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 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 1-20 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 enablement requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The independent claims recite deriving a tuning parameter for an equivalent circuit model, and in particular dependent claims 3, 10-12, and 17-20 give details related to this. However, the specification does not provide sufficient explanation of how the turning parameter is determined or how the tuning parameter is used in the equivalent circuit model. There are somewhat similar things which are carried out in various ways in the prior art, but the specification does not explain how the inventor envisions carrying out these steps. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to carry out the invention.
For instance, claims 3 and 17 describe first and second tuning parameters, but no letters are given in the claims or specification to represent the first and second tuning parameters [see specification equations after ¶0070]. It is not shown where these tuning parameters are used in calculation of the voltage.
In claims 10 and 18, the equation that calculates the voltage does not mention the first and second tuning parameters so it is not disclosed how the tuning parameters are used in calculating the voltage. Claims 10 and 18 include an equation in which variable IR1 is not defined in the claims or in the specification [see specification equation after ¶0075]. Prior art Yang et al. (US 20160052418) contains a very similar equation [see equation 12], but does not have the term involving undefined IR1 .
Claims 11 and 19 mention a constant that is not represented by a letter in any equations in the specification, and the specification does not describe how to calculate the constant or where the constant is used in calculation of the voltage.
Claims 12 and 20 mention constants a, b, c, and d that are determined by the test. The specification does not mention how these constants are determined from the test or where they are used in calculation of the voltage.
The specification does not teach how to determine the various parameters and coefficients, or how to use the equations. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to carry out the invention in the manner envisioned by the applicant.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 13 recite the limitation “for each state of charge (SOC) of the battery.” It is unclear how many states of charges need to be included. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted to read “for a plurality of values of a state of charge (SOC).” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 13 recite the limitation “derive at least one tuning parameter that varies depending on a time required for the equivalent circuit model when the current is input or output for a time exceeding the preset time.” It is unclear whether the first “time” is the same as the second “time” in this phrase. It is also unclear what is required for the equivalent circuit model, the tuning parameter or a time. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as the latter and read “derive at least one tuning parameter that varies in the equivalent circuit model when the current is input or output for a time exceeding the preset time.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12 and 18 recite the limitation “the test.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
The remaining claims are also rejected due to their dependence on the claims discussed above.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1 of the 101 analysis, claims 1-12 are directed to one of the enumerated statutory categories, namely an apparatus. Claims 13-20 are directed to one of the enumerated statutory categories, namely a process.
Considering claim 1:
At Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim recites an abstract idea, as follows (with the abstract idea limitations in bold).
Claim 1 recites:
“A battery voltage prediction apparatus for modeling a battery voltage prediction model that predicts an output voltage of a battery over time by charging and discharging a current for each state of charge (SOC) of the battery, the battery voltage prediction apparatus comprising:
an SOC derivation unit configured to derive the SOC of the battery according to a current that is input or output to the battery and a capacity of the battery;
a fixed parameter derivation unit configured to derive fixed parameters required for an equivalent circuit model based on voltages measured according to input/output currents of the battery and a time change within a preset time when the current is input or output for the preset time; and
a tuning parameter derivation unit configured to derive at least one tuning parameter that varies depending on a time required for the equivalent circuit model when the current is input or output for a time exceeding the preset time.”
The above limitations in bold are mathematical concepts and/or mental processes that may be carried out in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. These limitations are therefore considered to be parts of an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong 2, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim (beyond the abstract idea limitations identified above) are recited “charging and discharging” of a battery, the battery voltage prediction apparatus, the SOC derivation unit, the fixed parameter derivation unit, and the tuning parameter derivation unit. These are additional elements separate from the abstract idea that need to be considered at Prong 2 of the 101 analysis. However, the “charging and discharging” merely pertains to enabling data gathering for the calculations of the abstract idea. The other additional elements are merely generic computer components or modules that are invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea, which does not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim does not explicitly recite any particular machine (other than generic computer components) that carries out steps of the claimed invention, and the claim does not recite a real-world transformation.
At Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to Prong 2.
Claim 1 is therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 13 is analogous to claim 1, except that claim 13 is a process and additionally recites “deriving an open-circuit voltage” step. This step adds to the abstract idea limitations as discussed in claim 1.
Claim 13 is therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 as well.
Dependent claim 2 adds the additional elements of a fixed resistor, and an RC branch. The addition of the circuit and components are not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application for the same reasons as the generic components from claim 1 as described above.
Dependent claim 3 and 17 merely adds to the abstract idea limitations discussed above by further defining the tuning parameters for calculations.
Dependent claim 4 merely adds to the abstract idea limitations discussed above by adding tuning calculations for SOC.
Dependent claim 5 merely adds to the abstract idea by further defining calculation of fixed parameters.
Dependent claim 6 merely adds to the abstract idea by further defining the current in the circuit to be used for the calculations in the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7 adds the additional element of periods of charging and rest for obtaining data to be used for calculations in the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8 merely adds to the abstract idea by further defining the calculation of parameters.
Dependent claims 9 adds the additional elements of a memory. The addition of the generic computer component is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application for the same reasons as the generic computer components from claim 1 as described above.
Dependent claims 10-12 and 18-20 merely adds to the abstract idea by defining the equations for calculations.
Dependent claim 14 adds the recited “predicting” step. This step merely adds to the abstract idea limitations discussed above.
Dependent claim 15 adds the additional element of changing current values to obtain data to be used for calculations in the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 16 merely adds to the abstract idea by further defining the parameters to be used for the calculations in the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 17 merely adds to the abstract idea by further defining the parameters to be used for the calculations in the abstract idea.
None of these dependent claims described above recite any further additional elements which would cause the claim as a whole to integrate the recited abstract idea into a particular practical application at Prong 2 or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea at Step 2B. Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-20 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20160052418; hereinafter Yang) in view of Oh et al. (US 20130166235; hereinafter Oh).
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches: predicting an output voltage of a battery over time by charging and discharging a current for each state of charge (SOC) of the battery [see ¶0006-¶0007 predicting voltage while incrementing SOC];
derive the SOC of the battery according to a current that is input or output to the battery [see ¶0023 output SOC in response to measured current; Fig. 2];
Yang does not explicitly teach: derive the SOC of the battery according to a current that is input or output to the battery and a capacity of the battery.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deriving the SOC of the battery according to a current that is input or output to the battery and a capacity of the battery because the SOC represents remaining capacity of battery as a percentage of total capacity, therefore it natural to include the capacity in calculating SOC.
Yang further teaches: deriving fixed parameters [see ¶0031 resistor and capacitor values] required for an equivalent circuit model based on voltages measured according to input/output currents of the battery and a time change within a preset time [see ¶0031 tpulse ] when the current is input or output for the preset time [see ¶0031 obtain resistor and capacitor values over full SOC range];
and derive at least one tuning parameter [see ¶0039 variable time constant values τ and variable capacitance; see ¶0031 time constant = τ = R*C] that varies.
Yang does not teach: the tuning parameter varies depending on a time required for the equivalent circuit model when the current is input or output for a time exceeding the preset time.
Oh teaches: the time constant τ and variable capacitance varies [see ¶0071 variable capacitance and time constant triple] depending on a time [¶0070-0072 sensing periods 3 and 4 (t2-t7)] required for the equivalent circuit model when the current is input or output for a time exceeding the preset time [see Fig. 7; ¶0065-0066 sensing period 3 (t2-t3) is analogous to the preset time in Yang when a pulse is being applied; ¶0071-0072 sensing period 4, (t4-t7) with the current rapidly decreasing at t4, exceeds the preset time since it occurs after the preset time and it may be further increased according to Oh].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang with the teachings of Oh, namely having the tuning parameter vary depending on a time required for the equivalent circuit model when the current is input or output for a time exceeding the preset time into order to calculate the variable capacitance.
Yang does not teach: A battery voltage prediction apparatus for modeling a battery voltage prediction model that includes an SOC derivation unit, a fixed parameter derivation unit, and a tuning parameter derivation unit. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a computer apparatus with modules/units to carry out the methods described above in order to perform the methods faster and more efficiently.
Regarding independent claim 13, claim 13 is analogous to claim 1 with the addition of the limitation: deriving an open-circuit voltage of the battery that is an output voltage at a time point at which a rest period in which no current is applied to the battery ends.
Yang teaches: deriving an open-circuit voltage of the battery that is an output voltage at a time point at which a rest period in which no current is applied to the battery ends [¶0031 after rest period, at t=0 the OCV is calculated; equation 12].
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Yang and Oh renders obvious the apparatus of claim 1, and Yang further teaches: the equivalent circuit model is a model for predicting the output voltage of the battery and configured to a voltage source representing an open-circuit voltage (OCV) of the battery [see ¶0025; Fig. 3], a variable resistor connected to the voltage source in series [see ¶0025; Fig. 3], and an RC branch of a variable resistor and a variable capacitor [see ¶0025 RC parameters are functions of SOC].
Yang does not teach: a fixed resistor connected to the voltage source in series.
Oh teaches: a fixed resistor connected to the voltage source in series [see ¶0036; Fig. 2 internal resistor (202) connected in series to the voltage source and the variable RC branch].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang with the teaching of Oh, namely a fixed resistor connected to the voltage source in series in order to limit the variables that may change during charging or discharging of the battery.
Regarding claims 3 and 17, the combination of Yang and Oh renders obvious the apparatus of claims 1 and 13, and Yang in view of Oh further teaches: the tuning parameter includes a first tuning parameter multiplied by a resistor of an RC branch [see ¶0031 variable capacitor multiplied by variable resistor] configuring the equivalent circuit model and a second tuning parameter [see ¶0031 time constant τ = R*C] representing a time constant of the RC branch varying over time when the charge/discharge pulse currents are applied for a time exceeding the preset time [see ¶0039 time constant (τ) values are varied (preset time (tpulse)) and see the discussion above relating to Oh and the time exceeding the preset time], and the output voltage of the battery at which the current is charged or discharged for a time exceeding the preset time is predicted by the equivalent circuit model to which the tuning parameter is applied [see ¶0040 equation 19 calculates voltage].
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yang and Oh renders obvious the apparatus of claim 1, and Yang further teaches: a section in which the current is input or output for a time exceeding the preset time ¶0039-0040 preset time could be increased and voltage value is calculated (equation 19)] means a section in which the SOC of the battery is tuned [see ¶0023 in response to measuring voltage or current, the battery model module outputs the SOC; ¶0037 updates the SOC based on the battery model parameters (tuning parameters – τ and variable C)].
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yang and Oh renders obvious the apparatus of claim 1, and Yang further teaches: deriving the fixed parameter [see ¶0031 resistor and capacitor values determined] in the section in which the current is input or output according to a constant period for the preset [see ¶0031 current is applied for duration tpulse].
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yang and Oh renders obvious the apparatus of claim 5, and Yang further teaches: the current that is input or output to the battery is a pulse current [see ¶0031 current pulse; HPPC] during a preset time [see ¶0031 tpulse].
Yang does not teach: a pulse current that is changed according to the constant period for the preset time.
Oh teaches: changing the amplitude value of the charge pulse current applied to the battery [see ¶0067].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang with the teachings of Oh, namely the current that is input or output to the battery is a pulse current that is changed according to the constant period for the preset time in order to control the charging between SOC endpoint values.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yang and Oh renders obvious the apparatus of claim 1, and Yang further teaches: one period in which a voltage of the battery is tested in a specific SOC of the battery is configured to include a current input/output section in which charge/discharge pulse currents are alternately applied for the preset time [see ¶0031 HPPC data over the full SOC range to obtain resistor and capacitor values; time constant is fixed over the time interval tpulse], a tuning section in which the SOC of the battery is tuned [see ¶0037 updates the SOC based on the battery model parameters (tuning parameters – τ and variable C)], and a rest period in which no current is applied [see ¶0031 large rest time prior to pulse].
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Yang and Oh renders obvious the apparatus of claim 7, and Yang further teaches: deriving the fixed parameter including a resistance value and a capacitance [see ¶0031 resistor and capacitor values calculated] configuring the equivalent circuit model in the current input/output section, deriving an open-circuit voltage (OCV) of the battery that is an output voltage at a time point at which the rest period ends [¶0031 after rest period, at t=0 the OCV is calculated; equation 12], deriving the tuning parameter in the tuning section [see ¶0039 varying the time constant τ].
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Yang and Oh renders obvious the apparatus of claim 13, and Yang further teaches: predicting the output voltage of the battery [see equation 19] in the specific SOC [see ¶0031 SOC range] of the battery when the current is charged or discharged for a time exceeding the preset time [see ¶0039 time constant varied (could be larger than preset time tpulse)] based on the fixed parameter [see ¶0039 resistor is not varied], the tuning parameter [see ¶0039 time constant varied], and the open-circuit voltage [see ¶0031 OCV used to calculate parameters] configuring the equivalent circuit model.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Yang and Oh renders obvious the apparatus of claim 13. As discussed above Yang teaches deriving of the tuning parameter according to a constant period.
Yang does not teach: deriving of the tuning parameter includes changing values of the charge/discharge pulse currents applied to the battery to different magnitudes according to a constant period.
Oh teaches: changing the amplitude value of the charge pulse current applied to the battery [see ¶0067].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang with the teachings of Oh, namely deriving of the tuning parameter includes changing values of the charge/discharge pulse currents applied to the battery to different magnitudes according to a constant period in order to optimize the battery voltage prediction under different operating conditions.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Yang and Oh renders obvious the apparatus of claim 15. As discussed above in claims 1 and 2, Yang teaches deriving tuning parameters from an equivalent circuit model that includes a fixed voltage and a variable resistor and a variable capacitor connected in parallel with each other [see ¶0025; Fig. 3] in which the charge/discharge pulse currents are applied for the preset time [see ¶0031 (tpulse)], and values of the variable resistor and the variable capacitor are fixed when the charge/discharge pulse currents are applied for the preset time [see ¶0031 resistances and time constants τ = R*C are constant over the pulse interval tpulse].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20160052418; hereinafter Yang) in view of Oh et al. (US 20130166235; hereinafter Oh), and further view of Kim et al. (US 11119157; hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Yang and Oh renders obvious the apparatus of claim 1. As discussed above, Yang teaches calculating the fixed parameter and the tuning parameter derived differently for each SOC of the battery.
Yang does not teach: a data storage unit configured to store the fixed parameter and the tuning parameter derived differently for each SOC of the battery.
Kim teaches: storing the estimated resistance and capacitance values in memory [see col. 9 lines 10-18].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Yang and Oh with the teachings of Kim, namely a data storage unit configured to store the fixed parameter and the tuning parameter derived differently for each SOC of the battery in order to store the values for constructing the model.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ahn (US 11269013) – calculates parameters in an RC branch in series with a resistor with different currents in order to estimate the SOC of the battery. This invention does not have the calculations with the tuning parameters when the battery is charged at long intervals and incorporating those values in the calculation of the terminal voltage.
Huang et al. (US 10634728) – detects SOC of battery using OCV and updating the resistance and capacitance values according to changing SOC of battery. This invention is more concerned with the number of discharge times and the temperature of the battery rather than discharging over a long period of time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON G MACGREGOR whose telephone number is (571)272-2217. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00pm CST.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/BRANDON GEORGE MACGREGOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857