DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-5, as originally filed, are currently pending and have been considered below.
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, 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.
4. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazoe et al. ( USP 2016/0268642) in view of Nishiwaki et al. (JP-2017-108567).
As Per Claim 1, Yamazoe et al. ( Yamazoe) teaches, a battery control device (via a battery control system 1, Fig.1) comprising: a master device (Assembled Battery Management system 200) that monitors states of a plurality of battery cell groups ( via battery cell management device 100) provided in a vehicle , ([0018], [0017-0019]); and a plurality of slave devices installed for each battery cell group, and configured to detect a state of each battery cell group and transmit the states of the battery cell groups to the master device, ([0018], [0017-0019], [002-0026], [0027-0029]);
Examiner interprets , “time-division manner” as ‘periodically’.
wherein the master device and the plurality of slave devices sequentially communicate in a time-division manner, [0034] and the slave device includes an abnormality detection unit that detects an abnormality in communication by monitoring communication between another slave device and the master device, and when the abnormality detection unit detects the abnormality in the communication, the slave device transmits information on the other slave device to the master device together with information on the slave device. ([0032], [0035-0039]).
In a related field of Art, Nishiwaki et al. ( Nishiwaki) teaches, a charging control device for an electric vehicle comprising: a communication abnormality detection unit 24a that detects the presence or absence of a communication abnormality in which the activation signal cannot be received by the charging device; (See Claim 1 and also see Abstract, Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Yamazoe and Nishiwaki before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Yamazoe, to include the teachings ( the CPU 24 including abnormality detection part 24A and charge control part 24B) of Nishiwaki and configure with the system of Yamazoe in order to detect any abnormality in communication and when any abnormality in communication is detected, notify the driver of abnormality and continue to supply power to the charging unit until the vehicle is turned off. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, informing the driver of abnormal situation (i.e., an added safety feature to enhance safety of the driver and others in the vehicle).
As per Claim 2, Yamazoe as modified by Nishiwaki teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Yamazoe in view of Nishiwaki teaches, wherein when the abnormality of the communication occurs in the other slave device a predetermined number of times, the slave device transmits, to the master device, information on the abnormality of the communication of the other slave device and information on presence or absence of the abnormality of the state of the battery cell group to be detected by the other slave device (Yamazoe : [0036-0039]).
As per Claim 3, Yamazoe as modified by Nishiwaki teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Yamazoe in view of Nishiwaki teaches, wherein when the abnormality of the communication occurs in the other slave device a predetermined number of times, the slave device notifies the vehicle that the other slave device is unable to communicate. ( Yamazoe : via “wireless communication is periodically repeated between the assembled battery management device BC and each of the battery cell management devices CC1 to CCn. Thereby, the assembled battery management device BC periodically can obtain the voltage value of each battery cell group 10, as data for calculating the SOC of each battery cell group 10, from each of the battery cell monitoring devices CC1 to CCn”, [0034]).
Claim 4 is being rejected using the same rationale as claim 1.
As per Claim 5, Yamazoe as modified by Nishiwaki teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Yamazoe in view of Nishiwaki teaches, wherein the slave device includes a storage unit that stores state information of the other slave device, (Yamazoe : [0025]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD SHAFI whose telephone number is (571)270-5741. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am -5:00 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, Scott Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/MUHAMMAD SHAFI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666C