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 Amendments
Applicant’s amendments filed on 03/24/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-12 are pending in this application of which claims 1, 8, and 9 are independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in view of amendments, filed on 03/24/2026 have been fully considered and Examiner response is as follows:
Applicant’s arguments, Page 6-9, regarding 35 U.S.C 102 and 35 U.S.C 103 rejections are considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection, necessitated by applicant’s amendments, relies on additional prior art as shown below.
Applicant’s arguments, Page 7-9, regarding the combination of HAUPT-ASFALG are found unpersuasive for the following reasons. The claim recites a “modeling of an open circuit voltage hysteresis is included by the first part of the error model… “and does not require a single value EMF mapping, a specific SOC integration method, or any computational time constraint, which are the basis for applicant’s arguments against the combination. These arguments are not commensurate with the current language of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 1.
STEP 1: Yes. The claim recites “A method” which is a process.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE:
The claim recites multiple mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, or calculations.
The claim also recites mental process that can be done in the mind or reasonably with the aid of pen and paper.
providing a mathematical error model (10) for establishing the model error in the mathematical model, wherein the mathematical error model (10) is provided at least in two-part form, wherein a first model error of an open-circuit voltage characteristic of the mathematical model of the electrical energy storage unit (31) is modeled by the first part (11) of the error model, wherein a modeling of an open-circuit voltage hysteresis is included by the first part (11) of the error model,
This establishes a mathematical relationship between the model and the open circuit voltage criteria.
and a second model error of a voltage characteristic of the mathematical model is modeled on the basis of an electrical current by the second part (12) of the error model;
A second mathematical model based on a variable of an electrical current is a mathematical relationship.
establishing a current value, wherein the electrical current flows in the electrical energy storage unit (31);
Establishing a current value can be done mentally or with the aid of pen and paper.
applying the established current value to the mathematical error model (10) as input value of the mathematical error model (10); and
Applying “input value” into “the mathematical error model” is a math calculation.
determining the model error (13) of the mathematical model as an output value of the mathematical error model, wherein the model error (13) is dependent on the at least two sub models (11, 12).
The output is a mathematical calculation based on the sub models.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: The claim does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: The claim does not recite an inventive concept or significantly more than the
exception.
adjusting operation of the electrical energy storage unit (31) based on the model error
MPEP 2106.05(f) – This limitation is merely instructions to apply it because “adjusting operation” is recited at a high level of generality without specifying how the operation is adjusted or what technological improvement is reached.
Conclusion: Claim 1 is directed to a mathematical concept and a mental process, not integrated into a practical application and lacks an inventive concept. Therefore, it is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claims 2-4, 6, and 12:
Claims 2-4, 6, and 12 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons as claim 1. These
claims just define more mathematical relationships, calculations, or define variables. These claims do not provide a technical improvement or provide an inventive concept.
Claim 8.
STEP 1: Yes. The claim recites a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing instructions that when executed- on a computer” which is a manufacture.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE:
The claim recites multiple mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, or calculations.
The claim also recites mental process that can be done in the mind or reasonably with the aid of pen and paper.
providing a mathematical error model (10) for establishing the model error in the mathematical model, wherein the mathematical error model (10) is provided at least in two-part form, wherein a first model error of an open-circuit voltage characteristic of the mathematical model of the electrical energy storage unit (31) is modeled by the first part (11) of the error model, wherein a modeling of an open-circuit voltage hysteresis is included by the first part (11) of the error model,
This establishes a mathematical relationship between the model and the open circuit voltage criteria.
and a second model error of a voltage characteristic of the mathematical model is modeled on the basis of an electrical current by the second part (12) of the error model;
A second mathematical model based on a variable of an electrical current is a mathematical relationship.
establishing a current value, wherein the electrical current flows in the electrical energy storage unit (31);
Establishing a current value can be done mentally or with the aid of pen and paper.
applying the established current value to the mathematical error model (10) as input value of the mathematical error model (10); and
Applying “input value” into “the mathematical error model” is a math calculation.
determining the model error (13) of the mathematical model as an output value of the mathematical error model, wherein the model error (13) is dependent on the at least two sub models (11, 12).
The output is a mathematical calculation based on the sub models.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: The claim does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
No particular machine: “on a computer cause the computer to” invokes only generic computer
components performing generic functions, which does not meaningfully limit the claim. MPEP
2106.05(b).
adjusting operation of the electrical energy storage unit (31) based on the model error
MPEP 2106.05(f) – This limitation is merely instructions to apply it because “adjusting operation” is recited at a high level of generality without specifying how the operation is adjusted or what technological improvement is reached
STEP 2B: The claim does not recite an inventive concept or significantly more than the
exception. The recited generic computer components performing generic functions do not meaningfully limit the claim. MPEP 2106.05(b).
Conclusion: Claim 8 is directed to a mathematical concept and a mental process, not integrated into a practical application and lacks an inventive concept. Therefore, it is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 9.
STEP 1: Yes. The claim recites a “A device (22) for determining a model error (13) in a mathematical model of an electrical energy storage unit (31), the device comprising a computer configured to” which is a machine.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE:
The claim recites multiple mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, or calculations.
The claim also recites mental process that can be done in the mind or reasonably with the aid of pen and paper.
provide a mathematical error model (10) for establishing the model error in the mathematical model, wherein the mathematical error model (10) is provided at least in two-part form, wherein a first model error of an open-circuit voltage characteristic of the mathematical model of the electrical energy storage unit (31) is modeled by the first part (11) of the error model, wherein a modeling of an open-circuit voltage hysteresis is included by the first part (11) of the error model,
This establishes a mathematical relationship between the model and the open circuit voltage criteria.
and a second model error of a voltage characteristic of the mathematical model is modeled on the basis of an electrical current by the second part (12) of the error model;
A second mathematical model based on a variable of an electrical current is a mathematical relationship.
establish a current value, wherein the electrical current flows in the electrical energy storage unit (31);
Establishing a current value can be done mentally or with the aid of pen and paper.
apply the established current value to the mathematical error model (10) as input value of the mathematical error model (10); and
Applying “input value” into “the mathematical error model” is a math calculation.
determine the model error (13) of the mathematical model as an output value of the mathematical error model, wherein the model error (13) is dependent on the at least two sub models (11, 12).
The output is a mathematical calculation based on the sub models.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: The claim does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
No particular machine: “device … comprising a computer,” and “configured to” invokes only generic computer components performing generic functions, which does not meaningfully limit the claim. MPEP 2106.05(b).
adjust operation of the electrical energy storage unit (31) based on the model error
MPEP 2106.05(f) – This limitation is merely instructions to apply it because “adjusting operation” is recited at a high level of generality without specifying how the operation is adjusted or what technological improvement is reached
STEP 2B: The claim does not recite an inventive concept or significantly more than the
exception.
Conclusion: Claim 9 is directed to a mathematical concept and a mental process, not integrated into a practical application and lacks an inventive concept. Therefore, it is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 10.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites a machine.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE:
The claim recites multiple mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, or calculations.
The claim also recites mental process that can be done in the mind or reasonably with the aid of pen and paper.
By incorporation of claim 9, this claim recites mathematical abstractions as stated above.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: The claim does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
No particular machine: “…comprising an electrical energy storage unit (31) and a device (32) as claimed in claim 9.” invokes only generic computer components performing generic functions, which does not meaningfully limit the claim. MPEP 2106.05(b).
STEP 2B: The claim does not recite an inventive concept or significantly more than the
exception.
Conclusion: Claim 10 is directed to a mathematical concept and a mental process, not integrated into a practical application and lacks an inventive concept. Therefore, it is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAUPT et al. DE 102010062838 A1 (2012) [herein “HAUPT”] and in view of ASFALG et al. DE 102010031050 A1 (2012) [herein "ASFALG"].
Regarding Claim 1, HAUPT teaches
A method for determining a model error (13) in a mathematical model of an electrical energy storage unit (31), the method comprising:
providing a mathematical error model (10) for establishing the model error in the mathematical model, wherein the mathematical error model (10) is provided at least in two-part form,“Therefore, this model is also called a difference model. The difference model is supplied with variables / parameters such as the cell temperature, the ohmic resistance R .sub.inside or the state of charge from the reference cell. The initial charge state of the cells, the rated capacity C .sub.Nenn , ie the charge that can be taken from a new cell under nominal conditions at least, and the deviations of resistance, temperature and terminal current can be specified in the difference model. From these values, the terminal voltage deviation is calculated.”. (0015).“The terminal voltage deviation is calculated from the parameters and the simulation variables.”. (0052).“There are several ways to divide the difference model into sub models. In a preferred embodiment, the difference model comprises two partial models.”. (0018).The difference model i.e. error model is shown to be partial models or even sub models.
wherein a first model error of an open-circuit voltage characteristic of the mathematical model of the electrical energy storage unit (31) is modeled by the first part (11) of the error model,“In a first sub model, the deviations leading to a different electromotive force (EMF) compared to the reference cell are taken into account, while in a second sub model the deviations are considered, which result in differences in the over voltages.
By EMF is meant the voltage difference between the two electrodes in an electrochemical cell at rest.”. (0020).“The potentials of the electrodes of an electrochemical cell and thus also the electromotive force of a cell are therefore dependent on the state of charge (SOC) of the cell.”. (0036).
A first sub model is taught that models EMF which is an open circuit voltage characteristic that can be shared to other models.
and a second model error of a voltage characteristic of the mathematical model is modeled on the basis of an electrical current by the second part (12) of the error model;
“…in a second sub model the deviations are considered, which result in differences in the over voltages.”. (0020).
“Overvoltage refers to the difference between the terminal voltage and the emf, which occurs during charging or discharging, for example.”. (0022).
“In the second part model part of the model differences variations in the terminal voltage of the reference cell are considered, which as a result of differences in the terminal currents .DELTA.i .sub.Kl and the ohmic resistances arising .DELTA.R .sub.inside.”. (0060).
This teaches voltage deviation / error on the basis of current.
establishing a current value, wherein the electrical current flows in the electrical energy storage unit (31);“It can be seen on the one hand, the measurable at the terminals of a cell sizes of the terminal voltage u .sub.Kl and the terminal current i .sub.Kl , which should be mentioned here that a positive terminal current corresponds to the charging of the cell and a negative terminal current discharging the cell.”. (0029).
This discloses establishing the measurable terminal current, which is the electrical current flowing in the energy storage unit.
applying the established current value to the mathematical error model (10) as input value of the mathematical error model (10); and
“The difference model receives variable input variables during the simulation, such as the terminal current…”. (0052).
“The second partial model part receives from the reference model the cell temperature T .sub.Ref , the internal resistance R .sub.inside ref and the terminal current i .sub.Kl of the reference cell…”. (0052).
This discloses receiving a current i.e. terminal current in to the partial models.
determining the model error (13) of the mathematical model as an output value of the mathematical error model, wherein the model error (13) is dependent on the at least two sub models (11, 12); and
“…the deviation of the terminal voltage of the ith cell from the terminal voltage of the reference. sub.cell Δu .sub.cell i is calculated.”. (0052).
“The voltage deviation of each individual cell from the reference cell is calculated by the summation of the voltage deviations from the individual sub models of the differential model”. (0067).
This discloses determining the model error / deviation with the sum of voltage deviation of sub models.
HAUPT does not explicitly teach but ASFALG teaches
wherein a modeling of an open-circuit voltage hysteresis is included by the first part (11) of the error model.
“…the energy storage device and of materials used, the energy storage device may have a quiescent voltage characteristic with a hysteresis.”. (0012).This shows open circuit voltage hysteresis being taken in to account.
adjusting operation of the electrical energy storage unit (31) based on the model error (13).
“Determining the energy storage capacity C according to Eq. 5 is a possible embodiment. The given equation is based on a correction term of a parameter estimator with a constant proportional feedback of the forecast error err. It is also possible that an adjustment of the detected energy storage voltage U_Batt and the model energy storage voltage U_Mod and an associated correction of the energy storage capacity C, for example, by means of another correction term. This can be interpreted, for example, using various design methods from the theory of parameter estimation and state observation, such as. Least Squares Optimal Design or Sliding Fashion Design.”. (0033).
This shows computing a prognosis error to adjust the model energy storage and correct the energy storage capacity.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of ASFALG’s energy storage device voltage hysteresis with HAUPT’s error model system. The motivation for doing so would have been to “… makes a contribution to the accurate determination of the quiescent voltage.”. (0012).
Regarding Claim 2, ASFALG does not explicitly teach but HAUPT teaches
The method as claimed in claim1, wherein the model error (13) is determined in step d) by a summation of the two sub model errors of the two sub models (11, 12).
“The voltage deviation of each individual cell from the reference cell is calculated by the summation of the voltage deviations from the individual sub models of the differential model.”. (0067).
This teaches calculating the sum of deviation from sub models or partial models.
Regarding Claim 3, ASFALG does not explicitly teach but HAUPT teaches
The method as claimed in claim1, wherein the mathematical model of the electrical energy storage unit (31) is included by the mathematical error model (10).
“The more detailed the simulation of the cell group, the more model parts of the first model are inserted into the difference model.”. (0066).
This teaches the underlying model of the electrical storage unit being included in the error / deviation model.
Regarding Claim 4, ASFALG does not explicitly teach but HAUPT teaches
The method as claimed in claim1, wherein the second part (12) of the mathematical error model (10) is formed by at least one first-order or higher-order time-delay element, wherein the sub model error of the second part (12) is formed by means of a weighting of the output of the at least one time-delay element.
“The in the electrical equivalent circuit diagram in RC element to be detected, consisting of the resistor R .sub.DS and the capacitance C .sub.DS , serves to take into account the dynamic characteristics of the over voltages.”. (0044).
“The equivalent circuit diagram on which the cell model is based can also be extended by an additional RC element (R .sub.Diff , C .sub.Diff ) in order to allow the consideration of dynamic overvoltage components with a larger time constant.”. (0047).
This teaches time delayed elements used to model the cells dynamic over voltages weighted by the R and C differences.
Regarding Claim 6, ASFALG does not explicitly teach but HAUPT teaches
The method as claimed in claim1, wherein a temperature dependence is exhibited by the first part (11) of the error model and/or by the second part (12) of the error model.
“A cell model depicts cell voltage and charge state and possibly also the temperature behavior of a battery cell.”. (0004).
“The deviations of the terminal voltage of the other cells from that of the reference cell may result from deviations of the cell parameters such as internal resistance or capacitance, another state of charge, another cell temperature or deviations in the terminal currents. The second model thus takes into account the deviations of the individual composite cells from the reference cell. Therefore, this model is also called a difference model.”. (0015).
This teaches that the model uses cell temperature and models temperature resistance differences.
Claim 8 recites substantially the same limitations as a claim 1 except these claims are directed to a “A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium containing instructions that when executed- on a computer cause the computer to:” Therefore, these claims are rejected under
the same rationale as addressed above.
Claim 9 recites substantially the same limitations as a claim 1 except these claims are directed to a “A device (22) for determining a model error (13) in a mathematical model of an electrical energy storage unit (31), the device comprising a computer configured to:” Therefore, these claims are rejected under the same rationale as addressed above.
Regarding Claim 10, ASFALG does not explicitly teach but HAUPT teaches
An electrical energy storage system (30), comprising an electrical energy storage unit (31) and a device (32) as claimed in claim 9.
“A method for real-time simulation of a battery comprising a plurality of interconnected single cells, wherein the battery is described for simulation purposes by an overall model that is executed on a computing unit…”. (claim 1).
“…shows an inventive overall model for a battery consisting of several (n) cells.” (0051).
“In this second model, the deviation of the terminal voltage of the ith cell from the terminal voltage of the reference cell Δu cell i is calculated.”. (0052).
This describes a system using a battery and a device to run the models.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAUPT et al. DE 102010062838 A1 (2012) [herein “HAUPT”], in view of ASFALG et al. DE 102010031050 A1 (2012) [herein "ASFALG"], and JOHNSON et al. US 20150028814 A1 (2015) [herein “JOHNSON”].
Regarding Claim 11, HAUPT and ASFALG does not explicitly teach but JOHNSON teaches
The method according to claim 1, wherein adjusting operation includes adjusting upper and/or lower voltage limits of the electrical energy storage unit (31).
“Methods and systems for adjusting the voltage limits of a battery… The voltage offset may be applied to dynamically adjust a voltage limit associated with the vehicle battery so as to prevent any of the battery cells in the vehicle battery from exceeding the voltage limit.”. (Abstract).
“Many battery systems for electric vehicles therefore include upper and/or lower voltage limits to prevent such cell damage.”. (0004).
This shows dynamically adjusting upper and lower voltages limits of a battery to prevent cell damage.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of HAUPT-ASFALG’s energy storage device error model system with JOHNSON’s method of adjusting the operation of an energy storage unit. The motivation for doing so would have been “… to more effectively prevent cell over and under voltages.”. (0009).
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAUPT et al. DE 102010062838 A1 (2012) [herein “HAUPT”], in view of ASFALG et al. DE 102010031050 A1 (2012) [herein "ASFALG"], and PLETT et al. “Extended Kalman filtering for battery management systems of LiPB-based HEV battery packs: Part 2. Modeling and identification” (2004) [herein “PLETT”].
Regarding Claim 12, HAUPT and ASFALG does not explicitly teach but PLETT teaches
The method according to claim 1, wherein the open-circuit voltage hysteresis is an open-circuit voltage characteristic that includes two different voltage curves for a same state of charge ("SOC"), wherein the two different voltage curves are based on a current state of charge of the electrical energy storage unit (31) being reached through charging or discharging.“In a series of three papers, we propose a method, based on extended Kalman filtering (EKF), that is able to accomplish these goals on a lithium ion polymer battery pack. We expect that it will also work well on other battery chemistries. These papers cover the required mathematical background, cell modeling and system identification requirements, and the final solution, together with results.”. (Abstract).
“We illustrate this effect by showing the charge/discharge curves at the C/25 rate and room temperature in Fig. 5(a). The terminal voltage for discharge is the lower curve; for charge the upper curve. Two different terminal voltages exist at each SOC.”. (Section 3.3.3).
PNG
media_image1.png
224
665
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Figure 5 Section 3.3.3).
This shows an open circuit voltage hysteresis as two different voltage curves at the same state in this case it is charge and discharge curves.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of HAUPT-ASFALG’s energy storage device error model system with PLETT’s teaching of modeling open circuit voltage hysteresis with two different curves. The motivation for doing so would have been that “… we must include hysteresis in our cell model for good SOC estimation. These curves comprise the major hysteresis loop, corresponding to full cell charge and discharge.”. (Section 3.3.3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-7957921-B2 by TANG et al teaches estimation considering battery hysteresis to calculate a battery state of charge.
US-20140278167-A1 by FROST et al teaches an adaptive estimator to increase robustness of the calculation to sensor noise, modeling error, and battery pack degradation.
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 NARCISO EDUARDO MONTES whose telephone number is (571)272-5773. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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.
/N.E.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights