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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2021-0148332, filed on 11/01/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 04/17/2024 and 03/18/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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: functional module in claims 1-15.
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. The specification is silent to the structure of the functional module and only details it as performing a function.
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 § 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 1-15 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.
Claim limitation “functional module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Claims 1-15 detail a plurality of “functional modules” where the functional module is configured to perform a function. The specification does not provide any details towards the structure of the functional module and the Figures show the functional modules as black boxes Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Examiner interprets the functional module as an electronic circuit with communication circuitry and measurement circuitry.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US20140347014).
As best understood, in regards to Claims 1 and 11, Lee teaches “a plurality of functional modules configured to perform a defined function based on a preset algorithm (“Each S-BMU ( 210 ) [i.e. plurality of functional modules] includes analog sensors ( 240 ), an RF radio ( 220 ), on-board antenna ( 230 ), and battery control logic ( 250 ). Alternatively, the analog sensors ( 240 ), RF radio ( 220 ), and battery control logic ( 250 ) can be implemented on a single silicon chip. The smart BMS ( 400 ) incorporated with the WiBaAN is able to communicate with each individual battery cell ( 10 ) and monitor actual operating conditions such as its voltage, current, impedance, and ambient temperature. It is an essential part of the BMS ( 400 ) to monitor individual battery cell ( 10 ) conditions. Effective communication bandwidth in the WiBaAN is entirely dependent on the size of battery pack ( 10 ) (i.e. the number of batteries in a pack) and the system refresh rate (i.e., CAN-bus update rate in EV) of the applications. The WiBaAN provides easy interface between individual battery cells (S-BMU) ( 210 ) and a BMS controller (M-BMU) ( 100 ),” – [0037]; “FIG. 6 depicts a hierarchical WiBaAN architecture ( 500 ) based on a hybrid multiplexing communication network. It consists of three different levels of battery controllers: T-BMU ( 510 ), M-BMUs ( 100 ), and S-BMUs ( 200 )” – [0041]; “FIG. 10(a ) is a block diagram showing an S-BMU ( 210 ) mounted on a battery cell ( 10 ). The S-BMU ( 210 ) comprises: a battery sensor unit ( 240 ), a complete RF radio ( 220 ), an on-board antenna ( 230 ), a power management unit ( 222 ), a digital signal processing unit ( 226 ), and a battery control logic ( 250 ). The S-BMU ( 210 ) can be implemented with a single silicon chip solution ( 220 ) including all the key functional units except an on-board antenna ( 230 ) and a crystal. The battery sensor unit ( 240 ) includes analog sensors for measuring the voltage, current, impedance, or temperature of the battery cell ( 10 ), as well as an analog data multiplexor and high-resolution analog-to-digital converter ( 227 ). One of the key features of an S-BMU ( 210 ) is to provide a controllability of a battery's balancing and bypassing ( 251 )” – [0045]);
a first broker configured to relay linked operations among the plurality of functional modules based on battery data from at least a first functional module among the plurality of functional modules (“FIG. 6 depicts a hierarchical WiBaAN architecture ( 500 ) based on a hybrid multiplexing communication network. It consists of three different levels of battery controllers: T-BMU ( 510 ), M-BMUs ( 100 ) [i.e. first broker], and S-BMUs ( 200 ) [i.e. functional modules]” – [0041]); and
a first controller configured to control operations of the plurality of functional modules and the first broker (“FIG. 6 depicts a hierarchical WiBaAN architecture ( 500 ) based on a hybrid multiplexing communication network. It consists of three different levels of battery controllers: T-BMU ( 510 ) [i.e. first controller], M-BMUs ( 100 ) [i.e. first broker], and S-BMUs ( 200 ) [i.e. functional modules]” – [0041]).”
As best understood, in regards to Claim 2, Lee discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Lee further teaches “wherein the plurality of functional modules are further configured to perform the defined function based on a control command of the first controller (“A single top-level battery management unit (T-BMU) ( 510 ) is the top level node of the battery management system ( 500 ), and includes RF radio, antenna, microprocessor, controller, peripheral interface units, and power management units similar to the M-BMUs ( 100 ). T-BMU ( 510 ) controls multiple M-BMUs' ( 100 ) operations, collects the data from the M-BMUs ( 100 ), and communicates with a main system through external interfaces ( 520 ) such as a controller area network (CAN or CAN-bus) ( 520 )” – [0041]; “The control commands of balance and bypass are transferred from the M-BMU ( 100 ) to the corresponding S-BMU ( 210 ), interpreted at the slave baseband modem ( 226 ), and delivered to the control logic ( 250 )” – [0046]).”
As best understood, in regards to Claim 3, Lee discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Lee further teaches “wherein the plurality of functional modules are further configured to transmit the battery data by performing a battery data communication with the first broker (“FIG. 10(a ) is a block diagram showing an S-BMU ( 210 ) mounted on a battery cell ( 10 ). The S-BMU ( 210 ) comprises: a battery sensor unit ( 240 ), a complete RF radio ( 220 ), an on-board antenna ( 230 ), a power management unit ( 222 ), a digital signal processing unit ( 226 ), and a battery control logic ( 250 ). The S-BMU ( 210 ) can be implemented with a single silicon chip solution ( 220 ) including all the key functional units except an on-board antenna ( 230 ) and a crystal. The battery sensor unit ( 240 ) includes analog sensors for measuring the voltage, current, impedance, or temperature of the battery cell ( 10 ), as well as an analog data multiplexor and high-resolution analog-to-digital converter ( 227 ). One of the key features of an S-BMU ( 210 ) is to provide a controllability of a battery's balancing and bypassing ( 251 )” – [0045]).”
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.
Claims 4-6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Hong (US20200396688).
As best understood, in regards to Claim 4, Lee discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Lee is silent with regards to the language of “wherein the first broker is further configured to cache the battery data from at least the first functional module among the plurality of functional modules.”
Hong teaches “wherein the first broker is further configured to cache the battery data from at least the first functional module among the plurality of functional modules (“In a case where the monitor node # 2 200 - 2 cannot transmit the battery data of the monitor node # 3 200 - 3 to the manager node 100 for a predetermined time, the monitor node # 1 200 - 1 corresponding to No. 2 priority may transmit the temporarily stored battery data of the monitor node # 3 200 - 3 to the manager node 100 . Also, even in a case where the monitor node # 1 200 - 1 cannot transmit the battery data of the monitor node # 3 200 - 3 to the manager node 100 , the monitor node # 6 200 - 6 corresponding to No. 3 priority may transmit the temporarily stored battery data of the monitor node # 3 200 - 3 to the manager node 100” – [0095]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to incorporate the teaching of Hong to utilize the manager mode to store the battery data across the monitoring nodes. By utilizing the backup storage of the data this is an improvement to battery management system to distribute the load and to quickly and accurately monitor the entirely of the whole state of the batteries.
As best understood, in regards to Claim 5, Lee in view of Hong discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Lee is silent with regards to the language of “wherein the first broker is further configured to relay the battery data, cached from at least the first function module, among the plurality of functional modules.”
Hong further teaches “wherein the first broker is further configured to relay the battery data, cached from at least the first function module, among the plurality of functional modules (“In a case where the monitor node # 2 200 - 2 cannot transmit the battery data of the monitor node # 3 200 - 3 to the manager node 100 for a predetermined time, the monitor node # 1 200 - 1 corresponding to No. 2 priority may transmit the temporarily stored battery data of the monitor node # 3 200 - 3 to the manager node 100 . Also, even in a case where the monitor node # 1 200 - 1 cannot transmit the battery data of the monitor node # 3 200 - 3 to the manager node 100 , the monitor node # 6 200 - 6 corresponding to No. 3 priority may transmit the temporarily stored battery data of the monitor node # 3 200 - 3 to the manager node 100” – [0095]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to incorporate the teaching of Hong to utilize the manager mode to store the battery data across the monitoring nodes. By utilizing the backup storage of the data this is an improvement to battery management system to distribute the load and to quickly and accurately monitor the entirely of the whole state of the batteries.
As best understood, in regards to Claim 6, Lee in view of Hong discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Lee is silent with regards to the language of “wherein the first controller is further configured, if a failure occurs in the first functional module among the plurality of functional modules, to control another functional module to perform the defined function of the first functional module.”
Hong further teaches “wherein the first controller is further configured, if a failure occurs in the first functional module among the plurality of functional modules, to control another functional module to perform the defined function of the first functional module (“In a state where a relay node is selected in this manner, when data transmission based on all of a primary channel and a secondary channel fails, a monitor node # 3 200 - 3 may broadcast battery data to the other monitor nodes 200 - 1 , 200 - 2 , 200 - 4 , 200 - 5 , and 200 - 6 at a time enabling the exclusive use of a routing slot in operations S 911 and S 913 . In this case, the monitor node # 3 200 - 3 may broadcast the battery data by using one or all of the primary channel and the secondary channel. Also, the monitor node # 3 200 - 3 may broadcast the battery data during a routing slot section” – [0090]; “As described above, when the monitor node # 2 200 - 2 which is a No. 1 -priority relay node routes the battery data of the monitor node # 3 200 - 3 but routing performed by the No. 1 -priority relay node fails, a No. 2 -priority relay node and a No. 3 -priority relay node may sequentially perform routing of the battery data.” – [0097]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to incorporate the teaching of Hong to utilize the manager mode to store the battery data across the monitoring nodes. By utilizing the backup storage of the data this is an improvement to battery management system to distribute the load and to quickly and accurately monitor the entirely of the whole state of the batteries.
As best understood, in regards to Claim 12, Lee discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Lee is silent with regards to the language of “wherein the controlling, by the first controller, of the operations of the plurality of functional modules and the first broker comprises, if a failure occurs in the first functional module among the plurality of functional modules, controlling, by the first controller, another functional module to perform the defined function of the first functional module.”
Hong teaches “wherein the controlling, by the first controller, of the operations of the plurality of functional modules and the first broker comprises, if a failure occurs in the first functional module among the plurality of functional modules, controlling, by the first controller, another functional module to perform the defined function of the first functional module (“In a state where a relay node is selected in this manner, when data transmission based on all of a primary channel and a secondary channel fails, a monitor node # 3 200 - 3 may broadcast battery data to the other monitor nodes 200 - 1 , 200 - 2 , 200 - 4 , 200 - 5 , and 200 - 6 at a time enabling the exclusive use of a routing slot in operations S 911 and S 913 . In this case, the monitor node # 3 200 - 3 may broadcast the battery data by using one or all of the primary channel and the secondary channel. Also, the monitor node # 3 200 - 3 may broadcast the battery data during a routing slot section” – [0090]; “As described above, when the monitor node # 2 200 - 2 which is a No. 1 -priority relay node routes the battery data of the monitor node # 3 200 - 3 but routing performed by the No. 1 -priority relay node fails, a No. 2 -priority relay node and a No. 3 -priority relay node may sequentially perform routing of the battery data.” – [0097]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to incorporate the teaching of Hong to utilize the manager mode to store the battery data across the monitoring nodes. By utilizing the backup storage of the data this is an improvement to battery management system to distribute the load and to quickly and accurately monitor the entirely of the whole state of the batteries.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 and 13-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to Claims 7 and 13, Lee discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Lee further teaches “a second broker configured to relay linked operations among the plurality of functional modules based on battery data from at least a second functional module among the plurality of functional modules (“FIG. 6 depicts a hierarchical WiBaAN architecture ( 500 ) based on a hybrid multiplexing communication network. It consists of three different levels of battery controllers: T-BMU ( 510 ), M-BMUs ( 100 ) [i.e. first broker], and S-BMUs ( 200 ) [i.e. functional modules]” – [0041]);
Lee and Hong are silent with regards to the language of “a second controller configured to control operations of the plurality of functional modules and the second broker.”
Claims 8-10 are dependent on Claim 7.
Claims 14-15 are dependent on Claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3291. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:30 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/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights