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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed January 20, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-14 remain pending in the instant application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 20, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites: “the second apparatus control element comprising a processor, a memory, and an I/O circuit a calculator,” which should be corrected to “the second apparatus control element comprising a processor, a memory, and an I/O circuit,”
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:
Second control element in Claim 1. This limitation is analyzed according to the three prong test for invoking 35 U.S.C 112(f) below:
The claim uses the generic placeholder “element” as a substitute for “means”;
The term “element” is modified by functional language, e.g., a second control element configured to…;
The term “element” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Calculator in Claims 1 and 14. This limitation is analyzed according to the three prong test for invoking 35 U.S.C 112(f) below:
The claim uses the generic placeholder “calculator” as a substitute for “means”;
The term “calculator” is modified by functional language, e.g., a calculator that calculates…;
The term “calculator” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Model parameter setting element in Claim 1. This limitation is analyzed according to the three prong test for invoking 35 U.S.C 112(f) below:
The claim uses the generic placeholder “element” as a substitute for “means”;
The term “calculator” is modified by functional language, e.g., a model parameter setting element that sets or changes…;
The term “element” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Output device in Claim 1. This limitation is analyzed according to the three prong test for invoking 35 U.S.C 112(f) below:
The claim uses the generic placeholder “device” as a substitute for “means”;
The term “device” is modified by functional language, e.g., an output device that outputs…;
The term “device” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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.
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(b)
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 1-12 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 Claim 1, claim limitations “calculator,” “model parameter setting element,” and “output device” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. While the disclosure recites the functions associated with the elements recited in the claims, the disclosure does not appear to clearly link a structure or algorithm for performing the claimed functions.
Furthermore, in light of paragraph [0040] of the instant specification, the claims are unclear as to whether a calculator is the second control element 120, the secondary battery model, or the calculator 121; “The calculator (second control element 120) equivalent to the secondary battery model includes a calculator 121” (e.g., instant specification; paragraph [0040]).
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding Claims 2-10, the Claims require the limitations of Claim 1, on which these claims depend, and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 14, the Claim recites a calculator. In light of paragraph [0040] of the instant specification, the claims are unclear as to whether a calculator is the second control element 120, the secondary battery model, or the calculator 121; “The calculator (second control element 120) equivalent to the secondary battery model includes a calculator 121” (e.g., instant specification; paragraph [0040]). The limitation a calculator thus renders Claim 14 indefinite, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0076633 A1), hereinafter Fujita, in view of Sanchez-Roddy (Sanchez, Jacob. "Integration and Validation of Power Hardware-in-the-loop Generator Models for Deployment in a Distributed Generation Source Testbed." (2019).), hereinafter Sanchez-Roddy.
Regarding Claim 11, Fujita teaches An electronic apparatus on which a secondary battery is mounted as a power supply (“FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a schematic configuration of a power storage system including a charge control apparatus according to a first embodiment”) (e.g., paragraph [0028]).
the device comprising: a simulated battery (“A charge control apparatus according to an embodiment controls charge of a secondary battery to be charged, on the basis of a charge pattern which is calculated from inner state parameters of the secondary battery to be charged, and of a deterioration model or deterioration map of a secondary battery.”)
a specified load (“The current may be acquired from data measured by the measurer 22,” wherein the current corresponds to a specified load.) (e.g., paragraph [0093]).
a first apparatus control element configured to cause a first control element constituting a simulated battery control device to identify a value of a parameter of a secondary battery model representing current dependence of an output voltage of the secondary battery based on communication with the simulated battery control device (“The charge control apparatus 2 acquires the charge (discharge) result from the storage battery 1 (S102) , and analyzes the charge result (S103) . Analyzing the charge result is calculating the inner state parameters and the battery characteristics (cell characteristics) of each unit cell on the basis of the charge result. More specifically, the inner state parameters are estimated on the basis of current and voltage data measured during the charge and discharge.”) (e.g. paragraph [0045]).
the first apparatus control element comprising a processor, a memory, and an I/O circuit (“FIG. 18 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a hardware configuration according to an embodiment. The charge control apparatus 2 can be realized by a computer device 6 including a processor 61, a main storage 62, an auxiliary storage 63, a network interface 64, and a device interface 65, which are connected to one another via a bus 66.” The network interface, device interface, and bus are interpreted as forming an I/O circuit.) (e.g., paragraph [0187]).
a second apparatus control element configured to cause a second control element constituting the simulated battery control device to recognize a time series of command current values based on the communication with the simulated battery control device (“The charge/discharge history recorder 251 records data (a history) of voltages, currents, and temperatures, or the like measured by the measurer 22 during charge or discharge of the storage battery 1.”) (e.g., paragraph [0059]).
the second apparatus control element comprising a processor, a memory, and an I/O circuit (“FIG. 18 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a hardware configuration according to an embodiment. The charge control apparatus 2 can be realized by a computer device 6 including a processor 61, a main storage 62, an auxiliary storage 63, a network interface 64, and a device interface 65, which are connected to one another via a bus 66.” The network interface, device interface, and bus are interpreted as forming an I/O circuit.) (e.g., paragraph [0187]).
and to calculate a model output voltage as a change mode of a voltage output from the secondary battery model when the time series of the command current values is input to the secondary battery model of which the value of the parameter is recognized by the first control element (“The inner-state parameter calculator 252 uses a function for calculating a storage battery voltage on the basis of an active material amount and an internal resistance. A storage battery voltage is calculated on the basis of the function, and current data and voltage data during charge or discharge of the storage battery.”) (e.g., paragraph [0063]).
and a third apparatus control element configured to apply the model output voltage calculated by the second control element to the specified load from the simulated battery based on the communication with the simulated battery control device (“The battery characteristic calculator 253 calculates an open circuit voltage which is a battery characteristic of the storage battery 1. Further, the battery characteristic calculator 253 calculates the relationship between the charge amount of the storage battery and the open circuit voltage by using the initial charge amount "q0 c" of the positive electrode, the mass "M/' of the positive electrode, the initial charge amount "q0 °" of the negative electrode, and the mass "M0" of the negative electrode calculated by the inner-state parameter calculator 252.”)(e.g., paragraph [0076]).
the third apparatus control element comprising a processor, a memory, and an I/O circuit (“FIG. 18 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a hardware configuration according to an embodiment. The charge control apparatus 2 can be realized by a computer device 6 including a processor 61, a main storage 62, an auxiliary storage 63, a network interface 64, and a device interface 65, which are connected to one another via a bus 66.” The network interface, device interface, and bus are interpreted as forming an I/O circuit.) (e.g., paragraph [0187]).
However, Fujita does not appear to specifically teach wherein the simulated battery comprises a D/A converter and an amplifier, the D/A converter receiving and converting the model output voltage and providing output to the amplifier that outputs a voltage corresponding to the output from the D/A converter, the output from the amplifier being provided to the electronic apparatus or to a specified load of the electronic apparatus.
On the other hand, Sanchez-Roddy, which relates similarly as a method for power hardware in the loop (PHIL), does teach wherein the simulated battery comprises a D/A converter and an amplifier, the D/A converter receiving and converting the model output voltage and providing output to the amplifier that outputs a voltage corresponding to the output from the D/A converter (“[T]he author constructed a series RL circuit using a variable autotransformer as an ideal sinusoidal voltage source connected to a series RL circuit. This circuit was then simulated as a virtual circuit and deployed onto an external amplifier. The block diagram of signal transfers is shown in Figure 8.” Figure 8 further discloses a D/A converter connected to the output of the simulated circuit.) (e.g., page 25, figure 8 and last paragraph).
the output from the amplifier being provided to the electronic apparatus or to a specified load of the electronic apparatus (Figure 8 further discloses an analog output, which may be connected to a specified load.) (e.g., page 25, figure 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Fujita with Sanchez-Roddy. The claimed invention is considered to be merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Fujita teaches a system comprising a simulated battery. However, Fujita does not appear to specifically teach wherein the simulated battery comprises a D/A converter and an amplifier. On the other hand, Sanchez-Roddy, which relates similarly as a method for emulating a battery, does teach a simulated battery coupled with a D/A converter and an amplifier. As both Fujita and Sanchez-Roddy relate to simulating charge patterns of batteries, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the simulated battery of Fujita with the D/A converter and amplifier of Sanchez-Roddy. In combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination as predictably converting a digital simulated battery output to an analog output and amplifying the output. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Fujita with Sanchez-Roddy in order to actually apply a load to a simulated battery output.
Regarding Claim 12, Fujita teaches A charger that is coupled to an electronic apparatus (“FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a schematic configuration of a power storage system including a charge control apparatus according to a first embodiment”) (e.g., paragraph [0028]).
The remaining limitations of Claim 12 recite substantially similar material to Claim 11, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 1-9, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita in view of MacKay et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0011979 A1, filed July 12, 2019), hereinafter MacKay, further in view of Sanchez-Roddy.
Regarding Claim 1, Fujita teaches A simulated battery control device (“FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a schematic configuration of a power storage system including a charge control apparatus according to a first embodiment”) (e.g., paragraph [0028]).
comprising: a first control element configured to identify a value of a parameter of a secondary battery model representing current dependence of an output voltage of a secondary battery mounted or to be mounted on an electronic apparatus as a power supply based on communication with the electronic apparatus (“The charge control apparatus 2 acquires the charge (discharge) result from the storage battery 1 (S102), and analyzes the charge result (S103). Analyzing the charge result is calculating the inner state parameters and the battery characteristics (cell characteristics) of each unit cell on the basis of the charge result. More specifically, the inner state parameters are estimated on the basis of current and voltage data measured during the charge and discharge.”) (e.g., paragraph [0045])
the first control element comprising a processor, a memory, and an I/O circuit (“FIG. 18 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a hardware configuration according to an embodiment. The charge control apparatus 2 can be realized by a computer device 6 including a processor 61, a main storage 62, an auxiliary storage 63, a network interface 64, and a device interface 65, which are connected to one another via a bus 66.” The network interface, device interface, and bus are interpreted as forming an I/O circuit.) (e.g., paragraph [0187]).
a second control element configured to recognize a time series of command current values based on the communication with the electronic apparatus (“The charge/discharge history recorder 251 records data (a history) of voltages, currents, and temperatures, or the like measured by the measurer 22 during charge or discharge of the storage battery 1.”) (e.g., paragraph [0059]
and to calculate a model output voltage as a change mode of a voltage output from the secondary battery model when the time series of the command current values is input to the secondary battery model of which the value of the parameter is recognized by the first control element (“The inner-state parameter calculator 252 uses a function for calculating a storage battery voltage on the basis of an active material amount and an internal resistance. A storage battery voltage is calculated on the basis of the function, and current data and voltage data during charge or discharge of the storage battery.”) (e.g., paragraph [0063]).
the second control element comprising […] an output device that outputs a virtual open circuit voltage of the simulated battery based on the command current values (“The charge/discharge history recorder 251 records data (a history) of voltages, currents, and temperatures, or the like measured by the measurer 22 during charge or discharge of the storage battery 1.” The history may be used to determine battery characteristics. “As described above, the battery characteristics include a battery capacity, an internal resistance, an open circuit voltage (OCV), and an OCV curve […] Alternatively, the state of the storage battery 1 may be outputted through an output device.”) (e.g., paragraphs [0056], [0059], and [0167]).
and a third control element configured to apply the model output voltage calculated by the second control element to a simulated battery mounted on the electronic apparatus or a power supply device for a specified load of the electronic apparatus based on communication with the electronic apparatus or the power supply device as a charging power supply of the secondary battery. (“The battery characteristic calculator 253 calculates an open circuit voltage which is a battery characteristic of the storage battery 1. Further, the battery characteristic calculator 253 calculates the relationship between the charge amount of the storage battery and the open circuit voltage by using the initial charge amount "q0 c" of the positive electrode, the mass "M/' of the positive electrode, the initial charge amount "q0 °" of the negative electrode, and the mass "M0" of the negative electrode calculated by the inner-state parameter calculator 252.”) (e.g., paragraph [0076]).
the third control element comprising a processor, a memory, and an I/O circuit (“FIG. 18 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a hardware configuration according to an embodiment. The charge control apparatus 2 can be realized by a computer device 6 including a processor 61, a main storage 62, an auxiliary storage 63, a network interface 64, and a device interface 65, which are connected to one another via a bus 66.” The network interface, device interface, and bus are interpreted as forming an I/O circuit.) (e.g., paragraph [0187]).
However, Fujita does not appear to specifically teach a calculator that calculates, based on the command current values, output voltage derived from virtual internal resistance of the simulated battery, a model parameter setting element that sets or changes a value of a parameter defining a transfer function of the calculator based on a deterioration degree of the secondary battery simulated by the simulated battery […] and an adder that adds the output voltages of the calculator and the output device to obtain the model output voltage […] wherein the simulated battery comprises a D/A converter and an amplifier, the D/A converter receiving and converting the model output voltage from the adder and providing output to the amplifier that outputs a voltage corresponding to the output from the D/A converter, the output from the amplifier being provided to the electronic apparatus or to a specified load of the electronic apparatus.
On the other hand, MacKay, which relates similarly as a method for emulating a battery, does teach a calculator that calculates, based on the command current values, output voltage derived from virtual internal resistance of the simulated battery (“An alternative approach to implementing the battery transfer function is to implement an active voltage controlled device ("VCD"), which may be controlled by a microcontroller as illustrated in FIG. 3 […] Microcontroller 302 may be configured to monitor the system state and adjust the output of the VCD to match a desired battery transfer function that may be determined theoretically, empirically or by a combination thereof. The transfer function may be stored in a memory of microcontroller 302 as a computational model, a look up table, or other suitable data representation […] The parameters in battery model database 875 may be used by test host 107 to provide frequency-dependent impedance information that may be used by battery emulator 101 to implement a desired simulated battery response.” Empirically determining a transfer function is interpreted as determining the transfer function based on command current values, wherein the command current values may be stored in a suitable data representation. The impedance information is interpreted as internal resistance information used to determine the output voltage of the VCD.) (e.g., paragraphs [0026], [0027], and [0040]).
a model parameter setting element that sets or changes a value of a parameter defining a transfer function of the calculator based on a deterioration degree of the secondary battery simulated by the simulated battery (“Battery emulator 201 can include combining one or more RC high-pass filters in series such that the sum of their impedance approximates the impedance transfer function of a target battery at a specific temperature, age, and state-of-charge.” Battery age is interpreted as representing a deterioration degree, adjusting the number of RC elements is interpreted as changing parameters defining a transfer function.) (e.g., paragraph [0024]).
and an adder that adds the output voltages of the calculator and the output device to obtain the model output voltage (“A more specific embodiment of a combined active/passive battery emulator 500 is illustrated in FIG. 5. Battery emulator 500 includes an active stage 501, corresponding to an active VCD (op-amp) based battery emulator 301 described above. Battery emulator 500 also includes a passive stage 502, corresponding to a passive RC filter based battery emulator 210 described above. By combining these two battery emulator stages, it becomes possible to implement a battery emulator that accurately and repeatably emulates battery response over a wider frequency range than either individual emulator type could provide alone.” Combining the active and passive emulators is interpreted as adding output voltages of the calculator and output device.) (e.g., paragraph [0029]).
However, neither Fujita nor MacKay teaches wherein the simulated battery comprises a D/A converter and an amplifier, the D/A converter receiving and converting the model output voltage from the adder and providing output to the amplifier that outputs a voltage corresponding to the output from the D/A converter, the output from the amplifier being provided to the electronic apparatus or to a specified load of the electronic apparatus.
On the other hand, Sanchez-Roddy, which relates similarly as a method for power hardware in the loop (PHIL), does teach wherein the simulated battery comprises a D/A converter and an amplifier, the D/A converter receiving and converting the model output voltage from the adder and providing output to the amplifier that outputs a voltage corresponding to the output from the D/A converter, (“[T]he author constructed a series RL circuit using a variable autotransformer as an ideal sinusoidal voltage source connected to a series RL circuit. This circuit was then simulated as a virtual circuit and deployed onto an external amplifier. The block diagram of signal transfers is shown in Figure 8.” Figure 8 further discloses a D/A converter connected to the output of the simulated circuit, wherein the simulated circuit may comprise the emulator of MacKay.) (e.g., page 25, figure 8 and last paragraph).
the output from the amplifier being provided to the electronic apparatus or to a specified load of the electronic apparatus (Figure 8 further discloses an analog output, which may be connected to a specified load.) (e.g., page 25, figure 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Fujita with MacKay. The claimed invention is considered to be merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Fujita teaches a method for calculating an output voltage based on a time history of current values. However, Fujita does not specifically appear to teach using a transfer function to calculate an output voltage based on a deterioration degree of a secondary battery. On the other hand, MacKay, which relates similarly as a method for emulating a battery, does teach a transfer function used to calculate an output voltage based on an age of a target battery. As both Fujita and MacKay relate to simulating batteries, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the transfer function of MacKay with the output voltage determination of Fujita. Furthermore, Fujita discloses using a function to calculate storage battery voltage (e.g., Fujita; paragraph [0063]). MacKay provides a transfer function as a specific implementation for the storage battery voltage calculation of Fujita, and the transfer function of MacKay merely performs the same function in combination with Fujita as it does separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination as predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Fujita with MacKay in order to provide a specific method for calculating an output voltage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine the modified reference of Fujita in view of MacKay with Sanchez-Roddy for the same reasons as in Claim 11, above.
Regarding Claim 2, Fujita in view of MacKay and Sanchez-Roddy teaches The simulated battery control device according to claim 1. Fujita further teaches wherein the first control element recognizes a deterioration degree of the secondary battery based on the communication with the electronic apparatus (“The deterioration information acquirer 272 acquires, from the battery characteristic estimator 25, an estimation value according to at least any of the inner state parameters and the battery characteristics. On the acquired estimation value, the deterioration information acquirer 272 acquires deterioration information (first reference data corresponding to the storage battery 1 from the deterioration information storage 271.” Acquiring deterioration information is interpreted as recognizing a deterioration degree.) (e.g., paragraph [0142]).
and identifies a value corresponding to a difference in the deterioration degree as the value of the parameter of the secondary battery model (“The deterioration information acquirer 272 acquires, from the battery characteristic estimator 25, an estimation value according to at least any of the inner state parameters and the battery characteristics. On the acquired estimation value, the deterioration information acquirer 272 acquires deterioration information (first reference data corresponding to the storage battery 1 from the deterioration information storage 271.” Acquiring an estimation of deterioration and reference deterioration information is interpreted as identifying a value corresponding to deterioration.) (e.g., paragraph [0142]).
Regarding Claim 3, Fujita in view of MacKay and Sanchez-Roddy teaches The simulated battery control device according to claim 1. Fujita further teaches wherein the first control element recognizes a measurement result of a temperature of the electronic apparatus or the simulated battery based on the communication with the electronic apparatus or the power supply device (“Data measured by the measurer 22 includes the voltage, the current, and the temperature of the storage battery 1 which are measured during charge or discharge of the storage battery 1.”) (e.g., paragraph [0053]).
and identifies a value corresponding to a difference in the measurement result of the temperature as the value of the parameter of the secondary battery model (“Data measured by the measurer 22 includes the voltage, the current, and the temperature of the storage battery 1 which are measured during charge or discharge of the storage battery 1.” Temperature data from the measurer is interpreted as comprising a value corresponding to a measurement result of the temperature.) (e.g., paragraph [0053]).
Regarding Claim 4, Fujita in view of MacKay and Sanchez-Roddy teaches The simulated battery control device according to claim 1. Fujita further teaches wherein the first control element identifies the value of the parameter of the secondary battery model (“The inner-state parameter calculator 252 uses a function for calculating a storage battery voltage on the basis of an active material amount and an internal resistance.” An internal resistance is interpreted as a parameter of the battery model.) (e.g., paragraph [0063]).
and the second control element calculates the model output voltage provided that a first specified operation is performed through an input interface of the electronic apparatus (“The inner-state parameter calculator 252 uses a function for calculating a storage battery voltage on the basis of an active material amount and an internal resistance. A storage battery voltage is calculated on the basis of the function, and current data and voltage data during charge or discharge of the storage battery. Then, an active material amount and an internal resistance which reduce a difference between a measured voltage and the calculated storage battery voltage are obtained through regression calculation.”) (e.g., paragraph [0063]).
Regarding Claim 5, Fujita in view of MacKay and Sanchez-Roddy teaches The simulated battery control device according to claim 4. Fujita further teaches the first control element identifies the value of the parameter of the secondary battery model (“The inner-state parameter calculator 252 uses a function for calculating a storage battery voltage on the basis of an active material amount and an internal resistance.”) (e.g., paragraph [0063]).
and the second control element calculates the model output voltage provided that a power cut-off operation is performed through the input interface in the electronic apparatus as the first specified operation (“The charge/discharge controller 21 may also give a charge or discharge instruction when receiving an instruction from a user, another system, or the like via an input device (not illustrated).” The charge or discharge instruction is interpreted as comprising an end charge or end discharge instruction, interpreted as power cut-off operations.) (e.g., paragraph [0050])
Regarding Claim 6, Fujita in view of MacKay and Sanchez-Roddy teaches The simulated battery control device according to claim 1. Fujita further teaches wherein the first control element identifies the value of the parameter of the secondary battery model (“The inner-state parameter calculator 252 uses a function for calculating a storage battery voltage on the basis of an active material amount and an internal resistance.”) (e.g., paragraph [0063]).
and the second control element calculates the model output voltage provided that the electronic apparatus is coupled to a charger (Figure 1 discloses the charge control apparatus 2, coupled to the storage battery 1,” wherein the voltage is calculated on the basis of the inner-state parameter function, above.) (e.g., figure 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Fujita in view of MacKay and Sanchez-Roddy teaches The simulated battery control device according to claim 1. Fujita further teaches wherein the third control element outputs information about operating characteristics of the specified load, when the model output voltage calculated by the second control element is applied to the simulated battery for the specified load of the electronic apparatus, to an output interface of the electronic apparatus (“Alternatively, the state of the storage battery 1 may be outputted through an output device (not illustrated) such that a user of the storage battery 1, a manager of the charge control apparatus 2, or the like, who has viewed the output, gives an instruction to update the charge pattern through an input device (not illustrated).” The output device is interpreted as the output interface, wherein the discharge of the simulated battery corresponds to a specified load.) (e.g., paragraph [0167]).
Regarding Claim 8, Fujita in view of MacKay and Sanchez-Roddy teaches The simulated battery control device according to claim 7. Fujita further teaches wherein the third control element outputs the information about the operating characteristics of the specified load to the output interface based on the communication with the electronic apparatus provided that a second specified operation is performed through an input interface of the electronic apparatus (“Alternatively, the state of the storage battery 1 may be outputted through an output device (not illustrated) such that a user of the storage battery 1, a manager of the charge control apparatus 2, or the like, who has viewed the output, gives an instruction to update the charge pattern through an input device (not illustrated).” The output device is interpreted as the output interface, wherein the discharge of the simulated battery corresponds to a specified load.) (e.g., paragraph [0167]).
Regarding Claim 9, Fujita in view of MacKay and Sanchez-Roddy teaches The simulated battery control device according to claim 8. Fujita further teaches wherein the third control element outputs the information about the operating characteristics of the specified load to the output interface based on the communication with the electronic apparatus provided that a wake operation of a sleep state of the output interface is performed through the input interface of the electronic apparatus as the second specified operation (“Alternatively, the state of the storage battery 1 may be outputted through an output device (not illustrated) such that a user of the storage battery 1, a manager of the charge control apparatus 2, or the like, who has viewed the output, gives an instruction to update the charge pattern through an input device (not illustrated).”) (e.g., paragraph [0167]).
Regarding Claim 13, Fujita in view of MacKay and Sanchez-Roddy teaches A simulated battery control method (“FIG. 14 illustrates an example of a flowchart of a charge pattern calculation process.”) (e.g., paragraph [0020]).
The remaining limitations of Claim 13 recite substantially similar material to Claim 11, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 14, Fujita in view of MacKay and Sanchez-Roddy teaches The simulated battery control method according to claim 13. MacKay further teaches wherein the second control step comprises: calculating, using a calculator and based on the command current values, output voltage derived from virtual internal resistance of the simulated battery (“An alternative approach to implementing the battery transfer function is to implement an active voltage controlled device ("VCD"), which may be controlled by a microcontroller as illustrated in FIG. 3 […] Microcontroller 302 may be configured to monitor the system state and adjust the output of the VCD to match a desired battery transfer function that may be determined theoretically, empirically or by a combination thereof. The transfer function may be stored in a memory of microcontroller 302 as a computational model, a look up table, or other suitable data representation […] The parameters in battery model database 875 may be used by test host 107 to provide frequency-dependent impedance information that may be used by battery emulator 101 to implement a desired simulated battery response.” Empirically determining a transfer function is interpreted as determining the transfer function based on command current values, wherein the command current values may be stored in a suitable data representation. The impedance information is interpreted as internal resistance information used to determine the output voltage of the VCD.) (e.g., paragraphs [0026], [0027], and [0040]).
setting or changing a value of a parameter defining a transfer function of the calculator based on a deterioration degree of the secondary battery simulated by the simulated battery (“Battery emulator 201 can include combining one or more RC high-pass filters in series such that the sum of their impedance approximates the impedance transfer function of a target battery at a specific temperature, age, and state-of-charge.” Battery age is interpreted as representing a deterioration degree, adjusting the number of RC elements is interpreted as changing parameters defining a transfer function.) (e.g., paragraph [0024]).
and adding the output voltages of the calculator and a virtual open circuit voltage of the simulated battery based on the command current values to obtain the model output voltage (“A more specific embodiment of a combined active/passive battery emulator 500 is illustrated in FIG. 5. Battery emulator 500 includes an active stage 501, corresponding to an active VCD (op-amp) based battery emulator 301 described above. Battery emulator 500 also includes a passive stage 502, corresponding to a passive RC filter based battery emulator 210 described above. By combining these two battery emulator stages, it becomes possible to implement a battery emulator that accurately and repeatably emulates battery response over a wider frequency range than either individual emulator type could provide alone.” Combining the active and passive emulators is interpreted as adding output voltages of the calculator and output device.) (e.g., paragraph [0029]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita in view of MacKay and Sanchez-Roddy, further in view of Kubota et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0297084 A1), hereinafter Kubota.
Regarding Claim 10, Fujita in view of MacKay and Sanchez-Roddy teaches The simulated battery control device according to claim 1. However, Fujita does not appear to specifically teach wherein the simulated battery is configured to be detachably mounted on the power supply device and to be mounted on the electronic apparatus as a replacement battery of the secondary battery.
On the other hand, Kubota, which relates to a battery charging apparatus and method, does teach wherein the simulated battery is configured to be detachably mounted on the power supply device and to be mounted on the electronic apparatus as a replacement battery of the secondary battery (“As shown in FIG. 3, each of the batteries is configured to be detachable from the battery center 13 and is detached and used for other purpose of use.”) (e.g., paragraph [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Fujita with Kubota. The claimed invention is considered to be merely using a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way, see MPEP § 2143(I)(C). Fujita teaches a method for simulating and modeling a battery. However, Fujita does not appear to specifically teach wherein the simulated battery is configured to be detachable. On the other hand, Kubota does teach battery that is configured to be detachable and usable for other purposes. As both Fujita and Kubota relate to charging batteries, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement from Kubota of configuring a battery to be detachable to the simulated battery of Fujita, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, making a battery detachable, i.e., separable, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if it were desirable for any reason to disconnect the battery from the charger or electronic apparatus, see MPEP § 2144(V)(C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Fujita and Kubota to use the method of Fujita to model a detachable battery.
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 KYLE HWA-KAI TSENG whose telephone number is (571)272-3731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9A-5P PST.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571) 272-3676. 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.
/K.H.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights