DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
In the communication filed on 10/24/2025 claims 1 and 3-12 are pending. Independent claims 1 and 11 are amended by incorporating the limitations found in cancelled claim 2 and to address the claim objections and the 101 rejection raised in the Office Action dated 07/27/2025. Dependent claims 3-8 have been amended for dependency purposes and to address claim objections raised in the Office Action dated 07/27/2025. Claim 12 is a newly added claim.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 10/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner notes that the applicant amended the independent claims slightly different than how presented in the interview agenda, as seen in the Office Action Appendix dated 8/22/2025. The applicant did not change “set” to “reduce” in line 16 of claim 1 and similarly in claim 11. Furthermore, the applicant did not include in independent form the following limitations “wherein the reduced upper limit voltage corresponds to a difference between the calculated degradation degree and the preset threshold degradation degree”, however, the applicant has added a similar variation to these limitations in dependent claim 12.
With respect to the applicant’s arguments in pages 7-9 of the Remarks dated 10/24/2025, the applicant contends that Sasaki fails to teach the amended limitations, especially, “set an upper limit of a charge termination voltage for the battery to a reduced upper limit voltage based on the comparison” (see the 2nd paragraph of page 8 in the Remarks dated 10/24/25). However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner notes that the applicant’s arguments rely upon features which are not claimed in the independent claims and which are presented in the newly added dependent claim 12. The examiner addresses these limitations below. Furthermore, the newly added limitation “to a reduced upper limit voltage” is taught by Sasaki in the first sentence of ¶[60] as cited below by the examiner in the rejection.
The remaining arguments are moot as the applicant’s arguments for the remaining claims were based on dependency of the independent claims.
The 35 USC 101 rejection has been withdrawn due to the amendments.
The claim objections have been withdrawn due to the amendments, however, new claim objections are made below necessitated by the amendments.
The specification objection has been withdrawn due to the submission of the marked-up copy of the specification.
This Office Action is made Final due to the amendments.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 18 of claim 1 remove “set” so that it reads “the upper limit of the charge termination voltage” to avoid a lack of antecedent basis issue. Claim 11 is objected to for the same reason as claim 1.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 1-2 replace “set upper limit voltage” with --upper limit of the charge termination voltage-- to avoid a lack of antecedent basis issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (WIPO JP-WO2013157132-A1, corresponding to JP-5940145-B2 which was identified by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) and cited in the International Search Report (ISR)).
With respect to independent claims 1 and 11, Sasaki teaches a battery management apparatus and a battery management method (Fig. 2-4; a secondary battery module 40 and a method for battery deterioration state determination).
Sasaki teaches comprising a controller (Fig. 2-3; battery system controller 52).
Sasaki teaches memory having programmed thereon instructions that, when executed, are configured to cause the controller to perform operations (Fig. 3; data recording unit 521, see ¶ [39]).
Sasaki teaches obtain a differential profile representing a relationship between a capacity of a battery and a differential voltage of the battery (Figs. 6-9; the differential curve calculation unit 512 transmits a discharge differential curve Q-dV/dQ to data recording unit 521 of controller 52 (i.e., obtain a differential profile Q-dV/dQ), see ¶ [36-37]).
Sasaki teaches detect a first target peak and a second target peak in the obtained differential profile (Figs. 6-7 and 9; ¶[53]; detecting characteristic/feature points 71 and 72 correspond to minimum and maximum values of the discharge differential curve Q-dV/dQ curve).
Sasaki teaches calculate a degradation degree of the battery based on a comparison between a calculated capacity deviation between each of the first target peak and the second target peak, and a threshold capacity deviation between each of a first threshold peak and a second threshold peak in a preset threshold profile corresponding to a beginning of life (BOL) of the battery (Figs. 4, 6-9; ¶[55-57]; each characteristic/feature point (i.e., peak) has a respective capacity value Q1, Q1, Q01, and Q02. A capacity deviation σi = Q2 – Q1 is calculated between a first and second target capacities (i.e., Q1 and Q2) corresponding to the first and second target peaks (i.e., characteristic/feature points 71 and 72). In step S006 of Fig. 4, a degradation degree is inferred by comparing σi/σ0 > k wherein σi = Q2 – Q1, σ0 = Q02 – Q01, and k is a predetermined threshold k. Figs. 6-7 illustrates the Q-dV/dQ curve of a degraded battery (i.e., a battery used over time) and Figs. 8-9 illustrates the Q-dV/dQ curve of a BOL (i.e., beginning of life) battery, therefore Figs. 8-9 illustrate the above calculation corresponding to a BOL of the battery).
Sasaki teaches set an upper limit of a charge termination voltage for the battery to a reduced upper limit voltage based on the comparison (Fig. 4; ¶[60]; in step S009 the maximum allowable battery voltage is limited depending on the results of the determination of the battery degradation state in step S006 wherein a command is issued to lower the maximum allowable battery voltage).
Sasaki teaches control charging of the battery to terminate at the set upper limit of the charge termination voltage (Fig. 4; in step S009 charging is controlled to terminate at the lowered maximum allowable battery voltage).
However, Sasaki fails to explicitly teach compare the calculated degradation degree with a preset threshold degradation degree.
While Sasaki does not explicitly use the term “degradation degree” or state a comparison to a “preset threshold degradation degree” it does calculate the ratio of σi/σ0 which expresses the degree of deviation and could readily be represented as a percentage. Comparing this ratio to the constant “k” performs the same role as comparing a calculated degradation degree to a preset threshold.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret this ratio as a formal degradation percentage and use it for threshold-based charge control decisions. The benefit being that comparing degradation ratios with a known threshold value allows for optimal performance monitoring, proactive replacement decisions, extended battery lifespan, and improved safety thereby improving user experience and cost.
With respect to claim 3, Sasaki teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1.
Further, Sasaki teaches detect a first threshold peak in a first capacity region of the preset threshold profile and detect a second target peak in a second capacity region of the preset threshold profile (The peaks detected in the preset threshold profile would be threshold peaks, not target peaks. The target peaks are associated with the peaks in the differential profile. Fig. 9; as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art the characteristic/feature points 91 and 92 each are detected in a non-limiting example of different capacity regions as seen in annotated Fig. 9 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
211
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 4, Sasaki teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Sasaki teaches wherein the threshold capacity deviation is a deviation between a first threshold capacity of a first threshold peak corresponding to the first target peak in the preset threshold profile and a second threshold capacity of a second threshold peak corresponding to the second target peak (Figs. 8-9; a Q-dV/dQ curve for the battery at BOL (i.e., beginning of life) with characteristic/feature points 91 and 92 corresponding to the peaks in the curve with associated threshold capacities (i.e., Q01 and Q02) respectively. The threshold capacity deviation is σ0 = Q02 – Q01 which is obtained from the BOL (i.e., beginning of life) Q-dV/dQ curve as illustrated in Figs. 8-9. Furthermore, the characteristic/feature points 91 and 92 correspond to the characteristic/feature points 71 and 72 as seen in Figs. 7 and 9).
With respect to claim 5, Sasaki teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Sasaki teaches in response to the calculated degradation degree being less than the preset threshold degradation degree, set the upper limit of the charge termination voltage as a beginning of life (BOL) voltage preset for the battery; and in response to the calculated degradation degree being equal to or greater than the preset threshold degradation degree, set the upper limit of the charge termination voltage to be equal to or less than a preset threshold voltage (Fig. 4; in step S009 it is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that if σi/σ0 < k then that the upper limit of battery voltage output is unchanged (i.e., left as the BOL voltage preset) however if σi/σ0 > k then the maximum allowable battery voltage is limited to a “setting value”, see ¶ [60]).
With respect to claim 6, Sasaki teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 5. Further, Sasaki teaches wherein the preset threshold voltage corresponds to the second threshold peak corresponding to the second target peak in the preset threshold profile (Fig. 9; one of ordinary skill understands that the voltage that corresponds with the second threshold peak would serve as a voltage setpoint because the peak is used to detect aging and adjust charging behavior).
With respect to claim 7, Sasaki teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 6. Further, Sasaki teaches wherein the preset threshold voltage corresponds to a second threshold capacity of the second threshold peak (Fig. 9; the voltage corresponding to the second peak as well would correspond to a capacity value as illustrated in Fig. 9).
With respect to claim 8, Sasaki teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 5. Further, Sasaki teaches in response to the calculated degradation degree being equal to or greater than the preset threshold degradation degree, the instructions are configured to cause the controller to calculate a degradation deviation between the calculated degradation degree and the preset threshold degradation degree (Although not explicitly taught by Sasaki, obtaining a degradation deviation between the calculated degradation degree and the preset threshold degradation degree would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be obtained by calculating a difference between the ratio σi/σ0 and the predetermined threshold k to infer the amount of deviation between these degradation values).
Sasaki teaches reduce the upper limit of the charge termination voltage in proportion to the degradation deviation from the preset threshold voltage (Further, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the threshold voltage based on the deviation of the degradation values).
With respect to claim 9, Sasaki teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 8. Further, Sasaki teaches wherein the instructions are configured to cause the controller to diagnose the battery as being in an end of life (EOL) state in response to the calculated degradation deviation being equal to or greater than a preset threshold deviation (Fig. 4; in step S007 the battery is diagnosed to have reached an EOL based on the results of the determination of the battery degradation state σi/σ0 > k in step S006, see ¶ [58]).
With respect to claim 10, Sasaki teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Sasaki teaches a battery pack, comprising the battery management apparatus (Fig. 2; secondary battery module 40).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki and further in view of Tsujiko et al. (USPGPN 20110012604; identified in the IDS and cited in the European Search Opinion).
With respect to claim 12, Sasaki teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Sasaki fails to explicitly teach wherein the set upper limit voltage corresponds to a difference between the calculated degradation degree and the preset threshold degradation degree.
Tsujiko teaches a difference between the calculated degradation degree and the preset threshold degradation degree (Fig. 10; ¶[124]; in step S8 a difference value QK-QS is calculated wherein QK is the reference characteristic value corresponding to degradation and QS is the estimated (i.e., calculated) characteristic value corresponding to degradation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Tsujiko’s error calculation method to Sasaki’s method for battery deterioration state determination in order to set the upper limit voltage. The advantage to this being correcting the estimated storage amount with the difference value enables detection of a high-accurate storage amount (see ¶[31] of Tsujiko).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank A Silva whose telephone number is (703)756-1698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 09:30 am -06:30 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FRANK ALEXIS SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859