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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GU et al. (US 2008/0086247).
Regarding claim 1,
GU teaches a battery management system that manages both battery cells and subgroups of batteries [0031]. As shown in Fig. 3-4 the slave controller (micro-master) receives data from each of the battery cells. The sensing and transmitting of data from the sensor to the slave controller is considered to be done by a supervision circuit. The slave controller then determines the state of charge (SOC) from the sensor data (evaluate and filter) [0038]. The SOC data is sent to the master controller (control unit) which then transmits to the hybrid control unit (battery management system) [0039].
Regarding claim 2,
GU teaches using a low voltage system and circuit design for the slave control system including communication (data) lines [0043].
Regarding claim 7,
The controllers in GU are considered to be “upgradable” by either updating software/memory or by physical circuit replacement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GU et al. (US 2008/0086247) in view of KAIN et al. (US 2020/0083720).
Regarding claims 3 and 4,
GU teaches the cell sensors and slave control unit include sensing units sending data to the slave control in addition to a balancing maintenance unit sending data back to the individual cells [0034]. The reference does not expressly teach using a ring circuit or bidirectional ring bus. However, KAIN teaches that when sending commands between a master node and slave nodes, a bidirectional ring evens power costs across the nodes when compared to serial connections and also allow for double checking of the same command to ensure accuracy, Fig. 3-4 and [0068]-[0072]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a bidirectional ring network to balance the power requirements across nodes.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GU et al. (US 2008/0086247) in view of BUTZMANN et al. (US 2014/0212714).
Regarding claims 5, 6, and 10,
GU teaches the slave controller (micro-master part of each module/subgroup) uses insulation between the high and low voltage (subsidiary) systems [0043]. The reference does not expressly teach connecting the voltage and temperature sensors to a low voltage line. However, BUTZMANN more clearly describes powering the sensors for a battery management system using cell supervision circuits [0005] and further teaches the low voltage can be used to power voltage sensors on a low voltage side of the controller separated from a high voltage side using isolation 29, see fig. 3 and [0039]. The use of redundant sensors (high and low voltage isolated from each other) makes the system more reliable [0039]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to use low voltage sensors (cell supervision circuits) isolated from high voltage wiring to offer reliable sensor monitoring through redundancy.
Regarding claim 9,
The cell supervision circuit uses both high voltage and low voltage connectors (a high voltage junction box).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GU et al. (US 2008/0086247) in view of LOFBAMIA et al. (US 2018/0276157) and MURNANE (US 2021/0376626).
Regarding claim 8,
GU teaches the slave control unit are connected to a master control [0034]. The reference does not expressly teach using an ISO SPI data line (isoSPI is a serial/daisy connection). However, LOFAMIA teaches that when connecting master and slave SPI can be used because the serial interface is easier to wire and has less crosstalk [0040]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use SPI data lines for simplicity and reduced cross talk.
The references teach using SPI but do not each isolated SPI (ISO SPI). However, MURNANE teaches that isolated SPI can be used to couple controllers and slave modules [0020]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to implement an isolated serial peripheral interface as a known SPI connection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights