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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner notes the submission of a preliminary amendment submitted on 6/14/2024 with the filing of the instant application. This amendment is proper and is incorporated in the examination.
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 1-8 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.
Many of the claims especially independent claim 1 use connecting words to link limitations; e.g., “according” & “obtaining”. The natural language definitions of these words do not impart any special functional meaning to the method steps and instead will be interpreted as meaning something like –connected with--. Maybe the applicant should consider using terms like –programmed with— or –operable with--? Sometimes the applicant uses “configuring” which is also a suitable term in this context.
Claim 3 has various indefiniteness problems.
In line three the term “in turn” is not understood. Is there a set order that the “configuring” occurs? Since there does not appear to be a particular order the examiner will consider this term a connecting term without any meaning.
In line 4 the phrase “a transfer function”, is this an antecedent problem? Is this the same “transfer function” recited in the preamble and in parent claim 2?
In line four the phrase “other battery subsystems” is not understood. Are these “other” subsystems the same as previously recited? If not, then these “other battery subsystems” should be positively recited before being used in a function.
The last phrase “the target battery subsystem as a transfer function of the target battery subsystem” is reciting that something is a function of itself. The examiner will interpret this phrase to mean that the target battery subsystem uses a transfer function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 5-6, (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trimbolli et al (US2016/0336765A).
A method for controlling a battery pack (¶0101 “The system 100 includes a battery unit 102 that includes a plurality of battery cells 105a-105n (collectively “105”)”; ¶0114 “the plurality of battery cells 105 forms a battery pack”), applied to a system for controlling the battery pack, the method comprising:
dividing the battery pack into multiple battery subsystems (¶0101 “The system 100 includes…”, ¶0102 1st sentence);
obtaining a step response matrix between each of the battery subsystems (¶0009 “step response” & “the battery model comprising A, B, C, and D matrices”; or ¶0312 to ¶0318 or claims 9 or 21);
establishing a battery pack objective function of the system for controlling the battery pack according to the step response matrix (¶0090 “…objective map of a battery controller uses model predictive control (“MPC”) …”, ¶0098 4th sentence “modifies the reference state or reference charging characteristic using an objective map based on a parameter mismatch between one or more battery cells”, claim 9);
obtaining (¶0105 to ¶0109) a battery pack control function (¶0105 “…the functions of the central controller 160”) are distributed in the battery controller 111) according to the battery pack objective function (“objective map 114”); and
controlling (¶0090) the battery pack according to the battery pack control function (¶0105 1st sentence).
Claim 2 Trimbolli discloses the method for controlling the battery pack of claim 1, wherein obtaining the step response matrix between each of the battery subsystems comprises: obtaining a transfer function of each of the battery subsystems; and obtaining the step response matrix according to the transfer function (¶0009, ¶0312 to ¶0319, claim 9).
Claim 3 Trimbolli discloses the method for controlling the battery pack of claim 2, wherein obtaining the transfer function of each of the battery subsystems comprises: configuring each of the battery subsystems as a target battery subsystem (¶0153 “each objective map 114 includes a minimum target state-of-charge corresponding to 12 V and a maximum target state-of-charge corresponding to 13 V.”) in turn, and configuring a transfer function between an input of other battery subsystems except the target battery subsystem and an output of the target battery subsystem as a transfer function of the target battery subsystem.
Claim 5 Trimbolli discloses the method for controlling the battery pack of claim 1, wherein dividing the battery pack into the multiple battery subsystems comprises: obtaining charge and discharge characteristics of each battery in the battery pack; obtaining a battery model (e.g., of each battery according to the charge and discharge characteristics; and determining a battery subsystem corresponding to each battery according to the battery model (¶0017, ¶0083, ¶0117, ¶0141 “model 260 depicted in FIG. 2N”, ¶0187 “the cell electrochemical model 222, and the cell life-prognostic model 224”).
Claim 6 Trimbolli discloses the method for controlling the battery pack of claim 1, wherein establishing the battery pack objective function (“objective map 114”) of the system for controlling the battery pack according to the step response matrix (¶0105) comprises: establishing a battery objective function for each of the batteries (each “battery cell” 105 or 105a etc. is read as a separate battery within the battery pack) according to the step response matrix; and establishing the battery pack objective function according to the battery objective function (¶0114 “ the plurality of battery cells 105 forms a battery pack”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 & 7-8 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.
Claims 9-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael C Zarroli whose telephone number is (571)272-2101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET IFP.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 5712705744. 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.
MICHAEL C. ZARROLI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3658B
/MICHAEL C ZARROLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /M.C.Z/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658