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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments/amendments filed 03/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Stephane does not disclose "determining that the first voltage is greater than the second voltage" and "dividing the first voltage by two," as recited in amended claim 2.
Applicant further argues that Stephane divides by voltage or average voltage values generally rather than specifically dividing by two, and that Stephane's disclosed formulas differ from the presently claimed mathematical arrangement.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. Stephane expressly teaches calculating comparison values based on voltage derived quantities associated with multiple battery module sets [0014-19], including mathematical normalization through division by voltage and average voltage values [017]. Determining relative magnitude relationships between measured voltage values constitutes a basic comparison operation routinely performed in battery monitoring systems when evaluating multiple measured battery voltages.
Further, as evidenced by Sakai (US20130187466A1), division of measured battery pack voltages by the number of batteries or cells represented by the measured voltage in order to obtain normalized or average voltage values was known in the battery monitoring art. Modifying Stephane's disclosed voltage comparison process to divide a measured voltage associated with a pair of batteries by two prior to subtraction and threshold comparison therefore would have represented no more than the predictable use of known mathematical normalization techniques.
Applicant additionally argues that Stephane does not disclose "determining a test voltage by subtracting the divided first voltage from the second voltage." However, Stephane expressly teaches generating comparison values using subtraction operations involving voltage related quantities associated with different battery module sets [0014-19]. Modifying the particular arithmetic arrangement disclosed by Stephane to include normalization of one measured voltage value prior to subtraction would have been an obvious variation involving routine mathematical processing yielding predictable results.
The Examiner further notes that amended claim 2 does not recite any specialized hardware or unconventional mathematical processing beyond generic mathematical manipulation of measured voltage values. The claimed sequence therefore constitutes no more than the application of known mathematical comparison techniques within the context of battery fault detection as taught by Stephane and evidenced by Sakai.
Accordingly, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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 2-7, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephane (WO2022084595).
Regarding claims 2, Stephane teaches a method for detecting abnormal alkaline battery conditions, wherein the method
determining a test voltage by subtracting the divided first voltage from the second voltage (calculating a value based on the subtraction of voltage related quantities associated with the first and second sets [0014-19]); and compare the test voltage to a threshold ("compare this value x to a threshold" [0021]).
Stephane further teaches making the computed value dimensionless by dividing it by a voltage, including division by an average value [017] but does not expressly disclose dividing a measured voltage by two.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform such a division as a normalization step, because dividing a measured voltage by the number of batteries or cells represented by the measured voltage in order to obtain a per battery or average voltage value was a well known technique in battery monitoring systems.
Accordingly, modifying Stephane's disclosed voltage comparison process to divide a measured voltage associated with a pair of batteries by two in order to obtain a normalized or per battery voltage value prior to subtraction and threshold comparison would have represented no more than the predictable use of known mathematical normalization techniques within the context of battery fault detection. Implementing this arithmetic refinement would improve comparison consistency and accuracy while maintaining the same underlying fault detection principle taught by Stephane.
The Examiner further notes that Stephane already teaches generating comparison values using subtraction operations involving voltage related quantities associated with different battery module sets [0014-19]. The claimed arithmetic arrangement therefore differs from Stephane only in the particular implementation of known mathematical processing operations, which would have been well within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 3, 9, Stephane further teaches determining, based on a determination that the test voltage is greater than or equal to the threshold, that there is no abnormal battery (“confirm that one of the module sets has a fault when this value x exceeds this threshold” [0021] no fault if x doesn’t exceed threshold).
Regarding claims 4, 10, Stephane further teaches determining, based on a determination that a difference between the test voltage and an average battery voltage is less than the threshold, that there is no abnormal battery (“during the step of determining the value x, the process makes this value x dimensionless by dividing it by a voltage, in particular by AVi or an average between AVi and AVj” to normalize the comparison value [017] use of an average voltage references to distinguish normal variation from abnormal behavior).
Regarding claims 5, 11, 12, Stephane further teaches determining, based on a determination that the test voltage is less the threshold, that there is an abnormal battery (“confirm that one of the module sets has a fault when this value x exceeds this threshold.” [0022]); and stopping, based on a determination that there is an abnormal battery, operation of a device (disconnecting the battery, modules or cells or limiting current in response to detected fault [0036-40]).
Regarding claim 6, Stephane further teaches determining, based on a difference between the test voltage and an average battery voltage being greater than the threshold, that there is an abnormal battery; and stopping, based on a determination that there is an abnormal battery, operation of a device (determining that a battery fault exists based on a voltage derived value exceeding a threshold and initiating protective action in response, computing a value derived from voltage associated with multiple battery sets and confirming that one of the battery sets has a fault when the computed value exceeds threshold [0014-22] normalizing voltage derived values using an average between voltage quantities associated with different battery sets [017]. Disconnecting batter, module or cells or limiting current after a fault is detected, which results in stopping operation of a device powered by battery [0036-40]).
Regarding claim 7, the structure recited is intrinsic to the method recited in claim 1, as disclosed by Stephane (WO2022084595) as the recited structure will be used during the normal operation of the method, as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Stephane further teaches a battery monitoring system (battery system fig. 1, acquisition, processing and computer to implement battery fault detection [0041-44]) comprising: a first voltage measurement unit configured to measure a first voltage over a first pair of batteries ( “a first set of battery modules connected in series and a first means of measuring a first voltage of the first set of modules”[0012]); a second voltage measurement unit configured to measure a second voltage over a second pair of batteries (“a second set of battery modules connected in series and a second means for measuring a second voltage of the second set of modules,”[0013]); a processor (“a computer comprising the means of acquisition, processing by software instructions stored in a memory as well as the control means required to implement the process” [0041]) .
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephane (WO2022084595) in view of Heydari (U.S. Publication 20210157340).
Regarding claim 13, Stephane does not explicitly teach wherein the device comprises at least one of: a flushometer; an automatic soap dispenser; an automatic faucet; or a paper towel dispenser.
Heydari in a relevant art teaching sensors to determine a status or condition of one or more sanitaryware fixtures in the sanitaryware system and perform a particular function teaches a flushometer; an automatic soap dispenser; an automatic faucet; or a paper towel dispenser (fig. 2 “the angle stop or shut off flow to the flushometer to prevent usage of the sanitaryware until the technician or janitor is able to service the sanitaryware” [0102]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery monitoring system of Stephane so that the device whose operation is stopped upon detection of an abnormal battery condition is a sanitaryware device, such as a flushometer as taught by Heydari, because Stephane is expressly not limited to any particular type of battery powered device and teaches stopping operation of a device upon detection of an abnormal battery condition, while Heydari teaches that sanitaryware fixtures are battery powered electronic devices requiring battery monitoring and control. The modification represents the use of battery monitoring technique with a known class of battery powered devices, does not change the fundamental operation of the system.
Regarding claim 14, Stephane further teaches an indicator light configured to indicate a low battery condition based on a determination that the test voltage is less than the threshold (“the step of confirming that one of the module assemblies has a defect comprises sub steps taken individually or in combination from: a step of emitting a visual or audible alarm,” [020, 0110]).
Regarding claim 15, Stephane further teaches a transceiver configured to send an electronic communication indicating a low battery condition (“a means of transmitting or displaying the detected fault, for example a loudspeaker or indicator light positioned in a control panel (or dashboard for a vehicle)” [0110]).
Claim 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Heydari (U.S. Publication 20210157340) in view of Stephane (WO2022084595).
Regarding claim 16, Heydari teaches a system (fig. 1A 20) comprising: a plumbing fixture (fig. 1A 10) comprising: a battery monitoring system configured to detect abnormal battery conditions (“The ability of the sanitaryware to monitor battery status may allow for initiation of a ticket, inventory management, service planning, proactive repair and/or replacement of parts, monitoring of battery life versus other trends” [0105]); and a transceiver configured to transmit or receive one or more electronic communications (“The computing device 502 may communicate with the server 504 and transmit” [0082]); and a server configured to receive one or more electronic communications from the plumbing fixture (“The computing device 502 may communicate with the server 504 and transmit the flush valve assembly 500 address to the server 504” [0082]), wherein the one or more electronic communications indicate an abnormal battery for the plumbing fixture (“The ability of the sanitaryware to monitor battery status may allow for initiation of a ticket, inventory management, service planning, proactive repair and/or replacement of parts, monitoring of battery life versus other trends, and marketing. The battery status may be communicated to the server to log and/or monitor the status of the battery. For example, the battery status may allow for preemptive recharging or replacement of the batteries to avoid or prevent the functions of the toilet from being inoperable due to an inoperable battery. Thus, the monitoring and logging of the battery status may improve the overall efficiencies of the system” [0105]).
However, Heydari does not expressly disclose: dividing a measured voltage associated with a pair of batteries by two; determining a test voltage by subtracting the divided voltage from another measured voltage; and comparing the resulting test voltage to a threshold as presently recited.
Stephane in a relevant art teaches generating comparison values using subtraction operations involving voltage-derived quantities associated with different battery module sets and comparing the resulting values to thresholds in order to detect battery faults. See Stephane [0014]-[0022], further teaches mathematical normalization of voltage-derived quantities, including division by voltage and average voltage values prior to threshold comparison. See Stephane [0017]-[0019], [0043]-[0045].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Heydari's battery monitoring process to include normalization of a measured pair voltage by dividing by the number of batteries represented by the measured voltage in order to obtain a normalized or per-battery voltage value prior to subtraction and threshold comparison, as taught by Stephane. Such modification would have represented no more than the predictable use of known mathematical normalization and comparison techniques within the context of battery fault detection and would have improved comparison consistency and accuracy while maintaining the same underlying battery monitoring principles taught by Heydari.
PNG
media_image1.png
468
284
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Heydari as modified further teaches a flushometer; an automatic soap dispenser; an automatic faucet; or a paper towel dispenser (FIG. 2 [0075]).
Regarding claim 18, Heydari as modified further teaches wherein the server is further configured to cause a dashboard to be displayed on a user device (FIG. 6a 300, [0072]).
Regarding claim 19, Heydari as modified further teaches wherein the dashboard indicates the abnormal battery for the plumbing fixture (fig. 6A “The dashboard 300 may allow the user to order replacement batteries directly” [0073]).
Regarding claim 20, Heydari as modified further teaches wherein the dashboard is displayed via a mobile application on the user device (“The dashboard 300 may be employed on a mobile device, such as, for example, a mobile telephone, a tablet, or other handheld mobile device” [0072]).
Regarding claim 21, Heydari as modified further teaches wherein the dashboard is displayed via a browser on the user device (“The user interface may be a web based application and/or a local application installed on the computing device 112” [0066]).
Regarding claim 22, Heydari as modified further teaches wherein the server is further configured to send a second electronic communication to a user device, wherein the second electronic communication indicates the abnormal battery condition for the plumbing fixture (“The alerts or alarms 204 may reflect a need for a technician at a toilet, batteries that need to be changed” [0067]).
Regarding claim 23, Heydari as modified further teaches wherein the second electronic communication comprises at least one of: a text message; a short messaging service (SMS) message; a multimedia service (MMS) message; an e-mail; or a push notification (“the alerts or alarms 204 may reflect a need for a technician at a toilet, batteries that need to be changed, bathrooms experiencing high or low traffic (e.g., based on some predetermined threshold), number of pending clogs (e.g., estimated based on usage or status of the sanitaryware), communicated messages from the connected system 100, The dashboard 200 may also indicate a notification module 206” [0067]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAQI R NASIR whose telephone number is (571)270-1425. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST 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, Lee Rodak can be reached at (571) 270-5628. 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.
/TAQI R NASIR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights