Office Action Analysis Report — Application 18/000,482 — BATTERY THERMAL MANAGEMENT METHOD AND APPARATUS

Illustrative sample. This report demonstrates the format produced by the Office Action Response workflow. The matter is fictional — no real application, examiner, docket, or reference is described, and all publication numbers are invented.

Docket number was derived from a document filename or the specification, not the office action; verify before relying on it.

Strength Score Legend

Scoring Methodology

Scores reflect how reasonable the Examiner's mapping is when the claim language is given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by a person of ordinary skill in the art. A high score does not mean the rejection is correct as a matter of law — it means the Examiner's reading of the cited prior art is reasonable enough that argument alone is unlikely to overcome it, and a clarifying amendment should be considered. A low score signals that the cited prior art does not fairly teach the limitation and the rejection is a good candidate for traversal.

Table of Contents

1. Application Summary

Overview: The application describes thermal management techniques for battery packs built from multiple battery modules, each supervised by its own module controller. Large packs — in vehicles, grid storage, and backup power systems — develop uneven cell temperatures under load, and a module that waits until a thermal limit is actually crossed must then balance aggressively, stressing cells and interrupting service. The disclosure focuses on how a "first module controller" can act before that point: it performs a thermal clearance check to confirm the pack can tolerate a balancing operation, determines a thermal balancing window during which balancing may run, determines a balancing interval assignment — a combination of monitoring intervals and cell groups — for itself and a "second module controller," and communicates that assignment (or lets it be derived by a shared rule) so that the two modules coordinate balancing without a central scheduler.

Technology Area: The application is in the field of battery management systems, specifically distributed coordination of cell balancing among peer module controllers in multi-module battery packs.

Problem Addressed: When several module controllers balance independently, their operations can collide — concurrent balancing across adjacent modules shifts heat into shared cooling paths and can push the pack past a thermal event threshold. The conventional approach either centralizes all scheduling in a pack supervisor (a single point of failure and a communication bottleneck) or lets each module react only after its own threshold is crossed, which the specification describes as too late to avoid derating.

Solution Approach: The disclosed approach has a scheduling module controller (the "first module controller") perform the thermal clearance check, determine the resulting thermal balancing window, and then determine a balancing interval assignment — a time-domain position (which monitoring intervals) and a cell-group-domain position (which cell groups) — within that window for a second module controller. The assignment can be communicated explicitly, using bitmap-style indication information — an L-bit field indicating which monitoring intervals are used and an M-bit field indicating which cell groups are used — or derived implicitly by both controllers applying a shared predefined rule (for example, a controller identifier modulo the number of monitoring intervals in the window), which avoids explicit signaling on the pack bus.

Apparent Contribution: The apparent technical contribution is a scheme in which the first module controller initiates cell balancing prior to the thermal event threshold — inside a cleared balancing window — and communicates module-specific interval and cell-group assignments to a second module controller, including both an explicit bitmap-signaling approach and an implicit, signaling-free approach said to reduce bus traffic while preventing balancing collisions between modules.

Key Pending Claims (plain language)

• Claim 1 (method): A first module controller performs a thermal clearance check and determines a thermal balancing window; initiates cell balancing on the first battery module prior to the thermal event threshold; determines a balancing interval assignment within the window; and sends the second module controller explicit first indication information (identifying the monitoring intervals of the assignment) or second indication information (identifying the cell groups of the assignment), where that indication information is specific to the second module controller.
• Claim 7 (method): A second module controller receives, from a first module controller, indication information specific to it identifying the monitoring intervals or cell groups of a balancing interval assignment, wherein a balancing timer is maintained independently for each battery module, and performs balancing on the assigned intervals.
• Claim 10 (apparatus): A battery management apparatus with a processor and memory configured to perform the first-module-controller steps of claim 1, including the thermal clearance check, window determination, pre-threshold balancing initiation, and sending of module-specific indication information.

Generality Flags

• The independent claims recite "balancing interval assignment" and the indication information at a general level without requiring the specific bitmap format (L bits per monitoring interval, M bits per cell group) emphasized in the detailed description; that bit-mapping detail appears only in dependent claims 3, 4, and 11, so the independent claims are broader than the concretely described mechanism.
• The independent claims do not require any particular basis (controller identifier, modulo arithmetic, or module-set size) for how the first module controller determines the assignment; that determination logic appears only in dependent claims 5, 6, and 9.

2. Prior-Art Summaries

2.a Norlund, US 2021/0000123 A1, "Balancing Window Structure Signaling for Multi-Module Battery Packs"

Identity: United States Patent Application Publication US 2021/0000123 A1, titled "Balancing Window Structure Signaling for Multi-Module Battery Packs," listing Norlund as the named inventor on the publication's face.

Overview: This reference addresses how a module controller that has cleared a balancing window can share that window with neighboring modules, similar to a person who has reserved a shared meeting room announcing which time slots others may use. After a module controller completes a thermal clearance check and establishes a balancing window, it generates and broadcasts a "window structure message" (WSM) that tells neighboring module controllers the remaining duration of the window and the segments within it, including which segments are reserved exclusively for the initiating module and which segments other modules may share.

Novelty: The reference presents as new a mechanism for a module controller to communicate structural information about an already-established balancing window to neighboring controllers — reserved (non-sharable) segments and sharable segments — to avoid redundant thermal clearance checks and prevent modules from blocking one another.

Rejection-Relevant Disclosure: The examiner relies on paragraphs [0031]–[0036] and Figure 3 for the overall method of a controller establishing a balancing window following a successful thermal clearance check and broadcasting the WSM to neighboring controllers; paragraph [0022] and Figure 1 for the processor-and-memory apparatus structure; and paragraph [0034] for carrying the WSM in periodic pack-bus broadcast frames.

Comparison to Pending Claims: The pending independent claims recite indication information "that is specific to the second module controller" identifying an assignment "determined for" that controller. Norlund's WSM is a single message whose enumerated content — remaining window duration, window segments, reserved segment — is described identically for all recipients; neighboring controllers then self-select within the sharable segments. Whether a broadcast structural announcement can anticipate a module-specific assignment is the central dispute in this action. Critically for claim 1, Norlund's controller initiates balancing after its module crosses the thermal event threshold (paragraph [0029]: "responsive to the threshold crossing, the controller opens a balancing window") — it does not disclose initiating balancing prior to the threshold.

Combination Role: Primary reference for all three rejection blocks: the sole reference in the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection of claims 10–12, and the base reference combined with Vasquez for claims 1–6 and with Okafor for claims 7–9 in the two 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections.

Key Differences: Norlund is reactive (post-threshold) and broadcast-oriented (common window structure to all neighbors); the pending claims are proactive (pre-threshold initiation) and recipient-specific (an assignment determined for a particular second module controller).

Scope Note: Descriptive comparison only, not yet a formal legal argument.

Examiner-Relied Portions

• [0031]–[0036], Fig. 3 (controller establishes balancing window after thermal clearance check; generates and broadcasts WSM)
• [0022], Fig. 1 (apparatus with processor and memory storing program)
• [0034] (WSM carried in periodic pack-bus broadcast frames)
• [0038] (reserved segments may be reserved for the initiating module "or for any module granted balancing by the initiating module")

Uncertainties / Review Flags

• The examiner asserts that Norlund's per-module grant example at paragraph [0038] "may be included" in the WSM; the cited paragraph does not state that the grant, or any indication of it, is conveyed within the WSM.

2.b Vasquez, US 2019/0000456 A1, "Charge Cycle Scheduling for Stacked Battery Modules"

Identity: United States Patent Application Publication US 2019/0000456 A1, titled "Charge Cycle Scheduling for Stacked Battery Modules," identified in the office action as "Vasquez." Retrieved by publication number via patent search; not among the uploaded documents.

Overview: This reference concerns how a pack supervisor schedules charge cycles across stacked battery modules in advance of demand, like a shipping company that reserves loading docks before trucks arrive. It defines schemes for assigning charge-cycle identifiers across scheduling intervals and module positions, including a modulo-based formula, CYC(m, x) = (CYCstart + (m−1)·X + x−1) mod CYCmax, for computing cycle identifiers across intervals and module positions.

Rejection-Relevant Disclosure: The examiner cites Vasquez for (i) proactive, ahead-of-demand scheduling of module operations (paragraphs [0041]–[0044]), combined with Norlund to reach claim 1's pre-threshold initiation, and (ii) the modulo formula (paragraph [0087]) against claims 5 and 6, which require determining a monitoring interval from a controller identifier modulo the quantity of monitoring intervals in the balancing window.

Comparison to Pending Claims: Vasquez's modulo operand is the total supported charge-cycle count, its inputs are interval and position indices plus a supervisor-signaled starting value, and its output is a charge-cycle identifier — not a monitoring interval selected from a controller identifier, as claims 5 and 6 recite. Its proactive scheduling is supervisor-driven, not performed by a peer module controller.

Combination Role: Secondary reference combined with Norlund (primary) in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1–6.

Scope Note: Descriptive comparison only, not yet a formal legal argument.

Examiner-Relied Portions

• [0041]–[0044] (scheduling charge cycles ahead of demand across stacked modules)
• [0087] (CYC(m, x) modulo formula for charge-cycle identifiers)

Uncertainties / Review Flags

• Vasquez does not describe peer-to-peer coordination between module controllers at all; its scheduling relationship is between a pack supervisor and individual modules, which may weaken the reference's fit to the claimed controller-determined assignment.

2.c Okafor, US 2020/0000789 A1, "Supervisor-Coordinated Balancing Across Battery Modules"

Identity: United States Patent Application Publication US 2020/0000789 A1, titled "Supervisor-Coordinated Balancing Across Battery Modules," identified in the office action as "Okafor."

Overview: This reference describes a system in which a pack supervisor decides which battery modules may participate in a shared balancing operation and signals the participants — like an event coordinator deciding which guests may use a reserved venue. The supervisor's balancing schedule message may identify participating modules (by module identifiers) and may include indices indicating cooling zones and priority classes permitted during the operation. A single supervisor-maintained timer governs the shared operation.

Rejection-Relevant Disclosure: The examiner cites paragraph [0052] for the supervisor's schedule message identifying participating modules and indices, mapped against claims 7–9, including claim 7's requirement that "the balancing timer is maintained independently for each battery module."

Comparison to Pending Claims: Claim 7 requires per-module independent balancing timers; Okafor's timer is a single supervisor-maintained timer for the shared operation (paragraph [0055]: "the supervisor timer governs all participating modules"). Claim 9 requires the second controller's identifier to be determined from its index in a module set; Okafor's indices identify cooling zones and priority classes, not modules within a set.

Combination Role: Secondary reference combined with Norlund (primary) in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 7–9.

Key Differences: Okafor's architecture is supervisor-centric — the supervisor decides membership and owns the timer — whereas the pending claims place determination at a peer module controller and require per-module independent timers.

Scope Note: Descriptive comparison only, not yet a formal legal argument.

Examiner-Relied Portions

• [0052] (schedule message may identify participating modules and include cooling-zone and priority-class indices)
• [0055] (single supervisor-maintained timer governs all participating modules)

Uncertainties / Review Flags

• The examiner reads the cooling-zone/priority-class indices of paragraph [0052] as module indices; whether Okafor discloses indexing modules themselves is not resolved by the quoted passage.

3. Rejection Mapping Charts

3.a 103 over Norlund in view of Vasquez

The strongest mappings in this grouping are the mechanical steps — thermal clearance check and window establishment — which Norlund discloses in substantially the claimed words. The weakest are the pre-threshold initiation of claim 1, which Norlund's own paragraph [0029] contradicts (post-threshold operation) and which the combination reaches only through Vasquez's supervisor-side scheduling, and the interval-bitmap limitation of claim 3, where the cited per-bit disclosure is expressly cell-group-domain. Argument on claims 3 and 5, and a clarifying amendment on claim 1's pre-threshold initiation, appear sensible for this grouping.

3.b 103 over Norlund in view of Okafor

This grouping's weakest point is claim 7: the examiner reads a supervisor-governed shared timer as teaching per-module independent timers, which Okafor's own text contradicts. The reason to combine is a single-sentence efficiency statement that does not explain why Norlund's peer-controller design would adopt a supervisor-centric timing mechanism. Argument is the primary path for this grouping.

3.c 102(a)(2) over Norlund

The strongest mapping in this grouping is the processor-and-memory structure of claim 10; the weakest is claim 12, where broadcast carriage is asked to meet an addressed-message limitation. Because claims 10–12 stand under 35 U.S.C. 102, any limitation not expressly disclosed by Norlund defeats the ground for that claim; the addressed-carriage gap in claim 12 is therefore worth pressing even at a moderate score.

4. Overall Assessment and Recommended Strategy

4.a Score Summary

The most efficient argument target is claim 7's independent-timer limitation under §103 over Norlund in view of Okafor (rejection strength 31). A successful argument there also reaches claim 8, which stands or falls with claim 7.

Overall Assessment: Every pending claim (1 through 12) is rejected: claims 1–6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Norlund (US 2021/0000123) in view of Vasquez (US 2019/0000456); claims 7–9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Norlund in view of Okafor (US 2020/0000789); and claims 10–12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) over Norlund. There is no 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection in this action. The rejections are strongest on the mechanical and structural limitations — thermal clearance check and window establishment, and the processor-and-memory apparatus recitations — and on the cell-group bitmap of claim 11. They are weakest where the cited text contradicts the claimed feature: Norlund initiates balancing after the threshold while claim 1 requires initiation prior to it; Okafor's supervisor-governed shared timer is the opposite of claim 7's per-module independent timers; Vasquez's modulo formula operates on charge-cycle counts, not monitoring intervals; and claim 12's addressed message is mapped to broadcast frames. The likely strategy is both argument and amendment: argue claims 3, 5–7, and 9 on the textual gaps, and consider clarifying amendments making the pre-threshold initiation and addressed carriage express, since the action is final.

Weakest Points (best argument targets)

• Claim 7 (balancing timer maintained independently for each battery module) — Okafor paragraph [0055] discloses a single supervisor-governed timer for all participating modules.
• Claims 3 (L-bit interval bitmap) — Norlund's per-bit disclosure at paragraphs [0035]–[0036] is expressly cell-group-domain.
• Claims 5 and 6 (controller identifier modulo the quantity of monitoring intervals) — Vasquez paragraph [0087] takes the modulo over the charge-cycle count and outputs a cycle identifier.
• Claim 9 (identifier derived from the module's index in the module set) — Okafor's cited indices identify cooling zones and priority classes, not modules in a set.
• Claim 12 (module control message addressed to the second controller) — Norlund's cited carriage is periodic broadcast frames.

Strongest Points (consider amendment)

• Claim 1's thermal clearance check and window determination — Norlund paragraphs [0031]–[0032] use substantially the same language.
• Claim 10's processor-and-memory structure — Norlund paragraph [0022], Figure 1.
• Claim 11's M-bit cell-group bitmap — Norlund paragraphs [0035]–[0036].
• Claim 1's pre-threshold initiation — although Norlund is post-threshold, the combination with Vasquez's proactive scheduling is credible under a broad reading; a clarifying amendment tying initiation to a predicted threshold crossing would be more durable than argument alone.

Amendment Candidates

• Claim 1 — recite that balancing is initiated in response to a predicted threshold crossing determined from a rate of temperature change, before the threshold is crossed (support: spec ¶[0027], Fig. 3).
• Claim 12 — recite that the module control message is addressed to, and receivable only by, the second module controller.
• Claims 3 and 9 — the interval-bitmap and index-derived-identifier features are the cleanest technical distinctions on the record and are candidates for elevation into the independent claims if narrowing is pursued.

5. Argument Draft

5.a Response Arguments

Applicant respectfully traverses each of the outstanding rejections. Claims 1, 7, and 10 are independent. The discussion below addresses the controlling limitations of each rejection group.

35 U.S.C. 103 over Norlund (US 2021/0000123) in view of Vasquez (US 2019/0000456) — Claims 1–6

Claim 1 recites "initiating cell balancing on the first battery module prior to the thermal event threshold." Norlund's own disclosure is to the contrary: paragraph [0029] states that the controller opens a balancing window "responsive to the threshold crossing." Norlund thus discloses initiating balancing after the threshold is crossed; Norlund does not disclose balancing "prior to the thermal event threshold," as claim 1 recites. The Office Action supplies the pre-threshold element only from Vasquez's disclosure of a pack supervisor scheduling charge cycles ahead of demand (paragraphs [0041]–[0044]). Applicant respectfully submits that scheduling a charge cycle before demand arises is not initiating cell balancing before a thermal event threshold: the two operations respond to different conditions (demand forecasts versus thermal state), are performed by different actors (a pack supervisor versus a module controller), and serve different ends. The articulated reason to combine — "to reduce thermal stress" — does not explain how a supervisor-side demand-scheduling technique would be adapted to a module controller's threshold-relative balancing decision, and appears to be assembled with the pending claim as a template, which is impermissible hindsight.

Claim 3 recites that "the first indication information comprises L bits, and an ith bit in the L bits indicates whether the assignment comprises an ith monitoring interval in L monitoring intervals." The passages cited against this claim — Norlund paragraphs [0035] and [0036] — assign the per-bit structure exclusively to the cell-group domain ("a cell-group set indicator which may include one bit for each cell-group set"; "a bit map, where each bit identifies a cell group of the set"). Neither passage describes any bit whose position corresponds to a monitoring interval. A cell-group bitmap is not an interval bitmap, and Norlund's disclosure of a remaining window duration is not a disclosure of L bits in one-to-one correspondence with L monitoring intervals. Claim 3 is accordingly patentable over the combination for this additional and independent reason.

Claims 5 and 6 recite determining a monitoring interval from a value obtained by taking a module controller identifier modulo the quantity of monitoring intervals comprised in the balancing window. The relied-upon formula of Vasquez, CYC(m, x) = (CYCstart + (m−1)·X + x−1) mod CYCmax, differs in each of its three defining respects: the modulo is taken over the total number of supported charge cycles rather than a quantity of monitoring intervals; the inputs are interval and position indices plus a supervisor-signaled starting value rather than a controller identifier; and the output is a charge-cycle identifier rather than a monitoring interval. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1–6.

35 U.S.C. 103 over Norlund in view of Okafor (US 2020/0000789) — Claims 7–9

Claim 7 recites "wherein the balancing timer is maintained independently for each battery module." The passage of Okafor relied upon states the opposite: paragraph [0055] provides that "the supervisor timer governs all participating modules" — a single, centrally maintained timer. A shared timer governed by a pack supervisor is not a balancing timer maintained independently for each module; independence from central timing is the feature the claim recites and the feature Okafor's design excludes. Moreover, the proposed combination would require Norlund's peer-controller architecture to adopt Okafor's supervisor-owned timing mechanism, altering Norlund's principle of operation; the Office Action's single-sentence rationale does not address this.

Claim 9 recites that "the identifier of the second module controller is determined based on an index of the second module controller in the module set." Okafor's paragraph [0052] enumerates, as separate items, (i) identifiers of participating modules and (ii) indices of cooling zones and priority classes. Neither item derives a module's identifier from that module's ordinal position within a module set, and reading the limitation out of Okafor requires fusing the two items and substituting the subject matter that is indexed — a step Okafor itself does not suggest. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 7–9.

35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) over Norlund — Claims 10–12

Anticipation requires that a single reference disclose each and every limitation as arranged in the claim. Claim 12 recites that the indication information "is carried in a module control message addressed to the second module controller." The passage relied upon, Norlund paragraph [0034], describes carriage "in periodic pack-bus broadcast frames." A broadcast frame received by every controller on the pack bus is not a message addressed to a particular controller, and Norlund nowhere describes addressed carriage as an alternative. Claims 10 and 11 are patentable at least by virtue of the functional recitations they share with claim 1, addressed above. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 10–12.

5.b Amendment Options

Markup: added text is underlined and bold; deleted text is struck through; "…" marks unchanged claim text omitted.

Claim 1

Proposed amendment:

1. A battery thermal management method, comprising: … initiating cell balancing on the first battery module prior to before expiration of a monitoring interval associated with the thermal event threshold… [support: spec ¶[0027], Fig. 3]

Rationale: This amendment ties the pre-threshold initiation to a concrete, claim-recited trigger — the monitoring interval associated with the threshold — so the limitation can no longer be reached by combining Norlund's post-threshold window with Vasquez's demand-forecast scheduling. Norlund initiates balancing responsive to an actual threshold crossing; Vasquez schedules charge cycles from demand forecasts with no relationship to a thermal threshold or its monitoring interval. Neither reference, alone or combined, discloses initiation keyed to expiration of a threshold-associated monitoring interval.

Specification Support:

• Paragraph [0027] (monitoring interval associated with the thermal event threshold; balancing initiated on interval expiry before the threshold is crossed)
• Figure 3 (timing diagram: monitoring interval, predicted crossing, balancing initiation)
• Paragraph [0031] (rate-of-change prediction used to arm the monitoring interval)

Claim 12

Proposed amendment:

12. The apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the indication information is carried in a module control message addressed to , and receivable only by, the second module controller.

Rationale: Makes express the addressed, single-recipient character of the carriage, foreclosing a reading in which Norlund's periodic pack-bus broadcast frames — received by every controller — satisfy the limitation.

Specification Support:

• Paragraph [0044] (module control message addressed by controller identifier; non-addressees discard)
• Paragraph [0045] (unicast delivery on the pack bus)

5.c Drafting Strategy Notes

• Strength ranking. The strongest argument on this record is claim 7's independent-timer limitation: Okafor's cited text affirmatively discloses the opposite (a supervisor-governed shared timer). Next are the textual gaps on claims 3, 5–6, and 9, which turn on what the cited passages say rather than on claim construction. Claim 1's pre-threshold dispute is the most important commercially but the highest-risk position, because the combination is credible under a broad reading — the claim 1 amendment option is the durable answer.
• Finality constrains the procedural path. The action is final; an amendment beyond one placing the case in condition for allowance will require a request for continued examination. If one is contemplated, the claim 1 amendment is the highest-value entry.
• Address the Examiner's best fact directly. The strongest evidence for the per-module dispute is Norlund's paragraph [0038] grant example (a module "granted balancing by the initiating module"). The response meets it on the ground that Norlund never states the grant is conveyed within the window structure message; that line is correct for §102 but weaker against an obviousness conversion on a subsequent action — another reason the amendment options matter.
• Do not concede the cell-group bitmap claims. Claim 11 is the most strongly mapped dependent claim on this record. The response rests it on its dependency from claim 10, preserving flexibility; avoid any statement that Norlund discloses the M-bit indication.

6. Documents Considered

7. Caveats

7.a Caveats and Limitations

• The docket number is derived from the uploaded document filenames and corroborated by an internal identifier in the specification footer; treat it as a filename-derived candidate rather than an independently confirmed official docket record.
• The foreign-language background reference was not obtained; it is marked "Not reviewed" in the Documents Considered table and is not relied on in any chart row.
• For the alternative-list dependent claims, the single score reflects the easiest recited alternative rather than an average across the listed inputs.
• No rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 or 112 appears in this office action, and none is addressed here.
• The full texts of all three relied-on references were available and reviewed; the prior-art columns reflect the complete references rather than only the examiner-cited snippets, and where the broader reference supports a limitation that the cited snippet does not, the row says so explicitly.
• Scores reflect the examiner's mapping under broadest reasonable construction and are not a legal opinion on validity or patentability.