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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “An apparatus” (corresponding in the instant application to MCU 20; [0040]) in claim 10 (line 1).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, the claims require an apparatus, system, method for highly synchronized fault detection, requiring components to take simultaneous voltage measurements of even and odd cells during the exact same “first period” while actively toggling pull-up resistors on alternating cells. However, the specification only provides a broad description of the physical components and their locations. For example, the specification broadly asserts that the components (such as the microcontroller/apparatus) may simply be “incorporated into products, such as various feature specific or zone specific electronic control units (ECUs)” ([0042]) and provides a high-level vehicle diagram (fig. 6) showing generic ECUs (ECU 10, ECU 15, ECU 30). The specification fails to describe the physical or electrical architecture connecting these broadly described components to achieve the highly synchronized operations required by the claims. Merely stating that an MCU can be located anywhere in various vehicle ECUs without describing how it is structurally integrated with the cell monitor ASICs and the battery pack to ensure simultaneous data measurements is not enough.
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 1-19 are 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.
As to claims 1 and 10, the claims recite the limitations “first battery cell” that is an “odd cell” and a “second battery cell” that is an “even cell”. However, the claims fail to recite any structural relationship between these two cells, nor do they recite the structural framework in which these cells are housed. The terms “even” and “odd” are relative sequential identifiers that only hold definite meaning when the cells are arranged in a defined sequence or array. Because claims 1 and 10 do not recite that the cells are part of a larger battery module or series arrangement, it is unclear what makes the first cell “odd” or the second cell “even”. The claims recite components without the necessary context to define their physical relationship to one another, rendering the metes and bounds indefinite.
As to claims 1 and 10, the claims recite the limitation “wherein the second battery cell has a pull-up resistance is enabled” (line 3). The simultaneous use of verbs “has” and “is” creates a grammatically confusing limitation. It is unclear if the cell physically possesses a resistor or if a functional state is simply toggled. A possible correction would be to delete the word “is” and would read “wherein the second battery cell has a pull-up resistance
As to claims 5 and 14, the claims recite the limitation “the threshold value”. However, base claims 1 and 10 only introduce “a first threshold”. Because “the threshold value” lacks proper antecedent basis, it is unclear if it refers to the previously recited “first threshold” or an entirely new threshold element. A possible correction would read “wherein the first threshold
As to claims 10 and 18, claim 10 recites the preamble “An apparatus configured to:” but immediately proceeds to recite merely functional language (e.g. “receive”, “determine”, and “send”) without reciting any structural hardware configured to perform these steps. Claim 10 recites functional steps without tying them to structural components, leaving the metes and bounds of the claims unclear. While the Examiner has interpreted the generic “apparatus” as a microcontroller under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to examine the claims, the claim language is disjointed because it lacks the physical structure required to perform the recited steps. To overcome this rejection, Applicant must amend claim 10 to recite the specific structural components that perform the functions. For example, Applicant may amend the preamble to read, “An apparatus comprising a microcontroller configured to:”. Similarly, claim 18 depends from claim 10 and recites “The apparatus of claim 10, further comprising: receive… determine… send…”. Assuming claim 10 is amended to include structural hardware, claim 18 should be amended to reflect the actions taken by that structure and would read “The apparatus of claim 10, further configured to
Claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-13, 15-17, and 19 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1, 2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennisi et al. (hereinafter, “Pennisi”; US 2019/0372178) in view of Meyer (US 2009/0160452).
With regards to claim 1, Pennisi teaches a method comprising: receiving, at a first period (measurements performed at “substantially at the same time, that is, with no appreciable time delays”; [0091]), a first voltage measurement of a second battery cell (VC12; measuring signals for Cell12; [0095] and [0109]), wherein the second battery cell has pull-up resistance is enabled (“a current generator 20A (of any known type) is activated in the even-numbered current sinker 20E to draw a current of intensity I from the pin C12”; [0107]) and the second battery cell is an even cell (the even-numbered cell, Cell12, connected to even pins C12; [0095] and [0107]);
receiving, at the first period (simultaneously with the even cell; [0091]), a second voltage measurement of a first battery cell (measuring signals for Cell 11; [0095] and [0109]), wherein the first battery cell has the pull-up resistance disabled (“while the other pins are passed on directly through the current sinkers 20E, 20O to the multiplexers”; [0107]) and the first battery cell is an odd cell (the odd-numbered cell, Cell11; [0095]);
and sending a first indication of open wire fault detection, based on the determining that the first ratio is within the first threshold (“the pin C12 may be considered as “open” with a corresponding flag set in an act o18, for instance to be communicated as an error state”; [0114]).
While Pennisi uses a difference calculation to perform the comparison of the measurements to a threshold ([0112]-[0113]), Pennisi does not teach determining that the first voltage measurement and the second voltage measurement has a first ratio within a first threshold.
However, Meyer teaches determining that the first voltage measurement and the second voltage measurement has a first ratio (“calculating ratios of cell group voltages to determine over-voltage and under-voltage conditions”; [0005]) within a first threshold (“the ratio of voltages will be less than one or greater than one or a different predetermined ratio, and the disparity is detected”; [0022]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the open wire detection method of Pennisi to utilize the ratio calculation of Meyer wherein determining that the first voltage measurement and the second voltage measurement has a first ratio within a first threshold to more accurately detect a considerable disparity caused by the open wire current ([0022] Meyer).
With regards to claim 2, Pennisi as modified teaches the method of claim 1. Pennisi further teaches wherein the first battery cell and second battery cell are measured using dedicated analog-to-digital converters (a dedicated ADC for the odd numbered cells; 40O; [0097]; and a dedicated ADC for the even numbered cells; 40E; [0098]).
With regards to claim 4, Pennisi as modified teaches the method of claim 1. Pennisi as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the sending of the first indication comprises transmitting an audio alert, a visual alert, or a haptic alert.
However, Meyer further teaches wherein the sending of the first indication comprises transmitting an audio alert, a visual alert, or a haptic alert (“display 172 may include light emitting diodes (LED's), an alphanumeric display, a liquid crystal display, an analog level indicator, or the like”; [0031]; “display circuit 170 outputs data to the display 172 indicating the most recently detected voltage levels”; [0032]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the open wire detection of Pennisi as modified to incorporate the alert teachings of Meyer wherein the sending of the first indication comprises transmitting an audio alert, a visual alert, or a haptic alert to indicate the most recently detected voltage levels and fault conditions to a user ([0032] Meyer).
With regards to claim 5, Pennisi as modified teaches the method of claim 1. Meyer further teaches wherein the threshold value comprises a range (“the ratio of voltages will be less than one or greater than one or a different predetermined ratio”; [0022]).
Pennisi as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the range is between 0.8 and 1.2.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the range of Pennisi as modified wherein the range is between 0.8 and 1.2. This constitutes routine optimization of a result effective variable (MPEP 2144.05) to account for normal hardware variance and prevent false positive fault detections, yielding predictable results.
With regards to claim 6, Pennisi as modified teaches the method of claim 1. Pennisi further teaches wherein the first indication is sent to a component of an electronic control unit (ECU) of an electric vehicle (“communicated as an error state for instance to an external microcontroller”; [0114]).
With regards to claim 7, Pennisi as modified teaches the method of claim 1. Pennisi further teaches wherein the first battery cell and the second battery cell are part of a battery pack of an electric vehicle (fig.1; “arrangement of a battery pack BP equipping a vehicle V such as an electric vehicle (EV)”; [0028]).
With regards to claim 9, Pennisi as modified teaches the method of claim 1. Pennisi as modified further teaches further comprising: receiving, at a second period (the odd-cell detection phase; fig.5 (Pennisi)), a third voltage measurement of the second battery cell with pull-up resistance disabled (“a current generator 20A (of any known type) is activated in the odd-numbered current sinker 20O to draw a current of intensity I from the pin C11”; [0116] (Pennisi)); receiving, at the second period, a fourth voltage measurement of the first battery cell with the pull-up resistance enabled (“while the other pins are passed on directly through the current sinkers 20E, 20O to the multiplexers”; [0116] (Pennisi)); determining that a second ratio of the third voltage measurement and the fourth voltage measurement (“calculating ratios of cell group voltages to determine over-voltage and under-voltage conditions”; [0005] (Meyer)) is within a second threshold (“the ratio of voltages will be less than one or greater than one or a different predetermined ratio, and the disparity is detected”; [0022] (Meyer)); and sending a second indication of an open wire fault detection based on determining that the second ratio is within the second threshold (“the pin C11 may be considered as “open” with a corresponding flag set in an act 118, for instance to be communicated as an error state”; [0123] (Pennisi)).
With regards to claim 10, Pennisi teaches an apparatus configured to: receive, at a first period (measurements performed at “substantially at the same time, that is, with no appreciable time delays”; [0091]), a first voltage measurement of a second battery cell (VC12; measuring signals for Cell12; [0095] and [0109]), wherein the second battery cell has pull-up resistance is enabled (“a current generator 20A (of any known type) is activated in the even-numbered current sinker 20E to draw a current of intensity I from the pin C12”; [0107]) and the second battery cell is an even cell (the even-numbered cell, Cell12, connected to even pins C12; [0095] and [0107]);
receive, at the first period, a second voltage measurement of a first battery cell (simultaneously with the even cell; [0091]), a second voltage measurement of a first battery cell (measuring signals for Cell 11; [0095] and [0109]), wherein the first battery cell has the pull-up resistance disabled (“while the other pins are passed on directly through the current sinkers 20E, 20O to the multiplexers”; [0107]) and the first battery cell is an odd cell (the odd-numbered cell, Cell11; [0095]);
and send a first indication of open wire fault detection, based on the determining that the first ratio is within the first threshold (“the pin C12 may be considered as “open” with a corresponding flag set in an act o18, for instance to be communicated as an error state”; [0114]).
While Pennisi uses a difference calculation to perform the comparison of the measurements to a threshold ([0112]-[0113]), Pennisi does not teach determine that the first voltage measurement and the second voltage measurement has a first ratio within a first threshold.
However, Meyer teaches determine that the first voltage measurement and the second voltage measurement has a first ratio (“calculating ratios of cell group voltages to determine over-voltage and under-voltage conditions”; [0005]) within a first threshold (“the ratio of voltages will be less than one or greater than one or a different predetermined ratio, and the disparity is detected”; [0022]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the open wire detection method of Pennisi to utilize the ratio calculation of Meyer wherein determining that the first voltage measurement and the second voltage measurement has a first ratio within a first threshold to more accurately detect a considerable disparity caused by the open wire current ([0022] Meyer).
With regards to claim 11, Pennisi as modified teaches the method of claim 10. Pennisi further teaches wherein the first battery cell and second battery cell are measured using dedicated analog-to-digital converters (a dedicated ADC for the odd numbered cells; 40O; [0097]; and a dedicated ADC for the even numbered cells; 40E; [0098]).
With regards to claim 13, Pennisi as modified teaches the method of claim 10. Pennisi as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the sending of the first indication comprises transmitting an audio alert, a visual alert, or a haptic alert.
However, Meyer further teaches wherein the sending of the first indication comprises transmitting an audio alert, a visual alert, or a haptic alert (“display 172 may include light emitting diodes (LED's), an alphanumeric display, a liquid crystal display, an analog level indicator, or the like”; [0031]; “display circuit 170 outputs data to the display 172 indicating the most recently detected voltage levels”; [0032]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the open wire detection of Pennisi as modified to incorporate the alert teachings of Meyer wherein the sending of the first indication comprises transmitting an audio alert, a visual alert, or a haptic alert to indicate the most recently detected voltage levels and fault conditions to a user ([0032] Meyer).
With regards to claim 14, Pennisi as modified teaches the method of claim 10. Meyer further teaches wherein the threshold value comprises a range (“the ratio of voltages will be less than one or greater than one or a different predetermined ratio”; [0022]).
Pennisi as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the range is between 0.8 and 1.2.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the range of Pennisi as modified wherein the range is between 0.8 and 1.2. This constitutes routine optimization of a result effective variable (MPEP 2144.05) to account for normal hardware variance and prevent false positive fault detections, yielding predictable results.
With regards to claim 15, Pennisi as modified teaches the method of claim 10. Pennisi further teaches wherein the first indication is sent to a component of an electronic control unit (ECU) of an electric vehicle (“communicated as an error state for instance to an external microcontroller”; [0114]).
With regards to claim 16, Pennisi as modified teaches the method of claim 10. Pennisi further teaches wherein the first battery cell and the second battery cell are part of a battery pack of an electric vehicle (fig.1; “arrangement of a battery pack BP equipping a vehicle V such as an electric vehicle (EV)”; [0028]).
With regards to claim 18, Pennisi as modified teaches the method of claim 10. Pennisi as modified further teaches further comprising: receive, at a second period (the odd-cell detection phase; fig.5 (Pennisi)), a third voltage measurement of the second battery cell with pull-up resistance disabled (“a current generator 20A (of any known type) is activated in the odd-numbered current sinker 20O to draw a current of intensity I from the pin C11”; [0116] (Pennisi)); receive, at the second period, a fourth voltage measurement of the first battery cell with the pull-up resistance enabled (“while the other pins are passed on directly through the current sinkers 20E, 20O to the multiplexers”; [0116] (Pennisi)); determine that a second ratio of the third voltage measurement and the fourth voltage measurement (“calculating ratios of cell group voltages to determine over-voltage and under-voltage conditions”; [0005] (Meyer)) is within a second threshold (“the ratio of voltages will be less than one or greater than one or a different predetermined ratio, and the disparity is detected”; [0022] (Meyer)); and send a second indication of an open wire fault detection based on determining that the second ratio is within the second threshold (“the pin C11 may be considered as “open” with a corresponding flag set in an act 118, for instance to be communicated as an error state”; [0123] (Pennisi)).
With regards to claim 19, Pennisi as modified teaches the method of claim 10. Pennisi further teaches wherein the apparatus comprises a microcontroller unit (“an external microcontroller”; [0040]-[0041], [0114]).
With regards to claim 20, Pennisi teaches a system for detecting open wire faults in a battery pack, comprising: a plurality of battery cells arranged in series (“Cell1 is shown arranged between the pins C0 and C1 and so on up to the cell Cell14 arranged between the pins C13 and C14”; fig. 2; [0045]-[0046]);
one or more application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) coupled to the battery cells (“device 10 (for instance an integrated circuit IC) providing various features desirable in performing battery management”; [0030]);
and a microcontroller unit (“an external microcontroller”; [0040]-[0041], [0114]) configured to:
obtain a first voltage measurement from an even battery cell of the plurality of battery cells with pull-up resistance enabled at a first period (VC12; measuring signals for Cell12; [0095] and [0109]; “a current generator 20A (of any known type) is activated in the even-numbered current sinker 20E to draw a current of intensity I from the pin C12”; [0107]; the even-numbered cell, Cell12, connected to even pins C12; [0095] and [0107]));
obtain a second voltage measurement from an odd battery cell of the plurality of battery cells with the pull-up resistance disabled at the first period (simultaneously with the even cell; [0091]; measuring signals for Cell 11; [0095] and [0109]; “while the other pins are passed on directly through the current sinkers 20E, 20O to the multiplexers”; [0107]; the odd-numbered cell, Cell11; [0095]);
and generate an open wire fault alert when the ratio exceeds a predetermined threshold (“the pin C12 may be considered as “open” with a corresponding flag set in an act o18, for instance to be communicated as an error state”; [0114]).
While Pennisi uses a difference calculation to perform the comparison of the measurements to a threshold ([0112]-[0113]), Pennisi does not teach determine a ratio between the first voltage measurement and the second voltage measurement.
However, Meyer teaches determine a ratio between the first voltage measurement and the second voltage measurement (“calculating ratios of cell group voltages to determine over-voltage and under-voltage conditions”; [0005]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the open wire detection method of Pennisi to utilize the ratio calculation of Meyer wherein it determines a ratio between the first voltage measurement and the second voltage measurement to more accurately detect a considerable disparity caused by the open wire current ([0022] Meyer).
Claims 3, 8, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennisi et al. (hereinafter, “Pennisi”; US 2019/0372178) in view of Meyer (US 2009/0160452) and Chikkannanavar et al. (hereinafter, “Chikkannanavar”; US 2017/0259687).
With regards to claim 3, Pennisi as modified teaches the method of claim 1. Pennisi as modified does not teach further comprising transmitting instructions to place a vehicle in a safe operating condition based on the first indication of the open wire fault detection, wherein the safe operating condition comprises shutoff of one or more loads.
However, Chikkannanavar teaches further comprising transmitting instructions to place a vehicle in a safe operating condition based on the first indication of the open wire fault detection, wherein the safe operating condition comprises shutoff of one or more loads (“Along with outputting the fault signal, the controller may discharge the battery cell, or may bypass the battery cell”; [0051]-[0053]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified fault detection of Pennisi as modified by Meyer to incorporate the safety response teachings of Chikkannanavar wherein further comprising transmitting instructions to place a vehicle in a safe operating condition based on the first indication of the open wire fault detection, wherein the safe operating condition comprises shutoff of one or more loads to mitigate the risk of a thermal event ([0052] Chikkannanavar).
With regards to claim 8, Pennisi as modified teaches the method of claim 7. Pennisi as modified does not teach wherein the first threshold is determined based on a load profile of a battery system associated with the battery pack.
However, Chikkannanavar teaches wherein the first threshold is determined based on a load profile of a battery system associated with the battery pack (the diagnostic threshold “may be derived from many battery characteristics including life of the battery, battery capacity, battery state of charge, battery current flow, battery chemistry, battery structure, and battery usage” [0040]-[0041]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ratiometric threshold of Pennisi as modified to apply the threshold derivation teaching of Chikkannanavar wherein the first threshold is determined based on a load profile of a battery system associated with the battery pack to determine a voltage response of the cell to a dynamic current input (e.g., charge or discharge, pulse or continuous) when the range of voltage responses expected is within measurement tolerances ([0020] Chikkannanavar).
With regards to claim 12, Pennisi as modified teaches the method of claim 10. Pennisi as modified does not teach further comprising transmitting instructions to place a vehicle in a safe operating condition based on the first indication of the open wire fault detection.
However, Chikkannanavar teaches further comprising transmitting instructions to place a vehicle in a safe operating condition based on the first indication of the open wire fault detection (“Along with outputting the fault signal, the controller may discharge the battery cell, or may bypass the battery cell”; [0051]-[0053]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified fault detection of Pennisi as modified by Meyer to incorporate the safety response teachings of Chikkannanavar wherein further comprising transmitting instructions to place a vehicle in a safe operating condition based on the first indication of the open wire fault detection, wherein the safe operating condition comprises shutoff of one or more loads to mitigate the risk of a thermal event ([0052] Chikkannanavar).
With regards to claim 17, Pennisi as modified teaches the method of claim 16. Pennisi as modified does not teach wherein the first threshold is determined based on a load profile of a battery system associated with the battery pack.
However, Chikkannanavar teaches wherein the first threshold is determined based on a load profile of a battery system associated with the battery pack (the diagnostic threshold “may be derived from many battery characteristics including life of the battery, battery capacity, battery state of charge, battery current flow, battery chemistry, battery structure, and battery usage” [0040]-[0041]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ratiometric threshold of Pennisi as modified to apply the threshold derivation teaching of Chikkannanavar wherein the first threshold is determined based on a load profile of a battery system associated with the battery pack to determine a voltage response of the cell to a dynamic current input (e.g., charge or discharge, pulse or continuous) when the range of voltage responses expected is within measurement tolerances ([0020] Chikkannanavar).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSAMAH MURSHED whose telephone number is (571)272-9534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11 a.m. 8 p.m. ET..
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/OSAMAH MURSHED/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JUDY NGUYEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights