, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to implement a method for monitoring a battery having a plurality of cells” (para 0047 – “The memory unit 130 is operably coupled to the control unit 120. The memory unit 130 may store programs and data necessary to perform the steps of the SOC estimation method”; para 0048 – “The memory unit 130 is operably coupled to the control unit 120. The memory unit 130 may store programs and data necessary to perform the steps of the SOC estimation method according to embodiments as described below. The memory unit 130 may include, for example, at least type of storage medium of flash memory type, hard disk type, Solid State Disk (SSD) type, Silicon Disk Drive (SDD) type, multimedia card micro type, random access memory (RAM), static random access memory (SRAM), read-only memory (ROM), electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM) or programmable read-only memory (PROM).”);
“wherein the method comprises: obtaining a first difference value between a state of charge (SOC) of each of the plurality of cells and an average SOC of the plurality of cells according to first time information; obtaining a second difference value between the SOC of each of the plurality of cells and the average SOC of the plurality of cells according to second time information” (para 0011 – “The control unit is configured to classify the plurality of battery cells into at least one group based on a State Of Charge (SOC) of each battery cell estimated in a previous cycle (i.e. first time information, added by examiner). The control unit is configured to estimate an average polarization voltage of a current cycle of each group based on an average SOC of the previous cycle, a first cell current and a second cell current of each group using a first Kalman filter. The first cell current denotes a cell current measured in the previous cycle (interpreted as the first difference value ), and the second cell current denotes a cell current measured in the current cycle. The control unit is configured to estimate the SOC of the current cycle of each battery cell, based on the first cell current, the second cell current and the average polarization voltage of the current cycle of each group, using a second Kalman filter”).
Lee does not specifically disclose:
“a difference value”;
“determining a self-discharge rate of each of the plurality of cells according to the first difference value and the second difference value; and sending a prompt message when the self-discharge rate meets a preset condition”.
However, Becker discloses:
“a difference value; determining a self-discharge rate of each of the plurality of cells according to the first difference value and the second difference value” (paras 0006 – 0009 – “a) determining the state of charge of each battery cell in the plurality of battery cells at a time t1 on condition that predefined constraints for ascertaining the states of charge of the battery cells exist; b) determining the state of charge of each battery cell in the plurality of battery cells at a time t2, there being a selectable period between t1 and t2, on condition that predefined constraints for ascertaining the states of charge of the battery cells exist; c) determining a relative difference for the self-discharge rates of the plurality of battery cells (interpreted as the difference value between a state of charge (SOC) and average SOC, since the self-discharge rate is determined based on these values, added by examiner) on the basis of the states of charge ascertained under method steps a) and b);”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Lee, as taught by Becker, in order to determine the self-discharge rate of a battery with high level of accuracy to ensure the safety use of the battery.
Lee/Becker combination does not specifically disclose:
“sending a prompt message when the self-discharge rate meets a preset condition”.
However, Ishii discloses:
“sending a prompt message when the self-discharge rate meets a preset condition” (para 0062 – “When rapid deterioration determination unit 4615 detects the rapid deterioration of battery module 41 (i.e. preset condition, added by examiner), data transmission unit 4616 notifies vehicle controller 30 of a rapid deterioration detection signal via the in-vehicle network. Upon receiving the rapid deterioration detection signal of battery module 41, (i.e. prompt message, added by examiner) vehicle controller 30 turns on a warning lamp indicating an abnormality of battery module 41”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Lee/Becker combination, as taught by Ishii, in order to ensure the not interrupted and safe operation of a battery.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee/Becker/Ishii combination in view of WO2021233219 to Kang et al. (hereinafter Kang).
Regarding Claim 7: Lee/Becker/Ishii combination discloses battery monitoring method according to claim 6.
Lee does not specifically disclose:
“wherein the prompt message prompts the BMS to enter the wake-up state from the dormant state; or the prompt message prompts the BMS to enter the wake-up state from the power-off state”.
However, Kang discloses:
“wherein the prompt message prompts the BMS to enter the wake-up state from the dormant state; or the prompt message prompts the BMS to enter the wake-up state from the power-off state” (para 0024 – “According to the battery management system of this disclosure embodiment, the control unit adopts the self-wake-up diagnosis method of the battery management system provided in the above embodiment. When the vehicle is in a power-down state, the timing unit sends an
interrupt signal (i.e. prompt message, added by examiner) to the system base chip when the timing overflows, and the system base chip sends a power supply signal to the control unit. The control unit will then wake up the battery management system to monitor the battery status, realize the function of automatic wake-up monitoring of the battery system status of the battery management system, prevent the battery from being in an uncontrolled state, and reduce wake-up power consumption.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Lee/Becker/Ishii combination, as taught by Kang, in order to prevent the battery from being in an uncontrolled state, and reduce wake-up power consumption.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20140324370 to Underhill et al. (hereinafter Underhill) discloses battery State-of-Charge Aggregation Method.
US20170040807 to Trinkert et al. (hereinafter Trinkert) discloses dynamic regulation of an electric output.
US20200346558 to Luo et al. (hereinafter Luo) discloses battery equalization method and system, vehicle, storage medium, and electronic device.
US20220111732 to He et al. (hereinafter He) discloses safety monitoring method and system for vehicle, and device.
US20150349387 to Inaba et al. (hereinafter Inaba) discloses power source device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lyudmila Zaykova-Feldman whose telephone number is (469)295-9269. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:30pm, Monday through Friday.
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, Arleen M. Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. 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.
/LYUDMILA ZAYKOVA-FELDMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights