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 .
Status of the Claims
In the communication filed on 12/26/2025 claims 1-20 are pending. Claim 13 has been amended to address the 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections deriving support from ¶[26] of the applicant’s disclosure. Independent claims 1, 14, and 19 have been amended to incorporate new limitation not previously presented. Claims 14-18 have been amended to obviate the 35 USC 101 rejection.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 12/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues in page 7 of the Remarks dated 12/26/2025 that Roumi fails to explicitly teach the amended limitation “receiving multiple battery parameters representative of battery charging history over multiple charge and discharge cycles” (emphasis added), however, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant argues that Roumi cites collecting data from a single discharge or charge cycle. However, Roumi in ¶[27] teaches that data is collected for each cell throughout its service lifetime in which one of ordinary skill understands it involves collecting data over multiple charge and discharge cycles.
The remaining arguments are moot as the applicant’s arguments for the remaining claims were based on dependency of the independent claims.
The claim objections are withdrawn due to the amendments.
The 35 USC 101 rejections are withdrawn due to the amendments.
The 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections are withdrawn due to the amendments.
This Office Action is made Final due to the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8, 13-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roumi et al. (USPGPN 20210210965).
With respect to independent claims 1, 14 and 19, Roumi teaches a device and method comprising a processor, and a memory device coupled to the processor and having a program stored thereon for execution by the processor to perform operations (Figs. 3A-3C; an energy monitoring & control system 102 to monitor and control charging of a battery pack 106. ¶ [200-203]; comprising a processor and a memory having programs stored which are executable by the processor to perform operations).
Roumi teaches detecting from a battery pack a request for a battery charge (Fig. 3A; the energy monitoring & control system 102 detects a charge request in step (3) from battery pack 106, see ¶ [142]).
Roumi teaches receiving multiple battery parameters representative of battery charging history over multiple charge and discharge cycles (Fig. 3A; the energy monitoring & control system 102 receives battery pack information in step (3) which includes battery parameters in which one of ordinary skill understands includes parameters representative of a battery charging history (i.e., current and voltage profiles), see ¶ [142-143 and 145]. ¶ [27] teaches that data is collected for each cell throughout its service lifetime in which one of ordinary skill understands it involves collecting data over multiple charge and discharge cycles).
Roumi teaches determining a charging parameter to improve battery performance as a function of the multiple battery parameters (Fig. 3A; the energy monitoring & control system 102 determines in step (4) charging parameters (a.k.a., operating parameters) to achieve performance goals which are based on the obtained battery pack information, see ¶ [147-148]).
Roumi teaches charging the battery pack in accordance with the charging parameter (Fig. 3B; in step (8) the battery pack is charged in accordance with the determined battery pack charging parameters).
Roumi discloses the claimed invention except for increasing battery life as a performance goal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include increasing battery life in the performance goal as a design consideration in view of the determination of the most effective charging parameter (see ¶ [148] first sentence), since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious.
With respect to claim 2, Roumi teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Roumi teaches wherein the request includes a requested current (Fig. 3A; one of ordinary skill understands a charge request would include a requested current).
With respect to claim 3, Roumi teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Roumi teaches wherein the multiple battery parameters are stored on a storage device on the battery pack or a remote storage device (Figs. 3A-3C; battery pack information is stored in data storage device 116).
With respect to claim 4, Roumi teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Roumi teaches wherein the charging parameter comprises a current level (¶ [148]; charging parameters include a current profile and range).
With respect to claim 5, Roumi teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Roumi teaches wherein the charging parameter comprises a voltage level (¶ [148]; charging parameters include a voltage profile and range).
With respect to claims 6, 16, and 20, Roumi teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1, 14, and 19, respectively. Further, Roumi teaches generating a battery assessment as a function of the multiple battery parameters (¶ [147]; SOC and SOH are estimated based on the battery pack parameters which one of ordinary skill understands to be a battery assessment).
Roumi teaches matching the battery assessment to one of multiple charging profiles (¶ [148-150]; one of ordinary skill understands the battery assessment results in a pack SOC profile and a pack SOH profile in addition to other operational parameters which are matched with the charging profile (i.e., the transmitted energy) to support the operational and performance goals).
With respect to claims 7 and 17, Roumi teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 6 and 16, respectively. Further, Roumi teaches wherein the battery assessment includes values for a number of charging and discharging cycles of the battery pack including maximum values, minimum values and average values (¶ [148]; pack charging start time, pack discharging start time, pack charging duration, and pack discharging duration among other parameters are understood by one of ordinary skill to indicate the number of charging and discharging cycles of the battery. ¶ [11]; SOH profile; maximum, average, minimum, and profile for temperature; SOC values are included in the battery assessment).
With respect to claim 8, Roumi teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 7. Further, Roumi teaches wherein the battery assessment includes values for one or more of actual calendar aging, predicted calendar aging, temperature ranges for actual, maximum, minimum, average, and predicted, state of charge ranges for actual, maximum, minimum, average, and predicted (¶ [11]; SOH profile; maximum, average, minimum, and profile for temperature; SOC values are included in the battery assessment).
With respect to claim 13, Roumi teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Roumi teaches wherein the charge parameter is determined to increase a number of charging and discharging cycles that the battery pack can be subjected to prior to being unable to hold a desired charge or provide a desired or required current or voltage (Figs. 3A-3C; charging/discharging of the battery is done so to meet a performance goal including increasing battery life in which one of ordinary skill understands it is done so to increase a number of charging and discharging cycles that the battery pack can be subjected to prior to being unable to hold a desired charge or provide a desired or required current or voltage).
With respect to claim 15, Roumi teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 14. Further, Roumi teaches wherein the request includes a requested current (Fig. 3A; one of ordinary skill understands a charge request would include a requested current).
Roumi teaches wherein the multiple battery parameters are stored on a storage device on the battery pack or a remote storage device (Figs. 3A-3C; battery pack information is stored in data storage device 116).
Roumi teaches wherein the charging parameter comprises at least one of a current level and a voltage level (¶ [148]; charging parameters include a current profile/range and a voltage profile/range).
Claims 9-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roumi et al. (USPGPN 20210210965) and further in view of Asai et al. (USPGPN 20230118313).
With respect to claim 9, Roumi teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 6. Further, Roumi teaches wherein matching is performed between the battery assessment and an assessment associated with one of the multiple charging profiles (¶ [148-150]; one of ordinary skill understands the battery assessment results in a pack SOC profile and a pack SOH profile in addition to other operational parameters which are matched with the charging profile (i.e., the transmitted energy) to support the operational and performance goals. ¶ [27] teaches that data is collected for each cell throughout its service lifetime in which one of ordinary skill understands it involves collecting data over multiple charge and discharge cycles).
However, Roumi fails to explicitly teach using a similarity measure.
Asai teaches using a similarity measure (¶ [66]; a similarity measure between battery information A and battery information B is measured using known similarity measure methods such as the Mahalanobis distance, the Euclidean distance, the Manhattan distance, the Chebyshev distance, and the like).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Asai’s similarity measure method to Roumi’s energy monitoring & control system to monitor and control charging of a battery pack, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
With respect to claim 10, Roumi teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 9. However, Roumi fails to explicitly teach wherein the similarity measure comprises at least one of cosine similarity, Manhattan distance, Euclidean distance, Minkowski distance, and Jaccard similarity.
Asai teaches wherein the similarity measure comprises at least one of cosine similarity, Manhattan distance, Euclidean distance, Minkowski distance, and Jaccard similarity (¶ [66]; a similarity measure between battery information A and battery information B is measured using known similarity measure methods such as the Mahalanobis distance, the Euclidean distance, the Manhattan distance, the Chebyshev distance, and the like).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Asai’s similarity measure method to Roumi’s energy monitoring & control system to monitor and control charging of a battery pack, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
With respect to claim 11, Roumi teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Roumi teaches wherein determining the charging parameter comprises matching the battery parameters to one of multiple charging profiles having associated charging profile battery parameters (¶ [148-150]; one of ordinary skill understands the battery assessment results in a pack SOC profile and a pack SOH profile in addition to other operational parameters which are matched with the charging profile (i.e., the transmitted energy) to support the operational and performance goals).
However, Roumi fails to explicitly teach using a similarity measure.
Asai teaches using a similarity measure (¶ [66]; a similarity measure between battery information A and battery information B is measured using known similarity measure methods such as the Mahalanobis distance, the Euclidean distance, the Manhattan distance, the Chebyshev distance, and the like).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Asai’s similarity measure method to Roumi’s energy monitoring & control system to monitor and control charging of a battery pack, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
With respect to claim 12, Roumi teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 11. However, Roumi fails to explicitly teach wherein the similarity measure comprises at least one of cosine similarity, Manhattan distance, Euclidean distance, Minkowski distance, and Jaccard similarity.
Asai teaches wherein the similarity measure comprises at least one of cosine similarity, Manhattan distance, Euclidean distance, Minkowski distance, and Jaccard similarity (¶ [66]; a similarity measure between battery information A and battery information B is measured using known similarity measure methods such as the Mahalanobis distance, the Euclidean distance, the Manhattan distance, the Chebyshev distance, and the like).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Asai’s similarity measure method to Roumi’s energy monitoring & control system to monitor and control charging of a battery pack, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
With respect to claim 18, Roumi teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 16. Further, Roumi teaches wherein matching is performed between the battery assessment and an assessment associated with one of the multiple charging profiles (¶ [148-150]; one of ordinary skill understands the battery assessment results in a pack SOC profile and a pack SOH profile in addition to other operational parameters which are matched with the charging profile (i.e., the transmitted energy) to support the operational and performance goals. ¶ [27] teaches that data is collected for each cell throughout its service lifetime in which one of ordinary skill understands it involves collecting data over multiple charge and discharge cycles).
However, Roumi fails to explicitly teach using a similarity measure wherein the similarity measure comprises at least one of cosine similarity, Manhattan distance, Euclidean distance, Minkowski distance, and Jaccard similarity.
Asai teaches using a similarity measure wherein the similarity measure comprises at least one of cosine similarity, Manhattan distance, Euclidean distance, Minkowski distance, and Jaccard similarity (¶ [66]; a similarity measure between battery information A and battery information B is measured using known similarity measure methods such as the Mahalanobis distance, the Euclidean distance, the Manhattan distance, the Chebyshev distance, and the like).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Asai’s similarity measure method to Roumi’s energy monitoring & control system to monitor and control charging of a battery pack, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Frisch et al. (USPGPN 20130091083) teaches a system and methods for battery health diagnostics are disclosed. At least one battery property of a battery is measured in real-time to provide measured data, and at least one measurement time at which the measured data is measured is tracked. A battery history model is provided by adaptively modeling the measured data and the measurement time, and a future state of the battery is estimated based on the battery history model.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank A Silva whose telephone number is (703)756-1698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 09:30 am -06:30 pm ET.
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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/FRANK ALEXIS SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights