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 .
Priority
Application 17/604,458 filed on 10/18/2021 claims foreign priority to AUSTRIA A5035 1/2019 filed on 04/17/2019 and is a 371 of PCT/AT2020/060156 filed on 04/16/2020.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to amendments submitted on 07/30/2025 wherein claims 1-11 and 14 are pending and are ready for examination. Claims 12-13 were previously canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 04/16/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. “Grounds of Reason of Rejection Dated 12 February 2025 From the Korean Intellectual Property Office Re. Application No. 10-2021-7037596” listed un OTHER PRIOR ART-NON PATENT LITERATURE DOCUMENTS, has not been considered as an English translation has not be provided.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Independent claim 1: Applicant uses the phrase “with regard to at least one disturbance parameter” (claim 1 line 29-30). Examiner believes this is a typographical error and should read “with regard to the at least one disturbance parameter.” However, it could be a different concept intended by the Applicant, explanations are requested.
Regarding claims 2-11 are objected to as they depend from the parent claim.
Regarding claim 3: Applicant uses the phrases “at the least one comparison parameter” and “at the least one operating parameter.” Examiner believes these are typographical errors and should read “the at least one comparison parameter” and “the at least one operating parameter.” However, it could be a different concept intended by the Applicant, explanations are requested.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 14: The limitations corresponding to the claimed “one or more conventional current sensors,” “the one or more sensors of the sensor device,” “the sensors of the sensor device,” “by examining two or more datasets to identify at least one of similarities, differences, patterns, and trends between them; and wherein the identification of similarities, differences, patterns, and trends of the datasets can be transmitted via the connection of the checking device to the battery power source to deliver a modified disturbance current to the battery device, that is modified based on the operating current and differs from the operating current at least with regard to at least one disturbance parameter to protect the battery electrode and provide data to a simulation method” in claims 1 and 14 are not described or recited 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2-11: Claims 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph as they depend from independent claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 10, and 14 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.
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 14: Applicant uses the phrase “a battery parameter” (claim 3), “at least on disturbance current” (claim 10), and “to at least one received disturbance parameter” (claim 14 line 27). Examiner believes each of these phrases is in reference to a respective phrase in claim 1 and should read “the battery parameter,” “the at least one disturbance current,” and “to the at least one received disturbance parameter” respectively. However, it could be a different concept intended by the Applicant, explanations are requested.
Claims 3, 10, and 14 will be examined based on the merits as best understood.
Regarding Independent claim 14: Applicant recites the limitations “the at least one received disturbance parameter, the at least one received operating parameter and/or the at least one received battery parameter” (line 13-15). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims as neither the “disturbance parameter,” nor the “operating parameter,” nor the “battery parameter” has been previously claimed as being received.
Claim 14 will be examined based on the merits as best understood.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a process or product as a computer implemented method or a computer system/product.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 1 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
Checking device for checking a battery device the battery having an electrode, wherein the checking device is connectable to a battery power source to protect the battery electrode comprising:
one or more conventional current sensors of a sensor device, configured to detect current data and/or a simulation model to provide current data;
a processor is coupled to the one or more sensors of the sensor device, wherein the processor is configured to receive, read and store current data and to process said current data for gathering:
at least one electrical battery parameter of a battery device,
at least one operating parameter of an operating current of the battery device; and
at least one disturbance parameter of a disturbance current of the battery device;
-wherein the current data from the sensors of the sensor device or simulation model is for comparison of the at least one disturbance parameter, the at least one operating parameter and/or the at least one battery parameter with an at least one comparison parameter via a processor , wherein, said processor is configured to compare one or more of the at least one disturbance parameter, the at least one operating parameter, and the at least one battery parameter with the at least one comparison parameter based on at least one of the at least one battery parameter and the at least one operating parameter, by examining two or more datasets to identify at least one of similarities, differences, patterns, and trends between them; and
wherein the identification of similarities, differences, patterns, and trends of the datasets can be transmitted via the connection of the checking device to the battery power source to deliver a modified disturbance current to the battery device, that is modified based on the operating current and differs from the operating current at least with regard to at least one disturbance parameter, to protect the battery electrode and provide data to a simulation method; and
wherein, the modified disturbance current protects the battery electrode from degradation.
Claim 14 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A computer program product on a non-transient storage medium comprising: commands which, when the program is run on a computer, cause a processor, that is configured to receive, read and store current data and that is coupled to one or more conventional current sensors of a sensor device, configured to detect current data, to receive, read and store current data and to process said current data for gathering:
at least one electrical battery parameter of a battery device ,
at least one operating parameter of an operating current of the battery device ; and
at least one disturbance parameter of a disturbance current of the battery device;
wherein the current data from the sensors of the sensor device or simulation model (110) is for comparison of the at least one received disturbance parameter, the at least one received operating parameter and/or the at least one received battery parameter with an at least one comparison parameter via a processor of a comparison module (30), wherein, said processor of the comparison module is configured to compare one or more of the at least one received disturbance parameter, the at least one received operating parameter, and the at least one received battery parameter with the at least one comparison parameter based on at least one of the at least one battery parameter and the at least one operating parameter, by examining two or more received datasets to identify at least one of similarities, differences, patterns, and trends between them; and
wherein the identification of similarities, differences, patterns, and trends of the datasets are transmitted via the connection of the checking device to a battery power source to deliver a modified disturbance current to the battery device that is modified based on the operating current and differs from the operating current at least with regard to at least one received disturbance parameter, to protect the battery electrode and provide data to a simulation method;; and
wherein, the modified disturbance current protects the battery electrode from degradation.
The limitations underlined can be considered to describe a series of mental and/or mathematical concepts where the limitations “compare,” “examining,” and “identify” may include a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers or may include an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion which are concepts performed in the human mind. The lack of a specific equation in the claim merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible appropriate equations/two-group significance tests for accomplishing this purpose in all possible systems. These steps recited by the claim therefore amount to a series of mental and/or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
In summary, the underlined steps in the claim above therefore recite an abstract idea at Prong 1 of the 101 analysis.
The additional elements in the claim have been left in normal font. The additional concepts of “provide current data” and “receive current data” equate to extra-solution data activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Examiner notes the “and/or a simulation model” actually performing the measurements is not expressly claimed but, the limitation only claims the “and/or a simulation model” “provide current data.”
The additional limitations in relation to the computer, computer product, or computer system does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer (see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014)). The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea.
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. (Manipulating data from one form to another or obtaining a mathematical answer using input data does not qualify as a transformation in the sense of Prong 2.)
The claim does not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea. (This is understood in the sense of the claimed invention from Diamond v Diehr, in which the claim as a whole recited a complete rubber-curing process including a rubber-molding press, a timer, a temperature sensor adjacent the mold cavity, and the steps of closing and opening the press, in which the recited use of a mathematical calculation served to improve that particular technology by providing a better estimate of the time when curing was complete. Here, the claim does not recite carrying out any comparable particular technological process.) In all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the abstract idea itself, rather than integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Guidance requires the Examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2a, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-11 are similarly ineligible. The dependent claims merely add limitations which further detail the abstract idea with limitations such as “comparison” and “determined,” where “determined” may describe a mental process and these limitations would be part of the abstract idea or may be interpreted as gathering data and in such a case the limitations would constitute extra-solution data gathering. The limitation in claims 3-11 constitute defining the data in the comparisons. Therefore, these limitations do not help to integrate the claim into a practical application or make it significantly more than the abstract idea (which is recited in slightly more detail, but not in enough detail to be considered to narrow the claim to a particular practical application itself). Considering all the limitations individually and in combination, the claimed additional elements do not show any inventive concept to applying algorithms such as improving the performance of a computer or any technology, and do not meaningfully limit the performance of the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleischer et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0196107 A1 in view of Fujita Masao, hereinafter Fujita, JP2009128194A.
Regarding Independent claim 1 Fujita teaches:
“Checking device for checking a battery device the battery having an electrode, wherein the checking device is connectable to a battery power source to protect the battery electrode” (Fleischer, fig. 1, Fig. 1 depicts a system for monitoring the safety of a Li-ion battery (LIB) (¶ 0020) where the “LIB generally includes at least a pair of electrodes” (¶ 0035) therefore monitoring the safety of the LIB includes monitoring the safety of the electrodes as they are part of the LIB.
While Fleischer teaches in fig. 1, a “electrical stimulus application device” (112), a “response measurement device” (114), and a “temperature sensor” (116) all connected to the LIB. Fleischer does not explicitly teach a “checking device for checking a battery device (100).”
Fujita teaches a “storage battery life deterioration determination device 200” (¶ 0025) which is connected to the battery as depicted in fig. 6 disclosing a “checking device (10) for checking a battery device (100).” Therefore, the combination of Fleischer with Fujita teaches the limitation “Checking device for checking a battery device the battery having an electrode, wherein the checking device is connectable to a battery power source to protect the battery electrode comprising.”
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system monitoring the safety of a rechargeable Li-ion battery as taught by Fleischer by including a checking device as disclosed by Fujita in order to provide a system that can determine, for a battery, the “life deterioration continuously and simply during operation” (Fujita, ¶ 0006).
Fleischer teaches:
“one or more conventional current sensors of a sensor device, configured to detect current data and/or a simulation model to provide current data; a processor is coupled to the one or more sensors of the sensor device” (Fleischer, fig. 1, ¶ 0041-¶ 0042: Fig. 1 depict a “temperature sensor” (116) in addition to the “response measurement device” (114) both connected to the “processor” (118) where the “response measurement device” (114) includes “a voltage monitoring device, a current monitoring device”. . . “a voltmeter, a current meter, a resistance meter, an impedance measuring device” (¶ 0041) and the “temperature sensor” (116) “may be embodied by a plurality of sensors” (¶ 0042) disclosing the “processor is coupled to one or more sensors of the sensor device.”)
“wherein the processor is configured to receive, read and store current data and to process said current data for: at least one electrical battery parameter of a battery device” (Fleischer, fig 1, fig 7, ¶ 0043, ¶ 0092-¶ 0093: Fleischer teaches “processor 118 checks the response characteristics (e.g., voltage profile or current profile) of LIB 110 to ascertain whether the response deviates from predetermined operating limits” (¶ 0092) disclosing the processor receives, reads, and stores current data and processes current data. Additionally, a “notification unit 120”is connected to the processor as depicted in fig. 1, provides “indications relating to, for example, the state of health (SOH) and/or state of charge (SOC) of LIB 110” (¶ 0043) disclosing “battery parameter.”
“at least one operating parameter of an operating current of the battery device; and at least one disturbance parameter of a disturbance current of the battery device” (Fleischer, fig. 1, ¶ 0040-¶ 0041: Fleischer teaches the “response measurement device 114 is configured to measure the electrical state and characteristics of LIB 110, including measuring a response of LIB 100 to an applied electrical stimulus (and/or applied alteration in electrical state)” (¶ 0041) where the “applied electrical stimulus” discloses a “disturbance current,” where the electrical stimulus application device 112 adjusts the applied stimulus by adjusting different parameters including “frequency of repetition, type, magnitude, and duration” (¶ 0040) disclosing “disturbance parameter(s)” and the “response measurement device” includes a current monitoring device and a current meter (¶ 0041) disclosing an “operating parameter.”)
“the current data from the sensors of the sensor device or simulation model is for comparison of the at least one disturbance parameter, the at least one operating parameter and/or the at least one battery parameter with an at least one comparison parameter via a processor, wherein, said processor is configured to compare one or more of the at least one disturbance parameter, the at least one operating parameter, and the at least one battery parameter with the at least one comparison parameter based on at least one of the at least one battery parameter and the at least one operating parameter, by examining two or more datasets to identify at least one of similarities, differences, patterns, and trends between them” (Fleischer, fig. 1, fig. 7, ¶ 0040-¶ 0043, ¶ 0067, ¶ 0107: Fleischer teaches “processor 118 may further analyze the measured response of LIB 110 in comparison with an expected response” where “particular response characteristics may be expected in response to a particular applied stimulus, such as the associated response parameters having values within an expected range” (¶ 0067) where the “expected response” discloses “comparison parameter.” The flow chart of figure 7 teaches “Measuring response of LIB to altered electrical state” (element 256) where the response measurement device 114 is configured to measure the electrical state and characteristics of LIB 110, including measuring a response of LIB 100 to an applied electrical stimulus (and/or applied alteration in electrical state)” (¶ 0041) where the “applied electrical stimulus” discloses a “disturbance current,” the electrical stimulus application device 112 adjust the applied stimulus by adjusting different parameters including “frequency of repetition, type, magnitude, and duration” (¶ 0040) disclosing “disturbance parameter(s)” and the “response measurement device” includes a current monitoring device and a current meter (¶ 0041) disclosing an “operating parameter. Moreover, “if the actual response parameters are beyond the expected values, then the response may be flagged as incorrect or suspicious, (e.g., resulting in further verification, and/or repeating or changing the applied stimulus” (¶ 0067) and “changes in various response parameters may be used to indicate tendencies for the development of certain SCPCs (short circuit precursor condition)” (¶ 0107) where “if actual response parameters are beyond the expected values” discloses “similarities, differences,” (similarities would be if the actual response parameters are not beyond the expected values)“changes in various response parameters” discloses “patterns, and trends.”)
“wherein the identification of similarities, differences, patterns, and trends of the datasets can be transmitted via the connection of the checking device to the battery power source to deliver a modified disturbance current to the battery device, that is modified based on the operating current and differs from the operating current at least with regard to at least one disturbance parameter, to protect the battery electrode and provide data to a simulation method, and wherein, the modified disturbance current protects the battery electrode from degradation” (Fleischer, ¶ 0040, ¶ 0061, ¶ 0067, ¶ 0107: Fleischer teaches “if the actual response parameters are beyond the expected values, then the response may be flagged as incorrect or suspicious, (e.g., resulting in further verification, and/or repeating or changing the applied stimulus” (¶ 0067) and “changes in various response parameters may be used to indicate tendencies for the development of certain SCPCs (short circuit precursor condition)” (¶ 0107) where “actual response parameters are beyond the expected values” discloses “similarities, differences,” “changes in various response parameters” discloses “patterns, and trends,” and “changing the applied stimulus” discloses “delivery of a modified disturbance current.” The “electrical stimulus application device 112 is configured to apply a form of electrical stimulus to LIB 110 such as for example an applied voltage or applied current” (¶ 0040) where the electrical stimulus application device 112 adjust the applied stimulus by adjusting different parameters including “frequency of repetition, type, magnitude, and duration” (¶ 0040). Moreover, “a specific discharge voltage may be applied to a LIB cell(s) identified as having a SCPC due to lithium plating,” (¶ 0061) where the “specific discharge voltage may be determined from the functional form of at least one response to at least one stimulus applied to the LIB” (¶ 0061) disclosing the “applied stimulus” “protects the battery electrode from degradation” as the “specific discharge voltage” is determined from the “stimulus” which has been “changed” disclosing the “modified disturbance current” (see above).)
While Fleischer teaches in fig. 1, a “electrical stimulus application device” (112), a “response measurement device” (114), a “temperature sensor” (116), and a “processor” (118) all connected to the LIB. Fleischer does not explicitly teach a “checking device” connected to the battery power source.
Fujita teaches a “storage battery life deterioration determination device 200” (¶ 0025) which is connected to the battery as depicted in fig 5 and 6 disclosing a “checking device” connected to a battery power source.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system monitoring the safety of a rechargeable Li-ion battery as taught by Fleischer by including a checking device as disclosed by Fujita in order to provide a system that can determine, for a battery, the “life deterioration continuously and simply during operation” (Fujita, ¶ 0006).
Regarding claim 2 Fleischer teaches:
“the comparison is carried out on the basis of a simulation model (110) of the battery device (100) which in particular takes into account at least one of the following parameters: - ageing condition of the battery device - state of charge of the battery device - temperature of the battery device - quality and/or quantity of the disturbance parameter - quality and/or quantity of the operating parameter - quality and/or quantity of the battery parameter” (Fleischer, fig. 7, ¶ 0092: Fleischer teaches “Referring to FIG. 1, processor 118 checks the response characteristics (e.g., voltage profile or current profile) of LIB 110 to ascertain whether the response deviates from predetermined operating limits” where the “predetermined operating limits” discloses a “simulation model” and “current profile” discloses an “operating parameter(s).”)
Regarding claim 3 Fleischer teaches:
“at the least one comparison parameter of a battery parameter and/or of at the least one operating parameter with the at least one comparison parameter is carried out after an application of the disturbance current has been finished” (Fleischer, fig. 7, ¶ 0041: The flow chart of figure 7 teaches “Measuring response of LIB to altered electrical state” (element 256) where the “response measurement device 114 is configured to measure the electrical state and characteristics of LIB 110, including measuring a response of LIB 100 to an applied electrical stimulus (and/or applied alteration in electrical state)” (¶ 0041) where the “applied electrical stimulus” discloses a “disturbance current,” and the “response measurement device” includes a current monitoring device and a current meter (¶ 0041) disclosing an “operating parameter.”)
Regarding claim 4 Fleischer teaches:
“the at least one comparison parameter comprises the at least one battery parameter and/or the at least one operating parameter before and/or during application of the disturbance current” (Fleischer, fig. 7, ¶ 0041: The flow chart of figure 7 teaches “Measuring response of LIB to altered electrical state” (256) and “Determining if response deviates beyond predetermined limits” (260) where “predetermined limits” discloses “comparison parameter” which is compared with the measured response of LIB (step 256), therefore the “comparison parameter” would be of the same type of parameter as the measured response. Moreover, the “response measurement device 114 is configured to measure the electrical state and characteristics of LIB 110, including measuring a response of LIB 100 to an applied electrical stimulus (and/or applied alteration in electrical state)” (¶ 0041) where the “applied electrical stimulus” discloses a “disturbance current,” and the “response measurement device” includes a current monitoring device and a current meter (¶ 0041) disclosing an “operating parameter.”)
Regarding claim 5 Fleischer teaches:
“the result of the comparison is taken into account for a subsequent application of the at least one disturbance current” (Fleischer, ¶ 0037: Fleischer teaches “if the actual response parameters are beyond the expected values, then the response may be flagged as incorrect or suspicious, (e.g., resulting in further verification, and/or repeating or changing the applied stimulus” (¶ 0067) where “repeating or changing the applied stimulus” discloses “a subsequent application of the at least one disturbance current.”)
Regarding claim 8 Fleischer teaches:
“the result of the comparison is used for an in particular subsequent generation of the disturbance parameter” (Fleischer, ¶ 0017, ¶ 0051: Fleischer teaches “System 100 may also periodically and/or continuously monitor the electrical state of LIB 100, in anticipation of future applied stimuli or electrical state alterations” (¶ 0051) where the “altering the electrical state of the LIB by the application or removal of a direct current (DC) electrical stimulus to said LIB so as to trigger a time-varying response” (¶ 0017) where “altering the electrical state of the LIB by the application or removal of a direct current” discloses generating a “disturbance parameter”).
Regarding claim 9 Fleischer teaches:
“the at least one comparison parameter from the at least one external battery device (100) is used for the comparison” (Fleischer, ¶ 0084-¶ 0085: Fleischer teaches “data collected from the application of the disclosed monitoring method can be aggregated from many users” (¶ 0084) disclosing “at least one external battery device” where “aggregated data may be used to identify performance patterns, which may be correlated with extracted and derived parameters values” (¶ 0084) disclosing the “comparison parameter (VP) from at least one external battery device (100) is used for the comparison” where the “comparison parameter” is the “measured response of LIB 110 in comparison with an expected response” (¶ 0067).
Claim 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleischer in view Fujita as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Desprez et al., hereinafter Desprez, U.S. Pat. No. 8,269,502 B2.
Regarding claim 6 Fleischer does not teach:
“the ageing condition of the battery device following the at least one disturbance current is used as the at least one battery parameter with the at least one comparison parameter in the form of the ageing condition of the battery device before the disturbance current and/or during the at least one disturbance current.”
Desprez teaches:
“the ageing condition of the battery device following the at least one disturbance current is used as the at least one battery parameter with the at least one comparison parameter in the form of the ageing condition of the battery device before the disturbance current and/or during the at least one disturbance current” (Desprez, col 2 line 57-col 3 line 17: Desprez teaches a method to evaluate a battery’s state of health SOH “continuously using real time determination of impedance and with correction depending on battery state (temperature, SOC, current passing). The state of health of the battery at a given point in time is thus determined starting from the state of health of the battery at a previous point in time corrected as a function of impedance determined at the given point in time and weighted by confidence coefficients which depend on current and/or temperature and/or state of charge at a given point in time” (col 2 line 60-col 3 line 2) disclosing a subsequent state of health is using a previous state of health where the knowing the state of health of a battery makes it “possible to determine ageing of the battery between a new condition and a deteriorated condition” thereby disclosing using an “ageing condition of the battery device before the disturbance current”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system monitoring the safety of a rechargeable Li-ion battery as taught by Fleischer by including an using an ageing condition as disclosed by Desprez in order to provide a method that is “a reliable way of determining the state of health of the battery with greater stability and robustness than existing methods” (Desprez, Abstract).
Fleischer teaches “the disturbance current” (applied electrical stimulus, see claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 7 Fleischer does not teach:
“an ageing gradient is determined during the comparison of the ageing conditions of the battery device.”
Fujita teaches:
“an ageing gradient is determined during the comparison of the ageing conditions of the battery device” (Fujita, ¶ 0019-¶ 0020: Fujita teaches “by measuring the pulsation rate of the current flowing through the storage battery and using the relationship between the pulsation rate and the change in internal resistance, it is possible to determine the change in internal resistance, that is, the degree of battery life deterioration” (¶ 0020) where the “change in internal resistance” is the “degree of battery life deterioration” which discloses “an ageing gradient”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system monitoring the safety of a rechargeable Li-ion battery as taught by Fleischer by including an ageing gradient as disclosed by Fujita as gradients improve accuracy in determining values with a relatively simple calculation providing a system that can determine, for a battery, the “life deterioration continuously and simply during operation” (Fujita, ¶ 0006).
Claim 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleischer in view of Fujita as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Namba, U.S. Pat. No. 7,202,632 B2.
Regarding claim 10 Fleischer does not teach:
“the at least one battery parameter and/or the at least one operating parameter without application of at least one disturbance current is used as the at least one comparison parameter.”
Namba teaches:
“the at least one battery parameter and/or the at least one operating parameter without application of at least one disturbance current is used as the at least one comparison parameter” (Namba, col 2 line 1-13, col 3 line 1-14, col 11 line 12-36: Namba teaches “comparing the impedance obtained by the impedance calculating unit with an initial impedance previously obtained from the initial state of the battery to calculate an impedance correction value depending on the degree of deterioration of the battery”(col 2 line 8-13) where “impedance Z of the battery 10 can be expressed by the relation between the terminal voltage V of the battery 10, the open circuit voltage Vo thereof, and the current I thereof as shown in the following expression (1)” (col 3 line 9-12) and “the impedance-correction-coefficient learned value Krl is used as a correction value to compensate for battery deterioration” (col 11 line 25-27) and “a change in impedance of the battery can be accurately grasped, so that the degree of deterioration of the battery can be estimated with accuracy” (col 11 line 30-32) an “operating parameter” (current) used as a “comparison parameter” (impedance is calculated using current) without “application of a disturbance current”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system monitoring the safety of a rechargeable Li-ion battery as taught by Fleischer by including using current as comparison parameter without applying a disturbance current as taught by Namba where “parameters indicating the state of the battery, e.g., the remaining capacity thereof, reflect the change in impedance, resulting in accurate battery management” (Namba, Abstract).
Regarding claim 11 Fleischer teaches:
“the simulation model of the battery device is used for the at least one comparison parameter” (Fleischer, fig. 7, ¶ 0092: Fleischer teaches “Referring to FIG. 1, processor 118 checks the response characteristics (e.g., voltage profile or current profile) of LIB 110 to ascertain whether the response deviates from predetermined operating limits” where the “predetermined operating limits” discloses a “simulation model.”)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleischer et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0196107 A1 in view of Muramatsu, U.S. Patent Number 4,678,998, in view of Fujita Masao, hereinafter Fujita, JP2009128194A.
Regarding claim 14 Fleischer teaches:
“A computer program product on a non-transient storage medium comprising; commands which, when the program is run on a computer, cause a processor that is coupled to one or more sensors” (Fleischer, fig. 1, ¶ 0041-¶ 0042, ¶ 0048: Fleischer teaches “Processor 118 receives instructions (computer program product) and data from the components of system 100” (¶ 0048) where “processor 118 may be incorporated with a computer associated with response measurement device 114” (¶ 0048). Moreover, Fig. 1 depict a “temperature sensor” (116) in addition to the “response measurement device” (114) both connected to the “processor” (118) where the “response measurement device” (114) includes “a voltage monitoring device, a current monitoring device”. . . “a voltmeter, a current meter, a resistance meter, an impedance measuring device” (¶ 0041) and the “temperature sensor” (116) “may be embodied by a plurality of sensors” (¶ 0042) disclosing the “processor is coupled to one or more sensors.”).
While Fleischer teaches a computer, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand a modern computer would include a “non-transient storage medium,” however, Fleischer does not explicitly teach “a non-transient storage medium.”
Muramatsu teaches a “battery condition monitor” comprising a “microcomputer 9” which includes a “microprocessor unit or MPU 11, a memory 12 which includes ROM and RAM” (col 2 line 44-52, see also fig. 2) where ROM is a type of non-transient storage.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system monitoring the safety of a rechargeable Li-ion battery as taught by Fleischer by including non-transient storage as taught by Muramatsu as non-transient storage provides persistent storage, therefore the data in storage (the computer program would remain in storage when the system in turned off.
Fleischer teaches:
“wherein the processor is configured to receive current data for: at least one electrical battery parameter (EBP) of a battery device (100)” (Fleischer, fig 1, ¶ 0043: Fleischer teaches a “notification unit 120”is connected to the processor as depicted in fig. 1, provides “indications relating to, for example, the state of health (SOH) and/or state of charge (SOC) of LIB 110” (¶ 0043) disclosing “battery parameter.”
“at least one operating parameter (BP) of an operating current (IB) of the battery device (100); and at least one disturbance parameter (SP) of a disturbance current (IS) of the battery device (100)” (Fleischer, fig. 1, ¶ 0041: Fleischer teaches the “response measurement device 114 is configured to measure the electrical state and characteristics of LIB 110, including measuring a response of LIB 100 to an applied electrical stimulus (and/or applied alteration in electrical state)” (¶ 0041) where the “applied electrical stimulus” discloses a “disturbance current,” “measuring a response of LIB 100 to an applied electrical stimulus” discloses “disturbance parameter(s)” and the “response measurement device” includes a current monitoring device and a current meter (¶ 0041) disclosing an “operating parameter.”)
“the data from sensor (120) or simulation model (110) for comparison of at least one comparison parameter (VP) via comparison module (30), wherein, said comparison module is configured to compare one or more of the at least one monitored disturbance parameter (SP), the at least one monitored operating parameter (BP), and the at least one monitored battery parameter (EBP) with the at least one comparison parameter (VP) based on at least one of the at least one battery parameter (EBP) and the at least one operating parameter (BP), by examining two or more monitored datasets to identify at least one of similarities, differences, patterns, and trends between them” (Fleischer, fig. 1, fig. 7, ¶ 0041-¶ 0043, ¶ 0067: Fleischer teaches “processor 118 may further analyze the measured response of LIB 110 in comparison with an expected response” where “particular response characteristics may be expected in response to a particular applied stimulus, such as the associated response parameters having values within an expected range” (¶ 0067) where the “expected results” discloses “comparison parameter.” The flow chart of figure 7 teaches “Measuring response of LIB to altered electrical state” (element 256) where the response measurement device 114 is configured to measure the electrical state and characteristics of LIB 110, including measuring a response of LIB 100 to an applied electrical stimulus (and/or applied alteration in electrical state)” (¶ 0041) where the “applied electrical stimulus” discloses a “disturbance current,” “measuring a response of LIB 100 to an applied electrical stimulus” discloses “disturbance parameter(s)” and the “response measurement device” includes a current monitoring device and a current meter (¶ 0041) disclosing an “operating parameter.” Moreover, “if the actual response parameters are beyond the expected values, then the response may be flagged as incorrect or suspicious, (e.g., resulting in further verification, and/or repeating or changing the applied stimulus” (¶ 0067) and “changes in various response parameters may be used to indicate tendencies for the development of certain SCPCs (short circuit precursor condition)” (¶ 0107) where “if actual response parameters are beyond the expected values” discloses “similarities, differences,” (similarities would be if the actual response parameters are not beyond the expected values)“changes in various response parameters” discloses “patterns, and trends.”)
“wherein the identification of similarities, differences, patterns, and trends are communicated to a battery power source to create or allow delivery of a modified disturbance current to protect the battery electrode and provide data to a simulation method, and wherein, the modified disturbance current protects the battery electrode from degradation” (Fleischer, ¶ 0061, ¶ 0067, ¶ 0107: Fleischer teaches “if the actual response parameters are beyond the expected values, then the response may be flagged as incorrect or suspicious, (e.g., resulting in further verification, and/or repeating or changing the applied stimulus” (¶ 0067) and “changes in various response parameters may be used to indicate tendencies for the development of certain SCPCs (short circuit precursor condition)” (¶ 0107) where “actual response parameters are beyond the expected values” discloses “similarities, differences,” “changes in various response parameters” discloses “patterns, and trends,” and “changing the applied stimulus” discloses “delivery of a modified disturbance current.” Moreover, “a specific discharge voltage may be applied to a LIB cell(s) identified as having a SCPC due to lithium plating,” (¶ 0061) where the “specific discharge voltage may be determined from the functional form of at least one response to at least one stimulus applied to the LIB” (¶ 0061) disclosing the “applied stimulus” “protects the battery electrode from degradation” as the “specific discharge voltage” is determined from the “stimulus” which has been “changed” disclosing the “modified disturbance current” (see above).)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (remarks), filed 07/30/2025, have been fully considered.
Regarding CLAIM OBJECTIONS page 7 of Applicant’s remarks, the objections have been withdrawn however, new objection have been written due to the amendments.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(f) page 7-8 of Applicant’s remarks, due to Applicant’s arguments and amendments made to the claims, 35 U.S.C. 112(f) will not be invoked.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(a) page 8-9 of Applicant’s remarks, some of the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections have been withdrawn however, others have not. New 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections have been written due to the amendments. Additionally, Examiner would like to respectfully point out Applicant used several paragraphs from the specification. The specification did not have paragraph numbers. Examiner searched the PG PUB 2022/0196743 A1 and did not find the referred to paragraphs of 0067, 0118, and 0107 in addition to the referred to “processor 118.” Additionally, paragraph 0048 did not contain the recited “processor 18.”
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) page 9-10 of Applicant’s remarks, due to Applicant’s arguments and changes made to the claims, some of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn however, others have not. New 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been written due to the amendments.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 page 10-12 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argues “The amendments directly address the examiner's guidance from the July 22, 2025 interview, where the examiner specifically indicated that 'actively reciting the sensors, type of data collected, and how that data is used in addition to actively reciting the delivery of a modified current may overcome the 101 rejection.' The amended claims now explicitly recite 'conventional current sensors of a sensor device, configured to detect current data' and detail how this data is processed and used to deliver 'modified disturbance current' that