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 .
Response to Amendment/Argument
Applicant amendment and argument filed on 06/24/2026 is considered.
Claims 1, 5, 10, 11, 12-14 are amended. Claims 2-4, 6-9 are cancelled. Claims 12-14 are new.
Claim rejection under 112 (b): Applicant clarified the rejected term “resting state”, therefore the rejection for that particular issue is withdrawn.
Some new and unclear limitations are noted. They are addressed below in the claim rejection sections.
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C 101: Applicant argument is not persuasive as discussed below.
Applicant argues “Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is allegedly directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Applicant submits that the amended independent claims are patent eligible for the
following reasons.
Step 2B
The amended independent claims also recite significantly more than any alleged judicial
exception. The claims require a specific ordered combination: acquiring voltage/current/SOC
data at plural time points, identifying a resting-state period based on current, extracting SOC-
voltage sample data from that period, generating approximate SOC-OCV characteristics without
directly measuring OCVs, detecting a nonconforming battery type based on a deviation degree
from representative SOC-OCV characteristics, and notifying the user of the detected product.
This is not a generic instruction to apply mathematical processing on a computer.
In particular, the amended independent claims improve the accuracy of detecting a
product using a battery type that is different from a battery type in conformity with
specifications of the product type. As described in the Specification, voltage measured while
current flows through a battery is not necessarily suitable for accurately estimating SOC-OCV
characteristics. The Specification therefore explains that sample data may be extracted from a
period in which a current value is equal to or less than a set value for a set time or longer, such
that the period is treated as a period in which the battery is regarded to be in a resting state. See,
e.g., Specification of the corresponding PGPub, para. [0062]. The Specification further explains that an approximate curve is generated based on the extracted sample data to estimate SOC-OCV
characteristics. See, e.g., Specification, para. [0063].
The Specification also expressly links this processing to improved accuracy. For
example, the Specification explains that the SOC-OCV characteristics can be estimated more
accurately when a use period of the battery module is short, and that the estimation accuracy of
the SOC-OCV characteristics becomes higher because the SOC-OCV characteristics are
estimated using sample data obtained during a period in which the battery is regarded as being in
a resting state. See, e.g., Specification, paras. [0065]-[0066]. The Specification further explains
that a detector calculates a distance between a representative value, such as a median, of the
plurality of SOC-OCV characteristics and each SOC-OCV characteristic, and detects an outlier
based on the calculated distance. See, e.g., Specification, paras. [0072]-[0073].
Thus, the claimed ordered combination is not merely data collection, mathematical
processing, and presentation of a result. The claimed system selects more suitable SOC-voltage
sample data by identifying a resting-state period based on current, uses the selected data to
generate approximate SOC-OCV characteristics without directly measuring OCVs, and then uses
the resulting SOC-OCV characteristics to more accurately detect a product using a
nonconforming battery type. This ordered combination provides a concrete technological
improvement in battery inspection.
The Office Action has not shown that this ordered combination, as now claimed, was
well-understood, routine, and conventional. Even if individual components such as processors,
memories, displays, and network communication were known, the amended independent claims
use those components in a specific technological manner to solve a battery-inspection problem.
Therefore, the amended independent claims amount to significantly more than any alleged
judicial exception.
Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are respectfully
requested.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments. The amended independent claims’ limitations further present abstract ideas that are not patent eligible.
MPEP 2106.05 I also suggests “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” and an inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Therefore, the claims do not provide inventive concepts.
Similarly, Applicant’s argument regarding improvement in the technology is still arguable. The prior art of records applied to the limitations of the independent claims address the limitations, please see claim rejections. The amended claim limitations are already known to the person skilled in the art and therefore are insignificant.
Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
Also, there considering the independent claim as a whole there is no meaningful additional element to provide improvement in the field of art.
MPEP 2106.05 (a) also supports “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
Therefore, applicants are suggested to further amend the independent claims to include a meaningful additional element that reflects improvement in the applicant’s intended field. Then the rejection will be withdrawn.
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C 103: A new prior art is found to teach the new limitation. Please refer to the claim rejections below.
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.
Claim 1, 5, 10, 11-14 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.
In claims 1, 10 and 11, the term “substantially” and
limitation “estimating SOC-open circuit voltage (OCV) characteristics of the plurality of batteries by generating an approximate curve based on the extracted sample data in a state where actual SOC- OCV characteristics of the plurality of batteries have not been acquired, without directly measuring OCVs of the plurality of batteries, detecting, from among the products,” is considered to be new matter because examiner does not find the support in the specification as filed.
Examiner respectfully suggests providing same terms and words used in the specification for the amended limitations for the purpose of clarity. Examiner also respectfully suggests to provide paragraph numbers to relate the amended limitations.
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.
Claim 1, 5, 10, 11-14 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.
Regarding claim 1, 10 and 11 recite
“determining that substantially no current flows through the battery”
“continuously for a predetermined time or longer”
“ without directly measuring OCVs of the plurality of batteries,”
“the product type based on a deviation degree of the SOC-OCV”
The highlight terms are unclear.
Examiner respectfully suggests the applicant amend the claim limitations to clarify the unclear terms.
Dependent claims inherit the deficiency of the respective independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1, 5, 10, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, claim 1 recites:
An arithmetic system comprising:
one or more memories;
a display; and
at least one processor each coupled to at least one of the one or more memories and configured to perform operations comprising:
acquiring operation data items from products each including a battery,
via a network, wherein the operation data items are acquired while each of the products is being operated by the battery mounted on each of the products, the operation data items at least including voltages, currents and states of charge (SOCs) at a plurality of time points used in a corresponding one of the products,
extracting, as sample data, a set of a SOC and a voltage in a period in which the battery is regarded to be in a resting state, the period being specified based on the currents as a period in which a current value indicated by the currents is equal to or less than a predetermined current value set for determining that substantially no current flows through the battery continuously for a predetermined time or longer, from sets of the SOCs and the voltages at the plurality of time points included in the operation data items,
estimating SOC-open circuit voltage (OCV) characteristics of the plurality of batteries by generating an approximate curve based on the extracted sample data in a state where actual SOC- OCV characteristics of the plurality of batteries have not been acquired, without directly measuring OCVs of the plurality of batteries,
detecting, from among the products, a product using a battery type that is different from a battery type in conformity with specifications of the product type based on a deviation degree of the SOC-OCV characteristics of the battery used in the product from a representative value of the SOC-OCV characteristics of the plurality of batteries, and
notifying, via the display, a user of the arithmetic system that the product using the battery type that is different from the battery type in conformity with specifications of the product type has been detected, in response to detecting that the product using the battery type that is different from the battery type in conformity with specifications of the product type.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above.
Under the step 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is determined whether the claims are drawn to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in the statutory category of (machine).
Under the step 2A, prong one, it is considered whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that cover mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental process – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, a step of “extracting, as sample data, a set of a SOC and a voltage in a period in which the battery is regarded to be in a resting state, the period being specified based on the currents as a period in which a current value indicated by the currents is equal to or less than a predetermined current value set for determining that substantially no current flows through the battery continuously for a predetermined time or longer, from sets of the SOCs and the voltages at the plurality of time points included in the operation data items (is considered as mental step- evaluation/observation/judgment),
estimating SOC-open circuit voltage (OCV) characteristics of the plurality of batteries by generating an approximate curve based on the extracted sample data in a state where actual SOC- OCV characteristics of the plurality of batteries have not been acquired, without directly measuring OCVs of the plurality of batteries,” (is considered to be a mathematical step)
detecting, from among the products, a product using a battery type that is different from a battery type in conformity with specifications of the product type based on a deviation degree of the SOC-OCV characteristics of the battery used in the product from a representative value of the SOC-OCV characteristics of the plurality of batteries, (is considered to be a mathematical step) and
notifying, via the display, a user of the arithmetic system that the product using the battery type that is different from the battery type in conformity with specifications of the product type has been detected (considered to be a mental step-evaluation/judgement/observation), in response to detecting that the product using the battery type that is different from the battery type in conformity with specifications of the product type (is considered to be a mathematical step).
These mental and mathematical steps represent that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of the independent claims 10 and 11.
Next, under the step 2A, prong two, it is considered whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, it is evaluated whether the claim recites meaningful additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
In claim 1, the additional elements/steps are: memory, display, processor. These additional elements/steps (hardware) are recited in generality and represent extra solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional element in the preamble of “An Arithmetic system” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements/steps “acquiring operational data…”, “and “notifying, via the display, a user of the arithmetic system that the product using the battery type” are also recited in generality which seem to merely be gathering data and displaying result, not really performing any kind of inventive step to provide any meaningful additional element. Also, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. All uses of judicial exception require it.
In claim 10, the additional elements/steps recite similar additional elements/steps as of claim 1. The additional element in the preamble of “A battery inspection method…” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements/steps “acquiring operation data…”, and “outputting that the product using the battery type” are also recited in generality which seem to merely be gathering data, displaying result and not really performing any kind of inventive step to provide any meaningful additional element. Also, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. All uses of judicial exception require it.
In claim 11, the additional elements/steps recite the similar additional elements/steps as of claim 1. The additional element in the preamble of “A battery inspection method…” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements/steps “processing of acquiring operation data…”, and “outputting that the product using the battery type” are also recited in generality which seem to merely be gathering data, displaying result and not really performing any kind of inventive step to provide any meaningful additional element. Also, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. All uses of judicial exception require it.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the step 2B.
However, as evidenced by the prior art of record, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (step 2B analysis).
Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, the claims 5, 12-14 comprise the analogous subject matter and also comprise additional features/steps which are the part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claim 1, 10 and 11 (additionally comprising mathematical relationship/mental process steps) and, therefore, the dependent claims are not eligible without additional elements that reflect a practical application and qualified for significantly more for substantially similar reason as discussed with regards to claim 1, 10 and 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 10 and 11is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Mitsui et al (US 20200209319 A1) herein after “Mitsui” in view of Hara (US 20120109409 A1), Yu et al (US 20150232083 A1) herein after “Yu” and Fabregas et al (US20190131809 A1) herein after Fabregas.
Regarding Claim 1, Mitsui teaches an arithmetic system comprising:
one or more memories (a memory storage device 20)
a display (display device 40); and
at least one processor each coupled to at least one of the one or more memories (para [0079] The battery performance evaluating process of the present embodiment is executed by a control unit (for example, a controller such as CPU) included in the battery performance evaluation device 30.) and configured to perform operations comprising:
Mitsui et al detecting, from among the products, a product using a battery type that is different from a battery type in conformity with specifications of the product type based on a deviation degree of the SOC-OCV characteristics of the battery used in the product from a representative value of the SOC-OCV characteristics of the plurality of batteries (para [0003] The degree of deterioration in secondary batteries is different from one battery to another. For this reason, it is desirable that the performance of each of the collected secondary batteries should be evaluated, and according to the results of the evaluation, the policy on how to reuse each of the secondary batteries should be determined.
Para [0006] In one embodiment, a battery performance evaluation device disclosed herein is configured or programmed to execute: an alternating current impedance acquiring process of acquiring a measurement result of an alternating current impedance of a target secondary battery… a state of charge (SOC) estimating process of estimating an SOC of the target secondary battery to be 0%, if an imaginary component of the measurement result of the acquired alternating current impedance at a predetermined frequency within the specific frequency range is greater than or equal to a first threshold value and the acquired OCV value is less than or equal to a second threshold value. ).
Herein examiner views a target secondary battery (i.e., battery type) is distinguished from the batteries (i.e., from a battery type in conformity with specifications of the product type ) based on the difference value of imaginary component of the alternating current impedance at a predetermined frequency within the specific frequency range is greater than or equal to a first threshold value and the acquired OCV value is less than or equal to a second threshold value (i.e., deviation degree from a representative value of SOC-OCV relationship or characteristics).
However, Mitsui does not teach acquiring operation data items from products each including a battery, via a network, wherein the operation data items are acquired while each of the products is being operated by the battery mounted on each of the products, the operation data items at least including voltages, currents and states of charge (SOCs) at a plurality of time points used in a corresponding one of the products,
extracting, as sample data, a set of a SOC and a voltage in a period in which the battery is regarded to be in a resting state, the period being specified based on the currents as a period in which a current value indicated by the currents is equal to or less than a predetermined current value set for determining that substantially no current flows through the battery continuously for a predetermined time or longer, from sets of the SOCs and the voltages at the plurality of time points included in the operation data items,
estimating SOC-open circuit voltage (OCV) characteristics of the plurality of batteries by generating an approximate curve based on the extracted sample data in a state where actual SOC- OCV characteristics of the plurality of batteries have not been acquired, without directly measuring OCVs of the plurality of batteries,
notifying, via the display, to a user of the arithmetic system that the product using the battery type that is different from the battery type in conformity with specifications of the product type, in response to detecting that the product using the battery type that is different from the battery type in conformity with specifications of the product type.
Hara teaches acquiring operation data items from products each including a battery, via a network, wherein the operation data items are acquired while each of the products is being operated by the battery mounted on each of the products, the operation data items at least including voltages, currents and states of charge (SOCs) at a plurality of time points used in a corresponding one of the products,
(para [0040] a vehicle 10 is assumed to be a vehicle with a battery capable of being charged and discharged. The vehicle 10 is driven by using power from the battery installed on the vehicle 10.
Para [0048] The diagnostic unit 204 may alternatively acquire diagnostic data through a controller area network (CAN). Examples of the diagnostic data include the remaining capacity of the battery 280, a travel distance, a vehicle type information, and a vehicle identification number.
para [0054] The data acquired by the communication part 108 including the current location and the destination of the vehicle 10, a relay point, the remaining capacity of the battery 280, and the travel distance, route, power consumption rate, and the amount of available power to be supplied or the amount of power shortage of the vehicle 10 is supplied to the information acquiring part 100. This allows the information acquiring part 100 to acquire the current location and the destination of a vehicle 10, and the remaining capacity of the battery 280 of the vehicle 10 from each of the plurality of vehicles 10.
[0085] The meeting point specifying part 140 divides a period from a current time to the battery exhaustion of the vehicle 10a into segments of a certain duration, and forecasts the location of the vehicle 10a at each time point.),
From above paragraphs and In Fig. 1 examiner views vehicles 10a-d. communication part 108 acquires information of the vehicles or products operation data items (i.e., charge capacity, power available to supply) at multiple times from each including a battery, each of the products being assumed to equip with a specific type of battery (i.e., is able to charge/discharge) according to a product specification (i.e., vehicle type and identification), via a network (i.e., network 30, 40, see fig. 2), wherein the operation data items are acquired while each of the products is being operated by the battery mounted on each of the products (i.e., The vehicle 10 is driven by using power from the battery installed on the vehicle 10.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Hara into Mitsui for the purpose of acquiring operation data items from vehicles each including a battery, each of the vehicle being assumed to equip with a specific type of battery according to a vehicle specification, via a network, so that the vehicle with battery information can be communicated to the intended target.
The combination of Mitsui and Hara does not teach extracting, as sample data, a set of a SOC and a voltage in a period in which the battery is regarded to be in a resting state, the period being specified based on the currents as a period in which a current value indicated by the currents is equal to or less than a predetermined current value set for determining that substantially no current flows through the battery continuously for a predetermined time or longer, from sets of the SOCs and the voltages at the plurality of time points included in the operation data items,
estimating SOC-open circuit voltage (OCV) characteristics of the plurality of batteries by generating an approximate curve based on the extracted sample data in a state where actual SOC- OCV characteristics of the plurality of batteries have not been acquired, without directly measuring OCVs of the plurality of batteries,
notifying, via the display, to a user of the arithmetic system that the product using the battery type that is different from the battery type in conformity with specifications of the product type, in response to detecting that the product using the battery type that is different from the battery type in conformity with specifications of the product type.
Yu teaches extracting, as sample data, a set of a SOC and a voltage in a period in which the battery is regarded to be in a resting state, the period being specified based on the currents as a period in which a current value indicated by the currents is equal to or less than a predetermined current value set for determining that substantially no current flows through the battery continuously for a predetermined time or longer (para [0028] When no current 114 is flowing for a sufficiently long period of time, the terminal voltage 108 may be the same as the open-circuit voltage 100, ([0029] FIG. 4 shows a typical curve 124 showing the open-circuit voltage V.sub.oc as a function of SOC. ), from sets of the SOCs and the voltages at the plurality of time points included in the operation data items (para [0029] The relationship between SOC and V.sub.oc may be determined from an analysis of battery properties or from testing the battery cells),
Here examiner views the open circuit voltage and soc are determined when there is no current (zero current, less than any predetermined value) flowing through a battery in resting state for a long time period
Yu teaches, estimating SOC-open circuit voltage (OCV) characteristics of the plurality of batteries by generating an approximate curve based on the extracted sample data in a state where actual SOC- OCV characteristics of the plurality of batteries have not been acquired, without directly measuring OCVs of the plurality of batteries (para [0024] In addition to the pack level characteristics, there may be battery cell 72 level characteristics that are measured and monitored. For example, the terminal voltage, current, and temperature of each cell 72 may be measured. A system may use a sensor module 74 to measure the battery cell 72 characteristics. Depending on the capabilities, the sensor module 74 may measure the characteristics of one or multiple of the battery cells 72. The battery pack 24 may utilize up to N.sub.c sensor modules 74 to measure the characteristics of all the battery cells 72.
para [0028] Because of the battery cell impedance, the terminal voltage, V.sub.t 108, may not be the same as the open-circuit voltage, V.sub.oc 100. The open-circuit voltage, V.sub.oc 100, may not be readily measurable as only the terminal voltage 108 of the battery cell is accessible for measurement. When no current 114 is flowing for a sufficiently long period of time, the terminal voltage 108 may be the same as the open-circuit voltage 100.
[0029] For a typical Lithium-Ion battery cell, there is a relationship between SOC and the open-circuit voltage (V.sub.oc) such that V.sub.oc=f(SOC). FIG. 4 shows a typical curve 124 showing the open-circuit voltage V.sub.oc as a function of SOC. The relationship between SOC and V.sub.oc may be determined from an analysis of battery properties or from testing the battery cells.).
Examiner views the soc-ocv relations is created or determined using a cells/batteries properties like voltage, current, resistance (i.e., sample data). OCV is calculated using the terminal voltage (i.e., not directly measuring the OCV of batteries).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Yu into Mitsui for the purpose of extracting operational data from a battery of a vehicle at resting time so that the battery inspection can be performed with calculated SOC and OCV relationships.
The combination of Mitsui, Hara and Yu does not teach notifying, via the display, to a user of the arithmetic system that the product using the battery type that is different from the battery type in conformity with specifications of the product type, in response to detecting that the product using the battery type that is different from the battery type in conformity with specifications of the product type.
The combination of Mitsui, Hara, and Yu does not teach notifying, via the display, to a user of the arithmetic system that the product using the battery type that is different from the battery type in conformity with specifications of the product type, in response to detecting that the product using the battery type that is different from the battery type in conformity with specifications of the product type.
Fabregas teaches notifying, via the display, to a user of the arithmetic system that the product using the battery type that is different from the battery type in conformity with specifications of the product type has been detected, in response to detecting that the product using the battery type that is different from the battery type in conformity with specifications of the product type
[067] In addition, the controller 12 may generate an alert signal indicating that the kind of the battery 28 is unspecified. The alert signal may indicate that the battery 28 needs maintenance or service. Also, the alert signal may indicate that the system 10 needs to be updated with new kinds of batteries and/or new associated battery parameters.
Examiner views for notifying user with alert signal (i.e., under BRI with computer screen, monitor display, LED, LCD, dashboard), to a user of the arithmetic system (i.e. vehicle controller) that the product/vehicle is using the battery type that is different from the battery type in conformity with specifications of the vehicle type
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Fabregas into Mitsui for the purpose of notifying, to a user of the arithmetic system (i.e. vehicle controller) that the product/vehicle is using the battery type that is different from the battery type in conformity with specifications of the vehicle type or model so that the vehicle user may take appropriate action related to the battery of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Mitsui, Hara, Yu and Fabregas teaches the arithmetic system according to Claim 1, Mitsui teaches wherein the operations further comprise detecting, from among the products, the product using a battery of a battery type that is different from a battery type in conformity with specifications of the product type, using data in a predetermined state of charge range in the SOC-OCV characteristics of the plurality of batteries (para [0007] The inventors of the present application have discovered that at least one of the value of the imaginary component of the alternating current impedance at a predetermined frequency and the value of the OCV is likely to be different between a secondary battery having an SOC of 0% and a secondary battery having an SOC of greater than 0%. More specifically, the inventors have found from experimental results that, unlike the secondary battery having an SOC of greater than 0%, the secondary battery having an SOC of 0% is likely to show an imaginary component of the alternating current impedance at the predetermined frequency that is greater than or equal to the first threshold value and an OCV value that is less than or equal to the second threshold value.).
Herein examiner views a product (i.e., a vehicle) using a battery of a battery type is distinguished that is different from a battery type in conformity with specifications of the product type, using data in a predetermined state of charge range (i.e., having an SOC of 0%) in state of charge-open circuit voltage characteristics of the plurality of batteries.
Claim 10 and 11 is rejected as claim 1 having the same claim limitations.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mitsui, Hara, Yu and Fabregas in view of Chou et al US 20050140333 A1 herein after “Chou”.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Mitsui, Hara, Takegami, Yu and Fabregas teach the arithmetic system according to claim 1, the combination does not teach wherein the predetermined current value is less than or equal to lA.
Chou teaches wherein the predetermined current value is less than or equal to lA (para [0044] When the charge current is less than a first preset current 1A, the charge voltage is increased from 29.6V to 29.8V as shown in region D1 for increasing charging speed).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Chou into Mitsui for the purpose of using a predetermined current value less than 1A so that the battery charging and discharging property can be studied with accuracy.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected as claim 12 having same claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Murphy et al. (US 20210249702 A1) discusses a battery testing system or method.
Lim et al. (US 20070145948 A1) discusses a battery management system using SOC and OCV.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARAD TIMILSINA whose telephone number is (571)272-7104. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/SHARAD TIMILSINA/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights