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 06/13/2025 claims 1 and 3-10 are pending. Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-10 are amended. Claim 2 is cancelled. Claims 1, 9, and 10 are independent.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 06/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has added portions of cancelled claim 2 into the independent claims 1, 9, and 10. Further, the applicant has added new limitations to the claims not previously presented. The amendments made by the applicant have changed the scope of the claims.
With respect to the new limitations, Mizutani teaches a control apparatus and method comprising: a specifying unit that specifies a first lead-acid battery or a first lead-acid battery module including a plurality of lead-acid batteries which performs refresh charge, and specifies a second lead-acid battery or a second lead-acid battery module including a plurality of lead-acid batteries which is different from the first lead-acid battery and the first lead-acid battery module, performs an adjustment discharge and is capable of providing power for the refresh charge of the first lead-acid battery or the first lead-acid battery module (Figs. 1-3; an energy storage apparatus 10 comprising a controller 11 and rechargeable batteries 4-7 configured to perform charge refresh by discharging one battery to charge refresh another battery, see ¶ [47].
Each rechargeable battery 4-7 may further comprise a plurality of secondary cells as seen in Fig. 2, thus the rechargeable batteries 4-7 may each be considered as an individual single battery or as a battery module comprising a plurality of secondary cells, see ¶’s [14-15]. The rechargeable batteries 4-7 may be lead-acid type, see ¶ [15].
The controller 11 is configured to select from the rechargeable batteries 4-7 a target rechargeable battery and a charge repository battery/batteries, see ¶ [27]. The controller 11 then proceeds to perform charge-refresh of the target rechargeable battery by discharging the charge repository batteries, see ¶’s [36-40])
Mizutani teaches a charge controller that causes the second lead-acid battery or the second lead-acid battery module to perform the adjustment discharge, and at the same time, causes the first lead-acid battery or the first lead-acid battery module to perform the refresh charge by using the power of the second lead-acid battery or the second lead-acid battery module when performing the adjustment discharge (Discharging of the charge repository battery performs a charge-refresh of the target rechargeable battery without the need of an external power source [i.e., using the energy stored in the battery], see ¶ [47]).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “refresh charge can be performed without requiring external power” and “the power cost due to the refresh charge can be reduced, and the maintenance such as the refresh charge and the correction of the estimated SOC can be simultaneously performed even when the power storage system is independent from the power system”; emphasis added) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further, in response to applicant's argument that Ishii fails to teach or suggest anything regarding refresh charge of another battery, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The remaining arguments are moot as the applicant’s arguments for the remaining claims were based on dependency of the independent claims.
The abstract objection has been withdrawn due to the amendments.
The claim objections have been withdrawn in part. The objection to claim 5 remains for replacing “a conductance” with --the conductance-- in order to avoid a lack of antecedent basis issue.
The 101 rejection has been withdrawn due to the amendments.
This Office Action is made Final due to the amendments.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the charge controller, the SOC correction unit, the estimation unit, and the load adjustment unit must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: add reference numbers for the charge controller, the SOC correction unit, the estimation unit, and the load adjustment unit. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: replace “specifying unit” with --controller-- as supported by the applicant’s disclosure. For examination purposes “specifying unit” will be interpreted as “controller.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: replace “a conductance” with --the conductance-- in order to avoid a lack of antecedent basis issue since “a conductance” is presented in claim 3 and claim 5 depends upon claim 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: charge controller, SOC correction unit, estimation unit, and load adjustment unit in claims 1 and 3-10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Throughout the disclosure but specifically ¶ [101] of the specification discloses that the controller 11 performs the functions of the charge controller, the SOC correction unit, the estimation unit, and the load adjustment unit. ¶ [43] discloses “controller 11 can be configured of a central processing unit (CPU), a read only memory (ROM), a random access memory (RAM), and the like. The controller 11 may include a graphics processing unit (GPU). In addition, a quantum computer may be used.” For examination purposes the functions of the charge controller, the SOC correction unit, the estimation unit, and the load adjustment unit will be interpreted as performed by a controller.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-8 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.
The term “specifying unit” was not supported by the originally filed disclosure. “Controller 11” was however as supported by the applicant in ¶ [71]. Specifying unit and controller do not have identical scopes. Therefore, “specifying unit” is new matter. Remove the term and/or replace with “controller”, or provide evidence that “specifying unit” was supported. For examination purposes a “specifying unit” will be interpreted as a controller.
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.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani et al. (USPGPN 20130002026) and further in view of Ishii (Japanese Patent JP-2014025738-A), as evidenced by Hua et al. (Design and implementation of a residual capacity estimator for lead-acid batteries. Hua, C.-C., Tasi, T.-Y., Chuang, C.-W., & Shr, W.-B. IEEE Xplore. (2007, September 24). https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4318764/).
First, the examiner notes that specifying a battery is the determining of a first battery that will be refresh charged with an adjustment discharge of a second battery as supported by the applicant in ¶ [71] of the disclosure. For examination purposes the specifying of a battery will be interpreted as a determination process for identifying the batteries that will be used during the refresh charging and adjustment discharging processes.
Second, the examiner notes a refresh charge is the charging of a partially-charged battery in order to avoid degradation as supported by the applicant in ¶ [03] of the disclosure. For examination purposes a refresh charge will be interpreted as the charging of a partially-charged battery to avoid degradation.
Third, the examiner notes an adjustment discharge is the discharging of an identified second battery and, through the discharge of this second battery, a first battery is refresh charged as supported by the applicant in ¶ [71] of the disclosure. For examination purposes an adjustment discharge will be interpreted as a discharge of a second battery for charging another battery.
Fourth, the examiner notes that the controller 11 performs the functions of the charge controller, the SOC correction unit, the estimation unit, and the load adjustment unit as supported by the applicant throughout the disclosure but specifically ¶ [101] of the specification. For examination purposes the functions of the charge controller, the SOC correction unit, the estimation unit, and the load adjustment unit will be interpreted as performed by a controller.
With respect to independent claims 1 and 9, Mizutani teaches a control apparatus and method comprising: a specifying unit that specifies a first lead-acid battery or a first lead-acid battery module including a plurality of lead-acid batteries which performs refresh charge, and specifies a second lead-acid battery or a second lead-acid battery module including a plurality of lead-acid batteries which is different from the first lead-acid battery and the first lead-acid battery module, performs an adjustment discharge and is capable of providing power for the refresh charge of the first lead-acid battery or the first lead-acid battery module (Figs. 1-3; an energy storage apparatus 10 comprising a controller 11 and rechargeable batteries 4-7 configured to perform charge refresh by discharging one battery to charge refresh another battery, see ¶ [47].
Each rechargeable battery 4-7 may further comprise a plurality of secondary cells as seen in Fig. 2, thus the rechargeable batteries 4-7 may each be considered as an individual single battery or as a battery module comprising a plurality of secondary cells, see ¶’s [14-15]. The rechargeable batteries 4-7 may be lead-acid type, see ¶ [15].
The controller 11 is configured to select from the rechargeable batteries 4-7 a target rechargeable battery and a charge repository battery/batteries, see ¶ [27]. The controller 11 then proceeds to perform charge-refresh of the target rechargeable battery by discharging the charge repository batteries, see ¶’s [36-40])
Mizutani teaches a charge controller that causes the second lead-acid battery or the second lead-acid battery module to perform the adjustment discharge, and at the same time, causes the first lead-acid battery or the first lead-acid battery module to perform the refresh charge by using the power of the second lead-acid battery or the second lead-acid battery module when performing the adjustment discharge (Discharging of the charge repository battery performs a charge-refresh of the target rechargeable battery without the need of an external power source [i.e., using the energy stored in the battery], see ¶ [47]).
However, Mizutani fails to explicitly teach an SOC correction unit that corrects an estimated value of an SOC of the second lead-acid battery or the second lead-acid battery module based on a residual capacity derived from a current and transition of a voltage of the second lead-acid battery or the second lead-acid battery module when performing the adjustment discharge.
Ishii teaches an SOC correction unit that corrects an estimated value of an SOC of the second lead-acid battery or the second lead-acid battery module based on a residual capacity derived from a current and transition of a voltage of the second lead-acid battery or the second lead-acid battery module when performing the adjustment discharge (Figs. 1-3; SOC calculation unit 56 generates a remaining capacity output value of battery module 11 by weighted mean calculation of the estimated SOC values derived from current SOC calculation unit 53 and voltage SOC calculation unit 55, see abstract. Figs. 4-5; these estimated values are derived when the battery module is discharged, see ¶’s [24-25]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mizutani apparatus by adding the SOC correction unit and functions disclosed by Ishii. The advantage of this modification being the residual capacity of a battery may be obtained with high accuracy and estimation (in the abstract of Ishii).
Hua focuses on improving the accuracy of residual capacity estimation by utilizing discharge capacities and open circuit voltage (OCV) measurements. It aims to enhance the reliability of SOC assessments, ensuring more precise battery management for applications requiring stable and efficient energy storage. By addressing the limitations of traditional estimation methods, the study proposes a more adaptable and accurate approach that can optimize battery performance, extend lifespan, and improve overall system efficiency. (Hua).
Claims 3, 5-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani et al. (USPGPN 20130002026), in view of Ishii (Japanese Patent JP-2014025738-A), and further in view Mitsuyama et al. (USPGPN 20130110429), as evidenced by Hua et al. and Huang et al. (Fast health state estimation of lead–acid batteries based on multi-time constant current charging curve. Huang, C., & Li, N. MDPI. (2023, November 6). https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/12/21/4552).
With respect to claim 3, Mizutani teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Mizutani fails to explicitly teach further comprising an estimation unit that estimates a degree of degradation of the second lead-acid battery or the second lead-acid battery module based on an internal resistance or conductance of the second lead-acid battery or the second lead-acid battery module when performing the adjustment the discharge.
Mitsuyama teaches further comprising an estimation unit that estimates a degree of degradation of the lead-acid battery based on an internal resistance derived in a case of the discharge (Figs. 1-2; an adaptive learning section/estimating section/CPU 10a of control unit 10 executes a program 10ba for estimating the degradation state of the lead-acid battery 13 based on the internal resistance obtained when the battery 13 is discharged, see ¶’s [14-16, 56, 58]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mizutani apparatus by adding the features disclosed by Mitsuyama. The advantage of this modification being the internal state of a battery is efficiently estimated using an adaptive learning process (in ¶ [21] of Mitsuyama).
One of ordinary skill in the art understands the value of an efficient estimating apparatus for predicting the state of a battery. Huang explains that an LSTM model was trained to learn from past battery data, including changes in internal resistance, to estimate how long a battery will last. Since internal resistance increases as the battery ages, the model can detect early signs of wear and make more accurate predictions about battery lifespan. (Huang).
With respect to claim 5, Mizutani teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 3. Further, Mizutani teaches the second lead-acid battery or the second lead-acid battery module (Figs 1-3; the controller 11 is configured to select from the rechargeable batteries 4-7 a target rechargeable battery, see ¶ [27]).
However, Mizutani fails to explicitly teach wherein the estimation unit inputs the internal resistance or the conductance of the lead-acid battery or the lead-acid battery module to a learning model that outputs a degree of degradation when the internal resistance or the conductance is input, and estimates a degree of degradation of the lead-acid battery or the lead-acid battery module.
Mitsuyama teaches wherein the estimation unit inputs the internal resistance or the conductance of the lead-acid battery or the lead-acid battery module to a learning model that outputs a degree of degradation when the internal resistance or the conductance is input, and estimates a degree of degradation of the lead-acid battery or the lead-acid battery module (Figs. 1-2; the internal resistance is input into the adaptive learning section/estimating section/CPU 10a which provides an estimated degradation state of the battery 13, see ¶ [15, 18]. The estimating section and the adaptive learning section are the CPU 10a, see ¶ [115]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mizutani apparatus by adding the features disclosed by Mitsuyama. The advantage of this modification being the internal state of a battery is efficiently estimated using an adaptive learning process (in ¶ [21] of Mitsuyama).
One of ordinary skill in the art understands the value of an efficient estimating apparatus for predicting the state of a battery. Huang explains that an LSTM model was trained to learn from past battery data, including changes in internal resistance, to estimate how long a battery will last. Since internal resistance increases as the battery ages, the model can detect early signs of wear and make more accurate predictions about battery lifespan. (Huang).
With respect to claim 6, Mizutani teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 3. However, Mizutani fails to explicitly teach wherein the estimation unit estimates a degree of degradation of the second lead-acid battery or the second lead-acid battery module by inputting the acquired current and voltage of the second lead-acid battery or the second lead-acid battery module when performing the adjustment discharge to a learning model that outputs a degree of degradation when a current and a voltage are input.
Mitsuyama teaches wherein the estimation unit estimates a degree of degradation of the second lead-acid battery or the second lead-acid battery module by inputting the acquired current and voltage of the second lead-acid battery or the second lead-acid battery module when performing the adjustment discharge to a learning model that outputs a degree of degradation when a current and a voltage are input (Figs. 1-2; the measured voltage and current are input into the adaptive learning section/estimating section/CPU 10a which provides an estimated degradation state of the battery 13, see ¶ [15, 18]. The estimating section and the adaptive learning section are the CPU 10a, see ¶ [115]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mizutani apparatus by adding the features disclosed by Mitsuyama. The advantage of this modification being the internal state of a battery is efficiently estimated using an adaptive learning process (in ¶ [21] of Mitsuyama).
One of ordinary skill in the art understands the value of an efficient estimating apparatus for predicting the state of a battery. Huang explains that an LSTM model was trained to learn from past battery data, including changes in internal resistance, to estimate how long a battery will last. Since internal resistance increases as the battery ages, the model can detect early signs of wear and make more accurate predictions about battery lifespan. (Huang).
With respect to claim 7, Mizutani teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 3. However, Mizutani fails to explicitly teach further comprising a load adjustment unit that adjusts a load of the second lead-acid battery or the second lead-acid battery module according to the degree of degradation estimated by the estimation unit.
Mitsuyama teaches further comprising a load adjustment unit that adjusts a load of the second lead-acid battery or the second lead-acid battery module according to the degree of degradation estimated by the estimation unit (Fig. 1 and 12; the present discharge current to the load 17 from the battery 13 is updated based on the outputs of the estimation in step 24, see ¶ [100]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mizutani apparatus by adding the features disclosed by Mitsuyama. The advantage of this modification being the internal state of a battery is efficiently estimated using an adaptive learning process (in ¶ [21] of Mitsuyama).
One of ordinary skill in the art understands the value of an efficient estimating apparatus for predicting the state of a battery. Huang explains that an LSTM model was trained to learn from past battery data, including changes in internal resistance, to estimate how long a battery will last. Since internal resistance increases as the battery ages, the model can detect early signs of wear and make more accurate predictions about battery lifespan. (Huang).
With respect to claim 8, Mizutani teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 3. However, Mizutani fails to explicitly teach a degradation estimating system comprising the control apparatus; and a terminal that transmits a current, a voltage, or the internal resistance to the control apparatus, wherein the control apparatus transmits the degree of degradation estimated by the estimation unit to the terminal.
Mitsuyama teaches a degradation estimating system comprising the control apparatus (Fig. 1; a state estimating apparatus 1 is a system considering the components such as the battery 13, the alternator 15, the starter motor 16, and the load 17 are part of the vehicle system while the control unit 10, the voltage detecting unit 11, the current detecting unit 12, and the discharging circuit 14 are the components used for estimating degradation as taught in Mitsuyama, see ¶ [55; for vehicle system relevance]).
Mitsuyama teaches a terminal that transmits a current, a voltage, or the internal resistance to the control apparatus, wherein the control apparatus transmits the degree of degradation estimated by the estimation unit to the terminal (Fig. 1; the voltage detecting unit 11 and the current detecting unit 12 measure the current and voltage of the terminals and input these to control unit 10 for the degradation state estimation process. The estimation results are used to update the present discharge current to the load through the terminals, see ¶ [100]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mizutani apparatus by adding the features disclosed by Mitsuyama. The advantage of this modification being the internal state of a battery is efficiently estimated using an adaptive learning process (in ¶ [21] of Mitsuyama).
One of ordinary skill in the art understands the value of an efficient estimating apparatus for predicting the state of a battery. Huang explains that an LSTM model was trained to learn from past battery data, including changes in internal resistance, to estimate how long a battery will last. Since internal resistance increases as the battery ages, the model can detect early signs of wear and make more accurate predictions about battery lifespan. (Huang).
With respect to claim 10, Mizutani teaches specifying a first lead-acid battery or a first lead-acid battery module including a plurality of lead-acid batteries which performs refresh charge; specifying a second lead-acid battery or a second lead-acid battery module including a plurality of lead-acid batteries which is different from the first lead-acid battery and the first lead-acid battery module, performs an adjustment discharge and is capable of providing power for the refresh charge of the first lead-acid battery or the first lead-acid battery module (Figs. 1-3; an energy storage apparatus 10 comprising a controller 11 and rechargeable batteries 4-7 configured to perform charge refresh by discharging one battery to charge refresh another battery, see ¶ [47].
Each rechargeable battery 4-7 may further comprise a plurality of secondary cells as seen in Fig. 2, thus the rechargeable batteries 4-7 may each be considered as an individual single battery or as a battery module comprising a plurality of secondary cells, see ¶’s [14-15]. The rechargeable batteries 4-7 may be lead-acid type, see ¶ [15].
The controller 11 is configured to select from the rechargeable batteries 4-7 a target rechargeable battery and a charge repository battery/batteries, see ¶ [27]. The controller 11 then proceeds to perform charge-refresh of the target rechargeable battery by discharging the charge repository batteries, see ¶’s [36-40]).
Mizutani teaches causing the second lead-acid battery or the second lead-acid battery module to perform the adjustment discharge, and at the same time, causing the first lead-acid battery or the first lead-acid battery module to perform the refresh charge, by using the power of the second lead-acid battery or the second lead-acid battery module when performing the adjustment discharge (Discharging of the charge repository battery performs a charge-refresh of the target rechargeable battery without the need of an external power source [i.e., using the energy stored in the battery], see ¶ [47]).
However, Mizutani fails to explicitly teach a non-transitory storage unit comprising a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to execute; and correcting an estimated value of an SOC of the second lead-acid battery or the second lead-acid battery module based on a residual capacity derived from a current and transition of a voltage of the second lead-acid battery or the second lead-acid battery module when performing the adjustment discharge.
Ishii teaches an SOC correction unit that corrects an estimated value of an SOC of the second lead-acid battery or the second lead-acid battery module based on a residual capacity derived from a current and transition of a voltage of the second lead-acid battery or the second lead-acid battery module when performing the adjustment discharge (Figs. 1-3; SOC calculation unit 56 generates a remaining capacity output value of battery module 11 by weighted mean calculation of the estimated SOC values derived from current SOC calculation unit 53 and voltage SOC calculation unit 55, see abstract. Figs. 4-5; these estimated values are derived when the battery module is discharged, see ¶’s [24-25]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mizutani apparatus by adding the SOC correction unit and functions disclosed by Ishii. The advantage of this modification being the residual capacity of a battery may be obtained with high accuracy and estimation (in the abstract of Ishii).
Hua focuses on improving the accuracy of residual capacity estimation by utilizing discharge capacities and open circuit voltage (OCV) measurements. It aims to enhance the reliability of SOC assessments, ensuring more precise battery management for applications requiring stable and efficient energy storage. By addressing the limitations of traditional estimation methods, the study proposes a more adaptable and accurate approach that can optimize battery performance, extend lifespan, and improve overall system efficiency. (Hua).
However, Mizutani fails to explicitly teach a non-transitory storage unit comprising a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to execute.
Mitsuyama teaches a non-transitory storage unit comprising a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to execute (Figs. 1-2; a CPU 10a of control unit 10 executes a program 10ba stored in ROM 10b for estimating the degradation state of the lead-acid battery 13 based on the internal resistance obtained when the battery 13 is discharged to a predetermined level dependent of the SOC, see ¶’s [14-16, 56-58, 80 and 125]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Mizutani’s apparatus by adding Mitsuyama’s non-transitory storage unit, computer program, and computer, 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. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani et al. (USPGPN 20130002026), in view of Ishii (Japanese Patent JP-2014025738-A) and Mitsuyama et al. (USPGPN 20130110429), and further in view of Kataoka et al. (Japanese Patent JP-2017096851-A), as evidenced by Hua et al., Huang et al., and Hioki (Why is it important to measure battery’s internal resistance?. Hioki. (2023, February 2). https://www.hioki.com/global/learning/electricity/internal-resistance.html#anc-01).
With respect to claim 4, Mizutani teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 3.
Mizutani teaches the second lead-acid battery which has performed the adjustment discharge (The controller 11 is configured to select from the rechargeable batteries 4-7 a target rechargeable battery and a charge repository battery/batteries, see ¶ [27]. The controller 11 then proceeds to perform charge-refresh of the target rechargeable battery by discharging the charge repository batteries, see ¶’s [36-40]).
However, Mizutani fails to explicitly teach wherein the internal resistance is at least one of a first internal resistance derived based on a current and a voltage immediately before end of the discharge and a current and a voltage immediately after end of the discharge.
Mizutani fails to explicitly teach a second internal resistance derived based on a current and a voltage immediately before start of charge and a current and a voltage immediately after start of charge.
Mizutani fails to explicitly teach a third internal resistance derived from a response when an AC voltage or an AC current is applied to the lead-acid battery which has performed the discharge.
Kataoka teaches wherein the internal resistance is at least one of a first internal resistance derived based on a current and a voltage immediately before end of the discharge and a current and a voltage immediately after end of the discharge (Figs. 1-2; the internal resistance calculation unit 16 of the battery monitoring device 100 calculates an internal resistance based on the voltage and current measured before and after discharging, see ¶’s [07-08]).
Kataoka teaches a second internal resistance derived based on a current and a voltage immediately before start of charge and a current and a voltage immediately after start of charge (Figs. 1-2; the internal resistance calculation unit 16 of the battery monitoring device 100 calculates another internal resistance based on the voltage and current measured before and after charging, see ¶’s [07-08]).
Kataoka teaches a third internal resistance derived from a response when an AC voltage or an AC current is applied to the lead-acid battery which has performed the discharge (Figs. 1-2; an impedance is calculated using an AC impedance method, see ¶’s [54-56]. One of ordinary skill in the art understands AC voltage and current is used to calculate the impedance. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art understands impedance is the generalized notion of voltage divided by current for any electrical component [i.e., resistance and/or reactance]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mizutani and Mitsuyama by adding the resistance features disclosed by Kataoka. The advantage of this modification being the reliability of the battery can be improved and the full charge capacity can be determined with high accuracy using the internal resistances calculations (in ¶ [22] of Kataoka).
Measuring different internal resistances before and after charging/discharging a battery helps evaluate degradation because the internal resistance of a battery gradually increases as it is used. This increase is due to the slowing of the chemical reaction between the electrolytes and the electrodes, which is caused by rust and corrosion inside the electrodes. As a result, a higher internal resistance leads to greater energy loss, which is converted into heat. This heat accelerates battery degradation (Hioki).
AC impedance measurements provide further insight by identifying variations in resistance across different frequencies, allowing for better detection of aging effects. Regular measurement ensures that a degraded battery can be eliminated, preventing it from becoming a bottleneck and limiting the battery pack’s capacity (Hioki).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (USPGPN 20160344068) teaches a battery pack comprising lead-acid batteries, see ¶’s [49-50]. Clarke et al. (USPGPN 20170331162) teaches the battery degradation may be calculated from internal impedance and/or conductance, see ¶’s [81, 140].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank A Silva whose telephone number is (703)756-1698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 07:30 am -04:30 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