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 Arguments
35 U.S.C 103
Regarding independent claims 1, 8, and 18, Applicant argues that Yoon fails to disclose “an instruction to¸ upon detecting the at least one event requiring the emergency storage of the BMS data, request for the emergency storage of the BMS data to a first controller in a device including the battery”. The reason being that Yoon states that a separate server and a controller may be provided to control the PCS 350 and the BMS 330, store information acquired from the PCS 350 and the BMS 330, and the like.
Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s argument and respectfully disagrees. In response to the preceding argument examiner respectfully submits that Yoon discloses the above limitations. Yoon only states that a separate server and a controller may be provided to control the PCS 350 and BMS 330. Having a separate server and controller is optional as Yoon also states in the same paragraph ([0024] an example in which the PCS 350 and the BMS 330 control the energy storage system without a separate server and controller will be described). That in addition to what was stated in the Office Action from Yoon ([0023] BMS 330 protects the battery 310 through an emergency operation when a dangerous situation is detected. The BMS 330 stores the type and the characteristic information of the battery 310 and manages the charging and discharging), the BMS 330 itself requests a storage operation when a dangerous situation is detected correlates to the claim limitations “upon detecting the at least one event requiring the emergency storage of the BMS data”. Then finally the request is made from the BMS 330 inside of device 300 which includes a battery 310 as described in Fig. 2 from Yoon. Given the above, the examiner maintains the rejection in view of Yoon.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 16 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 cited prior arts do not disclose the limitations cited within these dependent claims.
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.
Claims 1, 7-8, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoon (US Pub # 20170237259).
With regards to claim 1, Yoon discloses a battery management apparatus for managing battery management system (BMS) data related to a state of a battery, the apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and a memory configured to store at least one instruction to be executed by the at least one processor, wherein the at least one instruction includes:
an instruction to detect at least one event requiring an emergency storage of the BMS data ([0023] BMS protects the battery through an emergency operation when a dangerous situation is detected);
an instruction to, upon detecting an the at least one event requiring the emergency storage of the BMS data, request for the emergency storage of the BMS data to a first controller in a device including the battery ([0023] stores the type and characteristic information of the battery); and
an instruction to receive a response to the request for the emergency storage of the BMS data from the first controller and to transmit the BMS data to the first controller ([0023] stores the type and characteristic information of the battery and manages the charging and discharging according to the characteristics of the battery).
Claims 8 and 18 correspond to claim 1 and are rejected accordingly.
With regards to claim 7, Yoon further discloses:
wherein the BMS data transmitted to the first controller is transmitted to and stored in the first controller or a selected one among one or more second controllers interoperating with the first controller ([0024] controller store information acquired from the BMS).
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 2 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (US Pub # 20170237259) in view of Anma (U.S Pub # 20180244165).
With regards to claim 2, Yoon does not disclose however Anma discloses:
wherein the at least one event requiring the emergency storage of the BMS data includes an event that a temperature of the battery detected by the battery management apparatus is equal to or greater than a threshold temperature ([0090] when the detected temperature becomes equal to or greater than the first threshold value, the BMS may store a piece of temperature information indicating the same).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified Yoon by Anma to determine if a battery may be overheating.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to store temperature information indicating the detected temperature has gone too high (Anma [0021]).
Claim 19 corresponds to claim 2 and is rejected accordingly.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (US Pub # 20170237259) in view of Metzner (U.S Pub # 20140359190).
With regards to claim 3, Yoon does not disclose however Metzner discloses:
wherein the request for the emergency storage of the BMS data and a transmission of the BMS data are made through Controller Area Network (CAN) communication ([0033] controller area network protocol).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified Yoon by Metzner to communicate between controllers using a controller protocol.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order so nodes may communicate across a single shared bus according to a message-based protocol (Metzner [0003]).
With regards to claim 4, Yoon does not disclose however Metzner discloses:
wherein at least one frame used for the CAN communication includes a field of an identifier that specifies a sender and a receiver of the at least one frame and one or more data fields ([0003] headers within the data that identify the sender and recipient of a data communication).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified Yoon by Metzner to communicate between controllers using a controller protocol.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order so nodes may communicate across a single shared bus according to a message-based protocol (Metzner [0003]).
With regards to claim 5, Yoon further discloses:
wherein the one or more data fields includes information indicating whether the at least one frame is a message requesting the emergency storage or a message responding to whether the emergency storage is possible ([0023] BMS protects the battery through an emergency operation when a dangerous situation is detected by storing).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified Yoon by Metzner to communicate between controllers using a controller protocol.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order so nodes may communicate across a single shared bus according to a message-based protocol (Metzner [0003]).
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (US Pub # 20170237259) in view of Poristoin (U.S Pub # 20080005734).
With regards to claim 9, Yoon further discloses:
In response to the request for the emergency storage of the BMS data; receive the BMS data from the battery management apparatus and store the BMS data in a storage device within the first controller ([0023] store bms data).
Yoon does not disclose however Poristoin discloses:
determine whether a communication path between the battery management apparatus and the first controller is normal ([0061] connection update);
check whether the first controller secures a storage space to store the BMS data and send a response message to the battery management apparatus ([0071] determine if there’s enough space to store data in memory).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified Yoon by Poristoin to determine if a storage operation is viable.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine a successful automatic update of information (Poristoin [0006]).
Claim 20 corresponds to claim 9 and is rejected accordingly.
Claims 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (US Pub # 20170237259) in view of Kratzer (U.S Pub # 20180134160).
With regards to claim 10, Yoon does not disclose however Kratzer discloses:
one or more second controllers under a control of the first controller ([0124-0125] Tes controller controlling cell module controllers).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified Yoon by Metzner to communicate between a plurality of controllers.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to obtain signals from multiple controllers to output a system signal (Kratzer [0010]).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (US Pub # 20170237259) in view of Kratzer (U.S Pub # 20180134160) and in further view of Smereka (U.S Pub # 20170171272).
With regards to claim 11, Yoon further discloses:
in response to the request for the emergency storage of the BMS data, receive the BMS data from the battery management apparatus; and transmit the BMS data to the controller ([0023] store in response to emergency).
Yoon does not disclose however Smereka discloses:
determine which of the one or more second controllers is a safest second controller to store the BMS data ([0044] utilize device having the most available storage space).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified Yoon and Kratzer by Smereka to determine the best avenue to perform a storage operation.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to manage downloading data to a specific storage (Smereka [0013]).
With regards to claim 12, Yoon does not disclose however Smereka discloses:
wherein the safest second controller is determined based on one or more of an availability of a storage space to store the BMS data, location from the battery, and a temperature of a corresponding controller of the one or more second controllers ([0044] utilize device having the most available storage space).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to manage downloading data to a specific storage (Smereka [0013]).
With regards to claim 13, Yoon does not disclose however Kratzer discloses:
wherein the request for the emergency storage of the BMS data and the transmitting of the BMS data are made through Controller Area Network (CAN) communication ([0074] controller area network).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified Yoon by Metzner to communicate between a plurality of controllers.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to obtain signals from multiple controllers to output a system signal (Kratzer [0010]).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (US Pub # 20170237259) in view of Kratzer (U.S Pub # 20180134160) and in further view of Smereka (U.S Pub # 20170171272) and Metzner (U.S Pub # 20140359190).
With regards to claim 14, Yoon does not disclose however Metzner discloses:
wherein at least one frame used for the CAN communication includes a field of an identifier that specifies a sender and a receiver of the at least one frame and one or more data fields ([0003] headers within the data that identify the sender and recipient of a data communication).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified Yoon, Kratzer, Smereka by Metzner to communicate between controllers using a controller protocol.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order so nodes may communicate across a single shared bus according to a message-based protocol (Metzner [0003]).
With regards to claim 15, Yoon further discloses:
wherein the one or more data fields includes information indicating whether the at least one frame is a message requesting the emergency storage or a message responding to whether the emergency storage is possible ([0023] BMS protects the battery through an emergency operation when a dangerous situation is detected by storing).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (US Pub # 20170237259) in view of Matsumoto (U.S Pub # 20230150393).
With regards to claim 17, Yoon does not disclose however Matsumoto discloses:
wherein the first controller is a vehicle control unit (VCU) which is the highest level controller that centrally controls one or more electronic control units (ECUs) communicating with the battery management apparatus ([0039] a vehicle control unit that commands an ECU and battery control unit).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified Yoon by Matsumoto to illustrate the hierarchy within controllers of a vehicle.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to observe the state of a battery mounted on a hybrid vehicle (Matsumoto [0035]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TONY WU whose telephone number is (571)272-2033. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571) 272-4098. 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.
/TONY WU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights