The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-19 are pending in which claims 1-18 are examined. Claims 1-4, 10-11, 13-15, and 17 are currently amended. Claim 19 is withdrawn. Claim 20 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to “vehicle control system” has no longer triggered the 35 USC 112f interpretation.
Applicant’s amendment to “vehicle control system” has no longer triggered the 35 USC 112f interpretation.
Applicant’s argument as to the rejection of claims 1-18 under AIA 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection has been carefully considered but is not persuasive. Applicant alleges that claim 1 is not directed to a judicial exception, arguing all the steps are not practically performed in a human mind (abstract idea) (Step 2A Prong 1), arguing that the claimed invention improves another technology or technical field (Step 2A Prong 2). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The independent claim and the other claims recite a system with a vehicle control system for monitoring voltage, detecting a voltage imbalance, and initiating a mitigating action as recited in independent claim 1. The limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “by the vehicle control system”. That is, other than reciting “by the vehicle control system” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by the vehicle control system” language, the claim encompasses a person a simple judgement in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of by the vehicle control system does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes). The claim recites additional elements to monitor voltage, and detect a voltage imbalance is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the outputting step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The initiating step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting result from the monitoring and detecting steps), and amounts to mere post solution outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No). Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the generating and outputting steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that battery management system for monitoring, controlling and maintaining health and efficiencies of electric vehicle is well known [0001]. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Claim rejection under AIA 35 U.S.C. §112b as to claims 3, 11, and 13-15 have been withdrawn due to amendment and argument. However, amendment to claims 3, 11, and 13 have raised a new rejection as set forth in this Office Action.¶
Applicant’s argument with respect to rejection to claims 1, and 3-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., US 2025/0158139 (A1) in view of Wang et al., US 2023/0105559 (A1) are directed to languages that has not been previously considered. As such, a new rejection is set forth in this office action.
As to the dependent claims, there is no argument for dependent claims other than their dependency on the respective independent claim 1. Because independent claim 1 is not allowable, dependent claims are not allowable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Analysis for Independent Claim 1:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) (Step 2A Prong 1), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception (Step 2A Prong 2), and if so, re-evaluate whether the inventive concept is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (Step 2B).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: statutory category
Independent claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a machine respectively, which is statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claim and the other claims recite a system with a vehicle control system for monitoring voltage, detecting a voltage imbalance, and initiating a mitigating action as recited in independent claim 1. The limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “by the vehicle control system”. That is, other than reciting “by the vehicle control system” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by the vehicle control system” language, the claim encompasses a person a simple judgement in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of by the vehicle control system does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The claim recites additional elements to monitor voltage, and detect a voltage imbalance is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the outputting step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The initiating step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting result from the monitoring and detecting steps), and amounts to mere post solution outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No)
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the generating and outputting steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that battery management system for monitoring, controlling and maintaining health and efficiencies of electric vehicle is well known [0001]. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Analysis for Dependent Claims 2-18:
Step 1: Determining if the claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 2-18 are directed to a system. The claim is directed to a machine, which is a statutory category. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices, and “an idea ‘of itself’”.
Claims 2-18 recite additional limitations directed to a mental process. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 1 applies. Claims 2-18 are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 2-18 recite additional limitations, which viewed both individually and in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong Two for claim 1 applies. Claims 2-18 are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The additional elements in claims The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 1 applies.fail to recite any additional elements, viewed both individually and as a whole, that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The same analysis applies in this step 2B as discussed in Step 2A Prong Two (see independent and dependent claim analysis). The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 1 applies. Claims 2-18 fail to claim anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
Dependent claims 2-18 are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 2-18 are not patent eligible. Overall, claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter and are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amended limitation of claim 3, “shutoff state in which discharge
from the battery pack is limited” has no specification support for the amendment. Therefore, amended limitations as recited in dependent claim 3 constitutes new matter and need to be cancelled.
The amended limitation of claim 11, “discharge greater than a discharged threshold” has no specification support for the amendment. Therefore, amended limitations as recited in dependent claim 11 constitutes new matter and need to be cancelled.
The amended limitation of claim 13, “the mitigating action includes setting a fault error” has no specification support for the amendment. Therefore, amended limitations as recited in dependent claim 13 constitutes new matter and need to be cancelled.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claims upon which they depend, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claims upon which they depend.
Claim 4 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim 1 upon which claim 4 depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
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 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.
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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claim invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, and 3-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., US 2025/0158139 (A1) in view of Wang et al., US 2023/0105559 (A1), further in view of Kam, US 2024/0204537 (A1).
As to claim 1, Park teaches a system comprising:
a battery pack including a plurality of battery cells (“‘battery pack’ refers not only to a battery pack in which a plurality of battery cells are stored in a pack housing in a narrow sense, but also conceptually refers to a battery module inside the battery pack or a battery rack containing a plurality of battery modules or battery packs stored in a broad sense.”, ¶103)
a vehicle control system comprising a processing circuit configured to (control module, ¶125):
monitor voltage sensor data indicating voltages of the plurality of battery cells (“comparing voltages for a plurality of battery cells based on the voltage measurement information transmitted from a voltage sensor”, ¶125);
initiate a mitigating action in response to detecting the voltage imbalance (Figs. 2 and 3 and related text; “claim 8: wherein the control module is configured to change the diagnosis criterion for at least some of the plurality of diagnosis items according to a diagnosis result of another diagnosis item; claim 10 “classify the processing operation according to whether automatic release is possible for different diagnosis steps”).
Park teaches detect a voltage imbalance among the plurality of battery cells based on the voltages of the plurality of battery cells (“control module 200 may diagnose the inter-cell voltage imbalance state by calculating a plurality of battery inter-cell voltage differences and determining whether the calculated voltage difference deviates from a standard voltage difference that is the diagnosis criterion or how much the calculated voltage difference deviates”, ¶125); but does not explicitly teach:
detect a voltage imbalance among the plurality of battery cells based on at
least one of (i) a first voltage of a first of the plurality of battery cells increasing over time concurrently with a second voltage of a second of the plurality of battery cells decreasing over time, or (ii) a difference between a maximum cell voltage among the plurality of battery cells and a minimum cell voltage among the plurality of battery cells at a given time being greater than a threshold.
However, in the same field of endeaver, Kam teaches “battery management device for a battery pack having a plurality of battery modules, includes a detection device detecting state information of battery cells included in the plurality of battery modules”, (abs) with “battery management method may include the obtaining of the first imbalance state including obtaining a voltage difference between a battery cell having a maximum cell voltage and a battery cell having a minimum cell voltage for each of the plurality of battery modules, or obtaining a state of charge difference between a battery cell having a maximum state of charge and a battery cell having a minimum state of charge for each of the plurality of battery modules, and the executing of the protection operation may include executing the protection operation if a battery module having the voltage difference greater than a threshold value is detected among the plurality of battery modules, or executing the protection operation if a battery module having the state of charge difference greater than a threshold value is detected among the plurality of battery modules”, ¶20). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person to one of ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the battery pack of Park to include detecting a voltage imbalance among the plurality of battery cells based on at least one of (i) a first voltage of a first of the plurality of battery cells increasing over time concurrently with a second voltage of a second of the plurality of battery cells decreasing over time, or (ii) a difference between a maximum cell voltage among the plurality of battery cells and a minimum cell voltage among the plurality of battery cells at a given time being greater than a threshold as taught by kam to suppress or delay of the battery system of the vehicle (Park: ¶3).
Park and Kam discloses that a vehicle is equipped with the battery system (Fig. 1 and related text; ¶29); but Park modified by Kam does not explicitly teach:
a golf vehicle including:
a chassis;
a front axle coupled to the chassis;
a rear axle coupled to the chassis; and
a battery pack supported by the chassis.
However, in the same field of endeaver, Wang teaches:
a golf vehicle including (Wang: “As shown in FIG. 16, the electric tool 100 in the present invention is only exemplary. Of course, the battery management system 537 can also be used as a power source in golf carts, ATVs, electric bicycles, electric motorcycles, and unmanned lawn vehicles. Wait for electric power tools driven by electricity”, ¶131):
a chassis (Wang: Fig. 9 and related text, ¶131);
a front axle coupled to the chassis (Wang: Fig. 9 and related text, ¶131);
a rear axle coupled to the chassis (Wang: Fig. 9 and related text, ¶131); and
a battery pack supported by the chassis (battery pack 539 supported by vehicle chassis in Fig. 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person to one of ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the battery pack of Park modified by Kam to be included a golf vehicle including: a chassis; a front axle coupled to the chassis; a rear axle coupled to the chassis; and a battery pack supported by the chassis as taught by Wang to suppress or delay of the battery system of the vehicle (Park: ¶3).
As to claim 3, Park modified by Wang and Kam teaches the system golf vehicle system wherein the vehicle control system includes a battery management system coupled to the battery pack, wherein the battery management system is configured to enter a shutoff state in which discharged from the battery pack is limited (Park: shut-down component is attached to the battery system, ¶119-120), and
wherein the vehicle control system is configured to cause the battery management system to periodically re-enter a monitoring state during the shutoff state to detect monitor the voltages (Wang: shut-down component is attached to the battery system and monitor the collected information such as voltage, current, and cell temperature of the battery to disconnect the charging, ¶119-120, 124).
As to claim 4, Park modified by Wang and Kam teaches the system golf vehicle system wherein the vehicle control system is configured to detect the voltage imbalance among the plurality of battery cells in response to determining the first voltage has an increasing voltage trend and the second voltage has a decreasing voltage trend within the battery pack simultaneously (Park: “a plurality of battery inter-cell voltage differences” in increasing abnormality, ¶125, 80).
As to claim 5, Park modified by Wang and Kam teaches the system golf vehicle system wherein detecting the voltage imbalance among the plurality of battery cells includes recording the voltages over time and observing a voltage rise or fall per unit time that exceeds a threshold (“Park: “calculating a plurality of battery inter-cell voltage differences and determining whether the calculated voltage difference deviates from a standard voltage difference” over measurement time, ¶125, 193).
As to claim 6, Park modified by Wang and Kam teaches the system golf vehicle system wherein detecting the voltage imbalance among the plurality of battery cells includes comparing current voltages of the plurality of battery cells to previous voltages of the plurality of battery cells and determining an instantaneous difference between the current voltages and the previous voltages (“Park: “calculating a plurality of battery inter-cell voltage differences and determining whether the calculated voltage difference deviates from a standard voltage difference” over measurement time, ¶125, 193).
As to claim 7, Park modified by Wang and Kam teaches the system golf vehicle system wherein the vehicle control system is configured to detect the voltage imbalance among the plurality of battery cells utilizing a statistical analysis method to determine abnormal voltage deviations based on historical voltage data trends (“Park: “calculating a plurality of battery inter-cell voltage differences and determining whether the calculated voltage difference deviates from a standard voltage difference” over measurement time, ¶125, 193).
As to claim 8, Park modified by Wang and Kam teaches the system golf vehicle system wherein the vehicle control system is configured to detect the voltage imbalance among the plurality of battery cells by:
calculating a maximum voltage imbalance in the battery pack where the maximum voltage imbalance is a difference between a lowest cell voltage and a highest cell voltage in the battery pack (Park: difference between lowest cell voltage P1 and highest cell voltage P2 as shown in Fig. 6, ¶149);
comparing the maximum voltage imbalance to a threshold (Park: maximum voltage P2 is compared to reference voltage of 4250 in Fig. 6); and
dynamically determine the threshold based according to a mathematical function (Park: Fig. 6 and related text; threshold voltages RB1 – RB4 are set in the voltage graph, ¶159).
As to claim 9, Park modified by Wang and Kam teaches the system golf vehicle system wherein the vehicle control system is configured to determine the threshold according to the mathematical function using at least two of a state of charge of the battery pack, time, or the maximum cell voltage (Park: Fig. 4 show diagnosis items include SOC and cell voltage).
As to claim 10, Park modified by Wang and Kam teaches the system golf vehicle system wherein the vehicle control system is configured to:
monitor a maximum cell voltage and a state of charge of each of the plurality of
battery cells (Park: measure cell voltage with an imbalance state against a reference, ¶127-128); and
cease monitoring the voltages of the plurality of battery cells when at least one of
the maximum cell voltage, the state of charge, or a pack voltage falls below a predetermined threshold (Park: stop the use and monitoring of the battery when the battery cannot be recovered based on voltage determined reference, ¶85-86).
As to claim 11, Park modified by Wang and Kam teaches the system golf vehicle system wherein the vehicle control system is configured to prevent the mitigating action during periods of discharge greater than a discharged threshold and charge greater than a discharged threshold (Park: size of discharge and charge is blocked during warning and danger steps, ¶202-203).
As to claim 12, Park modified by Wang and Kam teaches the system golf vehicle system wherein the mitigating action includes transmitting a notification for a user to perform a certain mitigating action (Park: “transmit a warning signal to a higher-level system or display the warning signal to the user as a corresponding processing operation”, ¶149).
As to claim 13, Park modified by Wang and Kam teaches the system golf vehicle system wherein the mitigating action includes setting a fault error (Park: “the voltage of the battery may be prevented from reaching not only the failure step indicated by RB4 but also the fault step indicated by RB3”, ¶149).
As to claim 14, Park modified by Wang and Kam teaches the system golf vehicle system wherein the mitigating action includes disabling the battery pack (Park: “control module 200 may suppress the increase of voltage of the corresponding battery by restricting or reducing the charging current for the corresponding battery as a corresponding processing operation. Therefore, the voltage of the battery may be prevented from reaching not only the failure step indicated by RB4 but also the fault step indicated by RB3”, ¶149).
As to claim 15, Park modified by Wang and Kam teaches the system golf vehicle system wherein the vehicle control system is configured to:
analyze the voltages over time (Park: Figs. 5 and 6 and related text shows voltage over time, ¶141-150);
predict a potential failure condition based on the voltages over time (Park: Figs. 5 and 6 and related text shows voltage over time, ¶141-150); and
initiate a preemptive mitigating action before the potential failure condition (Park: Figs. 5 and 6 and related text shows voltage over time, “control module 200 may suppress the increase of voltage of the corresponding battery by restricting or reducing the charging current for the corresponding battery as a corresponding processing operation”, ¶141-150).
As to claim 16, Park modified by Wang and Kam teaches the system golf vehicle system wherein the vehicle control system includes at least one of (a) a first processing circuit located on the golf vehicle or (b) a second processing circuit located remote from the golf vehicle (Park: “the control module 200 may selectively include, at least partially, a processor, a controller, an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), other chipsets, logic circuits, registers, a communication modem, a data processing device, etc. known in the art to perform related operations or functions.”, ¶70).
As to claim 17, Park modified by Wang and Kam teaches the system golf vehicle system wherein the vehicle control system is configured to:
determine if the battery pack was previously in sleep mode (Park: “measure information such as the voltage, current, temperature, SOC (State Of Charge), internal resistance, SOH (State Of Health), charging and discharging state, idle state, overvoltage or overcurrent state and balancing state of the battery as the internal state of the battery”, ¶47);
determine if the battery pack is not charging (Park: “measure information such as the voltage, current, temperature, SOC (State Of Charge), internal resistance, SOH (State Of Health), charging and discharging state, idle state, overvoltage or overcurrent state and balancing state of the battery as the internal state of the battery”, ¶47);
determine if the battery pack is in relax mode (Park: battery relaxed criterion, ¶162);
estimate the state of charge (SOC) of the battery pack using battery pack
voltage (Park: “measure information such as the voltage, current, temperature, SOC (State Of Charge), internal resistance, SOH (State Of Health), charging and discharging state, idle state, overvoltage or overcurrent state and balancing state of the battery as the internal state of the battery”, ¶47);
save recorded module imbalances to non-volatile memory (Park: Figs. 5 and 6; criteria stored in memory, ¶74);
compare cell imbalance trends to a predefined function (Park: Figs. 5 and 6 and related text);
set a permanent fault condition if a cell imbalance trend exceeds the predefined
function (Park: Figs. 5 and 6 and related text); and
enter sleep mode for a specified time-period if an absolute imbalance does not
exceed the predefined function (Park: “inter-cell voltage imbalance diagnosis during idle”, ¶124).
As to claim 18, Park modified by Wang and Kam teaches the system golf vehicle system wherein the vehicle control system is configured to:
monitor currents of the plurality of battery cells (Park: Fig. 8 and related text);
detect a current imbalance among the plurality of battery cells based on the
currents of the plurality of battery cells (Park: Fig. 8 and related text); and
initiate the mitigating action in response to detecting the voltage imbalance or the
current imbalance (Park: Fig. 8 and related text),
wherein the voltage imbalance is determined based on both the voltages and the
currents of the plurality of battery cells (Park: “imbalance of the battery based on the state information such as voltage, current, and temperature”, ¶48).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., US 2025/0158139 (A1) in view of Wang et al., US 2023/0105559 (A1), further in view of Kam, US 2024/0204537 (A1), furthest in view of Park BS et al., US 2024/0151773 (A1).
As to claim 2, Park modified by Wang and Kam does not explicitly teach the golf vehicle system wherein the vehicle control system is configured to stop monitoring the voltages after a dwell time.
However, in the same field of endeaver, Park BS teaches a battery state of health estimation by skipping measuring the voltage of rest period by using a data set of after a start-up off period of a previous data set before a start-up on period (Park BS: abs, ¶20)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person to one of ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the controller of Park modified by Wang and Kam to include stopping monitoring the voltages after a dwell time as taught by Park BS to suppress or delay of the battery system of the vehicle (Park: ¶3).
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 extension fee 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.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUEN WONG whose telephone number is (313)446-4851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on 313-446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUEN WONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights