DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13 are presented for examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings received on 15 February 2023 are objected to as follows:
Figure 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Specification page 7 third paragraph states “As shown in FIG. 2, the 1-branch equivalent circuit model may be a second-order Thevenin model.” A second order Thevenin model, by reference to the prior existing “Thevenin model” by name, corresponds with an admission that figure 2 is showing only that which is old.
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 first clause recites:
first and second branches comprising a voltage source connected in series, a series resistor, a first parallel resistor and a first capacitor connected in parallel, and a second parallel resistor and a second capacitor connected in parallel;
First, the language “first and second branches comprising” is unclear whether the description following “comprising” is in regard to the first branch, the second branch, or both. This is unclear antecedent basis.
Second, the phrases “in series” and “in parallel” are relational descriptors. However, the claim is grammatically unclear with what the respective connections are in relation to. The claim language “a voltage source connected in series” is unclear because the voltage source is connected in parallel with respect to what other circuit element? For example, consider figure 6 showing voltage sources (Vs1) and (Vs2). Vs1 is connected in parallel with respect to Vs1 but connected in series with respect to Rs1. Accordingly, merely saying Vs1 is connected in series is not sufficient to describe the connection relationship without also indicating another circuit element for the respective series/parallel relationship articulated by the claim.
For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner assumes the circuit diagram of Figure 6 is the intended representation and accordingly suggests amending claim 1 to recite as follows:
first and second branches connected in parallel, wherein each branch comprise, connected in series: a voltage source series-resistor, a first parallel-resistor and a first capacitor connected in parallel, and a second parallel-resistor and a second capacitor connected in parallel;
Here, the added hyphenation is to avoid confusing the named element, e.g. “series resistor,” with description of said resistor, i.e. that said resistor is connected in series with the other elements. For consistency, respective subsequent recitations of these elements would also require respective hyphenation. Accordingly, respective subsequent claim 1 clauses and dependent claims would recite “the first parallel-resistor” and “the second parallel-resistor” respectively.
Dependent claims 2-13 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Claim 5 recites “G1[k] and H2[k] are respectively the G parameter value and the H parameter value of the first branch, and G1[k] and H2[k] are respectively the G parameter value and the H parameter value of the second branch.” This twice defines symbols G1[k] and H2[k] while leaving symbols G2[k] and H1[k] undefined. Examiner suggests amending claim 5 to recite “G1[k] and H1[k] are respectively the G parameter value and the H parameter value of the first branch, and G2[k] and H2[k] are respectively the G parameter value and the H parameter value of the second branch.”
Dependent claim 7 recites a substantially similar grammatical structure as claim 1 clause 1 and is rejected for substantially similar reasons. Examiner suggests correspond amendments similar to suggested for claim 1 clause 1 above.
Dependent claim 7 recites “the parameter values.” There is implicit but ambiguous antecedent basis for the parameters as both branches of the two-branch ECM of claim 1 and the one-branch ECM of claim 7 recite implicit parameters. Examiner suggests amending claim 7 to recite “the 1-branch equivalent circuit model parameters comprise ….”
Claim 8 recites “the open circuit voltage value, the series resistance value, the first parallel resistance value, the second parallel resistance value, the first capacitance.” These limitations have ambiguous antecedent basis. Which respective branch or model are each associated with? Examiner suggests amending to clarify “the open circuit voltage value of each branch, the series resistance value of each branch, the first parallel resistance value of each branch, the second parallel resistance value of each branch, the first capacitance of each branch, and….”
Claim 8 recites “wherein a capacity … are set to α : 1.” The symbol ‘α’ is not defined within claim 8 or any parent claim. Examiner suggests defining alpha in claim 1 as the capacity ratio. Compare with Spec. figure 5 definition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 – Software per se
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter in the form of software per se. See MPEP §2106.03.
Claim 13 is directed to “A computer program.” Claim 13, taken as a whole, fails to include a particular machine (hardware component) or otherwise limit the claims to one of the four categories of statutory subject matter. Each component can reasonably be interpreted as software. Software, by itself, is nonstatutory subject matter. See MPEP §2106.03(I). Software is not one of the four categories of statutory subject matter. Accordingly, when all of the components are interpreted as software, claim 13 is directed to software per se.
Examiner recommends amending claim 13 as follows:
13. A non-transitory medium storing a computer program
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. §101and under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
US patent 8,742,727 B2 Joe, et al. [herein “Joe”] estimating voltage of a secondary battery. Joe figure 6 right-side shows a two branch ECM corresponding with instant application figure 6. Joe column 11 lines 28-31 teaches “a mixture ratio of cathode materials included in the blended cathode material may be adjusted in various ways according to the purpose of the secondary battery.” The mixture ratio is not a capacity ratio as claimed. Accordingly, Joe fails to teach a corresponding “setting a capacity ratio of the first and second branches.”
US patent 8,548,761 B2 Lim, et al. [herein “Lim”] figure 6 shows a Thevenin equivalent circuit model (ECM). Lim abstract and title teaches measuring State of Charge (SOC) of a battery management system. Lim column 7 lines 35 et seq. teaches an equivalent circuit model. Lim fails to teach a two branch ECM and thus fails to teach a corresponding “setting a capacity ratio of the first and second branches.”
US patent 10,534,038 B2 Tanaka, et al. [herein “Tanaka”] column 6 lines 1-3 teach “establishing an equivalent circuit simulating inside of the battery for the complex impedance and by performing fitting of impedance information using this circuit.” Tanaka column 17 lines 26-38 teaches:
FIG. 5 illustrates a graph when the differential capacity of a lithium-ion secondary battery in discharging is measured. The graph represents a relation between the depth of discharge (DOD) and the differential capacity (ratio I/Δ (delta) V of the amount of change in electric charge Q (illustrated as current I in the graph) to the amount of change in voltage Δ(delta) V; in units of farad (F)). However, a differential capacity characteristic typically changes with, for example, degradation of the battery, and thus differential capacity characteristic for different numbers of charging and discharging cycles (0 cycles, 100 cycles, and 500 cycles) are plotted as a graph, respectively.
The differential capacity ratio y-axis shows respective capacity ratios. But Tanaka fails to teach a first and second branch of an equivalent circuit model. Thus, Tanaka fails to teach a corresponding “setting a capacity ratio of the first and second branches.”
US patent 10,175,302 B2 Zhong, et al. [herein “Zhong”] column 8 line 48 et seq. teaches technology background regarding the Ampere hour method. Zhong column 9 lines 10-22 teach equations relating a capacity Q value at two different fixed currents. Zhong column 9 lines 17 and 18 teach a derivation involving a ratio of these two capacity values. Zhong column 9 line 21 teaches equation (2-4) which corresponds with Specification page 14 equation 3. However, these different capacity values in Zhong correspond with different currents and not different branches. Zhong fails to teach an equivalent circuit model comprising a first and second branch. Accordingly, Zhong fails to teach a corresponding “setting a capacity ratio of the first and second branches.”
US 2003/0236656 A1 Dougherty [herein “Dougherty”] paragraph 38 teaches:
The measurement of the ability of a battery to deliver current at different rates is quantified in Peukert's slope. An example of Peukert's slope is shown in FIG. 5. The current delivery of a selected battery may be modeled by determining a known point (e.g., the nominal capacity) and the slope (from Peukert's equation) according to a preferred embodiment. The known point and the slope define the current characteristics for the battery, and hence for the model.
The nominal capacity corresponds with a capacity value. Dougherty figure 7B and paragraph 47 teach an “electrochemical simulation circuit 113 of FIG. 7B includes an RC network modeling the impedance of the battery.” But Dougherty fails to teach determining a capacity ratio between the respective parallel branches of figure 7B. Accordingly, Dougherty fails to teach a corresponding “setting a capacity ratio of the first and second branches.”
Hossain, M., et al. “A Parameter Extraction Method for the Thevenin Equivalent Circuit Model of Li-ion Batteries” IEEE Industry Application Society Annual Meeting (2019) [herein “Hossain”] figure 1 teaches an nth order Thevenin equivalent electrical model of a Li-ion battery. Hossain page 3 figure 3 shows splitting the nth order ECM model into parallel 1st order LTI system. The different parallel branches of the LTI system correspond with at least a respective first and second branch for a circuit model. But Hossain fails to teach a corresponding “setting a capacity ratio of the first and second branches.”
None of the references taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record disclose “selecting an equivalent circuit model of a battery comprising first and second branches” and “setting a capacity ratio of the first and second branches” in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0284841 A1 MOON; SANGBIN et al.
teaches
Electronic Device for Determining State Of Charge Of Battery Device
US 2022/0374568 A1 Baumann; Michael
Simulation of a Battery
US 10,664,562 B2 Balasingam; Balakumar et al.
Battery state of charge tracking, equivalent circuit selection and benchmarking
US 11,119,157 B2 Kim; Young-Jin et al.
Estimating parameters of battery equivalent circuit model
US 8,447,544 B2 Hsu; Yueh-Teng et al.
Detecting state of charge of battery
US 6,362,598 B1 Laig-Horstebrock; Helmut et al.
Determining the state of charge and loading capacity of an electrical storage battery
Tian, N., et al. “On Parameter Identification of an Equivalent Circuit Model for Lithium-Ion Batteries” IEEE Conf. on Control Tech. & Applications, pp. 187-192 (2017)
“This paper focuses on nonlinear parameter identification of an equivalent circuit model for lithium-ion batteries (LiBs). A Thevenin’s model is considered, which consists of a voltage source based on the battery’s open-circuit voltage (OCV), an Ohmic resistor and two RC circuits connected in series.
Akeyo, O., et al. “Measurement and Estimation of the Equivalent Circuit Parameters for Multi-MW Battery Systems” IEEE Energy Conversion Congres & Expo., pp. 2499-2504 (2019)
A battery test procedure using an equivalent circuit with multiple RC cells connected in series.
Kharisma, M., et al. “Modeling and Simulation of Lithium-Ion Battery Pack Using Modified Battery Cell Model” 6th Int’l Conf. on Electric Vehicular Tech., pp. 25-30 (2019)
“The equivalent circuit was built from an open circuit voltage, two resistor capacitor parallel networks, and a series internal resistance. In several application, some battery cells are connected in series parallel configuration to produce a battery pack with specified voltage and capacity.”
Plakhtii, O., et al. “The Analysis of Mathematical Models of Charge-Discharge Characteristics in Lithium-Ion Batteries” IEEE 40th Int’l Conf. on Electronics & Nanotechnology, pp. 635-640 (2020)
Technology background.
Figs. 5-6 show first and second order Thevenin models.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay B Hann whose telephone number is (571)272-3330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-7pm EDT.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. 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.
/Jay Hann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186 22 June 2026
Prosecution Insights