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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 & 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, & 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (USPGPN 2008/0265841), in view of Shin et al. (USPGPN 2020/0191876 - filed Apr. 17, 2018), Kondo (USPGPN 2021/0080508 – filed Oct. 31, 2019), and Ikeda et al. (WIPO Publication WO 2019/240225 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches a charging/discharging test system, comprising:
A controller configured to output a first control signal commanding to start a charging/discharging test for a first battery provided as a first test target to a charging/discharging test device (¶0038: charge/discharge period of a lithium rechargeable battery, indicates the presence of a controller sending a control signal),
wherein the first control signal causes the charging/discharging test device to repeatedly perform a first charge/discharge cycle (Fig.2, cycle count indicates the process is repeatedly performed),
wherein the first charge/discharge cycle is comprised of a first constant current charging until a first end-of-charge voltage is reached, a first rest period, a first constant current discharging until a first end-of-discharge voltage is reached and a second rest period in a sequential order (Fig.1, CC period until approx. 50 minutes until 4.2V is reached, followed by a rest period of 10 minutes, then a 60 minute discharge period until 3.0V is reached, followed by a 10 minute rest period), at a first temperature condition (¶0056: under normal temperature conditions, 25°C), and
wherein the controller, for each time the first charge/discharge cycle is performed on the first battery, is configured to:
determine the cumulative capacity of the first battery (Fig.3, discharge capacity), and
add the cumulative capacity to a first test dataset (Fig.3) to a first test dataset associated with the first charge/discharge cycle.
Kim fails to explicitly teach repeatedly performing a first charge/discharge cycle until a cumulative capacity of the first battery by the first charge/discharge cycle reaches a reference capacity,
the controller is configured to: determine a voltage drop of the first battery over the first rest period, and add the voltage drop of the first battery to a first test dataset associated with the first charge/discharge cycle, wherein the controller is further configured to determine, when the charging/discharging test for the first battery is completed, a first test curve indicating a correlation between the cumulative capacity and the voltage drop of the first battery based on the first test dataset.
However, Shin teaches determining a voltage drop of a first battery over a rest period and adding it to a first test dataset (Fig.4C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Kim with Shin to include determining a voltage drop of a first battery over a rest period and adding it to a first dataset. Doing so allows for an estimated state of health based on a relaxation voltages, as evidenced by Shin (Abstract: relaxation voltages of a device battery fingerprint its SoH).
Moreover, Ikeda teaches a controller determining a first test curve indicating a correlation between a cycle count of a completed battery charging/discharging test and the voltage drop during a rest period (Fig.9; Pgs 11-12, Final paragraph-First paragraph: Delta OCV when resting, Delta OCV decreases as cycle count increases).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Kim with Ikeda to include determining a first test curve showing the correlation between test cycle count and voltage drop. Doing so allows for an estimation as to whether or not a battery is in a deteriorated state, as taught by Ikeda (Pg 12, Para. 2).
Kim, in view of Shin and Ikeda, discloses the claimed invention except that the charge/discharge cycle is repeatedly performed until the cycle count reaches a reference count instead of being repeatedly performed until the cumulative capacity reaches a reference capacity. Kondo teaches that a cycle count can be equivalent to a cumulative capacity (¶0020: cycle count number is computed from a measurement of an amount of charge/discharge of the battery, total amount of current supplied to the battery during charging and total amount of current leaving the battery during discharging). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Kim, in view of Shin and Ikeda, to use a cumulative capacity to determine the duration of the repeatedly performed charge/discharge cycle instead of a cycle count. Doing so allows for test data to be determined based on a controlled capacity variable to assist in providing an accurate estimate of a run-time of the battery.
Regarding Claims 2, 4, & 6, the limitations recited appear to be significant repetitions of the limitations recited in claim 1, except that there are second, third, and fourth batteries, respectively, as test targets which the controller tests with individual control signals controlling individual charge/discharge cycles.
Kim further teaches additional batteries are tested (Fig.3, has a plurality of graph lines indicating multiple battery tests under the same conditions).
Regarding Claim 8, Kim further teaches an information input/output device configured to output graphical information associated with the first test dataset (Fig.3, for graphs to be provided an input/output device is required to output graphical information associated with the measured data).
Regarding Claim 9, Kim further teaches wherein the charging/discharging device includes at least one charging/discharging module, and
each charging/discharging module includes:
a charger/discharger configured to control a charge current and a discharge current for the first test target (Fig.1, setting a charge current of 1.0C and discharge current of 1.0C indicates a charger/discharger);
a temperature regulation circuit configured to control an ambient temperature of the first test target (Fig.1, at 25°C indicates the presence of a temperature control circuit); and
a sensing circuit configured to measure a voltage and current of the first test target (Fig.1, voltage and current is measured indicating a sensing circuit).
Regarding Claim 10, Kim teaches a charging/discharging test method, comprising:
Outputting, by a controller, a first control signal commanding to start a charging/discharging test for a first battery provided to test a charging/discharging test device (¶0038: charge/discharge period of a lithium rechargeable battery, indicates the presence of a controller sending a control signal); and
acquiring, by the controller, data for a first test dataset each time a first charge/discharge cycle is performed (Fig.3), wherein the first charge/discharge cycle is comprised of a first constant current charging until a first end-of-charge voltage is reached, a first rest period, a first constant current discharging until a first end-of-discharge voltage is reached and a second rest period in a sequential order (Fig.1, CC period until approx. 50 minutes until 4.2V is reached, followed by a rest period of 10 minutes, then a 60 minute discharge period until 3.0V is reached, followed by a 10 minute rest period), at a first temperature condition (¶0056: under normal temperature conditions, 25°C)
wherein the acquiring the data for the first test dataset associated with the first charge/discharge cycle includes:
determining the cumulative capacity of the first battery (Fig.3, discharge capacity), and
adding the cumulative capacity to the first test dataset (Fig.3) associated with the first charge/discharge cycle.
Kim fails to explicitly teach repeatedly performing a first charge/discharge cycle until a cumulative capacity of the first battery by the first charge/discharge cycle reaches a reference capacity,
and wherein the data for the first test dataset includes determining a voltage drop of the first battery over the first rest period, and adding the voltage drop of the first battery to a first test dataset associated with the first charge/discharge cycle, wherein the controller is further configured to determine, when the charging/discharging test for the first battery is completed, a first test curve indicating a correlation between the cumulative capacity and the voltage drop of the first battery based on the first test dataset.
However, Shin teaches determining a voltage drop of a first battery over a rest period and adding it to a first test dataset (Fig.4C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Kim with Shin to include determining a voltage drop of a first battery over a rest period and adding it to a first dataset. Doing so allows for an estimated state of health based on a relaxation voltages, as evidenced by Shin (Abstract: relaxation voltages of a device battery fingerprint its SoH). Moreover, Ikeda teaches a controller determining a first test curve indicating a correlation between a cycle count of a completed battery charging/discharging test and the voltage drop during a rest period (Fig.9; Pgs 11-12, Final paragraph-First paragraph: Delta OCV when resting, Delta OCV decreases as cycle count increases).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Kim with Ikeda to include determining a first test curve showing the correlation between test cycle count and voltage drop. Doing so allows for an estimation as to whether or not a battery is in a deteriorated state, as taught by Ikeda (Pg 12, Para. 2).
Kim, in view of Shin and Ikeda, discloses the claimed invention except that the charge/discharge cycle is repeatedly performed until the cycle count reaches a reference count instead of being repeatedly performed until the cumulative capacity reaches a reference capacity. Kondo teaches that a cycle count can be equivalent to a cumulative capacity (¶0020: cycle count number is computed from a measurement of an amount of charge/discharge of the battery, total amount of current supplied to the battery during charging and total amount of current leaving the battery during discharging). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Kim, in view of Shin and Ikeda, to use a cumulative capacity to determine the duration of the repeatedly performed charge/discharge cycle instead of a cycle count. Doing so allows for test data to be determined based on a controlled capacity variable to assist in providing an accurate estimate of a run-time of the battery.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, & 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 3 recites “determine a cumulative capacity range in which a slope difference between the first test curve and the second test curve is equal to or larger than a threshold value.” The prior art of record fails to explicitly teach or suggest this limitation, in combination with the other recited elements of the claim.
Claim 5 recites “determine a cumulative capacity range in which a slope difference between the first test curve and the third test curve is equal to or larger than a threshold value.” The prior art of record fails to explicitly teach or suggest this limitation, in combination with the other recited elements of the claim.
Claim 7 recites “determine a cumulative capacity range in which a slope difference between the first test curve and the fourth test curve is equal to or larger than a threshold value.” The prior art of record fails to explicitly teach or suggest this limitation, in combination with the other recited elements of the claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P ONDRASIK whose telephone number is (703)756-1963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian Huffman can be reached at (571) 272-2147. 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.
/JOHN P ONDRASIK/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights