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 Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of amendment filed on 04/01/2026 in which claims 1-20 have been canceled while claims 21-40 have been newly added. By this amendment, claims 21-40 have been newly added. By this amendment, claims 21-40 are now pending in the application for a second action in the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s representative argues on page 6 of the remarks, that:
[F]ollowing receipt of the Non-Final Office Action that same day, Applicant called Examiner Diao to discuss the procedural posture of the application. During that call, Applicant noted that on November 19, 2025, Applicant had filed a preliminary amendment canceling claims 1-20 and presenting new claims 21-40. However, the Office Action of February 4, 2026 examined those previously cancelled claims 1-20. In the discussion of February 4, 2026, Examiner Diao explained that Applicant should contact Supervisory Patent Examiner Dunn to further discuss how best to proceed.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that I posted the non-final office action on November 18, 2025 a day prior to the filing of the preliminary amendment and as such unless the application was returned to me for any other reasons, I would not be able to rewrite the office action again as it was already posted and out of my control and disposition. See the time stamp below and on the last page of the 02/04/2026 mailed dated of the non-final office action on page 15 and posted dated in the USPTO OC correspondence shown infra. Applicant’s representative was counseled on how to proceed further since the non-final office action is binding should he further need to speak to my SPE he was welcome to do so. That is what was discussed briefly during the February 4, 2026 phone conversation. Furthermore, this application being a Track One Request and thus there is a sense of urgency in completing the first action on the merits and since it was docketed to me on 11/16/2025, I started working on it the very next day, that is on 11/17/2025 and it was completed and posted on 11/18/2025.
PNG
media_image1.png
475
812
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1578
969
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Since previous claims 1-20 have been concurrently canceled and new claims 21-40 have been newly added, the arguments pertaining to previous claims 1-20, now canceled, are moot.
New rejections have been presented as deemed necessary to address new limitations and/or modifications of now pending new claims 21-40.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 21-25,27,29-36,39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chidester et al., (Chidester) US 2017/0005371 in view of Pevear US 10,811,869 B2
Regarding claims 36, 21 and 29: Chidester at least discloses and shows in Figs. 2-3,8-11 and 13: A battery system for an electric vehicle(100), comprising: a battery pack (11, see Fig. 2; 140, see Fig. 4)(but can be a plurality of battery packs since it can be can be a rechargeable electric vehicle battery or traction battery used to power the propulsion of an electric vehicle including the drive system 10; see ¶[0041]) electrically connected in parallel(note- Chidester shows a series of strings 26a…26n connected in parallel; see ¶[0041],¶[0048] and Fig. 2), each battery pack comprising a plurality of battery cells(26/210)(¶[0049],¶[0054],¶[0077]-¶[0080]), an overcurrent protection device configured to interrupt current internal to the respective battery pack((31a….31n)(see ¶[0053],¶[0056],¶[0061],¶[0096]), and a monitoring circuit configured to measure one or more of a pack voltage and a pack temperature(see ¶[0008],¶[0010], ¶[0048], ¶[0056], ¶[0129]; Fig. 2);a battery management device(16) electrically connected to each of the plurality of battery packs(26a,26b…26n) and configured to receive measurement data from the monitoring circuits and individually control operation of each battery pack (¶[0048],¶[0052],¶[0055]);an active overcurrent protection device(310) connected upstream of the plurality of battery packs and configured to interrupt current flowing from the plurality of battery packs; wherein the battery management device(16) is configured(note-the battery management system 16 can generate control signals 24a, 24b, . . . , 24n, . . . , individually or collectively referred to herein as the control signal(s) 24, for controlling the respective switches 21 and 22. The switches 21 and 22 can be contactors configured to connect the battery strings 26 to the power buses 20, 25 or disconnect the battery strings 26 from the power buses 20, 25 in response to the respective control signals 24; see ¶[0048],¶[0051])) to actuate the active overcurrent protection device in response to detecting an overcurrent event comprising at least one of a short circuit, an inrush current condition, and a detected current that exceeds a current threshold. (note-The switches 21 and 22 can be contactors configured to connect the battery strings 26 to the power buses 20, 25 or disconnect the battery strings 26 from the power buses 20, 25 in response to the respective control signals 24; see ¶[0126]).
Chidester does not expressly disclose the limitations of, “ the battery system comprising a plurality of battery packs electrically connected in parallel”.
However, Pevear discloses and shows in Fig. 2, factual evidence of, a battery system(14) comprising a plurality of battery packs(20) electrically connected in parallel(see Pevear; col. 3, lines 1-5 and 15-18; see Fig. 2).
Pevear further discloses, an active overcurrent protection device(contactor 46) connected upstream of the plurality of battery packs(20A,20B,20C,20D)(see col. 3, lines 15-18) and configured to interrupt current flowing from the plurality of battery packs(20)(note- BMS 60 may selectively activate a contactor 46 (e.g., open contactor 46 to stop current flow in busbar 36) when the current in busbar 36 exceeds a predetermined limit (which, in some embodiments, may be programmed into BMS 60)(see col. 5, lines 14-26; col. 6, lines 13-col. 7, line 9);wherein the battery management device(60) is configured to actuate the active overcurrent protection device in response to detecting an overcurrent event comprising at least one of a short circuit, an inrush current condition, and a detected current that exceeds a current threshold(note- battery system 14 may also include one or more sensors (e.g., current sensors, voltage sensors, temperature sensors, etc.), operatively coupled to BMS 60, and configured to detect the conditions of battery packs 20 and busbars 36, 38. In some embodiments, these sensors may be configured to detect the current through each busbar 36. In some embodiments, BMS 60 may selectively activate a contactor 46 (e.g., open contactor 46 to stop current flow in busbar 36) when the current in busbar 36 exceeds a predetermined limit (which, in some embodiments, may be programmed into BMS 60)(see col. 5, lines 14-26; col. 6, lines 13-col. 7, line 9).
Chidester and Pevear are electric power distribution and overcurrent protection system analogous art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Pevear into the system of Chidester by having the battery system for the electric vehicle, comprising: a plurality of battery packs electrically connected in parallel, each battery pack comprising a plurality of battery cells, an overcurrent protection device configured to interrupt current internal to the respective battery pack and an active overcurrent protection device connected upstream of the plurality of battery packs and configured to interrupt current flowing from the plurality of battery packs; wherein the battery management device is configured to actuate the active overcurrent protection device in response to detecting an overcurrent event comprising at least one of a short circuit, an inrush current condition, and a detected current that exceeds a current threshold, as taught by Pevear, as recited in order to provide both enough power to the drive system and protection to the battery and safety of the electric vehicle by avoiding fire or damage to the battery due to excessive heating.
Regarding claim 22, Chidester in view of Pevear discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 21. Chidester further discloses, wherein the battery management device(16) is configured to balance each battery pack(¶[0004],¶[0052],¶[0093]).
Regarding claim 23, Chidester in view of Pevear discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 21. Chidester further discloses, the battery management device comprising circuitry and logic for isolation monitoring and voltage measurements of the plurality of battery packs(see ¶[0008], ¶[0010],¶[0056],¶[0129]).
Regarding claim 24, Chidester in view of Pevear discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 21. Chidester further discloses, wherein the battery management device (16) is configured to individually regulate in each battery pack one or more of a voltage and pre-charging loads(via current sensors (28a…28n) supplied to the plurality of battery packs(¶[0048],¶[0052],¶[0055]).
Regarding claim 25, Chidester in view of Pevear discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 21. Chidester further discloses, wherein the battery management device (16) is a single interface (see Fig. 2) with the plurality of battery packs.
Regarding claim 27, Chidester in view of Pevear discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 21. Pevear further discloses, wherein the overcurrent protection device of each battery pack(((46A,46B,46C,46D),( (42A,42B,42C,42D)) see Fig. 2) is a fuse(42A,42B,42C,42D) configured to interrupt current when a respective battery pack internal short-circuit occurs(note-fuse 42 and contactor 46 operate to disconnect each battery pack 20 from battery system 14 in the event of an overcurrent, see col. 5, lines 35-40 and col. 5, line 63 to col.6, line 44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chidester with Pevear in having, wherein the overcurrent protection device of each battery pack is a fuse configured to interrupt current when a respective battery pack internal short-circuit occurs, as recited, in order to protect the equipment from damage and ensures system stability.
Regarding claim 30, Chidester in view of Pevear discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 29. Pevear further discloses, wherein the respective overcurrent protection devices(note-fuse 42 and contactor 46 operate to disconnect each battery pack 20 from battery system 14 in the event of an overcurrent, see col. 5, lines 35-40 and col. 5, line 63 to col.6, line 44) of the battery packs((20A,20B,20C,20D)(see col. 3, lines 15-18)) independently interrupt overcurrent conditions local to corresponding battery packs(see col. 1, lines 51-56; col. 2, lines 16-26;col. 7, lines 60-65; col. 9, lines 40-48)(see also Chidester ¶[0060]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chidester with Pevear in having, wherein the respective overcurrent protection devices of the battery packs independently interrupt overcurrent conditions local to corresponding battery packs, as recited, in order to isolate the defective battery modules from the strings in the battery packs and thereby provide safety and continuous functionality to the vehicle battery system.
Accordingly claim 30 would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 31, Chidester in view of Pevear discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 29. Chidester further discloses, further comprising: individually controlling, by the battery management device(16), operation of each battery pack based in part on the measurement data(see ¶[0008],¶[0010],¶[0056], ¶[0129])(¶[0048],¶[0052],¶[0055]). Regarding claim 31, Chidester in view of Pevear discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 29. Chidester further discloses, further comprising: individually controlling, by the battery management device(16), operation of each battery pack based in part on the measurement data(see ¶[0008],¶[0010],¶[0056], ¶[0129])(¶[0048],¶[0052],¶[0055].
Regarding claim 32, Chidester in view of Pevear discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 29. Pevear discloses, further comprising: detecting( via fuse 42 and contactor 46)(see Fig, 2)(note-fuse 42 and contactor 46 operate to disconnect each battery pack 20 from battery system 14 in the event of an overcurrent; see col. 5, line 63-col. 6, line 7) using the battery management device(60), a pack-level overcurrent condition in at least one of the battery packs(20A,20B,20C,20D); and interrupting, using the overcurrent protection device((42A…42D/46A…46D) of the at least one of the battery packs, current through the at least one of the battery packs(see col. 5, line 63-col. 6, line 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chidester with Pevear in having, further comprising: detecting, using the battery management device, a pack-level overcurrent condition in at least one of the battery packs; and interrupting, using the overcurrent protection device of the at least one of the battery packs, current through the at least one of the battery packs, as recited, in order to provide safety to the battery and the overall vehicle system.
Regarding claim 33, Chidester in view of Pevear discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 29. Pevear discloses, further comprising: actuating the active overcurrent protection device(42,46), upon the determining of the presence of the overcurrent event, after a predetermined delay (5-20ms time delay; see col. 7, lines 25-34 and col. 8, lines 57-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chidester with Pevear in having, further comprising: actuating the active overcurrent protection device, upon the determining of the presence of the overcurrent event, after a predetermined delay, as recited, in order to allow the relay to wait to see if the overcurrent condition persists before triggering the circuit breaker to open, which protects the equipment from damage and ensures system stability. Having a delay in opening a primary contactor relay during an overcurrent would allow for temporary current surges and prevent nuisance tripping. This delay is often a feature of time-delay overcurrent relays, which are designed to distinguish between brief, harmless overcurrents (like those during motor startup which are temporary) and sustained, damaging overcurrents.
Regarding claim 34, Chidester in view of Pevear discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 29. Chidester discloses, further comprising: transmitting(from circuit board 36n), by a monitoring circuit(note- each battery pack comprises a pack monitoring chip(see ¶[0052],¶[0054], ¶[0137])) of each battery pack, cell voltages of each battery pack to the battery management device(16) and determining that one or more cell voltages exceed respective thresholds(see ¶[0008], ¶[0010], ¶[0040], ¶[0048],¶[0128]-¶[0129], ¶[0137]).
Regarding claim 35, Chidester in view of Pevear discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 29. Chidester discloses, further comprising: transmitting cell voltage measurements from each battery pack to the battery management device(16) and determining that one or more cell voltages exceed respective thresholds (¶[0008],¶[0010], ¶[0048],¶[0052],¶[0055],¶[0056]).
Regarding claim 38, Chidester in view of Pevear discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 36. Chidester discloses, wherein each battery pack further comprises a pack monitoring chip(see ¶[0052],¶[0054], ¶[0137]) configured to transmit at least one of a pack voltage, a pack temperature, and a current measurements to the battery management device(16).
Regarding claim 39, Chidester in view of Pevear discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 36. Chidester discloses, wherein each battery pack(26a…26n) comprises a current shunt(28a…28n) connected in series with the plurality of battery cells of the respective battery pack(see [Fig. 2 and ¶[0048],¶[0050]).
Regarding claim 40, Chidester in view of Pevear discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 36. Chidester discloses, wherein the battery management device(16) is configured to open a positive contactor(310) and/or a negative contactor(310) prior to actuating the active overcurrent protection device(312)(see Fig. 20C and ¶[0126], note the fusible element 312 may be included as a redundant circuit disconnection device, for example, configured to open the circuit if a contactor 310 fails).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chidester et al., (Chidester) US 2017/0005371 in view of Pevear US 10,811,869 B2
Regarding claim 28, Chidester in view of Pevear discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 21. Chidester further discloses that the battery strings (26) can be implemented with various different types of rechargeable batteries made of various materials, such as lead acid, nickel cadmium, lithium ion, or other suitable materials. In some embodiments, each of the battery strings can output about 375V-400V if charged about 80% or more, and thus if two or more series strings are used, they would provide at least a range of 750V-800V(see Chidester ¶[0049]). Chidester in view of Pevear discloses all the claimed invention except for the limitations of, wherein the plurality of battery packs are arranged in a battery stack of between two and six packs, and/or wherein each battery pack has a pack voltage up to approximately 1000 V and/or comprises at least 180 cells in series.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have in the battery system of Chidester as modified by Pevear to have, wherein the plurality of battery packs are arranged in a battery stack of between two and six packs, and/or wherein each battery pack has a pack voltage up to approximately 1000 V and/or comprises at least 180 cells in series, as recited, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Accordingly claim 28 would have been obvious.
Claim(s) 26 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chidester et al., (Chidester) US 2017/0005371 in view of Pevear US 10,811,869 B2 and in further view of Fisher US 2020/0194996 A1
Regarding claims 26 and 37, Chidester in view of Pevear discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claims 21 and 36 respectively. However the combination of Chidester and Pevear does not expressly teach the limitations of:
Wherein the active overcurrent protection device is a pyro fuse configured to interrupt current when a respective battery pack internal short-circuit occurs.
Fisher discloses and shows in, factual evidence of, wherein the active overcurrent protection device is a pyro fuse configured to interrupt current when a respective battery pack internal short-circuit occurs(see Fig. 36, pyro fuse (3620) and ¶[0027],¶[0049],¶[0088]-¶[0090],¶[0382]-¶[0384]).
Chidester, Pevear and Fisher are vehicle systems analogous art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery system of Chidester in view of Pevear with the use of pyro fuse as taught by Fisher to have, wherein the active overcurrent protection device is a pyro fuse configured to interrupt current when a respective battery pack internal short-circuit occurs, as recited, for the advantages of providing response to the pyro fuse activation command in the event of the current flow exceeding a threshold current flow value, as per the teachings of Fisher (¶[0049]).
Accordingly claims 26 and 37 would have been obvious.
Citation of Prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hong et al., (Hong) USPAT 10,449,867 discloses the general state of the art regarding systems and methods for connecting battery strings to a DC bus.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action and discussed supra in the response to arguments section. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 M'BAYE DIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 10:00AM-6:30PM and OFF most of the time Friday when working IFP.
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, TAELOR KIM can be reached at 571-270-7166. 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.
M'BAYE DIAO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/M BAYE DIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 April 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights