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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 25-26 and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machine Translation of CN114047448A, hereinafter 448’, in view of Takahashi 2011/0018500) .
As to claims 25 and 35, 448’ discloses in figures 1-11,an apparatus for protecting at least one battery cell located inside a battery system, the apparatus comprising:
at least one processor [processor is disclosed; see ¶0089]; and
a memory [see ¶0091] configured to store instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform: an operation to identify an accumulated charging time period of a charging current [see abstract, ¶0090] applied to the at least one battery cell under a temperature condition less than or equal to a predetermined threshold temperature [charging time is calculated based on battery temperature; see ¶003, ¶0090 and claim 1 ].
448’ does not disclose explicitly, and an operation to determine whether to permanently block charging and discharging of the at least one battery cell by comparing the accumulated charging time period with a predetermined threshold time period.
Takahashi discloses in figures 1-9, an operation to determine whether to permanently block charging and discharging of the at least one battery cell by comparing the accumulated charging time period with a predetermined threshold time period [see ¶00118; each charging phase has charging time and charging is stop when the time exceeds the predetermined duration; see also figure 4A ].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to stop charging of the rechargeable battery of 448’ based on charging time as taught by Takahashi in order to inhibit heat generation in the battery and prevent battery damage due to overheating.
As to claims 26 and 36, 448’ in combination with Takahashi discloses, wherein the operation to determine whether to permanently block charging and discharging of the at least one battery cell includes an operation to permanently block charging and discharging of the at least one battery cell in an instance that the accumulated charging time period is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold time period [see ¶00118 of Takahashi].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27-34 and 37-44 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
For Claim 27: primarily, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest in the claimed combination: wherein the operation to determine whether to permanently block charging and discharging of the at least one battery cell includes: an operation to identify an operation mode of the at least one battery cell in an instance that the accumulated charging time period is less than the predetermined threshold time period; and an operation to compare a charging time period of the at least one battery cell under the temperature condition less than or equal to the predetermined threshold temperature according to the operation mode with at least one predefined time period and to control charging and discharging of the at least one battery according to a comparison result.
For Claim 37: primarily, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest in the claimed combination: wherein the determining whether to permanently block charging and discharging of the at least one battery cell includes: identifying an operation mode of the at least one battery cell in an instance that the accumulated charging time period is less than the predetermined threshold time period; and comparing a charging time period of the at least one battery cell under the temperature condition less than or equal to the predetermined threshold temperature according to the operation mode with at least one predefined time period and controlling charging and discharging of the at least one battery according to a comparison result.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al. (US 2018/0323606) discloses Over-Temperature Protection System Of A Charging Device.
Arashima et al. (2016/0087314) discloses Battery Apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL BERHANU whose telephone number is (571)272-8430. The examiner can normally be reached M_F.
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, Julian A. Huffman can be reached at Julian.Huffman@uspto.gov. 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.
/SAMUEL BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
