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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are pending. Claims 4 is canceled. Claims 1, 3, and 5-7 are amended. Claims 2 and 8 are original.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to arguments regarding the 101 rejection, it is submitted that the amended recitations are considered additional elements but they are not considered a practical application of the abstract idea of determining a deterioration of a battery, or significantly more as described in the rejection below. The “vehicle power supply system”, “battery sensor”, and “external device of the vehicle” are not part of the “battery diagnostic device” of claim 1, the method of claim 6, or the storage medium of claim 7. It is therefore maintained that the subject matter of the claims are not eligible under 35 USC 101.
In response to arguments regarding independent claims 1, 6, and 7, Applicant has not specifically commented on or argued against the relevant portions of the references relied upon in the rejection to teach the amended recitations. Regarding the amended recitation of acquiring the number of actual usage years of the battery “by integrating an operating time of the battery between ignition-on and ignition-off events detected by the vehicle”, it is submitted that newly found reference NISHIO teaches the recitation as described in the rejection. It is maintained that KIM as modified by ONDA, YAMAGUCHI, and NISHIO teaches the battery diagnostic device as applied to claim 1, the method as applied to claim 6, and the storage medium as applied to claim 7.
In response to arguments regarding the rejection of claim 3, it is submitted that condition 1 as recited constitutes an obvious optimization as the criticality of the relationships of condition 1 are not described. Applicant’s arguments are considered, but are not explicitly found in the specification, and do not explain the particular relationships of condition 1 as being critical. For example, it is not clear why it is critical for the number of estimated usage years Yu to be less than or equal to the lower limit of years Yb1, and for the upper limit number of years Ybh to be less than or equal to the number of warranty years Yw. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the various factors of condition 1 to be pertinent to determining battery deterioration based on a number of determination years, and therefore, absent criticality, it is maintained that condition 1 as recited would be an obvious optimization.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “vehicle power supply system”, “battery sensor”, “vehicle communication interface”, “external device of the vehicle”, “user interface” and “deterioration notification” of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, “a period in which performance of the battery is guaranteed” should be changed to --the period in which performance of the battery is guaranteed--.
In claim 5, “an estimated full charge capacity” and “a standard deviation” are previously recited in claim 1, and are interpreted as referring to the same elements. They should be changed to “the estimated full charge capacity” and “the standard deviation”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Moreover, the claims do not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites a battery diagnostic device for determining that a battery has deteriorated. The recited steps which acquire or determine are directed to data manipulation and/or calculations that may be performed through a mental process and is thus considered a Judicial Exception. These limitations appear to be an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the use of circuitry. The recited circuitry does no more than automate the mental processes that a user can perform to determine and communicate control instructions. There is no practical application which utilizes the determination that the battery has deteriorated. The recitation of “a battery mounted on a vehicle” is considered the field of use and not a practical application. The steps of “acquiring, from a vehicle power supply system” and “acquiring, from a battery sensor” are considered additional elements, being interpreted as receiving steps, but appear to be insignificant extra-solution activity and well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions because they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). Also, the recitation of displaying a deterioration notification is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function. Thus, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Finally, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements described above are merely generic components or functions.
Claims 2-3, 5, and 8 do not appear to make the claims eligible for reasons similar to those noted above and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC 101. It is noted that the vehicle recited in claim 8 is considered a field of use recitation, recited in a generic manner, and therefore not considered a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites a method of a battery diagnostic device for determining that a battery has deteriorated. The recited steps which acquire or determine are directed to data manipulation and/or calculations that may be performed through a mental process and is thus considered a Judicial Exception. These limitations appear to be an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the use of circuitry (i.e., “a computer”). The recited circuitry does no more than automate the mental processes that a user can perform to determine and communicate control instructions. There is no practical application which utilizes the determination that the battery has deteriorated. The recitations of “a battery mounted on a vehicle” are considered the field of use and not a practical application. The steps of “acquiring, from a vehicle power supply system” and “acquiring, from a battery sensor” are considered additional elements, being interpreted as receiving steps, but appear to be insignificant extra-solution activity and well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions because they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). Also, the recitation of displaying a deterioration notification is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function. Thus, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Finally, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements described are merely generic components or functions.
Claim 7 recites a medium storing a program of a battery diagnostic device for determining that a battery has deteriorated. The recited steps which acquire or determine are directed to data manipulation and/or calculations that may be performed through a mental process and is thus considered a Judicial Exception. These limitations appear to be an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the use of circuitry (i.e., “a storage medium”, “a computer”). The recited circuitry does no more than automate the mental processes that a user can perform to determine and communicate control instructions. There is no practical application which utilizes the determination that the battery has deteriorated. The recitations of “a battery mounted on a vehicle” are considered the field of use and not a practical application. The steps of “acquiring, from a vehicle power supply system” and “acquiring, from a battery sensor” are considered additional elements, being interpreted as receiving steps, but appear to be insignificant extra-solution activity and well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions because they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). Also, the recitation of displaying a deterioration notification is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function. Thus, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Finally, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements described are merely generic components or functions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the specification as originally filed does not disclose “acquire, from a vehicle power supply system, a number of actual usage years of the battery” as recited in claim 1. Paragraph 0028 discloses “a value [unit: year] obtained by integrating the time after the start of using the battery 100 (after selling the vehicle or after changing the battery) from when the ignition switch of the vehicle is turned on (IG-ON) until the ignition switch is turned off (IG-OFF), that is, a value obtained by integrating an operating time of the power supply system using the battery 100, is used as the number of actual usage years of the battery 100. The information on the number of actual usage years of the battery 100 may be accumulated and held by the battery diagnostic device 200 by itself, or may be acquired from another device mounted on the vehicle”, but does not discloses acquiring the number of actual usage years from a vehicle power supply system.
Also, the specification as originally filed does not disclose “acquire, from a battery sensor, a full charge capacity”. Paragraph 0029 discloses “the acquisition unit 220 acquires the full charge capacity of the battery 100 (second acquisition unit). The full charge capacity of the battery 100 can be calculated by using a well-known method such as a method of estimating the stored amount (SOC: State Of Charge) based on the current integration method. The information on the full charge capacity of the battery 100 may be calculated by the battery diagnostic device 200 by itself, or may be acquired from another device mounted on the vehicle”, but does not disclose acquiring the full charge capacity from a battery sensor.
Furthermore, the specification as originally filed does not disclose “upon determining that the battery has deteriorated, the processing circuitry communicates the determination result via a vehicle communication interface to an external device of the vehicle, including a user interface configured to display a deterioration notification to prompt replacement of the battery”. Paragraph 0037 discloses “determination unit 230 of the battery diagnostic device 200 determines that the battery 100 is deteriorated. The result of this determination is notified, for example, to the user of the vehicle and the like, and a replacement of the battery 100 is urged”, but does not disclose “a vehicle communication interface”, “external device of the vehicle”, and “a user interface to display” as recited.
Therefore the recitations constitutes new matter.
Claims 2-3, 5, and 8 are dependent from claim 1 and are therefore rejected for the same reasons as independent claim 1.
Independent claims 6 and 7 include the same recitations and are also rejected for the same reasons as independent claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (US PG Pub 2015/0070024; cited in previous office action) in view of ONDA (JP2018169161A; cited on IDS; English machine translation provided by Applicant; cited in previous office action), YAMAGUCHI (JP2007223386A; cited on IDS; English machine translation provided by Applicant; cited in previous office action), and NISHIO (JP2015153480A; English machine translation is included with office action).
Regarding claim 1, KIM discloses a battery diagnostic device (120, Fig. 1; 612, Fig. 6) that diagnoses a state (¶ 0007: a battery cell whose state of health (SOH) may be estimated) of a battery (110, Fig. 1; 611, Fig. 6) mounted on a vehicle (600, Fig. 6; ¶ 0153: Referring to FIG. 6, the electric vehicle 600 may include an electronic control unit (ECU) 621, an inverter controller 622, an inverter 623, a motor 624, and the battery pack 610. The battery pack 610 includes a battery 611 including at least one battery cell, and a battery management unit 612 for controlling charging and discharging of the battery 611. The battery pack 610 may correspond to the battery packs 100 and 100a described with reference to FIGS. 1 and 2), the battery diagnostic device comprising:
processing circuitry (¶ 0104: the battery pack 100a includes the battery 110, an AFE 135, and a micro controller unit (MCU) 125) configured to:
acquire, from a battery sensor (140, Fig. 1) a full charge capacity of the battery (¶ 0054: the capacity estimating unit 140 for generating current capacity data CCD by estimating a current capacity of the battery cell 111) based on a current integration method applied to measured battery current values (¶ 0059: the capacity estimating unit 140 determines a fully-charged state and a fully-discharged state by using the cell voltage data VD, and integrates current that flows into or flows out of the battery cell 111 between the fully-charged state and the fully-discharged state by using the current data CD, so that the capacity estimating unit 140 may calculate a full charging capacity or a full discharging capacity); and
perform deterioration determination (¶ 0005: A state of health (SOH) of a battery is an index for indicating how much the battery capacity is decreased compared to its initial battery capacity stated in its specification) of the battery based on the full charge capacity (¶ 0054: the SOH estimating unit 160 for estimating an SOH of the battery cell 111 based on the current capacity data CCD), and
determine that the battery has deteriorated when the full charge capacity is less than a determination capacity (¶ 0097: SOH estimating unit 160 may include deterioration capacity data DCD about a deterioration capacity that the battery cell 111 has when the battery cell 111 is in a deterioration state. The deterioration capacity may be determined according to a capacity of the battery cell 111, which is guaranteed by a manufacturer of the battery pack 100. When the current capacity of the battery cell 111 is less than the deterioration capacity, the SOH estimating unit 160 may determine that the battery cell 111 has deteriorated),
wherein the determination capacity is set based on an estimated full charge capacity of the battery at a time when a period in which performance of the battery is guaranteed expires (¶ 0097: see above; the “capacity of the battery cell 111, which is guaranteed by a manufacturer” reads on the recitation “estimated full charge capacity of the battery at a time when a period in which performance of the battery is guaranteed expires”), and
wherein, upon determining that the battery has deteriorated, the processing circuitry communicates the determination result via a vehicle communication interface to an external device of the vehicle, including a user interface configured to display a deterioration notification to prompt replacement of the battery (¶ 0158: When an SOH of one of the battery cells of the battery 611 are equal to or less than a reference value (e.g., a preset reference value), the ECU 621 may identify (e.g., display) the deteriorating battery cell and/or display the SOH thereof to a manager of the electric vehicle 600. The manager may take action such as replacement of the deteriorating battery cell and/or the like, so that the electric vehicle 600 may be driven safely).
KIM fails to disclose the determination capacity being calculated as the estimated full charge capacity plus a multiple of a standard deviation representing variation in the estimated full charge capacity.
ONDA discloses the determination capacity being calculated as the estimated full charge capacity plus a multiple of a standard deviation representing variation in the estimated full charge capacity (¶ 0033: the latest residual for each battery in the diagnosis result table 111 is checked for each combination of power storage system type and battery type, or for each power storage system ID, and it is checked whether there is any residual that deviates from the variability. For example, if the residual +3σ (three times the standard deviation) is set as the upper limit and −3σ as the lower limit, and if there is a battery that falls outside the upper or lower limit, it is determined that there is a battery that deviates from the model. If there is a battery that deviates from the model, the deviated battery is deemed to be an abnormally deteriorated battery; ¶ 0043: the upper limit is set to the average value of the deterioration fluctuation + 3σ (three times the standard deviation) and the lower limit is set to the average value - 3σ, and if there is a battery that falls outside the upper or lower limit, it is determined that there is an early-deteriorating battery in the storage system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the determination capacity being calculated as recited in order to determine an abnormally deteriorated battery (ONDA, ¶ 0033, 0043).
KIM fails to disclose acquiring, from a vehicle power supply system, a number of actual usage years of the battery; performing deterioration determination of the battery based on the number of actual usage years and the full charge capacity, and determining that the battery has deteriorated when the number of actual usage years exceeds a number of determination years and the full charge capacity is less than a determination capacity.
YAMAGUCHI discloses acquiring, from a vehicle power supply system, a number of actual usage years of the battery (¶ 0041: the monitoring ECU 10 first acquires information about the battery 20 (replacement time, capacity, etc.) that has been pre-stored in memory…and determines whether the period of use of the battery 20 is shorter than a predetermined period; it would be obvious to measure the period of use of the battery in years); performing deterioration determination of the battery based on the number of actual usage years (¶ 0041: If the period of use is shorter, the monitoring process is not permitted to be executed…. In addition, when the usage period of the battery 20 exceeds a predetermined period, the monitoring ECU 10 …..allows the monitoring process to be executed), and determining that the battery has deteriorated (¶ 0024: monitoring ECU 10 basically calculates the deterioration level of the battery 20…. and notifies the user of the degree of deterioration) when the number of actual usage years exceeds a number of determination years (¶ 0041: when the usage period of the battery 20 exceeds a predetermined period, the monitoring ECU 10 …..allows the monitoring process to be executed). YAMAGUCHI discloses the deterioration determination occurs after the number of actual usage years exceeds the number of determination years as described above, and including this feature of YAMAGUCHI in the battery diagnostic device of KIM, which performs deterioration determination based on the full charge capacity being less than a determination capacity, teaches the recitation “determine that the battery has deteriorated when the number of actual usage years exceeds a number of determination years and the full charge capacity is less than a determination capacity”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include acquiring a number of actual usage years and determining the battery has deteriorated based on the number of actual usage years as recited in order to appropriately monitor a battery to identify the deterioration state while minimizing the monitoring frequency and power consumption of the monitoring device to the necessary minimum (YAMAGUCHI, ¶ 0004).
KIM as modified by YAMAGUCHI fails to disclose acquiring the number of actual usage years of the battery by integrating an operating time of the battery between ignition-on and ignition-off events detected by the vehicle.
NISHIO discloses acquiring the number of actual usage years of the battery by integrating an operating time of the battery between ignition-on and ignition-off events detected by the vehicle (¶ 0026: calculation unit 220 also calculates the total usage time T of the battery pack 20 based on the time the ignition switch is on).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include acquiring the number of actual usage years of the battery by integrating an operating time of the battery between ignition-on and ignition-off events in order to include a time-based dimension of use that complements, e.g., charge cycles.
Regarding claim 2, KIM as modified by ONDA, YAMAGUCHI, and NISHIO teaches the battery diagnostic device as applied to claim 1, but fails to teach the number of determination years is set based on a period in which the battery is estimated to be used and a period in which performance of the battery is guaranteed.
YAMAGUCHI further discloses the number of determination years is set based on a period in which the battery is estimated to be used and a period in which performance of the battery is guaranteed (¶ 0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the number of determination years is set as recited in order to appropriately monitor a battery to identify the deterioration state while minimizing the monitoring frequency and power consumption of the monitoring device to the necessary minimum (YAMAGUCHI, ¶ 0004)
Regarding claim 5, KIM as modified by ONDA, YAMAGUCHI, and NISHIO teaches the battery diagnostic device as applied to claim 1 but fails to teach the determination capacity is set to a value that satisfies condition 2 below, based on an estimated full charge capacity that is estimated at the time when the period in which the performance of the battery is guaranteed expires and a standard deviation that is a variation of the estimated full charge capacity, wherein the condition 2 is: determination capacity = estimated full charge capacity + 3 x standard deviation.
ONDA further discloses the determination capacity is set to a value that satisfies condition 2 below, based on an estimated full charge capacity that is estimated at the time when the period in which the performance of the battery is guaranteed expires and a standard deviation that is a variation of the estimated full charge capacity, wherein the condition 2 is: determination capacity = estimated full charge capacity + 3 x standard deviation (¶ 0033, 0043).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the determination capacity set as recited in order to determine an abnormally deteriorated battery (ONDA, ¶ 0033, 0043).
Regarding claim 6, KIM discloses a method executed by a computer (¶ 0054, 0104, 0113: a microcontroller) of a battery diagnostic device (120, Fig. 1; 612, Fig. 6) that diagnoses a state (¶ 0007: a battery cell whose state of health (SOH) may be estimated) of a battery (110, Fig. 1) mounted on a vehicle (600, Fig. 6; ¶ 0153: Referring to FIG. 6, the electric vehicle 600 may include an electronic control unit (ECU) 621, an inverter controller 622, an inverter 623, a motor 624, and the battery pack 610. The battery pack 610 includes a battery 611 including at least one battery cell, and a battery management unit 612 for controlling charging and discharging of the battery 611. The battery pack 610 may correspond to the battery packs 100 and 100a described with reference to FIGS. 1 and 2), the method comprising:
acquiring, from a battery sensor (140, Fig. 1) a full charge capacity of the battery (¶ 0054: the capacity estimating unit 140 for generating current capacity data CCD by estimating a current capacity of the battery cell 111) based on a current integration method applied to measured battery current values (¶ 0059: the capacity estimating unit 140 determines a fully-charged state and a fully-discharged state by using the cell voltage data VD, and integrates current that flows into or flows out of the battery cell 111 between the fully-charged state and the fully-discharged state by using the current data CD, so that the capacity estimating unit 140 may calculate a full charging capacity or a full discharging capacity); and
performing deterioration determination (¶ 0005: A state of health (SOH) of a battery is an index for indicating how much the battery capacity is decreased compared to its initial battery capacity stated in its specification) of the battery based on the full charge capacity (¶ 0054: the SOH estimating unit 160 for estimating an SOH of the battery cell 111 based on the current capacity data CCD), and
determining that the battery has deteriorated when the full charge capacity is less than a determination capacity (¶ 0097: SOH estimating unit 160 may include deterioration capacity data DCD about a deterioration capacity that the battery cell 111 has when the battery cell 111 is in a deterioration state. The deterioration capacity may be determined according to a capacity of the battery cell 111, which is guaranteed by a manufacturer of the battery pack 100. When the current capacity of the battery cell 111 is less than the deterioration capacity, the SOH estimating unit 160 may determine that the battery cell 111 has deteriorated),
wherein the determination capacity is set based on an estimated full charge capacity of the battery at a time when a period in which performance of the battery is guaranteed expires (¶ 0097: see above; the “capacity of the battery cell 111, which is guaranteed by a manufacturer” reads on the recitation “estimated full charge capacity of the battery at a time when a period in which performance of the battery is guaranteed expires”), and
wherein, upon determining that the battery has deteriorated, the processing circuitry communicates the determination result via a vehicle communication interface to an external device of the vehicle, including a user interface configured to display a deterioration notification to prompt replacement of the battery (¶ 0158: When an SOH of one of the battery cells of the battery 611 are equal to or less than a reference value (e.g., a preset reference value), the ECU 621 may identify (e.g., display) the deteriorating battery cell and/or display the SOH thereof to a manager of the electric vehicle 600. The manager may take action such as replacement of the deteriorating battery cell and/or the like, so that the electric vehicle 600 may be driven safely).
KIM fails to disclose the determination capacity being calculated as the estimated full charge capacity plus a multiple of a standard deviation representing variation in the estimated full charge capacity.
ONDA discloses the determination capacity being calculated as the estimated full charge capacity plus a multiple of a standard deviation representing variation in the estimated full charge capacity (¶ 0033: the latest residual for each battery in the diagnosis result table 111 is checked for each combination of power storage system type and battery type, or for each power storage system ID, and it is checked whether there is any residual that deviates from the variability. For example, if the residual +3σ (three times the standard deviation) is set as the upper limit and −3σ as the lower limit, and if there is a battery that falls outside the upper or lower limit, it is determined that there is a battery that deviates from the model. If there is a battery that deviates from the model, the deviated battery is deemed to be an abnormally deteriorated battery; ¶ 0043: the upper limit is set to the average value of the deterioration fluctuation + 3σ (three times the standard deviation) and the lower limit is set to the average value - 3σ, and if there is a battery that falls outside the upper or lower limit, it is determined that there is an early-deteriorating battery in the storage system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the determination capacity being calculated as recited in order to determine an abnormally deteriorated battery (ONDA, ¶ 0033, 0043).
KIM fails to disclose acquiring, from a vehicle power supply system, a number of actual usage years of the battery; performing deterioration determination of the battery based on the number of actual usage years and the full charge capacity, and determining that the battery has deteriorated when the number of actual usage years exceeds a number of determination years and the full charge capacity is less than a determination capacity.
YAMAGUCHI discloses acquiring, from a vehicle power supply system, a number of actual usage years of the battery (¶ 0041: the monitoring ECU 10 first acquires information about the battery 20 (replacement time, capacity, etc.) that has been pre-stored in memory…and determines whether the period of use of the battery 20 is shorter than a predetermined period; it would be obvious to measure the period of use of the battery in years); performing deterioration determination of the battery based on the number of actual usage years (¶ 0041: If the period of use is shorter, the monitoring process is not permitted to be executed…. In addition, when the usage period of the battery 20 exceeds a predetermined period, the monitoring ECU 10 …..allows the monitoring process to be executed), and determining that the battery has deteriorated (¶ 0024: monitoring ECU 10 basically calculates the deterioration level of the battery 20…. and notifies the user of the degree of deterioration) when the number of actual usage years exceeds a number of determination years (¶ 0041: when the usage period of the battery 20 exceeds a predetermined period, the monitoring ECU 10 …..allows the monitoring process to be executed). YAMAGUCHI discloses the deterioration determination occurs after the number of actual usage years exceeds the number of determination years as described above, and including this feature of YAMAGUCHI in the battery diagnostic device of KIM, which performs deterioration determination based on the full charge capacity being less than a determination capacity, teaches the recitation “determining that the battery has deteriorated when the number of actual usage years exceeds a number of determination years and the full charge capacity is less than a determination capacity”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include acquiring a number of actual usage years and determining the battery has deteriorated based on the number of actual usage years as recited in order to appropriately monitor a battery to identify the deterioration state while minimizing the monitoring frequency and power consumption of the monitoring device to the necessary minimum (YAMAGUCHI, ¶ 0004).
KIM as modified by YAMAGUCHI fails to disclose acquiring the number of actual usage years of the battery by integrating an operating time of the battery between ignition-on and ignition-off events detected by the vehicle.
NISHIO discloses acquiring the number of actual usage years of the battery by integrating an operating time of the battery between ignition-on and ignition-off events detected by the vehicle (¶ 0026: calculation unit 220 also calculates the total usage time T of the battery pack 20 based on the time the ignition switch is on).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include acquiring the number of actual usage years of the battery by integrating an operating time of the battery between ignition-on and ignition-off events in order to include a time-based dimension of use that complements, e.g., mileage and charge cycles.
Regarding claim 7, KIM discloses a non-transitory storage medium that stores a program (¶ 0053, 0160: a storage medium is implied in order to store the disclosed algorithm) executed by a computer (¶ 0054, 0104, 0113: a microcontroller) of a battery diagnostic device (120, Fig. 1; 612, Fig. 6) that diagnoses a state (¶ 0007: a battery cell whose state of health (SOH) may be estimated) of a battery (110, Fig. 1) mounted on a vehicle (600, Fig. 6; ¶ 0153: Referring to FIG. 6, the electric vehicle 600 may include an electronic control unit (ECU) 621, an inverter controller 622, an inverter 623, a motor 624, and the battery pack 610. The battery pack 610 includes a battery 611 including at least one battery cell, and a battery management unit 612 for controlling charging and discharging of the battery 611. The battery pack 610 may correspond to the battery packs 100 and 100a described with reference to FIGS. 1 and 2), the program comprising steps of:
acquiring, from a battery sensor (140, Fig. 1) a full charge capacity of the battery (¶ 0054: the capacity estimating unit 140 for generating current capacity data CCD by estimating a current capacity of the battery cell 111) based on a current integration method applied to measured battery current values (¶ 0059: the capacity estimating unit 140 determines a fully-charged state and a fully-discharged state by using the cell voltage data VD, and integrates current that flows into or flows out of the battery cell 111 between the fully-charged state and the fully-discharged state by using the current data CD, so that the capacity estimating unit 140 may calculate a full charging capacity or a full discharging capacity); and
performing deterioration determination (¶ 0005: A state of health (SOH) of a battery is an index for indicating how much the battery capacity is decreased compared to its initial battery capacity stated in its specification) of the battery based on the full charge capacity (¶ 0054: the SOH estimating unit 160 for estimating an SOH of the battery cell 111 based on the current capacity data CCD), and
determining that the battery has deteriorated when the full charge capacity is less than a determination capacity (¶ 0097: SOH estimating unit 160 may include deterioration capacity data DCD about a deterioration capacity that the battery cell 111 has when the battery cell 111 is in a deterioration state. The deterioration capacity may be determined according to a capacity of the battery cell 111, which is guaranteed by a manufacturer of the battery pack 100. When the current capacity of the battery cell 111 is less than the deterioration capacity, the SOH estimating unit 160 may determine that the battery cell 111 has deteriorated),
wherein the determination capacity is set based on an estimated full charge capacity of the battery at a time when a period in which performance of the battery is guaranteed expires (¶ 0097: see above; the “capacity of the battery cell 111, which is guaranteed by a manufacturer” reads on the recitation “estimated full charge capacity of the battery at a time when a period in which performance of the battery is guaranteed expires”), and
wherein, upon determining that the battery has deteriorated, the processing circuitry communicates the determination result via a vehicle communication interface to an external device of the vehicle, including a user interface configured to display a deterioration notification to prompt replacement of the battery (¶ 0158: When an SOH of one of the battery cells of the battery 611 are equal to or less than a reference value (e.g., a preset reference value), the ECU 621 may identify (e.g., display) the deteriorating battery cell and/or display the SOH thereof to a manager of the electric vehicle 600. The manager may take action such as replacement of the deteriorating battery cell and/or the like, so that the electric vehicle 600 may be driven safely).
KIM fails to disclose the determination capacity being calculated as the estimated full charge capacity plus a multiple of a standard deviation representing variation in the estimated full charge capacity.
ONDA discloses the determination capacity being calculated as the estimated full charge capacity plus a multiple of a standard deviation representing variation in the estimated full charge capacity (¶ 0033: the latest residual for each battery in the diagnosis result table 111 is checked for each combination of power storage system type and battery type, or for each power storage system ID, and it is checked whether there is any residual that deviates from the variability. For example, if the residual +3σ (three times the standard deviation) is set as the upper limit and −3σ as the lower limit, and if there is a battery that falls outside the upper or lower limit, it is determined that there is a battery that deviates from the model. If there is a battery that deviates from the model, the deviated battery is deemed to be an abnormally deteriorated battery; ¶ 0043: the upper limit is set to the average value of the deterioration fluctuation + 3σ (three times the standard deviation) and the lower limit is set to the average value - 3σ, and if there is a battery that falls outside the upper or lower limit, it is determined that there is an early-deteriorating battery in the storage system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the determination capacity being calculated as recited in order to determine an abnormally deteriorated battery (ONDA, ¶ 0033, 0043).
KIM fails to disclose acquiring, from a vehicle power supply system, a number of actual usage years of the battery; performing deterioration determination of the battery based on the number of actual usage years and the full charge capacity, and determining that the battery has deteriorated when the number of actual usage years exceeds a number of determination years and the full charge capacity is less than a determination capacity.
YAMAGUCHI discloses acquiring, from a vehicle power supply system, a number of actual usage years of the battery (¶ 0041: the monitoring ECU 10 first acquires information about the battery 20 (replacement time, capacity, etc.) that has been pre-stored in memory…and determines whether the period of use of the battery 20 is shorter than a predetermined period; it would be obvious to measure the period of use of the battery in years); performing deterioration determination of the battery based on the number of actual usage years (¶ 0041: If the period of use is shorter, the monitoring process is not permitted to be executed…. In addition, when the usage period of the battery 20 exceeds a predetermined period, the monitoring ECU 10 …..allows the monitoring process to be executed), and determining that the battery has deteriorated (¶ 0024: monitoring ECU 10 basically calculates the deterioration level of the battery 20…. and notifies the user of the degree of deterioration) when the number of actual usage years exceeds a number of determination years (¶ 0041: when the usage period of the battery 20 exceeds a predetermined period, the monitoring ECU 10 …..allows the monitoring process to be executed). YAMAGUCHI discloses the deterioration determination occurs after the number of actual usage years exceeds the number of determination years as described above, and including this feature of YAMAGUCHI in the battery diagnostic device of KIM, which performs deterioration determination based on the full charge capacity being less than a determination capacity, teaches the recitation “determining that the battery has deteriorated when the number of actual usage years exceeds a number of determination years and the full charge capacity is less than a determination capacity”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include acquiring a number of actual usage years and determining the battery has deteriorated based on the number of actual usage years as recited in order to appropriately monitor a battery to identify the deterioration state while minimizing the monitoring frequency and power consumption of the monitoring device to the necessary minimum (YAMAGUCHI, ¶ 0004).
KIM as modified by YAMAGUCHI fails to disclose acquiring the number of actual usage years of the battery by integrating an operating time of the battery between ignition-on and ignition-off events detected by the vehicle.
NISHIO discloses acquiring the number of actual usage years of the battery by integrating an operating time of the battery between ignition-on and ignition-off events detected by the vehicle (¶ 0026: calculation unit 220 also calculates the total usage time T of the battery pack 20 based on the time the ignition switch is on).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include acquiring the number of actual usage years of the battery by integrating an operating time of the battery between ignition-on and ignition-off events in order to include a time-based dimension of use that complements, e.g., mileage and charge cycles.
Regarding claim 8, KIM as modified by ONDA, YAMAGUCHI, and NISHIO teaches the battery diagnostic device as applied to claim 1, and KIM further discloses a vehicle equipped with the battery diagnostic device (¶ 0153-0156).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM in view of ONDA, YAMAGUCHI, and NISHIO as applied to claims 1-2 and 5-8 above, and further in view of SADA (US 2021/0021000; cited in previous office action), LIU (US 2023/0152380; cited in previous office action), and TOJIMA (US PG Pub 2003/0231006; cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 3, KIM as modified by ONDA, YAMAGUCHI, and NISHIO teaches the battery diagnostic device as applied to claim 1 but fails to disclose the number of determination years is set to a value that satisfies condition 1 below, based on a lower limit number of years obtained by subtracting a predetermined error amount from the number of determination years, an upper limit number of years obtained by adding the error amount to the number of determination years, a number of estimated usage years that is a period in which the battery is estimated to be used, and a number of warranty years that is a period in which performance of the battery is guaranteed, wherein condition 1 is: number of estimated usage years ≤ lower limit number of years < number of determination years < upper limit number of years ≤ number of warranty years.
However, the specification does not provide criticality for setting the recited number of determination years based on the terms of the equation. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the number of determination years based on several factors, including the factors mentioned in the equation. For example, TOJIMA discloses the number of determination years based on number of warranty years (¶ 0074); SADA discloses the number of determination years based on number of estimated usage years (¶ 0056, 0067); and LIU discloses the number of determination years based on a predetermined error amount (¶ 0036, 0044-0048). Setting the number of determination years to a value that satisfies condition 1 would not produce new or unexpected results, and would therefore constitute an obvious optimization.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the setting the number of determination years to a value as recited in order to improve the accuracy and/or timeliness of the determination that the battery has deteriorated.
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 i