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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/23/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “230” in para. 26. 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. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 7, 9, 13, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1:
A) line 2-3 includes “battery management unit, BMU,” which should be “battery management unit[[,]] (BMU)[[,]]”;
B) line 3 includes “battery cell controllers,BCC” which should be “battery cell controllers[[,]] (BCC)”;
Regarding claim 2: line 2 includes “a message” which should be “[[a]] the message”.
Regarding claim 3: line 2 includes “counter” which should be “counters” Regarding claim 7: line 2 includes “counter” which should be “counters”.
Regarding claim 9: line 2 includes “BCCs, comprises” which should be “BCCs[[,]] comprises”
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and objected to for substantially the same reason as set for in claim 1.
Regarding claim 18: line 2 includes “synchronising” which should be “ synchronize”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 are 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:
A) Lines 17-18 includes “the BMU transmitting the BMU-interval-count to each of the plurality of the BCCs”, and, in looking to the specification, the abstract describes this as a “broadcast”, and para. 26 describes this as “the BMU transmits the BMU-interval-count to each of the plurality of the BCCs, as shown at 230” however, reference number 230 is not found in the drawings, thus, whether the “transmitting” is based on the claimed chain, or some other method (e.g. wireless) that includes “broadcast” (or another technique such as e.g. unicast), is unclear. Examination continued on the assumption the transmitting is similar to - transmitting to each BCCs via the chain -.
B) Claim language includes local-clock counter, BMU-clock counter, BMU-interval-count, local-interval-count, while corresponding claim 13 includes most-remote-clock counter, local-interval-measurement, local-clock counter, local-interval-measurement, BMU-clock counter, BMU-interval-measurement, and the specification uses measured/measurement along with counters, and claim 14-17 using a mixture of the two. Accordingly, whether there is overlap in meaning, whether the terms are mutually exclusive, or some other meaning is intended, is unclear. Examination continued on the assumption the counter/measurement are related to times/timestamps.
Regarding claims 2-4, the claims, ultimately dependent upon claim 1, are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5: the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 1, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1. Further, lines 2 and 4 includes “commencement”, however, the metes and bounds of what is considered “commence” is unclear (e.g. at the moment of input of data to be forwarded, a decision to forward data, data to be forwarded entering transmission chain, the moment of output of forwarded data, etc.). Examination continued on the assumption of input/output of data.
Regarding claims 6-8, the claims, ultimately dependent upon claim 1, are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9: the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 1, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1. Further, line 3 includes “each of the BCCs receiving a command, and implementing the command for after a delay equal to a default delay less its respective communication delay” which is ambiguous as to the precise intent. Examination continued on the assumption the above is similar to - receiving a command from the BMU and executing the command after -.
Regarding claims 10-11, the claims, ultimately dependent upon claim 1, are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12: the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 1, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1. Further, line 2 includes “a message” which introduces antecedent issues with “message” of claim 1; further instances of “message” also include antecedent issues; line 7 includes “a further message” which introduces antecedent issues with “further message” of claim 1. Examination continued on the assumption the messages are either separate or unique entities. Further, line 4 includes “a remainder of the BCCs” which is ambiguous as to whether the “further plurality of BCCs” is being reference, both “plurality of BCCs” of parent claim 1 and “further plurality of BCCs” is being reference, or something else is intended. Examination continued on the assumption either could be reference.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 13, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 13. Further, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 12. Further, lines 22-23 includes “determine a respective communication delay as half a difference between its respective local-interval-measurement and the BMU-interval-measurement” which appears to be substantially similar to “determine a respective communication delay as half a difference between its respective local-interval-measurement and the BMU-interval-measurement” of parent claim 13 lines 23-24. Examination continued on the assumption the limitations are inadvertently substantially similar.
Regarding claim 15, the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 13, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 13. Further, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 13, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 13. Further, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 14, particularly “message”. Further, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 18, the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 13, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 13.
Regarding claim 19, the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 13, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 13. Further, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 13, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 13. Further, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 19.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: battery management unit and battery cell controllers in claims 1-2, 4, 8-16 and 18-20, which are considered “circuitry” / ”logic” / “processor” / ”instruction” as described in para. [26-27, 44].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCall et al. (US 2022/0123849 A1) hereinafter McCall in view of IEC-IEEE (IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and Control Systems, made of record in the IDS of 5/23/2024) hereinafter IEEE1588, and further in view of De GREEF et al. (US 2015/0019771 A1) hereinafter DeGreef.
Regarding claim 1, McCall teaches a method comprising a communication chain (page 66 Fig. 23 showing grandmaster and two chains) comprising a unit, BMU, (grandmaster; page 66 Fig. 23) and a plurality of controllers,BCC (two chains including nodes; page 66 Fig. 23), the method comprising: a most-remote of the BCCs (initiator 410; para. 67 and Fig. 4) transmitting a message towards the BMU (initiator transmits request to responder 420; para. 67 and Fig. 4) and starting a local-clock counter (initiator calculates delay using transmission time of request; para. 67-68 and Fig. 4, timestamping includes start / stop times; para. 150, storing correction information; para. 59); each of a remainder of the BCCs receiving the message, and forwarding the message towards the BMU (relays between initiator and responder forwards messages between initiator and responder; para. [55-56, 59, 67] and Figs. 3-4) and starting a respective local-clock counter (each node makes synch measurements as initiator/responder; para. [59, 62, 67], initiator calculates delay using transmission time of request; para. 67-68 and Fig. 4, timestamping includes start / stop times; para. 150, storing correction information; para. 59); the BMU receiving the message and starting a BMU-clock counter (responder timestamps [start clock at BMU] reception of request; para. [68, 71] and Fig. 4, timestamping includes start / stop times; para. 150, storing correction information; para. 59); the BMU transmitting a further message towards the most-remote of the BCCs (responder transmits response to initiator; para. 68 and Fig. 4), and stopping the BMU-clock counter to determine a BMU-interval-count (responder transmits response and notifies initiator of transmission time of response [stops clock at BMU]; para. 68 and Fig. 4, timestamping includes start / stop times; para. 150, storing correction information; para. 59, response time used in calculation; para. 68 and Fig. 4); each of the remainder of the BCCs receiving the further message, forwarding the further message towards the most-remote of the BCCs (relays between initiator and responder forwards messages between initiator and responder; para. [55-56, 59, 67] and Figs. 3-4), and stopping the respective local-clock counter to determine a respective local-interval-count counter (each node makes synch measurements as initiator/responder; para. [59, 62, 67], initiator calculates delay using transmission time of request, responder transmits response and notifies initiator of transmission time of response [stops clock at local]; para. 67-68 and Fig. 4, timestamping includes start / stop times; para. 150, storing correction information; para. 59, timestamp relative to local clock; para. 42); the most-remote of the BCCs receiving the further message (initiator receives response from responder; para. 68 and Fig. 4, timestamping includes start / stop times; para. 150, storing correction information; para. 59), and stopping the most-remote local-clock counter to determine its local-interval-count (initiator calculates delay using time of transmission of request, responder transmits response and notifies initiator of transmission time, initiator using reception of response time [stops clock at local]; para. 67-68 and Fig. 4, timestamping includes start / stop times; para. 150, storing correction information; para. 59, timestamp relative to local clock; para. 42) and each of the plurality of BCCs determining a respective communication delay (precision time protocol PTP nodes performing correction being end instances and relays; para. [35-36, 44, 56, 59, 214, 233-235], correction being delay; para. [25, 59, 68] and Figs. 3-4).
While McCall discloses turnaround, correction field being transmitted in a response to end node through each intermediate node, local clocks, delay interval between receipt and transmission of messages, McCall does not explicitly disclose the BMU transmitting the BMU-interval-count to each of the plurality of the BCCs; from its respective local-interval-count and the BMU-interval-count.
However, in the same field of endeavour, IEEE1588 discloses the BMU transmitting the BMU-interval-count to each of the plurality of the BCCs (turnaround time between reception of request and sending of reply added to message; pages [61, 179-180, 210] sections [6.6.6.1, 9.5.11.2, 11.4.2 step b-4-iii and c-7-iii] and Figs. 41-42); from its respective local-interval-count and the BMU-interval-count (each PTP instance [relay] includes local clock; page 100 section 7.6.6.1, each implementing node updates metrics; page 317, delay computed using master clock and slave clock [relay]; page [58, 488] and Fig. P.12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of IEEE1588 to the system of McCall, where McCall’s superior time sync and low traffic (para. 30) along with IEEE1588’s defining related to timing, data, and requirements (page 14 section 1) improves system efficiency and interoperability of different equipment manufacturers by reducing overhead and specifying operation parameters for synchronization.
While the combination of McCall and IEEE1588 discloses battery monitoring, the combination of McCall and IEEE1588 does not explicitly disclose operating a battery management system, the battery management system, battery management unit, battery cell controllers.
However, in the same field of endeavour, DeGreef teaches operating a battery management system, the battery management system (battery management system; para. 38), battery management unit (battery manager; para. 52-53 and Fig. 1), battery cell controllers (pack controller; para. 52-53 and Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of DeGreef to the modified system of McCall and IEEE1588, where McCall and IEEE1588’s modified system along with DeGreef’s battery manager communication with battery cells (03-04, 06) improves battery performance by monitoring battery properties in a chain.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of McCall, IEEE1588, and DeGreef teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
While the combination of McCall and IEEE1588 discusses starting process, the combination of McCall and IEEE1588 does not explicitly disclose the most-remote of the BCCs transmitting a message towards the BMU is in response to the BMU transmitting a preliminary message.
However, in the same field of endeavour, DeGreef further teaches the most-remote of the BCCs transmitting a message towards the BMU is in response to the BMU transmitting a preliminary message (battery manager initiates actions with commands; para. 56-61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of DeGreef to the modified system of McCall, IEEE1588 and Degreef, where McCall, IEEE1588 and Degreef’s modified system along with DeGreef’s battery manager communication with battery cells (para. 03-04, 06) improves battery performance by monitoring battery properties in a chain.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of McCall, IEEE1588, and DeGreef teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
McCall further teaches wherein the BMU-clock counter and the respective local-clock counter each operate at a same speed (in some embodiments clocks do not run at same speed [at least suggesting operating at same speed]; para. 24).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of McCall, IEEE1588, and DeGreef teaches the limitation of previous claim 3.
McCall further teaches wherein the respective communication delay for each of the plurality of BCCs is half a difference between its respective local-interval-count and the BMU-interval-count (delay calculated as half of first and second delays (d=((t2-t1)+(t4-t3))/2); para. 68 and equation 1 and Fig. 4 [based on para. 26 of applicant’s specification describing “each of the plurality of BCCs is then able to determine a respective communication delay which corresponds to half the difference between its respective local-interval-count and the BMU-interval-count … the above analysis assumes that the data transmission has the same delay in both directions, and thus a direction-independent delay of “half the difference” is correct”]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of McCall, IEEE1588, and DeGreef teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
McCall further teaches wherein starting the respective local-clock counters occurs at the commencement of the respective forwarding of the message (event messages timestamped [start] at ingress; para. [42, 341], timestamping includes start / stop times; para. 150, storing correction information; para. 59, timestamp relative to local clock; para. 42), and stopping the respective local-clock counter occurs at the commencement of the respective forwarding of the further message (event messages timestamped [stop] at egress; para. [42, 341], timestamping includes start / stop times; para. 150, storing correction information; para. 59, timestamp relative to local clock; para. 42).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of McCall, IEEE1588, and DeGreef teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
McCall further teaches wherein starting the respective local-clock counters occurs at the end of the respective forwarding of the message (correction uses time messages were sent [forwarded] for each device; para. 89, timestamping includes start / stop times; para. 150, storing correction information; para. 59, timestamp relative to local clock; para. 42), and stopping the respective local-clock counter occurs at the end of the respective forwarding of the further message (correction uses time messages were sent [forwarded] for each device; para. 89, timestamping includes start / stop times; para. 150, storing correction information; para. 59, timestamp relative to local clock; para. 42).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of McCall, IEEE1588, and DeGreef teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
McCall further teaches wherein starting the respective local-clock counter is triggered by a reference associated with the message, wherein the reference is dependent on a communication protocol used (PTP messages using protocol with particular attribute; para. [41, 50]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of McCall, IEEE1588, and DeGreef teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
McCall further teaches further comprising synchronising an action of the plurality of BCCs (synchronizing nodes to align actions; para. 59).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of McCall, IEEE1588, and DeGreef teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
While McCall describes different configurations/topologies, McCall does not explicitly disclose wherein the battery management system comprises a further communication chain comprising the BMU and a further plurality of BCCs.
However, in the same field of endeavour, IEEE1588 teaches wherein the battery management system comprises a further communication chain (page 66 Fig. 23 showing grandmaster and two chains) comprising the BMU (grandmaster; page 66 Fig. 23) and a further plurality of BCCs (two chains including nodes; page 66 Fig. 23).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of McCall, IEEE1588, and DeGreef teaches the limitation of previous claim 11.
McCall further teaches further comprising: a most-remote of the further plurality of BCCs (initiator 410; para. 67 and Fig. 4) transmitting a message towards the BMU (initiator transmits request to responder 420; para. 67 and Fig. 4) and starting a further local-clock counter (initiator calculates delay using transmission time of request; para. 67-68 and Fig. 4, timestamping includes start / stop times; para. 150, storing correction information; para. 59); each of a remainder of the BCCs receiving the message, and forwarding the message towards the BMU (relays between initiator and responder forwards messages between initiator and responder; para. [55-56, 59, 67] and Figs. 3-4) and starting a respective local-clock counter (each node makes synch measurements as initiator/responder; para. [59, 62, 67], initiator calculates delay using transmission time of request; para. 67-68 and Fig. 4, timestamping includes start / stop times; para. 150, storing correction information; para. 59); the BMU receiving the message and starting the BMU-clock counter (responder timestamps [start clock at BMU] reception of request; para. [68, 71] and Fig. 4, timestamping includes start / stop times; para. 150, storing correction information; para. 59); the BMU transmitting a further message towards the most-remote of the BCCs (responder transmits response to initiator; para. 68 and Fig. 4), and stopping the BMU-clock counter to determine a further BMU-interval-count (responder transmits response and notifies initiator of transmission time of response [stops clock at BMU]; para. 68 and Fig. 4, timestamping includes start / stop times; para. 150, storing correction information; para. 59, response time used in calculation; para. 68 and Fig. 4); each of the remainder of the further plurality of BCCs receiving the further message, forwarding the further message towards the most-remote of the further plurality of BCCs (relays between initiator and responder forwards messages between initiator and responder; para. [55-56, 59, 67] and Figs. 3-4), and stopping the respective local-clock counter (each node makes synch measurements as initiator/responder; para. [59, 62, 67], initiator calculates delay using transmission time of request, responder transmits response and notifies initiator of transmission time of response [stops clock at local]; para. 67-68 and Fig. 4, timestamping includes start / stop times; para. 150, storing correction information; para. 59, timestamp relative to local clock; para. 42); the further most-remote of the BCCs receiving the further message (initiator receives response from responder; para. 68 and Fig. 4, timestamping includes start / stop times; para. 150, storing correction information; para. 59), and stopping the most-remote local-clock counter to determine its local-interval-count to determine a respective local-interval-count (initiator calculates delay using time of transmission of request, responder transmits response and notifies initiator of transmission time, initiator using reception of response time [stops clock at local]; para. 67-68 and Fig. 4, timestamping includes start / stop times; para. 150, storing correction information; para. 59, timestamp relative to local clock; para. 42) and each of the further plurality of BCCs determining a respective communication delay (precision time protocol PTP nodes performing correction being end instances and relays; para. [35-36, 44, 56, 59, 214, 233-235], correction being delay; para. [25, 59, 68] and Figs. 3-4) as half a difference between its respective local-interval-count and the BMU-interval-count (delay calculated as half of first and second delays (d=((t2-t1)+(t4-t3))/2); para. 68 and equation 1 and Fig. 4 [based on para. 26 of applicant’s specification describing “each of the plurality of BCCs is then able to determine a respective communication delay which corresponds to half the difference between its respective local-interval-count and the BMU-interval-count … the above analysis assumes that the data transmission has the same delay in both directions, and thus a direction-independent delay of “half the difference” is correct”]).
While McCall discloses turnaround, correction field being transmitted in a response to end node through each intermediate node, local clocks, delay interval between receipt and transmission of messages, McCall does not explicitly disclose the BMU transmitting the further-BMU-interval-count to each of the further plurality of the BCCs.
However, in the same field of endeavour, IEEE1588 discloses the BMU transmitting the further-BMU-interval-count to each of the further plurality of the BCCs (turnaround time between reception of request and sending of reply added to message; pages [61, 179-180, 210] sections [6.6.6.1, 9.5.11.2, 11.4.2 step b-4-iii and c-7-iii] and Figs. 41-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of IEEE1588 to the modified system of McCall, IEEE1588, and DeGreef, where McCall, IEEE1588, and DeGreef’s modified system along with IEEE1588’s defining related to timing, data, and requirements (page 14 section 1) improves system efficiency and interoperability of different equipment manufacturers by reducing overhead and specifying operation parameters for synchronization.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4 dependent upon claims 1 and 3.
Regarding claim 14, dependent upon claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 12.
Regarding claim 15, dependent upon claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, dependent upon claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 17, dependent upon claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 18, dependent upon claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 8.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCall in view of IEEE1588, in view of Degreef, and further in view of Byrne et al. (US 10,304,412 B1) hereinafter Byrne.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of McCall, IEEE1588, and DeGreef teaches the limitation of previous claim 8.
While the combination of McCall, IEEE1588, and Degreef discloses synchronous actions, the combination of McCall, IEEE1588, and Degreef does not explicitly disclose wherein synchronising an action of the plurality of BCCs, comprises each of the BCCs receiving a command, and implementing the command for after a delay equal to a default delay less its respective communication delay.
However, in the same field of endeavour, Byrne teaches wherein synchronising an action of the plurality of BCCs, comprises each of the BCCs receiving a command (devices receiving a command; col. 18 lines 8-33), and implementing the command for after a delay equal to a default delay less its respective communication delay (simultaneous execution of instructions at each device based on [after] network time delays [default delay] and clock skews [communication delay]; col. 18 lines 8-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Byrne to the modified system of McCall, IEEE1588 and Degreef, where McCall, IEEE1588 and Degreef’s modified system along with Byrne’s different versions, form factors, and/or hardware capabilities (col. 1 lines 16-26, col. 10 lines 27-42) improves interoperability of different equipment from different manufacturers.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of McCall, IEEE1588, DeGreef, and Byrne teaches the limitation of previous claim 9.
McCall does not explicitly disclose wherein the default delay is a maximum of the respective communication delays and the communication delay of the most-remote BCC.
However, in the same field of endeavour, IEEE1588 teaches wherein the default delay is a maximum of the respective communication delays and the communication delay of the most-remote BCC (maxMasterSlaveDelay maximum of calculated MasterSlaveDelay of end-to-end; page 408-409 Table J.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of IEEE1588 to the modified system of McCall, IEEE1588, DeGreef, and Byrne, where McCall, IEEE1588, DeGreef, and Byrne’s modified system along with IEEE1588’s defining related to timing, data, and requirements (page 14 section 1) improves system efficiency and interoperability of different equipment manufacturers by reducing overhead and specifying operation parameters for synchronization.
Regarding claim 19, dependent upon claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, dependent upon claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Du et al. (An Enhanced End-to-End Transparent Clock Mechanism with a Fixed Delay Ratio) discloses proposed mechanism, which is not compatible with current IEEE 1588 systems, needs two rounds of message exchange, and the massages in the second round are delayed for a specified time related to the fixed delay ratio.
Lemkin et al. (US 2019/0242949 A1) discloses wireless sensing for battery systems.
Xhafa et al. (US 2024/0142523 A1) discloses methods, apparatus, and articles of manufacture to improve one-hop extension in wireless battery management systems.
Thrybom (US 2015/0222520 A1) discloses latency determination in substation networks.
IEEE1588, made of record in the IDS of 5/23/2024, is not included in the instant OA.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE L PEREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7348. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 am - 3 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/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/JOSE L PEREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights