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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
The new grounds of rejection are incorporated into this office action. Thus, This Office Action Is Made Non-Final.
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 16-31, and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception without significantly more. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
Regarding claim 16, the preamble in claim 16 about a device for determining the mechanical stress in an electrical energy store.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a device for determining mechanical stress in an electrical traction energy store of a motor vehicle, comprising a concrete device (a battery and a determination unit), and therefore is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites a determination unit configured to determine the mechanical stress on the basis of internal resistance of the battery. These determinations/evaluations are acts that can be practically performed in the human mind. For example, the claim recites determining the mechanical stress of the battery based on the internal resistance of the battery is all manipulation of the data with the help of mathematical formula. Such mental observations or evaluations fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract idea set forth in the 2019 PEG. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. The recitation of a determining unit in this claim does not negate the mental nature of these limitations because the claim here merely uses the controller as a tool to perform the otherwise mental processes. See October Update at Section I(C)(ii). Thus, the limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, the claim is directed to a judicial exception.
The determining unit is recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that it is a control unit) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Even when viewed in combination, the additional element in this claim do no more than automate the mental processes using the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that are recited in the claim as automating the abstract ideas, and thus this claim cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05. As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the determining unit is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well-known. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Here, the recitation of the determination unit receiving information and using the information to calculate a result, is mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality, and, as disclosed in the specification, is also well-known. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and do not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not eligible.
Regarding claims 17-31 and 35-36 the claims are dependent from claim 16 and do not include any additional element beside the processor which is a generic computer and do not amount to significantly more. Thus, the claims are also not eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 16-20, 22-28, 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schade et al. (US 2018/0248233), herein after Schade, and Takashi (JP 2019149319), with the publication date: September 5, 2019. Attached is the human translation.
Regarding claim 16, Schade discloses a device for determining mechanical stresses in an electrical traction energy store of a motor vehicle (paragraph [006], [0009]), comprising:
a traction energy store for storing electrical energy having at least one cell module (FIG. 1 shows a block diagram of a battery 1 according to the invention. The battery 1 contains at least one battery cell 11, paragraph [0032]), each cell module comprising a housing (a battery housing 10 of the battery 1, fig. 1) and a plurality of secondary cells which are arranged in the housing (Some embodiments of the invention can contain a plurality of battery cells 11 which are interconnected to one another in parallel or serially in order to increase the output voltage and/or the output current of the battery cell 1, paragraph [0032]) and are electrically conductively connected to a power interface of the cell module (FIG. 1 illustrates by way of example two battery cells 11, which are interconnected serially, as a result of which it is possible to tap an electric voltage and an electric current at the terminal contacts 12 and 13 of the battery 1, paragraph [0032]); Schade further discloses it is also possible to use generally known strain gages and/or resistance thermometers in order to detect the size changes and the temperature (paragraph [0039]).
However, Schade is silent about a determination unit which is designed to determine, on the basis of an internal resistance of the secondary cells in the at least one cell module, a mechanical stress in the secondary cells at different times, wherein a first value of the internal resistance corresponds to a first state of the mechanical stress and a second value of the internal resistance, which is greater than the first value of the internal resistance, corresponds to a second state of the mechanical stress which is greater than the mechanical stress in the first state.
Takashi discloses a determination unit (Abstract) which is designed to determine, on the basis of an internal resistance of the secondary cells in the at least one cell module, a mechanical stress in the secondary cells at different times (paragraph [0045]-[0046] the calculation of the restraining force (mechanical stress) is calculated based on the corresponding resistance (internal resistance)), wherein a first value of the internal resistance corresponds to a first state of the mechanical stress and a second value of the internal resistance, which is greater than the first value of the internal resistance, corresponds to a second state of the mechanical stress which is greater than the mechanical stress in the first state (paragraph [0040]-[0041] as the charging of the battery go forward with respect to time the internal resistance and the mechanical stress of the battery increases. Thus, at the initial time the battery has one value of internal resistance and mechanical stress and after sometime the battery has other value of internal resistance and mechanical stress (which is greater than the initial values)).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schade’s system to determine the mechanical stress of the battery cells based on the internal resistance of the battery cells as taught by Takashi, in order to detect the battery cells degradation in early stage and implement effective safety measures, such as timely replacement or system shutdowns. Real-time monitoring of internal resistance enables predictive maintenance by identifying failing cells, which is crucial in applications like electric vehicles.
Regarding claim 17, Schade in view of Takashi discloses the device of claimed 16. Takashi further discloses wherein the mechanical stress in the secondary cells comprises a pressure (paragraph [0040]; the counter pull force (the internal expansion pressure acting on restraining member)).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schade’s system to determine the mechanical stress or pressure of the battery cells based on the internal resistance of the battery cells as taught by Takashi, in order to detect the battery cells degradation in early stage and implement effective safety measures, such as timely replacement or system shutdowns. Real-time monitoring of internal resistance enables predictive maintenance by identifying failing cells, which is crucial in applications like electric vehicles.
Regarding claim 18, Schade in view of Takashi discloses the device of claimed 17. Takashi further discloses wherein the pressure deforms the secondary cells in the second state (pressure determination using a gauge (paragraph [0040] the expansion of the battery cells).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schade’s system to determine the mechanical stress or pressure of the battery cells based on the internal resistance of the battery cells as taught by Takashi, in order to detect the battery cells degradation in early stage and implement effective safety measures, such as timely replacement or system shutdowns. Real-time monitoring of internal resistance enables predictive maintenance by identifying failing cells, which is crucial in applications like electric vehicles.
Regarding claim 19, Schade in view of Takashi discloses the device of claimed 16. However, Schade is silent about the cell separator.
Takashi discloses wherein each of the secondary cells comprises a separator and wherein a permeability of the separator is dependent on the mechanical stress in the particular secondary cell (paragraph [0027]-[0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schade’s system to have the battery cell with the specific permeability as taught by Takashi, in order to allows the selective and efficient transport of ions (ionic charge carriers) while simultaneously preventing the flow of electrons (physical contact of electrodes), which is crucial for the battery's function and safety.
Regarding claim 20, Schade in view of Takashi discloses the device of claimed 19. However, Schade is silent about the cell separator.
Takashi discloses a separator with specific permeability wherein: the permeability comprises an ion permeability, or the mechanical stress comprises a pressure (pressure determination using a gauge (paragraph [0040]; the counter pull force (the internal expansion pressure acting on restraining member)).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schade’s system to have the battery cell with the specific permeability as taught by Takashi, in order to allows the selective and efficient transport of ions (ionic charge carriers) while simultaneously preventing the flow of electrons (physical contact of electrodes), which is crucial for the battery's function and safety.
Regarding claim 22, Schade in view of Takashi discloses the device of claimed 16. Takashi further discloses wherein the determination unit comprises a measurement module designed to measure the internal resistance of each secondary cell of the cell module or one of the cell modules (paragraph [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schade’s system to determine the mechanical stress or pressure of the battery cells based on the internal resistance of the battery cells as taught by Takashi, in order to detect the battery cells degradation in early stage and implement effective safety measures, such as timely replacement or system shutdowns. Real-time monitoring of internal resistance enables predictive maintenance by identifying failing cells, which is crucial in applications like electric vehicles.
Regarding claim 23, Schade in view of Takashi discloses the device of claimed 22. Takashi further discloses wherein the measurement module is designed to measure the internal resistance of each secondary cell of the cell module or one of the cell modules on the basis of a measured stress (paragraph [0045]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schade’s system to determine the mechanical stress or pressure of the battery cells based on the internal resistance of the battery cells as taught by Takashi, in order to detect the battery cells degradation in early stage and implement effective safety measures, such as timely replacement or system shutdowns. Real-time monitoring of internal resistance enables predictive maintenance by identifying failing cells, which is crucial in applications like electric vehicles.
Regarding claim 24, Schade in view of Takashi discloses the device of claimed 16. Takashi further discloses wherein the determination unit comprises a measurement module designed to measure the internal resistance of the each cell module (paragraph [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schade’s system to determine the mechanical stress or pressure of the battery cells based on the internal resistance of the battery cells as taught by Takashi, in order to detect the battery cells degradation in early stage and implement effective safety measures, such as timely replacement or system shutdowns. Real-time monitoring of internal resistance enables predictive maintenance by identifying failing cells, which is crucial in applications like electric vehicles.
Regarding claim 25, Schade in view of Takashi discloses the device of claimed 24. Takashi further discloses wherein the measurement module is designed to measure the internal resistance of each cell module on the basis of a measured electrical voltage and a measured electrical current of the particular cell module (paragraph [0044]-[0045] voltage is directly related with the current and current value can also be measured by the voltage).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schade’s system to determine the mechanical stress or pressure of the battery cells based on the internal resistance of the battery cells as taught by Takashi, in order to detect the battery cells degradation in early stage and implement effective safety measures, such as timely replacement or system shutdowns. Real-time monitoring of internal resistance enables predictive maintenance by identifying failing cells, which is crucial in applications like electric vehicles.
Regarding claim 26, Schade in view of Takashi discloses the device of claimed 24. Takashi further discloses wherein the determination unit comprises a control module in which a relationship between the internal resistance and the mechanical stress is stored, and which is designed to determine the mechanical stress by means of the stored relationship on the basis of the internal resistance (paragraph [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schade’s system to determine the mechanical stress or pressure of the battery cells based on the internal resistance of the battery cells as taught by Takashi, in order to detect the battery cells degradation in early stage and implement effective safety measures, such as timely replacement or system shutdowns. Real-time monitoring of internal resistance enables predictive maintenance by identifying failing cells, which is crucial in applications like electric vehicles.
Regarding claim 27, Schade in view of Takashi discloses the device of claimed 26. Schade further discloses wherein the relationship is dependent on: a temperature in the particular cell module or in the secondary cells, or a state of charge or an open-circuit voltage of the particular cell module or the secondary cells (paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 28, Schade in view of Takashi discloses the device of claimed 27. Schade further discloses wherein: in the first state or in the second state of the mechanical stress the internal resistance is a monotonically decreasing function of the temperature; or in the first or in the second state of mechanical stress the internal resistance is a monotonically increasing function of the state of charge or the open-circuit voltage (fig. 7 shows that the relationship between the temperature and the battery expansion).
Regarding claim 35, Schade in view of Takashi discloses a motor vehicle comprising a device for determining mechanical stresses in an electrical traction energy store of the motor vehicle as claimed in claim 16(paragraph [006], [0009]).
Regarding claim 36, Schade in view of Takashi discloses a motor vehicle of claim 35, Schade further discloses wherein the motor vehicle is a commercial vehicle (paragraph [0006] the vehicle can be any vehicle).
Claim(s) 31-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schade (US 2018/0248233), and Takashi (JP 2019149319), as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Seki et al. (US 2019/0089011), herein after Seki.
Regarding claim 31, Schade in view of Takashi discloses a motor vehicle of claim 16. Schade further discloses wherein the at least one cell module comprises at least one relay in each case, which is designed to interrupt the electrically conductive connection between the secondary cells and the power interface of the particular cell module, and wherein the determination unit is designed to control the at least one relay depending on the determined mechanical stress (paragraph [0059] where the one of the failure can be detected through strain gauge measurements (mechanical stress of the battery), paragraph [0039]).
However, Schade and Takashi do not disclose a switch is a contactor.
Seki discloses an electromagnetic contactor (for example, a switch unit 415 shown in FIG. 9) for switching connection between the positive electrode terminal 413 and the negative electrode terminal 414 (paragraph [0210]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schade’s system in view of Takashi to include a contactor instead to relay as taught by Seki, in order to handle the heavy electrical loads (high amps/voltage), due to its robust build, stronger contacts, and built-in arc suppression for safety.
Regarding claim 32, Schade in view of Takashi and Seki discloses a motor vehicle of claim 31. Schade further discloses the determination unit is designed to disconnect the electrically conductive connection if the determined mechanical stress exceeds a first limit value or if an increase of the determined mechanical stress exceeds a second limit value (paragraph [0059]).
Regarding claim 33, Schade in view of Takashi and Seki discloses a motor vehicle of claim 32. Schade further discloses wherein: the determination unit is a control module (control module 5, fig. 1, paragraph [0042]-[0043]); or the electrically conductive connection is the contactor.
Regarding claim 34, Schade in view of Takashi and Seki discloses a motor vehicle of claim 32. Takashi further discloses the determination unit is designed to determine the mechanical stress or to compare the determined mechanical stress with the first or second limit value at least once in each charging cycle of the traction energy store; or the determination unit is designed to determine the mechanical stress in different charging cycles of the traction energy store at the same state of charge, or the same temperature of the particular cell module or the secondary cells, or to compare the determined mechanical stress with the first or second limit value (paragraph [0037]-[0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schade’s system to determine the mechanical stress or pressure of the battery cells based on the internal resistance of the battery cells as taught by Takashi, in order to detect the battery cells degradation in early stage and implement effective safety measures, such as timely replacement or system shutdowns. Real-time monitoring of internal resistance enables predictive maintenance by identifying failing cells, which is crucial in applications like electric vehicles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIA KOUSAR whose telephone number is (571)272-3386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-5:30pm.
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.
SADIA . KOUSAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights