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 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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al (2026/0063747) in view of Lee et al (2020/0386823).
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
In re Claim 1, Miller teaches a short circuit identification method for a sampling element (220) of a battery management system, wherein a temperature sensor (231) is disposed in a battery management system to monitor a temperature of a resistive element (230) located between the battery (210) and load (260) that generates heat corresponding to the current flowing through it (paragraph 25), and the method comprises: obtaining the temperature of the resistive element by using the temperature sensor (paragraph 29), and calculating a temperature difference (dTfilt) of the resistive element in a preset duration (L) [paragraphs 45-47]; in response to determining that the temperature difference is greater than a preset temperature difference threshold, comparing a discharge current obtained by using a sampling element with a preset current threshold (paragraphs 48-54); and in response to determining that the discharge current is less than the preset current threshold, determining that the sampling element is short-circuited (paragraphs 48-54).
Miller does not specifically teach that the resistive element 230 is a discharge transistor.
Lee teaches determining whether a sampling element 30 is malfunctioning based on feedback from a temperature sensor 200 in a battery management system as seen in Figure 2 (paragraphs 57-59). Lee further teaches that the temperature sensor measures the temperature of a discharge switch (50, paragraph 37) located between the battery 10 and a load (paragraph 45).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a discharge transistor as the resistive element of Miller since Lee teaches that it can be utilized to provide the required temperature feedback.
In re Claim 2, Miller teaches the temperature sensor is a thermistor (paragraph 28).
In re Claim 3, Miller teaches the sampling element s a resistor or Hall current sensor (paragraph 24).
In re Claim 4, Miller discloses the claimed invention except for the specific values for the temperature difference threshold as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the temperature difference threshold to the values specifically as claimed to best suite a particular application since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In re Claims 5 and 6, Miller discloses the claimed invention except for the specific values for the temperature difference threshold and preset current threshold as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the temperature difference threshold and preset current threshold to the values specifically as claimed to best suite a particular application since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In re Claim 7, Miller discloses the claimed invention except for the specific values for the preset duration as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the preset duration to the values specifically as claimed to best suite a particular application since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In re Claim 8, Miller teaches opening a switch 240 in the event the sampling element is determined to be short-circuited (paragraph 62). Upon modification, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the discharge switch of Lee to cause the disconnection of current flow.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 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.
In re Claim 9, Miller as modified by Lee does not teach further turning off a high-current charging transistor, a float charging switch, and a protection charging switch of the battery management system, burning out a controllable fuse, and entering a sleep mode.
In re Claim 10, Miller as modified by Lee does not teach turning on the discharge transistor in response to determining that the discharge transistor is turned off and a temperature change rate is 0 degrees Celsius every 30S for 30 minutes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER JAY CLARK whose telephone number is (571)270-1427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00am - 6:00pm EST.
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, Thienvu Tran can be reached at 571-270-1276. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J CLARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/THIENVU V TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights