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 .
This action is responsive to communication filed on 09/16/2025.
Claims 1-8, 10-33, 35-63 are pending. Claims 49-63 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1, 10-21, 25, and 35-47 have been amended. Entry of this amendment is accepted and made of record.
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.
Claim 22-23 and 47-48 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. With respect to claims 22 and 47, enough support for the claimed limitation “the display device outputs information to guide a user in a signal excitation for creating a signal response to be sensed by the sensor for outputting the sensor signal to the controller to detect and assess the fault in the battery” cannot be found in the original disclosure of the invention as to how the user is guided in a signal excitation for creating a signal response to be sensed by the sensor for outputting the sensor signal to the controller to detect and assess the fault in the battery. Paragraph 0022, 0030, 0050 and 0054 discloses a signal excitation response, but does not describe in sufficient detail how the user is guided in a signal excitation for creating a signal response to be sensed by the sensor for outputting the sensor signal to the controller to detect and asses the fault in the battery. Clarification and correction is required.
Dependent claims 23 and 48 is rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for the reasons discussed above with respect to their respective independent claims 22 and 47 from which they depend.
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.
Claim 20, 22-23, 47-48 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.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the model" in line 11 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 22 and 47, the recitation “the display device outputs information to guide a user in a signal excitation for creating a signal response to be sensed by the sensor for outputting the sensor signal to the controller to detect and assess the fault in the battery” recited in last three lines of the claim renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear from the claim how the user will be guide in a signal excitation for creating a signal response to be sensed by the sensor for outputting the sensor signal to the controller to detect and assess the fault in the battery. Clarification and correction is required.
Dependent claim 23 and 48, is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the reasons discussed above with respect to their respective independent claims 22 and 47 from which they depend.
For examination on the merits the claims will be interpreted as best understood in light of the 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) discussed above.
Examiner’s Note: In claims 22 and 47, the recitation: “the display device outputs information to guide a user in a signal excitation for creating a signal response to be sensed by the sensor for outputting the sensor signal to the controller to detect and assess the fault in the battery”, will be interpreted as: the display device outputs information related to the detection and assessment of the fault in the battery in light of 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8, 10-33, 35-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, independent claims 1, 20, and 22 belongs to a statutory category, namely a system claim. Likewise, independent claims 25 and 47, belongs to a statutory category namely are a method claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
In the instant case, claim(s) 1, 20, 22, 25, 47, recite(s) concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and methods of organizing human activity and human/commercial practices e.g. organizing information and selling information (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II) for “detect and assess a fault in the battery based on the sensor signal and a model of potential fault(s), in a reference battery, wherein the data on fault(s) includes at least one of: data on electric hazards, data on gaseous hazards, and data on thermal hazards” (claim 1), “detect and assess a fault in the battery based on the sensor signal and produce a prediction of fault and battery state of health evolution with time by the use of a model” (claim 20), “detect and assess a fault in the battery based on the sensor signal” and “…to guide a user… to detect and assess the fault in the battery” (claim 22), "detecting and assessing a fault in the battery based on the sensor signal”, “detect and assess the fault in the battery based on the sensor signal and model of potential fault(s) in a reference battery, wherein the model includes data on fault(s) and wherein the data on fault(s) includes at least one of: data on electric hazards, data on gaseous hazards, and data on thermal hazards” (claim 25), “detecting and assessing a fault in the battery based on the sensor signal”, “guide a user… to detect an assess the fault in the battery” (claim 47) and mere data characterization of the data acquired and applied for performing the abstract idea (claim 1, 2, i.e. wherein the model includes data on fault(s), and wherein the data on fault(s) includes at least one of: data on electric hazards, data on gaseous hazards, and data on thermal hazards).
The concepts discussed above can be considered to describe mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers. Although, the claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps and to methods of organizing human activity and human/commercial practices/activities, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In the instant application, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the “controller in electrical communication with the sensor and a display device, the controller being configured to execute a program stored in the controller” (claim 1, 20, 22), “controller being in electrical communication with a display device”, “controller is configured to execute a program stored in the controller” (claim 25), and “controller… the controller being in electrical communication with a display device” (claim 47) , amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; “a sensor for outputting a sensor signal correlating to a measurement of a chemical, electrical, or physical property of the battery” (claim 1, 20, 22), “receiving in a controller a sensor signal correlating to a measurement of chemical, electrical, or physical property of a battery” (claim 25), and “receiving in a controller a sensor signal correlating to a measurement of chemical, electrical, or physical property of a battery” (claim 47) is mere gathering recited at high level of generality and the results of the algorithm are merely output as part of insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. display device produces an image… display device outputs information…, [claim 1, 20, 22, 25, 47]) and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use (i.e. a battery, battery fault assessment).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are general purpose computer “controller” used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities (i.e. transmitting a display signal… display device outputs information…) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, claims 1, 20, 22, 25, 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-19, 21, 24 merely expand on the abstract idea by appending additional steps to the mathematical algorithm on their respective independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-19, 21, 24 merely expands on the abstract idea by reciting additional steps related mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and methods of organizing human activity and human/commercial practices e.g. organizing information and selling information (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II) to identify a battery model (claim 5, 24), guide a user in repairing, deactivating, suppressing, or removing the battery when a fault is detected in the battery (claim 8), determine a display signal using a model to produce an image indicative of a value (i.e. safety systems and protocols to be used by first responders, technician evaluations on safety from prior accidents for the reference battery, guidelines and procedures…based on records..., prediction of evolution of fault, internal state of battery, a threshold of response safety levels), (see claims 10, 15-19, 21, wherein the mathematical model is used as a tool to determine a display signal which is interpreted as a value used with the intended purpose of producing the image), and mere data characterization of the data acquired and applied for performing the abstract idea (claim 3, 4, 5, 6, 10-19, 21 ).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application in claims 2-19, 21, 24 because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the “controller” (claims 7, 15-19, 21 and 24), which amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; and because the recitation of “an image capture device…retrieve any recorded information from an external database” (claims 5 and 24), amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, the limitations merely add further details as to the type of data, the means of collecting data being received/input and used with the human activities, mental process and/or math steps recited in the independent claims, so they are properly viewed as part of the recited abstract idea; and the results of the algorithm are merely output on a display as part of insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. display device produces an image… display device outputs information…) (see claims 2-4, 15-19, 21) and because the results are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use i.e. battery fault assessment.
The claim(s) claims 2-19, 21, 24 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are general purpose computer “controller” used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities (i.e. transmit data, displaying data) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 23 merely expand on the abstract idea by appending additional steps to the mathematical algorithm on their respective independent claim 22.
Dependent claim 23 merely expands on the abstract idea by reciting additional steps related mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and methods of organizing human activity and human/commercial practices e.g. organizing information and selling information (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II) as discussed with respect to claim 22 and which is mere data characterization and descriptive of the data acquired and applied for performing the abstract idea (claim 23).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application in claim 23 because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the “controller” (claim 22), which amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; and because the recitation of “sensor” (claims 22), amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, the limitations merely add further details as to the type of data, the means of collecting data being received/input and used with the human activities, mental process and/or math steps recited in the independent claims, so they are properly viewed as part of the recited abstract idea; and the results of the algorithm are merely output as part of insignificant post-solution activity and because the results are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use i.e. battery fault assessment.
The claim(s) claim 23 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are general purpose computer “controller” used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities (i.e. transmit data, displaying data) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 26-33, 35-46, merely expand on the abstract idea by appending additional steps to the mathematical algorithm on their respective independent claim 25.
Dependent claims 26-33, 35-46 merely expands on the abstract idea by reciting additional steps related mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and methods of organizing human activity and human/commercial practices e.g. organizing information and selling information (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II) to identify a battery model (claim 29-30), guide a user in repairing, deactivating, suppressing, or removing the battery when a fault is detected in the battery (claim 32), determine a display signal using a model to produce an image indicative of a value (i.e. safety systems and protocols to be used by first responders, technician evaluations on safety from prior accidents for the reference battery, guidelines and procedures…based on records..., prediction of evolution of fault, internal state of battery, a threshold of response safety levels), (see claims 35, 40-46, wherein the mathematical model is used as a tool to determine a display signal which is interpreted as a value used with the intended purpose of producing the image), and mere data characterization of the data acquired and applied for performing the abstract idea (claims 31, 35-46).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application in claims 26-33, 35-46 because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the “controller” (claims 29-30, 35, 40-46), which amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; and because the recitation of “an image capture device…retrieve any recorded information from an external database” (claim 29), “sensing a visual aspect of the battery or a vehicle with an image capture device” (claim 30), amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, the limitations merely add further details as to the type of data, the means of collecting data being received/input and used with the human activities, mental process and/or math steps recited in the independent claims, so they are properly viewed as part of the recited abstract idea; and the results of the algorithm are merely output as part of insignificant post-solution activity on a display (see claims 26-28, 32-33, 35, 40-46) and because the results are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use i.e. battery fault assessment.
The claim(s) claims 26-33, 35-46 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are general purpose computer “controller” used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities (i.e. transmit data, displaying data) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 48 merely expand on the abstract idea by appending additional steps to the mathematical algorithm on their respective independent claim 47.
Dependent claim 48 merely expands on the abstract idea by reciting additional steps related mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and methods of organizing human activity and human/commercial practices e.g. organizing information and selling information (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II) as discussed with respect to claim 47 and which is mere data characterization and descriptive of the data acquired and applied for performing the abstract idea (claim 48).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application in claim 48 because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the “controller” (claim 47), which amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; and because the recitation of “a sensor” (claim 47), amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, the limitations merely add further details as to the type of data, the means of collecting data being received/input and used with the human activities, mental process and/or math steps recited in the independent claims, so they are properly viewed as part of the recited abstract idea; and the results of the algorithm are merely output as part of insignificant post-solution activity and because the results are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use i.e. battery fault assessment.
The claim(s) claim 48 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are general purpose computer “controller” used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities (i.e. transmit data, displaying data) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 22-23 and 47-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by in view of Ballantine et al. US 2019/0317152A1 (hereinafter Ballantine).
Regarding claim 22, Ballentine as best understood in light of the 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) rejections discloses a system for detecting and assessing a battery fault (see Fig. 7) the system comprising:
a battery (battery 742);
a sensor (detector 718) for outputting a sensor signal correlating to a measurement of a chemical, electrical, or physical property of the battery (see para. 0075, wherein waveform detector 718 measures voltage and/or current across the battery); and
a controller (see battery fail module 722), in electrical communication with the sensor (detector 718, para. 0075) and a display device (see para. 0078 user device 746, battery powered GUI),
the controller being configured to execute a program stored in the controller (see para. 0030, 0052, , wherein a program is disclosed) to:
(i) detect and assess a fault in the battery based on the sensor signal (see para. 0052, 0075, 0078), and
(ii) transmit a display signal to the display device such that the display device produces an indication of presence or absence of the fault in the battery (see para. 00078).
wherein the display device outputs information to guide a user in a signal excitation for creating a signal response to be sensed by the sensor for outputting the sensor signal to the controller to detect and assess the fault in the battery (see abstract, para. 0075, 0077-0078, therefore, display outputs information related to the detection and assessment of the fault in the battery; see abstract, para. 0030, 0165, wherein a signal excitation for creating a signal response is disclosed).
Examiner’s Note: In claim 22, the recitation: “the display device outputs information to guide a user in a signal excitation for creating a signal response to be sensed by the sensor for outputting the sensor signal to the controller to detect and assess the fault in the battery”, will be interpreted as: the display device outputs information related to the detection and assessment of the fault in the battery in light of 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b).
Regarding claims 23, Ballentine, as best understood in light of the 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) rejections discloses the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 22.
Ballantine further discloses a signal excitation for creating a signal response to be sensed by the selected from electrochemical impedance spectroscopy signals, acoustic signals, infra-red signals, and thermography signals (see abstract, para. 0030, 0165, wherein an electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) may include testing various voltages and currents, storing and sending the data to an electrochemical impedance spectroscopy analyzer network to assess the safety and assessing the state of a battery).
Regarding claim 47, Ballentine as best understood in light of the 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) rejections discloses a method for detecting and assessing a battery fault (see Fig. 7) the method comprising:
(a) receiving in a controller (see battery fail module 722), a sensor signal (detector 718) correlating to a measurement of a chemical, electrical, or physical property of a battery (see para. 0075, wherein waveform detector 718 measures voltage and/or current across the battery), the controller (see battery fail module 722) being in electrical communication with a display device (see para. 0078 user device 746, battery powered GUI);
(b) detecting and assessing in the controller a fault in the battery based on the sensor signal (see para. 0052, 0075, 0078);
(c)transmitting a display signal from the controller to the display device such that the display device produces an image indicative of presence or absence of a fault in the battery (see para. 00078), wherein the display device outputs information to guide a user in a signal excitation for creating a signal response to be sensed by the sensor for outputting the sensor signal to the controller to detect and assess the fault in the battery (see abstract, para. 0075, 0077-0078, therefore, display outputs information related to the detection and assessment of the fault in the battery; see abstract, para. 0030, 0165, wherein a signal excitation for creating a signal response is disclosed).
Examiner’s Note: In claim 47, the recitation: “the display device outputs information to guide a user in a signal excitation for creating a signal response to be sensed by the sensor for outputting the sensor signal to the controller to detect and assess the fault in the battery”, will be interpreted as: the display device outputs information related to the detection and assessment of the fault in the battery in light of 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b).
Regarding claims 48, Ballentine, as best understood in light of the 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) rejections discloses the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 47.
Ballantine further discloses a signal excitation for creating a signal response to be sensed by the selected from electrochemical impedance spectroscopy signals, acoustic signals, infra-red signals, and thermography signals (see abstract, para. 0030, 0165, wherein an electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) may include testing various voltages and currents, storing and sending the data to an electrochemical impedance spectroscopy analyzer network to assess the safety and assessing the state of a battery).
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, 6, 12, 14, 19, 25, 31, 37, 39, 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikura Seiya JP2012243660 (A) (hereinafter Seiya) (see machine translation attached) in view Macedo et al. US2022/0065935A1 (Macedo) in view of Lee et al. US 20120296512 A1 (hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 1, Seiya discloses a system for detecting and assessing a battery fault (see para. 0023-0025), the system comprising:
a battery (battery unit 10);
a sensor for outputting a sensor signal correlating to a measurement of a chemical, electrical, or physical property of the battery (see para. 0023-0025, wherein a battery monitoring device 30 is disclosed for monitoring the stat of the battery unit 10, wherein sensor 20 (i.e. pressure sensor, strain gauge, load meter, pressure-sensitive conductive rubber or the like) is disclosed and wherein input from various sensors (not shown) assessing and measuring voltage, temperature, and current of the battery unit are disclosed, see para. 0025); and
a controller (see para. 0025, wherein the controller device resides on the battery monitoring device comprising state determination unit 32 and on control device 40) in electrical communication with the sensor (sensor 20) and a display device (see para. 0026-0027, wherein control device may be a collection of multiple hardware devices e.g. computers that can communicate with each other and a battery abnormality indicator 42 is disclosed provided on the vehicle instrument panel and displays the abnormality),
the controller being configured to execute a program stored in the controller (see para. 0025, 0026, wherein a program is disclosed) to:
(i) detect and assess a fault in the battery based on the sensor signal (see para. 0025, wherein monitoring device comprising determination unit 32 are disclosed detecting and assessing a fault in battery based on detection signal from sensor 20, para 0034, 0036, 0039), and
(ii) transmit a display signal to the display device such that the display device produces an indication of presence or absence of the fault in the battery (see para. 0025, wherein the result of the determination is notified to the control device 40; para. 0026-0027, wherein control device may be a collection of multiple hardware devices e.g. computers that can communicate with each other and a battery abnormality indicator 42 is disclosed provided on the vehicle instrument panel and displays the abnormality; para. 0034, 0038).
However Seiya does not expressly or explicitly discloses detect and assess a fault in the battery based on a model of potential fault(s) in a reference battery, wherein the battery is a same type as the reference battery, and wherein the model includes data on fault(s), and wherein the data of fault(s) includes at least one of: data on electric hazards, data on gaseous hazards, and data on thermal hazards.
Macedo discloses detect and assess a fault in the battery (see abstract, 0025, 0025, wherein battery tests may test various conditions of battery usages in order to predict future states of batteries including safety threat events such as thermal runaway) based on a model of potential fault(s) in a reference battery (see para. 0025, 0028, 0031 wherein battery tests may test various conditions of battery usages in order to predict future states of batteries including safety threat events such as thermal runaway), wherein the battery is a same type as the reference battery (see para. 0028, 0031, wherein datapoints indicative of a history of a battery may be obtained, which is associated with a particular type or model of battery under consideration, therefore it is implied that the reference battery data is the same type as the battery under consideration), and wherein the model includes data on fault(s), and wherein the data of fault(s) includes at least one of: data on electric hazards, data on gaseous hazards, and data on thermal hazards (see para. 0001-0002, 0017, 0028, wherein treats events such as thermal runaway is disclosed, para. 0047-0048, wherein chemical and or electrical properties is disclosed, para. 0051, wherein high ambient humidity event and high ambient temperature events is disclosed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Seiya to detect and assess a fault in the battery based on a model of potential fault(s) in a reference battery, wherein the battery is a same type as the reference battery, and wherein the model includes data on fault(s), and wherein the data of fault(s) includes at least one of: data on electric hazards, data on gaseous hazards, and data on thermal hazards for the benefit of providing an enhanced battery assessment that would allow for enhanced safety features to prevent future safety threat events on the battery.
However, the combination of Seiya and Macedo do not expressly or explicitly discloses that the display device produces an image indicative of the presence or absence of the fault in the battery (emphasis added).
Lee discloses a system for managing an electric vehicle comprising sensors for monitoring the state of health of a battery of the electric vehicle and further comprising an analysis module and a telematics module displaying the sensed statuses (see abstract). Lee further discloses a monitor 94 to provide and receive information, said information may include details related to health risk of the EV which may be presented in visual display that may include visualization charts indicating battery performance monitoring of a single battery and multiple battery or battery fault diagnosis (see para. 0030, 0035, 0055).
Given the teachings of Lee of displaying visualization charts indicating battery performance or battery fault diagnosis, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the display of the system of Seiya as modified by Macedo to produce an image indicative of the presence or absence of the fault in the battery for the benefit of providing a means that would provide an user with important information regarding battery performance of the vehicle and results of assessment of the state of health of a battery.
Regarding claim 6 The combination of Seyia, Macedo and Lee discloses the materials discussed above. Seyia further discloses that the sensor signal is indicative of gas generation, and/or exerted pressure, and/or a short circuit, and/or a type of the battery (see para. 0006, 0022-0026, 0029, wherein at least measurements indicative of pressure of the battery cell, short circuit, and gas generation are disclosed).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Seiya, Macedo and Lee discloses the materials as discussed above. However Seiya does not expressly or explicitly discloses that However Seiya does not expressly or explicitly discloses that the data on fault(s) includes data on electric hazards.
Macedo discloses detect and assess a fault in the battery (see abstract, 0025, 0025, wherein battery tests may test various conditions of battery usages in order to predict future states of batteries including safety threat events such as thermal runaway) based on a model of potential fault(s) in a reference battery (see para. 0025, 0028, 0031 wherein battery tests may test various conditions of battery usages in order to predict future states of batteries including safety threat events such as thermal runaway), and wherein the model includes data on fault(s), and wherein the data of fault(s) includes data on electric hazards (see para. 0001-0002, 0017, 0028, wherein treats events such as thermal runaway is disclosed, para. 0047-0048, wherein chemical and or electrical properties is disclosed, para. 0051, wherein high ambient humidity event and high ambient temperature events is disclosed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Seiya to detect and assess a fault in the battery based on a model of potential fault(s) and wherein the model includes data on fault(s), and wherein the data of fault(s) includes data on electric hazards.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Seiya, Macedo and Lee discloses the materials as discussed above. However Seiya does not expressly or explicitly discloses that However Seiya does not expressly or explicitly discloses that the data on fault(s) includes data on thermal hazards.
Macedo discloses detect and assess a fault in the battery (see abstract, 0025, 0025, wherein battery tests may test various conditions of battery usages in order to predict future states of batteries including safety threat events such as thermal runaway) based on a model of potential fault(s) in a reference battery (see para. 0025, 0028, 0031 wherein battery tests may test various conditions of battery usages in order to predict future states of batteries including safety threat events such as thermal runaway), and wherein the model includes data on fault(s), and wherein the data of fault(s) includes data on thermal hazards (see para. 0001-0002, 0017, 0028, wherein treats events such as thermal runaway is disclosed, para. 0047-0048, wherein chemical and or electrical properties is disclosed, para. 0051, wherein high ambient humidity event and high ambient temperature events is disclosed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Seiya to detect and assess a fault in the battery based on a model of potential fault(s) and wherein the model includes data on fault(s), and wherein the data of fault(s) includes data on thermal hazards for the benefit of providing an enhanced battery assessment that would allow for enhanced safety features to prevent future safety threat events on the battery.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Seyia, Macedo and Lee discloses the materials discussed above.
Seiya further discloses the model is used by the controller (see Seyia, para. 0025, wherein the controller device resides on the battery monitoring device comprising state determination unit 32 and on control device 40; wherein monitoring device comprising determination unit 32 are disclosed detecting and assessing a fault in battery based on detection signal from sensor 20, para 0034, 0036, 0039) to determine a display signal to transmit to the display device such that the display device produces an image indicative of an internal state of the battery (see para. 0025, wherein the result of the determination is notified to the control device 40; para. 0026-0027, wherein computers that can communicate with each other and a battery abnormality indicator 42 is disclosed provided on the vehicle instrument panel and displays the abnormality; para. 0034, 0038).
Regarding claim 25, Seiya discloses a method for detecting and assessing a battery fault (see para. 0023-0025), the method comprising:
(a) receiving in a controller (see para. 0025, wherein the controller device resides on the battery monitoring device comprising state determination unit 32 and on control device 40) a sensor signal correlating to a measurement of a chemical, electrical, or physical property of a battery, the controller being in electrical communication with a display device (see para. 0023-0025, wherein a battery monitoring device 30 is disclosed for monitoring the stat of the battery unit 10, wherein sensor 20 (i.e. pressure sensor, strain gauge, load meter, pressure-sensitive conductive rubber or the like) is disclosed and wherein input from various sensors (not shown) assessing and measuring voltage, temperature, and current of the battery unit are disclosed, see para. 0025);
(b) detecting and assessing in the controller a fault in the battery based on the sensor signal (see para. 0025, wherein monitoring device comprising determination unit 32 are disclosed detecting and assessing a fault in battery based on detection signal from sensor 20, para 0034, 0036, 0039); and
(c) transmitting a display signal from the controller to the display device such that the display device produces an image indicative of presence or absence of a fault in the battery (see para. 0025, wherein the result of the determination is notified to the control device 40; para. 0026-0027, wherein control device may be a collection of multiple hardware devices e.g. computers that can communicate with each other and a battery abnormality indicator 42 is disclosed provided on the vehicle instrument panel and displays the abnormality; para. 0034, 0038),
wherein the controller is configured to execute a program stored in the controller (see para. 0025, 0026, wherein a program is disclosed) to detect and assess the fault of the battery based on the sensor signal (see para. 0025, wherein monitoring device comprising determination unit 32 are disclosed detecting and assessing a fault in battery based on detection signal from sensor 20, para 0034, 0036, 0039).
However Seiya does not expressly or explicitly discloses detect and assess a fault in the battery based on a model of potential fault(s) in a reference battery, wherein the battery is a same type as the reference battery, and wherein the model includes data on fault(s), and wherein the data of fault(s) includes at least one of: data on electric hazards, data on gaseous hazards, and data on thermal hazards.
Macedo discloses detect and assess a fault in the battery (see abstract, 0025, 0025, wherein battery tests may test various conditions of battery usages in order to predict future states of batteries including safety threat events such as thermal runaway) based on a model of potential fault(s) in a reference battery (see para. 0025, 0028, see abstract, 0025, 0025, wherein battery tests may test various conditions of battery usages in order to predict future states of batteries including safety threat events such as thermal runaway), wherein the battery is a same type as the reference battery (see para. 0028, 0031, wherein datapoints indicative of a history of a battery may be obtained, which is associated with a particular type or model of battery under consideration, therefore it is implied that the reference battery data is the same type as the battery under consideration), and wherein the model includes data on fault(s), and wherein the data of fault(s) includes at least one of: data on electric hazards, data on gaseous hazards, and data on thermal hazards (see para. 0001-0002, 0017, 0028, wherein treats events such as thermal runaway is disclosed, para. 0047-0048, wherein chemical and or electrical properties is disclosed, para. 0051, wherein high ambient humidity event and high ambient temperature events is disclosed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Seiya to detect and assess a fault in the battery based on a model of potential fault(s) in a reference battery, wherein the battery is a same type as the reference battery, and wherein the model includes data on fault(s), and wherein the data of fault(s) includes at least one of: data on electric hazards, data on gaseous hazards, and data on thermal hazards for the benefit of providing an enhanced battery assessment that would allow for enhanced safety features to prevent future safety threat events on the battery.
However, the combination of Seiya and Macedo do not expressly or explicitly discloses that the display device produces an image indicative of the presence or absence of the fault in the battery (emphasis added).
Lee discloses a system for managing an electric vehicle comprising sensors for monitoring the state of health of a battery of the electric vehicle and further comprising an analysis module and a telematics module displaying the sensed statuses (see abstract). Lee further discloses a monitor 94 to provide and receive information, said information may include details related to health risk of the EV which may be presented in visual display that may include visualization charts indicating battery performance monitoring of a single battery and multiple battery or battery fault diagnosis (see para. 0030, 0035, 0055).
Given the teachings of Lee of displaying visualization charts indicating battery performance or battery fault diagnosis, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing sate of the claimed invention to configure the display of the system of Seiya as modified by Maceda to produce an image indicative of the presence or absence of the fault in the battery for the benefit of providing a means that would provide an user with important information regarding battery performance of the vehicle and results of assessment of the state of health of a battery.
Regarding claim 31 The combination of Seiya, Macedo and Lee discloses the materials discussed above. Seyia further discloses that the sensor signal is indicative of gas generation, and/or exerted pressure, and/or a short circuit, and/or a type of the battery (see para. 0006, 0022-0026, 0029, wherein at least measurements indicative of pressure of the battery cell, short circuit, and gas generation are disclosed).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Seiya, Macedo and Lee discloses the materials as discussed above. However Seiya does not expressly or explicitly discloses that However Seiya does not expressly or explicitly discloses that the data on fault(s) includes data on electric hazards.
Macedo discloses detect and assess a fault in the battery (see abstract, 0025, 0025, wherein battery tests may test various conditions of battery usages in order to predict future states of batteries including safety threat events such as thermal runaway) based on a model of potential fault(s) in a reference battery (see para. 0025, 0028, 0031 wherein battery tests may test various conditions of battery usages in order to predict future states of batteries including safety threat events such as thermal runaway), and wherein the model includes data on fault(s), and wherein the data of fault(s) includes data on electric hazards (see para. 0001-0002, 0017, 0028, wherein treats events such as thermal runaway is disclosed, para. 0047-0048, wherein chemical and or electrical properties is disclosed, para. 0051, wherein high ambient humidity event and high ambient temperature events is disclosed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Seiya to detect and assess a fault in the battery based on a model of potential fault(s) and wherein the model includes data on fault(s), and wherein the data of fault(s) includes data on electric hazards.
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Seiya, Macedo and Lee discloses the materials as discussed above. However Seiya does not expressly or explicitly discloses that However Seiya does not expressly or explicitly discloses that the data on fault(s) includes data on thermal hazards.
Macedo discloses detect and assess a fault in the battery (see abstract, 0025, 0025, wherein battery tests may test various conditions of battery usages in order to predict future states of batteries including safety threat events such as thermal runaway) based on a model of potential fault(s) in a reference battery (see para. 0025, 0028, 0031 wherein battery tests may test various conditions of battery usages in order to predict future states of batteries including safety threat events such as thermal runaway), and wherein the model includes data on fault(s), and wherein the data of fault(s) includes data on thermal hazards (see para. 0001-0002, 0017, 0028, wherein treats events such as thermal runaway is disclosed, para. 0047-0048, wherein chemical and or electrical properties is disclosed, para. 0051, wherein high ambient humidity event and high ambient temperature events is disclosed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Seiya to detect and assess a fault in the battery based on a model of potential fault(s) and wherein the model includes data on fault(s), and wherein the data of fault(s) includes data on thermal hazards for the benefit of providing an enhanced battery assessment that would allow for enhanced safety features to prevent future safety threat events on the battery.
Regarding claim 44, the combination of Seyia, Macedo and Lee discloses the materials discussed above.
Seiya further discloses the model is used by the controller (see Seyia, para. 0025, wherein the controller device resides on the battery monitoring device comprising state determination unit 32 and on control device 40; wherein monitoring device comprising determination unit 32 are disclosed detecting and assessing a fault in battery based on detection signal from sensor 20, para 0034, 0036, 0039) to determine a display signal to transmit to the display device such that the display device produces an image indicative of an internal state of the battery (see para. 0025, wherein the result of the determination is notified to the control device 40; para. 0026-0027, wherein computers that can communicate with each other and a battery abnormality indicator 42 is disclosed provided on the vehicle instrument panel and displays the abnormality; para. 0034, 0038).
Claim(s) 2-4, 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikura Seiya JP2012243660 (A) (hereinafter Seiya) (see machine translation attached) in view Macedo et al. US2022/0065935A1 (Macedo) in view of Lee et al. US 20120296512 A1 (hereinafter Lee) in further view of Pereira et al. CA 3129645 A1 (hereinafter Pereira).
Regarding claim 2 and 26, The combination of Seyia, Macedo and Lee discloses the materials discussed above. However the combination do not expressly or explicitly discloses that the display device is a headset.
Pereira discloses user interface that may be displayed on a charging station (see para. 0305 Fig. 13A-13B), wherein the one or more battery charge indicators/meters 1306A may report the charge state of the station battery and/or the user device connected to the station (para 0306, 0315) and wherein the user terminals may be in the form of head-wearable display, virtual reality display/headset, augmented reality display/headset (para. 0326).
Given the teachings of Pereira of a display in the form of head-wearable display, virtual reality display/headset, augmented reality display/headset it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to configure the system of Seyia as modified by Macedo and Lee with a display in the form of a headset for the benefit of providing hands-free interaction, providing portability allowing use in different locations.
Regarding claim 3 and 27, The combination of Seyia and Lee discloses the materials discussed above. However the combination do not expressly or explicitly discloses that the image is a virtual reality image.
Pereira discloses user interface that may be displayed on a charging station (see para. 0305 Fig. 13A-13B), wherein the one or more battery charge indicators/meters 1306A may report the charge state of the station battery and/or the user device connected to the station (para 0306, 0315) and wherein the user terminals may be in the form of head-wearable display, virtual reality display/headset, augmented reality display/headset (para. 0326), therefore virtual reality images can be provided.
Given the teachings of Pereira of a display in the form of head-wearable display, virtual reality display/headset, augmented reality display/headset it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Seyia as modified by Macedo and Lee with a display in the form of a virtual reality display/headset providing images for the benefit of providing hands-free interaction, providing portability allowing use in different locations and providing detailed and realistic graphics.
Regarding claim 4 and 28, The combination of Seyia, Macedo and Lee discloses the materials discussed above. However the combination do not expressly or explicitly discloses that the image is an augmented reality image.
Pereira discloses user interface that may be displayed on a charging station (see para. 0305 Fig. 13A-13B), wherein the one or more battery charge indicators/meters 1306A may report the charge state of the station battery and/or the user device connected to the station (para 0306, 0315) and wherein the user terminals may be in the form of head-wearable display, virtual reality display/headset, augmented reality display/headset (para. 0326), therefore augmented reality images can be provided.
Given the teachings of Pereira of a display in the form of head-wearable display, virtual reality display/headset, augmented reality display/headset it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Seyia as modified by Macedo Lee with a display in the form of a augmented reality display/headset providing images for the benefit of providing hands-free interaction, providing portability allowing use in different locations and providing detailed, realistic graphics, and enhanced visualizations.
Claim(s) 5, 24, 29, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikura Seiya JP2012243660 (A) (hereinafter Seiya) (see machine translation attached) in view Macedo et al. US2022/0065935A1 (Macedo) in view of Lee et al. US 20120296512 A1 (hereinafter Lee) in further view of Karner et al. US2019/0033395A1 (hereinafter Karner).
Regarding claim 5 and 29, the combination of Seyia, Macedo and Lee discloses the materials discussed above. However, the combination do not expressly or explicitly discloses that the system includes an image capture device that senses a QR code on the battery or a vehicle including the battery to identify a battery model and retrieve any recorded information from an external database.
Karner discloses a system and method for monitoring and presenting information and entering battery specific information into battery monitoring system regarding the vehicle i.e. model of vehicle that could be scanned by scanning a QR or barcode of battery and accessing information from databases, wherein the visible battery identifier i.e. QR code can be electronically visible by means of a reader/image capture device (see para. 0090-0091, 0110, 0133).
Therefore, given the teachings of Karner of a reader for scanning QR code for identifying a battery and capable of identifying and accessing data (i.e. model of vehicle) from databases a model it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Seyia as modified by Macedo and Lee with an image capture device that senses a QR code on the battery or a vehicle including the battery to identify a battery model and retrieve any recorded information from an external database for the benefit of enhancing the system by providing a means for identifying a battery, and retrieving data on a specific battery or vehicle that would allow for a battery of interest to be singled out for any appropriate action (see para. 0090-0091).
Regarding claim 24 and 30, the combination of Seyia, Macedo and Lee discloses the materials discussed above. However, the combination do not expressly or explicitly discloses the controller includes an image capture device that senses a visual aspect of the battery or a vehicle including the battery to identify a battery model and retrieve any recorded information from an external database.
Karner discloses a system and method for monitoring and presenting information and entering battery specific information into battery monitoring system regarding the vehicle i.e. model of vehicle that could be scanned by scanning a QR or barcode of battery and accessing information from databases, wherein the visible battery identifier i.e. QR code can be electronically visible by means of a reader/image capture device (see para. 0090-0091, 0110, 0133).
Therefore, given the teachings of Karner of a reader for scanning QR code for identifying a battery and capable of identifying and accessing data (i.e. model of vehicle) from databases a model it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Seyia as modified by Macedo and Lee such that the controller includes an image capture device that senses a visual aspect of the battery or a vehicle including the battery to identify a battery model and retrieve any recorded information from an external database for the benefit of enhancing the system by providing a means for identifying a battery, and retrieving data on a specific battery or vehicle that would allow for a battery of interest to be singled out for any appropriate action (see para. 0090-0091).
Claim(s) 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikura Seiya JP2012243660 (A) (hereinafter Seiya) (see machine translation attached) in view Macedo et al. US2022/0065935A1 (Macedo) in view of Lee et al. US 20120296512 A1 (hereinafter Lee) in further view of Pereira et al. CA 3129645 A1 (hereinafter Pereira) in further view of Masko et al. WO2020132337A1 (hereinafter Masko)
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Seyia, Macedo and Lee discloses the materials discussed above. However the combination do not expressly or explicitly discloses that the display device is a headset.
Pereira discloses user interface that may be displayed on a charging station (see para. 0305 Fig. 13A-13B), wherein the one or more battery charge indicators/meters 1306A may report the charge state of the station battery and/or the user device connected to the station (para 0306, 0315) and wherein the user terminals may be in the form of head-wearable display, virtual reality display/headset, augmented reality display/headset (para. 0326).
Given the teachings of Pereira of a display in the form of head-wearable display, virtual reality display/headset, augmented reality display/headset it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Seyia as modified by Macedo and Lee with a display in the form of a headset for the benefit of providing hands-free interaction, providing portability allowing use in different locations.
However, the combination of Seyia, Macedo and Lee as modified by Pereira do not expressly or explicitly discloses the headset including the controller.
Masko discloses a headset is wired to a self-contained controller (see para. 0081).
Given the teachings of Masko of a headset wired to a self-contained controller it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Seyia as modified by Macedo, Lee and Pereira a headset including a controller for the benefit of providing independent processing capabilities and offering a simplified system capable of executing functions internally.
Claim(s) 8, 32, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikura Seiya JP2012243660 (A) (hereinafter Seiya) (see machine translation attached) in view Macedo et al. US2022/0065935A1 (Macedo) in view of Lee et al. US 20120296512 A1 (hereinafter Lee) in further view of Chen et al. US 2020/0081069A1 (hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 8 and 32, the combination of Seyia, Macedo and Lee discloses the materials discussed above. However, the combination do not expressly or explicitly discloses the display device outputs information to guide a user in repairing, deactivating, suppressing, or removing the battery when a fault is detected in the battery
Chen discloses a terminal device and method for monitoring battery safety of a terminal device provided, wherein battery abnormality can be detected by monitoring the at least one voltage drop of the at least one duration when the battery is in the stable state, which will help with prompt alert and repair, thus avoiding safety hazard resulting from battery abnormality and wherein an user can be provided alert information with instructions such as “Battery is in safety risk. System disabled. Please get the terminal device inspected and repaired at xxx branch of service. Thank you for your cooperation”, which are displayed to the user in case of an abnormality with a serious grade and to forbid directly the entire system to be launched (abstract, para. 0075, 0079, 0082, therefore at least repairing, deactivating and suppressing is disclosed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the display of the system of Seyia as modified by Macedo and Lee to outputs information to guide a user in repairing, deactivating, suppressing, or removing the battery when a fault is detected in the battery for the benefit of providing an enhanced safety features to prevent possible accidents caused by abnormal battery from happening and to facilitate prompt alert and repair to avoid safety hazard due to battery abnormality (para. 0082, 0084).
Claim(s) 10 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikura Seiya JP2012243660 (A) (hereinafter Seiya) (see machine translation attached) in view Macedo et al. US2022/0065935A1 (Macedo) in view of Lee et al. US 20120296512 A1 (hereinafter Lee) in further view of Niu et al. CN109637069A (hereinafter Niu) (see machine translation attached).
Regarding claims 10 and 35, the combination of Seiya, Macedo and Lee discloses the materials as discussed above. However the combination do not expressly or explicitly discloses that the model includes is used by the controller to determine a display signal to transmit to the display device such that the display device produces an image indicative of a level of safety and potential mitigation strategies for reducing a risk of fire for the battery.
Niu discloses a model includes is used by the controller to determine a display signal to transmit to the display device such that the display device produces an image indicative of a level of safety and potential mitigation strategies for reducing a risk of fire for the battery (see abstract, para. 0002, 0011, 0020-0021, wherein the control device is used for obtaining the fire risk level of the power battery and judging whether a fire alarm instruction is sent or not according the fire risk level; and the alarm device is used for sending out different alarm reminders according to the fire risk level after receiving the fire alarm instruction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Niu, to configure the model of system of Seiya as modified by Macedo and Lee to determine a display signal to transmit to the display device such that the display device produces an image indicative of a level of safety and potential mitigation strategies for reducing a risk of fire for the battery, for the benefit of providing a means for assessing and notifying potential faults and providing safety mechanisms to avoid catastrophic events due to faulty batteries. Therefore, the system would be enhanced and a robust mechanism for enhancing the evaluation and assessment of battery fault and corrective measures for battery faults would be provided.
Claim(s) 11 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikura Seiya JP2012243660 (A) (hereinafter Seiya) (see machine translation attached) in view Macedo et al. US2022/0065935A1 (Macedo) in view of Lee et al. US 20120296512 A1 (hereinafter Lee) in further view of Ballantine et al. US 2019/0317152A1 (hereinafter Ballantine).
Regarding claims 11 and 36, the combination of Seiya, Macedo and Lee discloses the materials as discussed above. However the combination do not expressly or explicitly discloses that the model includes data on fault(s) encountered in prior accidents for the reference battery.
Ballantine discloses a model that includes data on fault(s) encountered in prior accidents for the reference battery (see para. 0030, 0078, wherein data sets of various batteries along with other indications of charge state and/or failure modes are used to train a learning algorithm and wherein data related to a dangerous potential from historical data i.e. potential for the battery to catch on fire is disclosed).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the model of the system of Seiya, as modified by Macedo and Lee to include data on fault(s) encountered in prior accidents for the reference battery, for the benefit of providing a robust and enhanced monitoring system that would allow for the detection of faults on the battery and that would allow to halt charging or discharging to halt charging or discharging of the battery before any dangerous malfunctions occur (see para. 0078).
Claim(s) 15 and 40, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikura Seiya JP2012243660 (A) (hereinafter Seiya) (see machine translation attached) in view Macedo et al. US2022/0065935A1 (Macedo) in view of Lee et al. US 20120296512 A1 (hereinafter Lee) in further view of Gless US20140042806A1.
Regarding claim 15 and 40, the combination of Seyia, Macedo and Lee discloses the materials discussed above.
However the combination do not expressly or explicitly discloses that the model is used by the controller to determine a display signal to transmit to the display device such that the display device produces an image indicative of safety systems and protocols to be used by first responders.
Gless discloses a safety system for vehicles for reducing the danger of an electric shock from a battery (see abstract). Gless further discloses a safety system providing a visual display of the state of the system and on which information and instructions can be provided to the operators (emergency services or emergency personnel) such as instructions for the operators to control the safety system, thereby providing a safe disconnection of the voltage of the vehicle (see para. 0019, 0038-0039).
Therefore given the teachings of Gless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Seyia as modified by Macedo, and Lee such that the model is used by the controller to determine a display signal to transmit to the display device such that the display device produces an image indicative of safety systems and protocols to be used by first responders for the benefit of providing an enhanced safety system to reduce the danger of an electric shock from a battery.
Claim(s) 18, 21, 43, 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikura Seiya JP2012243660 (A) (hereinafter Seiya) (see machine translation attached) in view Macedo et al. US2022/0065935A1 (Macedo) in view of Lee et al. US 20120296512 A1 (hereinafter Lee) in further view of Isa et al. US 20210190877A1 (hereinafter Isa)
Regarding claim 18 and 43, the combination of Seyia, Macedo and Lee discloses the materials discussed above.
However, the combination do not expressly or explicitly discloses the model is used by the controller to determine a display signal to transmit to the display device such that the display device produces an image indicative of prediction of evolution of the fault(s).
Isa discloses a battery monitoring method for detecting abnormalities of a battery, by using a lifetime estimation system with the use of a neural network, where a plurality of measured deterioration lines are generated, calculates a deterioration factor from the plurality of measured deterioration lines, generates a predicted deterioration line predicted from temperature profile and deterioration factor and gives a warning of abnormality to a user at the time when the predicted deterioration line greatly differs from the measured deterioration lines and a user receives a warning of abnormality at the time when a gap between values of predicted deterioration line and measured deterioration lines is greater than or equal to a threshold. Isa further discloses that a rapid deterioration of the battery due to a large difference between a predicted line and an actual measured deterioration line can be regarded as abnormality of a battery so that the abnormality of a battery can be detected and further discloses a proposal for inhibiting the deterioration of the battery (see abstract, para. 0033, 0037, 0089).
Therefore given the teachings of Isa it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Seyia as modified by Macedo, and Lee such the model is used by the controller to determine a display signal to transmit to the display device such that the display device produces an image indicative of prediction of evolution of the fault(s) for the benefit of providing an enhanced system for assessing the state of a battery that would allow for estimating the lifetime of a battery by predicting it’s deterioration state in order to provide a means for predicting and learning the timing of replacement of the battery (see para. 0008).
Regarding claim 21 and 46, the combination of Seyia, Macedo and Lee discloses the materials discussed above.
However, the combination do not expressly or explicitly discloses : the model is used by the controller to determine a display signal to transmit to the display device such that the display device produces an image indicative of a threshold of response safety levels for a user in case of battery fault detection.
Isa discloses a battery monitoring method for detecting abnormalities of a battery, by using a lifetime estimation system with the use of a neural network, where a plurality of measured deterioration lines are generated, calculates a deterioration factor from the plurality of measured deterioration lines, generates a predicted deterioration line predicted from temperature profile and deterioration factor and gives a warning of abnormality to a user at the time when the predicted deterioration line greatly differs from the measured deterioration lines and a user receives a warning of abnormality at the time when a gap between values of predicted deterioration line and measured deterioration lines is greater than or equal to a threshold. Isa further discloses that a rapid deterioration of the battery due to a large difference between a predicted line and an actual measured deterioration line can be regarded as abnormality of a battery so that the abnormality of a battery can be detected and further discloses a proposal for inhibiting the deterioration of the battery (see abstract, para. 0033, 0037, 0089).
Therefore given the teachings of Isa it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Seyia as modified by Macedo, Lee and Takahashi such that the model is used by the controller to determine a display signal to transmit to the display device such that the display device produces an image indicative of a threshold of response safety levels for a user in case of battery fault detection for the benefit of providing an enhanced system for assessing the state of a battery that would allow for estimating the lifetime of a battery by predicting it’s deterioration state in order to provide a means for predicting and learning the timing of replacement of the battery (see para. 0008).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikura Seiya JP2012243660 (A) (hereinafter Seiya) (see machine translation attached) in view Macedo et al. US2022/0065935A1 (Macedo) in view of Lee et al. US 20120296512 A1 (hereinafter Lee) in further view of Isa et al. US 20210190877A1 (hereinafter Isa) in further view of Gless US20140042806A1.
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Seyia, Macedo and Lee discloses the materials discussed above.
However, the combination do not expressly or explicitly the display device outputs information to a user with projections of any internal evolving fault(s) along with the prediction for the evolution of the battery fault and the guiding towards safe interventions.
Isa discloses a battery monitoring method for detecting abnormalities of a battery, by using a lifetime estimation system with the use of a neural network, where a plurality of measured deterioration lines are generated, calculates a deterioration factor from the plurality of measured deterioration lines, generates a predicted deterioration line predicted from temperature profile and deterioration factor and gives a warning of abnormality to a user at the time when the predicted deterioration line greatly differs from the measured deterioration lines and a user receives a warning of abnormality at the time when a gap between values of predicted deterioration line and measured deterioration lines is greater than or equal to a threshold. Isa further discloses that a rapid deterioration of the battery due to a large difference between a predicted line and an actual measured deterioration line can be regarded as abnormality of a battery so that the abnormality of a battery can be detected and further discloses a proposal for inhibiting the deterioration of the battery (see abstract, para. 0033, 0037, 0089).
Therefore given the teachings of Isa it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Seyia as modified by Macedo and Lee such the display device outputs information to a user with projections of any internal evolving fault(s) along with the prediction for the evolution of the battery fault for the benefit of providing an enhanced system for assessing the state of a battery that would allow for estimating the lifetime of a battery by predicting it’s deterioration state in order to provide a means for predicting and learning the timing of replacement of the battery (see para. 0008).
However, the combination of Seyia, Macedo and Lee do not expressly or explicitly discloses that the display device outputs information to a user with the guiding towards safe interventions.
Gless discloses a safety system for vehicles for reducing the danger of an electric shock from a battery (see abstract). Gless further discloses a safety system providing a visual display of the state of the system and on which information and instructions can be provided to the operators (emergency services or emergency personnel) such as instructions for the operators to control the safety system, thereby providing a safe disconnection (safe intervention) of the voltage of the vehicle (see para. 0019, 0038-0039).
Therefore given the teachings of Gless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Seyia as modified by Macedo and Lee and Isa such the display device outputs information to a user with the guiding towards safe interventions for the benefit of providing an enhanced safety system to reduce the danger of an electric shock from a battery.
Claim(s) 13 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikura Seiya JP2012243660 (A) (hereinafter Seiya) (see machine translation attached) in view Macedo et al. US2022/0065935A1 (Macedo) in view of Lee et al. US 20120296512 A1 (hereinafter Lee) in further view of Thomas et al. US 20200036056 A1 (hereinafter Thomas).
Regarding claims 13 and 38, the combination of Seiya, Macedo and Lee discloses the materials as discussed above. However Seiya does not expressly or explicitly discloses that the data on fault(s) includes data on gaseous hazards.
Macedo discloses detect and assess a fault in the battery based on a model of potential fault(s) (see abstract, 0025, 0025, wherein battery tests may test various conditions of battery usages in order to predict future states of batteries including safety threat events such as thermal runaway) see para. 0025, 0028, 0031 wherein battery tests may test various conditions of battery usages in order to predict future states of batteries including safety threat events such as thermal runaway), and wherein the model includes data on fault(s), and wherein the data of fault(s) includes data on electric hazards (see para. 0001-0002, 0017, 0028, wherein treats events such as thermal runaway is disclosed, para. 0047-0048, wherein chemical and or electrical properties is disclosed, para. 0051, wherein high ambient humidity event and high ambient temperature events is disclosed).
However the combination of Seiya, Macedo and Lee does not expressly or explicitly discloses that the data on fault(s) includes data on gaseous hazards.
Thomas et al. discloses a battery monitoring system and wherein the data on fault(s) includes gaseous hazards (see abstract, para. 0076).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Seiya as modified by Macedo and Lee to detect and assess a fault in the battery based on a model of potential fault(s) and wherein the model includes data on fault(s), and wherein the data of fault(s) includes data on electric hazards for the benefit of providing a more robust battery monitoring system that would allow to determine when a combustion situation occurs in order to prevent damage (see para. 0013, 0076). Therefore the system would be enhanced.
Reasons for Overcoming the Prior Art
Regarding claim 20, the closest prior art of made of record either in singularly or in combination fails to teach, disclose or suggest the features set forth by independent claim 20, in particular “wherein the model is used by the controller to determine a display signal to transmit to the display device such that the display device produces an image indicative of failed cell location in the battery and a prediction of fault and battery state of health evolution with time”, without the use of impermissible hindsight. However, patentability cannot be established, since claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 USC 101 set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claims 16, 17, 41, 42, and 45, disclose or suggest the features set forth by the claims without the use of impermissible hindsight. However the claims patentability cannot be established as the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Discussion of Relevant Prior Art
Ishikura Seiya JP2012243660 (A) (hereinafter Seiya)-
Regarding claims 22 and 47, Seiya discloses a system for detecting and assessing a battery fault. the system comprising:
a battery (battery unit 10);
a sensor for outputting a sensor signal correlating to a measurement of a chemical, electrical, or physical property of the battery (see para. 0023-0025, wherein a battery monitoring device 30 is disclosed for monitoring the state of the battery unit 10, wherein sensor 20 (i.e. pressure sensor, strain gauge, load meter, pressure-sensitive conductive rubber or the like) is disclosed and wherein input from various sensors assessing and measuring voltage, temperature, and current of the battery unit are disclosed); and
a controller (see para. 0025, wherein the controller device resides on the battery monitoring device comprising state determination unit 32 and on control device 40), in electrical communication with the sensor (sensor 20) and a display device (see para. 0026-0027, wherein control device may be a collection of multiple hardware devices e.g. computers that can communicate with each other and a battery abnormality indicator 42 is disclosed provided on the vehicle instrument panel and displays the abnormality),
the controller being configured to execute a program stored in the controller (see para. 0025, 0026, wherein a program is disclosed) to:
(i) detect and assess a fault in the battery based on the sensor signal (see para. 0025, wherein monitoring device comprising determination unit 32 are disclosed detecting and assessing a fault in battery based on detection signal from sensor 20, para 0034, 0036, 0039), and
(ii) transmit a display signal to the display device such that the display device produces an indication of presence or absence of the fault in the battery (see para. 0025, wherein the result of the determination is notified to the control device 40; para. 0026-0027, wherein control device may be a collection of multiple hardware devices e.g. computers that can communicate with each other and a battery abnormality indicator 42 is disclosed provided on the vehicle instrument panel and displays the abnormality; para. 0034, 0038).
wherein the display device outputs information to guide a user in a signal excitation for creating a signal response to be sensed by the sensor for outputting the sensor signal to the controller to detect and assess the fault in the battery (see para. 0025, wherein the result of the determination is notified to the control device 40; para. 0026-0027, wherein control device may be a collection of multiple hardware devices e.g. computers that can communicate with each other and a battery abnormality indicator 42 is disclosed provided on the vehicle instrument panel and displays the abnormality; para. 0034, 0038; therefore, display outputs information related to the detection and assessment of the fault in the battery).
Ballantine et al. US 2019/0317152A1 (hereinafter Ballantine).
Regarding claims 23 and 48, Ballantine discloses an electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) may include testing various voltages and currents, storing and sending the data to an electrochemical impedance spectroscopy analyzer network to assess the safety and assessing the state of a battery (see abstract, para. 0030, 0165).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8, 10-33, 35-48 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record cited in form PTOL-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YARITZA H PEREZ BERMUDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/YARITZA H. PEREZ BERMUDEZ/
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857