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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, regarding newly amended claim 1, that the modification proposed by the Examiner in the rejection of claim 8, as presented in the Non-Final mailed 07/28/2025, would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It appears the Examiner is reading the claim broader view than the Applicant, regarding the term “follow”. As argued, it appears the Applicant is interpreting the term to indicate the actual power becomes, imitates, is controlled to be, or is changed to, the available output power. However, under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “follow”, it may also be interpreted to mean “acting in accordance with” or “in agreement with”. Therefore, the claim may be interpreted as causing the actual power to act in accordance with the available output power, and as such, having an actual power within the limits of the available output power would be having an actual power in accordance with an available output power.
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., “controlling actual power to follow available output power” or “changes the actual power”) 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).
Furthermore, Applicant appears to be arguing, regarding newly amended claim 1, that the modification proposed by the Examiner in the rejection of claim 8, as presented in the Non-Final mailed 07/28/2025, would not have been obvious based on an argument regarding the control of the actual power. Examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion. Under a BRI of newly amended claim 1, the method step in question is not specifically controlling the actual power to follow the available output power, but rather setting a degree of following performance, where the degree of following performance causes the actual power to follow the available output power. Along with the BRI of the term “follow”, as explained above, Examiner believes the previously presented rejection of claim 8 would still be maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahara et al. (USPGPN 2017/0131360 A1 – published May 11, 2017), in view of Sarwar et al. (USPGPN 2020/0180466 A1 – filed Dec. 10, 2018).
Regarding Claim 1, Kawahara (Figs.1, 3, & 13) teaches an output control method for a secondary battery (110) that obtains available output power (Imax_dis; ¶0049: permissible charging/discharging current or power) that is capable of being output by a secondary battery including a plurality of cells (111) and controls output power of the secondary battery based on the available output power (T1 to T2, permissible discharge current is set to Imax_dis), the output control method comprising:
an indication amount calculation step of calculating a charge and discharge characteristic indication amount that changes according to change in the charge and discharge characteristic (301); and
an available output power setting step of setting the available output power (T1 to T2, permissible discharge current is set to Imax_dis); and
a temperature detection step of detecting a temperature in the secondary battery (Temperature measurement is input to 302), wherein, in the available output power setting step,
the corrected available output power calculated based on the charge and discharge characteristic indication amount (SOC input to 302) and the temperature in the secondary battery (Temperature input to 302), and
wherein, the method further comprises:
the available output power of the secondary battery is controlled to be limited based on a set degree of following performance (Fig.19, Imax_dis1 changes immediately at time T1).
Kawahara fails to explicitly teach calculating a variation indication amount that correlates with a magnitude of variation between charge and discharge characteristics of the plurality of cells, based on a charge and discharge characteristic indication amount;
a determination step of determining that the variation occurs when the variation indication amount is equal to or larger than a predetermined determination reference value;
setting the available output power based on a determination result that the variation occurs; and
setting a basic available output power determined based on the charge and discharge characteristic indication amount as the available output power when the variation does not occur, and setting the corrected available output power, having a value lower than that of the basic available output power, when the variation does occur, and
a following performance setting step of setting a degree of following that causes actual power of the secondary battery follow the available output power, wherein
in the following performance setting step, when the variation occurs, the degree of following performance is set to cause the actual power to follow the available output power faster than before the variation occurs.
However, Sarwar teaches a calculating a variation indication amount that correlates with a magnitude of variation between charge and discharge characteristics of the plurality of cells (¶0003: state of charge disparity factor (dSOC) is a difference between the minimum SOC value and an average SOC value);
determining that the variation occurs when the variation indication amount is greater than a predetermined determination reference value (¶0005: dSOC>X, greater than a disparity threshold);
setting the available output power based on the determination result of the variation occurring (¶0048: if dSOC>X (Fig.3, 124) and F-1 is exceeded (Fig.3, 128) first flag is set in block 130, which may be configured to limit power from the battery to the device, i.e. output power); and
setting a basic available output power determined based on the charge and discharge characteristic indication amount as the available output power when the variation does not occur (limiting power based on an indication of dSOC>X, as mapped above, would indicate a basic available output power would be determined if the indication criteria is unmet), and setting the corrected available output power, having a value lower than that of the basic available output power, when the variation does occur (¶0048: if dSOC>X (Fig.3, 124) and F-1 is exceeded (Fig.3, 128) first flag is set in block 130, which may be configured to limit power from the battery to the device, i.e. output power; setting a limit indicates a lower value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Kawahara to include a calculating step for calculating a variation amount, determination step to determine if this variation amount exceeds a threshold, and control the output power based on the variation amount exceeding a threshold to reduce the output power of the battery. Doing so would help reduce the occurrence of stalled devices due to propulsion loss, as evidenced by Sarwar (¶0055: method 100 improves the functioning of the device… provides a technical advantage of reducing the occurrence of stalled devices due to propulsion loss).
Moreover, Kawahara suggests a weighting adjustment to the response of initiating a lower discharge current (Fig.18, time T1 shows a gradual change to Imax_dis1) for a smoother change to the permissible current. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Kawahara, in view of Sarwar, to increase the speed at which the actual output power follows the available output power when the variation occurs to be immediate instead of a gradient. Having the response occur faster would maximize the energy saved in the battery.
Regarding Claim 9, Kawahara (Figs.1, 2, 3, & 13) teaches an output control system that controls output power of a secondary battery (110) including a plurality of cells (111), comprising:
a temperature detection unit (125) configured to detect a temperature in the secondary battery; and
a controller (150) that acquires a charge and discharge characteristic indication amount that changes according to change in a charge and discharge characteristic of each of the plurality of cells (¶0057: battery control unit 150 includes blocks shown in Fig.3, receives voltage/current/temperature), obtains available output power (Imax_dis; ¶0049: permissible charging/discharging current or power) that is capable of being output by the secondary battery based on the acquired charge and discharge characteristic indication amount, and controls the output power of the secondary battery based on the available output power (T1 to T2, permissible discharge current is set to Imax_dis), wherein the controller is configured to:
set a corrected available output power as the available output power (T1 to T2, permissible discharge current is set to Imax_dis), the corrected available output power calculated based on the charge and discharge characteristic indication amount (SOC input to 302) and the temperature (Temperature input to 302) in the secondary battery, and
the available output power of the secondary battery is controlled to be limited based on a set degree of following performance (Fig.19, Imax_dis1 changes immediately at time T1).
Kawahara fails to explicitly teach calculating a variation indication amount that correlates with a magnitude of variation between charge and discharge characteristics of the plurality of cells, based on a charge and discharge characteristic indication amount;
a determination step of determining that the variation occurs when the variation indication amount is equal to or larger than a predetermined determination reference value;
setting the available output power based on a determination result that the variation occurs; and
setting a basic available output power determined based on the charge and discharge characteristic indication amount as the available output power when the variation does not occur, and setting the corrected available output power, having a value lower than that of the basic available output power, when the variation does occur, wherein
the controller is configured to:
set a degree of following performance that causes an actual power of the secondary battery follow the available output power, wherein
when the variation occurs, the degree of following performance is set to cause the actual power to follow the available output power faster than before the variation occurs.
However, Sarwar teaches a calculating a variation indication amount that correlates with a magnitude of variation between charge and discharge characteristics of the plurality of cells (¶0003: state of charge disparity factor (dSOC) is a difference between the minimum SOC value and an average SOC value);
determining that the variation occurs when the variation indication amount is greater than a predetermined determination reference value (¶0005: dSOC>X, greater than a disparity threshold);
setting the available output power based on the determination result of the variation occurring (¶0048: if dSOC>X (Fig.3, 124) and F-1 is exceeded (Fig.3, 128) first flag is set in block 130, which may be configured to limit power from the battery to the device, i.e. output power); and
setting a basic available output power determined based on the charge and discharge characteristic indication amount as the available output power when the variation does not occur (limiting power based on an indication of dSOC>X, as mapped above, would indicate a basic available output power would be determined if the indication criteria is unmet), and setting the corrected available output power, having a value lower than that of the basic available output power, when the variation does occur (¶0048: if dSOC>X (Fig.3, 124) and F-1 is exceeded (Fig.3, 128) first flag is set in block 130, which may be configured to limit power from the battery to the device, i.e. output power; setting a limit indicates a lower value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Kawahara to include a calculating step for calculating a variation amount, determination step to determine if this variation amount exceeds a threshold, and control the output power based on the variation amount exceeding a threshold to reduce the output power of the battery. Doing so would help reduce the occurrence of stalled devices due to propulsion loss, as evidenced by Sarwar (¶0055: method 100 improves the functioning of the device… provides a technical advantage of reducing the occurrence of stalled devices due to propulsion loss).
Moreover, Kawahara suggests a weighting adjustment to the response of initiating a lower discharge current (Fig.18, time T1 shows a gradual change to Imax_dis1) for a smoother change to the permissible current. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Kawahara, in view of Sarwar, to increase the speed at which the actual output power follows the available output power when the variation occurs to be immediate instead of a gradient. Having the response occur faster would maximize the energy saved in the battery.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahara, in view of Sarwar, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tashiro et al. (USPGPN 2016/0236581 A1 – published Aug. 18, 2016).
Regarding Claim 2, Kawahara, in view of Sarwar, further teaches the corrected available output power is calculated based on the minimum cell voltage (Fig.15, Vmin to calculate Imax_dis1).
Kawahara, in view of Sarwar, fails to explicitly teach in the available output power setting step, the basic available output power is calculated based on the average value of the battery.
However, Tashiro teaches that it is common to determine an allowable output power using the SOC of a battery (¶0061: calculate the allowable output power SWout by acquiring the SOC) (examiner equates the battery SOC of Tashiro to the average SOC of Kawahara, in view of Sarwar).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified further modified the method taught by Kawahara, in view of Sarwar, to calculate the basic available output power using the average SOC.
Moreover, Kawahara, in view of Sarwar, teaches the claimed invention except that SOC values are used for the charge and discharge characteristics, the predetermined voltage difference, and for calculating the output powers instead of voltage values. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use voltage values, determined using an SOC to voltage curve specific to the battery, since applicant has not disclosed that using voltage values instead of SOC values to perform the method solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with voltage values instead of SOC values.
Regarding Claim 3, Kawahara, in view of Sarwar, fails to explicitly teach in the available output power setting step, the basic available output power is calculated based on the average value of the battery.
However, Tashiro teaches that it is common to determine an allowable output power using the SOC of a battery (¶0061: calculate the allowable output power SWout by acquiring the SOC) (examiner equates the battery SOC of Tashiro to the average SOC of Kawahara, in view of Sarwar).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified further modified the method taught by Kawahara, in view of Sarwar, to calculate the basic available output power using the average SOC.
Moreover, Kawahara teaches calculating the available output power using a minimum voltage instead of a minimum SOC (Fig.15, Vmin to calculate Imax_dis1). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a minimum SOC value, determined using an SOC to voltage curve specific to the battery, since applicant has not disclosed that using a minimum SOC instead of a minimum voltage to calculate the available output power solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a calculation based on a minimum SOC value instead of a minimum voltage value.
Lastly, Kawahara, in view of Sarwar, teaches the claimed invention except that SOC values are used for the charge and discharge characteristics, the predetermined voltage difference, and for calculating the output powers instead of OCV values. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use OCV values, determined using the SOC to OCV curve specific to the battery, as shown in Fig.5, since applicant has not disclosed that using OCV values instead of SOC values to perform the method solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with OCV values instead of SOC values.
Regarding Claim 4, Kawahara, in view of Sarwar, further teaches wherein in the indication amount calculation step, an SOC of each of the plurality of cells is acquired as the charge and discharge characteristic indication amount, and an SOC difference, which is a difference between an average SOC and a minimum SOC of the plurality of cells, is calculated as the variation indication amount (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1),
in the determination step, a predetermined SOC difference threshold value is set as the determination reference value (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1), and
Kawahara, in view of Sarwar, fails to explicitly teach in the available output power setting step, the basic available output power is calculated based on the average SOC, and the corrected available output power is calculated based on the minimum SOC.
However, Tashiro teaches that it is common to determine an allowable output power using the SOC of a battery (¶0061: calculate the allowable output power SWout by acquiring the SOC) (examiner equates the battery SOC of Tashiro to the average SOC of Kawahara, in view of Sarwar).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified further modified the method taught by Kawahara, in view of Sarwar, to calculate the basic available output power using the average SOC.
Moreover, Kawahara teaches calculating the available output power using a minimum voltage instead of a minimum SOC (Fig.15, Vmin to calculate Imax_dis1). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a minimum SOC value, determined using an SOC to voltage curve specific to the battery, since applicant has not disclosed that using a minimum SOC instead of a minimum voltage to calculate the available output power solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a calculation based on a minimum SOC value instead of a minimum voltage value.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahara, in view of Sarwar, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Mitsuoka et al. (Japanese Publication JP 2015118789 – published Jun. 25, 2015).
Regarding Claim 5, Kawahara, in view of Sarwar, fails to explicitly teach wherein in the determination step, whether the variation occurs is determined only when the detected temperature is equal to or lower than a predetermined value.
However, Mitsuoka teaches determination of a variation when a battery temperature is below a predetermined value (Abstract: the output of a battery may be suppressed if the temperature is less than the threshold temperature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Kawahara, in view of Sarwar, to include a determination step for determining a variation occurs, to subsequently limit the battery output, when a temperature is below a threshold temperature. Doing so helps account for the known reduction in battery performance when it is at low temperatures, as evidenced by Mitsuoka (Pg.4, Para.6: battery performance is lowered at a low temperature).
Claim(s) 6 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahara, in view of Sarwar, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ohkawa et al. (USPGPN 2014/0111164 A1 – published Apr. 24, 2014)
Regarding Claim 6, Kawahara, in view of Sarwar, fails to explicitly teach a temperature correction step of correcting the detected temperature based on the charge and discharge characteristic indication amount; and
a step of obtaining the available output power using the corrected temperature, wherein in the available output power setting step, the corrected available output power is obtained using the corrected temperature.
However, Ohkawa teaches an output power setting step based on a temperature reading and a charge discharge indication amount (Fig.7, permissible charge power is determined by average temperature and SOC), and further suggests using mathematical expressions to determine an internal resistance using temperature and SOC (¶0047: although this embodiment adapts a data table it is also possible to use a means such as mathematical expressions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Kawahara, in view of Sarwar, to determine the available output power using the detected temperature modified by the SOC. Doing so ensures safer usage of the battery, as evidenced by Ohkawa (¶0004: using the storage battery safely requires performing charging within maximum permissible power).
Regarding Claim 7, Kawahara, in view of Sarwar and Ohkawa, fails to explicitly teach wherein in the temperature correction step, the detected temperature is corrected based on a minimum SOC of an SOC of each of the plurality of cells as the charge and discharge characteristic indication amount.
However, Ohkawa teaches using the minimum SOC of the cells in a battery to determine the permissible charge current (Fig.6, single cell n SOC is used to determine permissible charge current where the minimum is output).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method taught by Kawahara, in view of Sarwar and Ohkawa, to determine the available output power using the detected temperature modified by the minimum SOC measured. Doing so would ensure that no cell is operated outside of its maximum power range.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P ONDRASIK whose telephone number is (703)756-1963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Julian Huffman can be reached at (571) 272-2147. 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.
/JOHN P ONDRASIK/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859