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 . The objection and rejections from the Office Action of 1/15/2026 are hereby withdrawn. New grounds for rejection are presented 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.
Claims 21-27 and 31-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the 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.
Claim 21 recites, in the first element, “sending an input signal to the storage battery on the conventional vehicle at least twice to control the storage battery to intermittently discharge at a constant current of 25 amperes (A).” This limitation lacks support in the originally-filed Specification. Paragraph [0003] of the instant Specification merely describes the methods of the prior art and fails to disclose intermittent discharging. Paragraphs [0095]-[0098] fails to disclose any particular discharge current.
Claim 34 recites, in the first element, “a discharge circuit electrically connected to the storage battery through the connector for sending an input signal to the storage battery on a conventional vehicle at least twice to control the storage battery to intermittently discharge at a constant current of 25 amperes (A).” This limitation lacks support in the originally-filed Specification. Paragraph [0003] of the instant Specification merely describes the methods of the prior art and fails to disclose intermittent discharging. Paragraphs [0095]-[0098] fails to disclose any particular discharge current.
The dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependence from Claims 21 and 34.
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 21-27 and 31-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm for evaluating battery capacity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no improvement to the underlying battery (or “conventional vehicle”) is realized through performance of the algorithm.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited measurement circuit and its elements amount to the recitation of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology for obtaining the measurement needed in implementing the algorithm [See the discussion of Arora et al., Experimental validation of the recovery effect in batteries for wearable sensors and healthcare devices discovering the existence of hidden time constants, J Eng, 2017 and Dinc et al. (US 20190245501 A1), below]. The use of the recited controller amounts to the recitation of a general-purpose computer for implementing the algorithm and does not serve to amount to the recitation of significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself (Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)).
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) 21-27 and 31-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arora et al., Experimental validation of the recovery effect in batteries for wearable sensors and healthcare devices discovering the existence of hidden time constants, J Eng, 2017 [hereinafter “Arora”], Kwok (US 6300763 B1), and Oh et al. (US 20130138370 A1)[hereinafter “Oh”].
Regarding Claim 21, Arora discloses a method for replacing a storage battery [Page 1, first column – “As such it is desirable to make optimal use of the available power source so as to prolong the time between required recharge cycles or to replace a non-rechargeable battery [1].”], characterized by being applied to a battery detection device [Page 5 – “Fig. 3 Circuit diagram of the constant-current discharge circuit used in the battery discharge measurement system incorporating active and sleep current drains”], the method comprising:
sending an input signal to the storage battery at least twice to control the storage battery to intermittently discharge at a constant current [Page 4 – “Fig. 3 depicts the circuit diagram of the discharge circuit. A microprocessor controls the active/sleep timings, and has an internal analogue-to-digital converter (ADC) for sampling the analogue voltages and logging to a file. As can be seen in Fig. 2, the length of the active time is random, followed with a sleep time that maintains the active/sleep ratio.”Page 5 – “a constant-current drain circuit (through MOSFET SW2 controlled by microprocessor digital output D.OUT2) defining the active period discharge.”];
receiving an output signal which is fed back [being fed back to each of OPAMP1 and OPAMP2], within an input duration of the input signal [See Figs. 2 and 3], by the storage battery regarding the input signal [Battery voltage response];
determining a target battery parameter according to the output signal [Page 5, 2nd column – “The high sampling rate allows for capturing the highly dynamic terminal voltages that are of key importance to establish a functional battery model. Low-pass filtering of 100 kHz is provided by C1/R2 for electromagnetic compatibility considerations.”], wherein determining a target battery parameter from the output signal comprises:
detecting a set of battery parameters for each discharge of the storage battery according to the output signal [Page 5, 2nd column – “The buffered battery voltage is sampled by the microprocessor at 2 kHz.”]; and
screening an optimal battery parameter of at least two sets of voltage parameters as the target battery parameter [Page 5, 2nd column – “The high sampling rate allows for capturing the highly dynamic terminal voltages that are of key importance to establish a functional battery model. Low-pass filtering of 100 kHz is provided by C1/R2 for electromagnetic compatibility considerations.”].
Arora fails to disclose that the screening an optimal battery parameter of at least two sets of voltage parameters as the target battery parameter comprises: selecting a maximum voltage with a maximum voltage of the at least two sets of battery parameters as a target maximum voltage; selecting a minimum voltage with a minimum voltage of the at least two sets of battery parameters as a target minimum voltage; and taking the target maximum voltage, the target minimum voltage, and a target voltage drop slope of the target maximum voltage corresponding to the target minimum voltage as optimal battery parameters.
However, Oh discloses characterizing battery SOC regions based on maximum voltages, minimum voltages, and corresponding slopes [See Figs. 2 and 4 and Paragraphs [0046]-[0050]]. It would have been obvious to perform such a process to better characterize expected battery life.
Arora discloses that the battery parameters comprise a maximum voltage, a minimum voltage, and a voltage drop slope for each discharge of the storage battery [Fig. 1, voltage];
acquiring a battery capacity table, wherein the battery capacity table comprises a correlation between a battery parameter and a battery reserve capacity [Pages 5-6 – “The overall battery discharge curves were considered as shown in Fig. 4 to estimate the total time for which the battery lasts before reaching the cut-off voltage when the battery no longer has enough terminal voltage to drive the wearable device. Then, for each run, the following parameters were calculated: …”]; and
according to the battery capacity table and the target battery parameter, determining a battery reserve capacity corresponding to the target battery parameter [Page 6, 1st column – “Total active time” and “Total charge delivered”Page 6 – “Table 3 shows the percentage increase achieved in the total active time and the charge delivered when batteries were put to discharge with 50% (S = A) and 67% (S = 2A) duty cycling rate in comparison with when no sleep time was allowed. Also, the mean and standard deviation of these parameters were calculated for multiple runs of each discharge pattern for every battery as detailed in Table 4.”], wherein the battery reserve capacity is used to evaluate the performance of the battery [Inherent to the continued operation of the device that the battery is replaced when capacity is fully depleted (see Fig. 4).Page 1, first column – “As such it is desirable to make optimal use of the available power source SO as to prolong the time between required recharge cycles or to replace a non-rechargeable battery [1].”Page 5, second column – “the cut-off voltage when the battery no longer has enough terminal voltage to drive the wearable device.”].
Arora fails to disclose that the storage battery in on a conventional vehicle discharged at a constant current of 25A.
However, Kwok discloses monitoring a conventional vehicle battery [Column 3 lines 32-40 – “The method provides for accurate estimation of charge state even if the system is subject to conditions of dynamic charging/discharging. Examples of systems which expose the battery to dynamic charge and discharging include: in-vehicle charging systems wherein the 12-volt battery is charged during highway driving and subject to various discharge levels while starting, idling, and slowing down; hybrid electric vehicles; and stop-start systems.”] by discharging it at a constant current of 25A [See Fig. 7 and Column 9 lines 11-20 – “The discharge capacity, under any condition, may be related to the reference capacity by means of empirical testing wherein it is assumed that (1) the change in battery performance is a linear function of the capacity removed, and (2) the battery conditions at the end of discharging are identical for each level of discharge current. FIG. 7 illustrates a battery voltage profile in response to the experimental sequence described below for estimating a correction factor, .eta..sub.d while discharging the test battery at a 25A rate at a temperature of 52.degree. C.”].
It would have been obvious to apply the teachings of Arora to such a context and to use a corresponding 25A discharging current accordingly in order to better assess the capacity of such a battery.
Regarding Claim 22, Arora discloses that sending an input signal to the storage battery at least twice to control the storage battery to discharge comprises: according to a preset frequency, sending an input signal to the storage battery at least twice to control the storage battery to discharge [Section 6.2, Discharge pattern – “Each active cycle was followed by a sleep cycle with the duration of a sleep cycle determining the rate of duty cycling. … intermittent discharges of S = A (termed 50%) and S = 2A (termed 67%) have been considered for this work.”].
Regarding Claim 23, Arora discloses that a sending interval between at least two transmissions of the input signal is random [Section 6.2, Discharge pattern – “The duration of the active time was generated randomly at each discharge time between the ranges of 10 and –60 s.”].
Regarding Claim 24, Arora discloses that sending an input signal to the storage battery at least twice to control the storage battery to discharge comprises: sending an input signal to the storage battery at least twice to control the storage battery to discharge until a preset number of times [Section 6.2, Discharge pattern – “A number of different discharge patterns were created by varying: … (ii) rate of duty cycling, i.e. the ratio of sleep time (S) to active time (A)”].
Regarding Claim 25, Arora discloses that the input durations of at least two sent input signals are the same, or at least one input duration of the input durations of at least two sent input signals is different from other input durations [Fig. 2].
Regarding Claim 26, Arora discloses that the input duration has a duration unit of milliseconds (ms)[Fig. 2 – “Time (milliseconds)”].
Regarding Claim 27, Arora discloses that the input signal is a discharge current of storage battery discharge [Fig. 2 – “Demanded Current”] and the output signal is an open circuit voltage fed back by the storage battery for the discharge current during the input duration [Page 5 – “OPAMP2 forms a high-impedance voltage follower (buffer) to monitor the instantaneous battery voltage”].
Regarding Claim 31, Arora discloses that the battery capacity table comprises several battery reserve capacities and several sets of voltage parameters at each of the battery reserve capacities, each set of voltage parameters comprises several test voltages, and battery parameters resulting from discharging the storage battery under each test voltage, wherein the several battery reserve capacities are spaced apart in between by a preset capacity and the several test voltages are spaced apart in between by a preset voltage [The discharge curves of Fig. 4 being values of voltages relative to remaining capacities. The pairs of values being discrete reading on the recited spacing.].
Regarding Claim 32, Arora fails to disclose that, the according to the battery capacity table and the target battery parameter, determining a battery reserve capacity corresponding to the target battery parameter comprises: inputting the target battery parameter to the battery capacity table; and searching for a battery reserve capacity matching the target voltage drop slope in the battery capacity table, and taking the battery reserve capacity as the battery reserve capacity of the storage battery.
However, Oh discloses characterizing battery SOC regions based on maximum voltages, minimum voltages, and corresponding slopes [See Figs. 2 and 4 and Paragraphs [0046]-[0050]]. It would have been obvious to perform parameter matching of such parameters in the determination of SOC in order to better characterize expected battery life.
Regarding Claim 33, Arora fails to disclose that the voltage drop slope of each of the battery parameters corresponds to one slope matching range, the searching for a battery reserve capacity matching the target voltage drop slope in the battery capacity table, and taking the battery reserve capacity as the battery reserve capacity of the storage battery comprising: determining whether the target voltage drop slope falls within a slope matching range of an effective voltage drop slope; and if so, taking the battery reserve capacity corresponding to the effective voltage drop slope as the battery reserve capacity of the storage battery.
However, Oh discloses characterizing battery SOC regions based on maximum voltages, minimum voltages, and corresponding slopes [See Figs. 2 and 4 and Paragraphs [0046]-[0050]]. It would have been obvious to perform parameter matching of such parameters in the determination of SOC in order to better characterize expected battery life.
Regarding Claim 34, Arora discloses a battery detection device [Page 5 – “Fig. 3 Circuit diagram of the constant-current discharge circuit used in the battery discharge measurement system incorporating active and sleep current drains”See Table 4 – “Total active time, s”], characterized in that the battery detection device is electrically connected to a storage battery through a connector [See the circuit of Fig. 3, which reads on “Kelvin connector” as the circuit is effectively a 4-wire connector to the measured battery that measures both current and voltage.], the battery detection device comprising:
a discharge circuit electrically connected to the storage battery through the connector for sending an input signal to the storage battery at least twice to control the storage battery to intermittently discharge at a constant current [Page 4 – “Fig. 3 depicts the circuit diagram of the discharge circuit. A microprocessor controls the active/sleep timings, and has an internal analogue-to-digital converter (ADC) for sampling the analogue voltages and logging to a file. As can be seen in Fig. 2, the length of the active time is random, followed with a sleep time that maintains the active/sleep ratio.”Page 5 – “a constant-current drain circuit (through MOSFET SW2 controlled by microprocessor digital output D.OUT2) defining the active period discharge.”];
a voltage sampling circuit electrically connected to the storage battery via the connector for receiving an output signal fed back by the storage battery for the input signal within an input duration of the input signal to obtain a sampling voltage [Page 5 – “OPAMP2 forms a high-impedance voltage follower (buffer) to monitor the instantaneous battery voltage”];
a controller electrically connected to the discharge circuit and the voltage sampling circuit, respectively, for controlling the discharge circuit so that the discharge circuit sends the input signal to the storage battery [Page 4 – “Fig. 3 depicts the circuit diagram of the discharge circuit. A microprocessor controls the active/sleep timings, and has an internal analogue-to-digital converter (ADC) for sampling the analogue voltages and logging to a file. As can be seen in Fig. 2, the length of the active time is random, followed with a sleep time that maintains the active/sleep ratio.”]; determining a target battery parameter according to the sampling voltage [Page 5, 2nd column – “The high sampling rate allows for capturing the highly dynamic terminal voltages that are of key importance to establish a functional battery model. Low-pass filtering of 100 kHz is provided by C1/R2 for electromagnetic compatibility considerations.”], wherein determining a target battery parameter according to the sampling voltage comprises:
detecting a set of battery parameters for each discharge of the storage battery according to the output signal [Page 5, 2nd column – “The buffered battery voltage is sampled by the microprocessor at 2 kHz.”]; and
screening an optimal battery parameter of at least two sets of voltage parameters as the target battery parameter [Page 5, 2nd column – “The high sampling rate allows for capturing the highly dynamic terminal voltages that are of key importance to establish a functional battery model. Low-pass filtering of 100 kHz is provided by C1/R2 for electromagnetic compatibility considerations.”].
Arora fails to disclose that the screening an optimal battery parameter of at least two sets of voltage parameters as the target battery parameter comprises: selecting a maximum voltage with a maximum voltage of the at least two sets of battery parameters as a target maximum voltage; selecting a minimum voltage with a minimum voltage of the at least two sets of battery parameters as a target minimum voltage; and taking the target maximum voltage, the target minimum voltage, and a target voltage drop slope of the target maximum voltage corresponding to the target minimum voltage as optimal battery parameters.
However, Oh discloses characterizing battery SOC regions based on maximum voltages, minimum voltages, and corresponding slopes [See Figs. 2 and 4 and Paragraphs [0046]-[0050]]. It would have been obvious to perform such a process to better characterize expected battery life.
Arora discloses that the battery parameters comprise a maximum voltage, a minimum voltage, and a voltage drop slope for each discharge of the storage battery [Fig. 1, voltage];
acquiring a battery capacity table, wherein the battery capacity table comprises a correlation between a battery parameter and a battery reserve capacity [Pages 5-6 – “The overall battery discharge curves were considered as shown in Fig. 4 to estimate the total time for which the battery lasts before reaching the cut-off voltage when the battery no longer has enough terminal voltage to drive the wearable device. Then, for each run, the following parameters were calculated: …”]; and according to the battery capacity table and the target battery parameter, determining a battery reserve capacity corresponding to the target battery parameter [Page 6, 1st column – “Total active time” and “Total charge delivered”Page 6 – “Table 3 shows the percentage increase achieved in the total active time and the charge delivered when batteries were put to discharge with 50% (S = A) and 67% (S = 2A) duty cycling rate in comparison with when no sleep time was allowed. Also, the mean and standard deviation of these parameters were calculated for multiple runs of each discharge pattern for every battery as detailed in Table 4.”];
wherein the battery reserve capacity is used to evaluate the performance of the battery [Inherent to the continued operation of the device that the battery is replaced when capacity is fully depleted (see Fig. 4).Page 1, first column – “As such it is desirable to make optimal use of the available power source so as to prolong the time between required recharge cycles or to replace a non-rechargeable battery [1].”Page 5, second column – “the cut-off voltage when the battery no longer has enough terminal voltage to drive the wearable device.”].
Arora fails to disclose that the storage battery in on the conventional vehicle discharged at a constant current of 25A.
However, Kwok discloses monitoring a conventional vehicle battery [Column 3 lines 32-40 – “The method provides for accurate estimation of charge state even if the system is subject to conditions of dynamic charging/discharging. Examples of systems which expose the battery to dynamic charge and discharging include: in-vehicle charging systems wherein the 12-volt battery is charged during highway driving and subject to various discharge levels while starting, idling, and slowing down; hybrid electric vehicles; and stop-start systems.”] by discharging it at a constant current of 25A [See Fig. 7 and Column 9 lines 11-20 – “The discharge capacity, under any condition, may be related to the reference capacity by means of empirical testing wherein it is assumed that (1) the change in battery performance is a linear function of the capacity removed, and (2) the battery conditions at the end of discharging are identical for each level of discharge current. FIG. 7 illustrates a battery voltage profile in response to the experimental sequence described below for estimating a correction factor, .eta..sub.d while discharging the test battery at a 25A rate at a temperature of 52.degree. C.”].
It would have been obvious to apply the teachings of Arora to such a context and to use a corresponding 25A discharging current accordingly in order to better assess the capacity of such a battery.
Regarding Claim 35, Arora discloses that the input signal is a discharge current at which the storage battery is discharged [Fig. 2 – “Demanded Current”], and the output signal is an open circuit voltage fed back by the storage battery for the discharge current during the input duration [Page 5 – “OPAMP2 forms a high-impedance voltage follower (buffer) to monitor the instantaneous battery voltage”].
Regarding Claim 36, Arora discloses that the discharge circuit comprises: a switch circuit electrically connected to the controller and electrically connected to the storage battery via the connector for triggering sending the discharge current to the storage battery and generating a trigger signal when the controller controls the switch circuit to be in a conductive state [Fig. 3 – “SW2”]; and a first signal processing circuit, electrically connected to the controller and the switch circuit respectively, and used for performing signal processing on a voltage signal sent by the controller and a trigger signal sent by the switch circuit, and outputting a driving signal so as to control a magnitude of the discharge current [Fig. 3 – “OPAMP1”].
Regarding Claim 37, Arora discloses that the switch circuit comprises:
a first switch electrically connected to the controller and the first signal processing circuit respectively, and electrically connected to a negative electrode of the storage battery via the connector, for controlling, according to a control signal sent by the controller, to close or open a discharge loop of the controller and the storage battery, generating a trigger signal, and sending the trigger signal to the first signal processing circuit [Fig. 3 – “SW2”]; and
a second switch electrically connected to the first switch and the first signal processing circuit, respectively, and electrically connected to a positive electrode of the storage battery via the connector, for controlling the magnitude of the discharge current of the discharge loop according to the driving signal [Fig. 3 – “DARLINGTON” BJTs].
Claim(s) 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arora et al., Experimental validation of the recovery effect in batteries for wearable sensors and healthcare devices discovering the existence of hidden time constants, J Eng, 2017 [hereinafter “Arora”]; Kwok (US 6300763 B1); and Dinc et al. (US 20190245501 A1)[hereinafter “Dinc”].
Regarding Claim 38, Arora discloses that the first switch comprises a first tube, wherein a gate electrode of the first tube is electrically connected to the controller [Page 5, 1st column – “MOSFET SW2 controlled by microprocessor digital output D.OUT2”], a source electrode of the first tube is electrically connected to the negative electrode of the storage battery through the Kelvin connector [Fig. 3, ground connection to SW2], and a drain electrode of the first tube is electrically connected to the second switch and the first signal processing circuit [Fig. 3, connection to DARLINGTON BJT and OPAMP1].
Arora fails to disclose that the tube is a PMOS tube. However, Dinc discloses that any of PMOS, NMOS, or BJT transistors can be used as a switch [Paragraph [0026] – “For example, a PMOS, NMOS, or CMOS FET or BJT, or any combination of these, could be used to implement the clamping switch 308.”]. The use of a PMOS transistor as the switch would have been obvious because one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that its use would have been effective for use as a switch.
Regarding Claim 39, Arora discloses that the second switch comprises a second tube, the gate electrode of the second tube being electrically connected to the first signal processing circuit [Fig. 3, DARLINGTON BJT connection to OPAMP1], the source electrode of the second tube being electrically connected to the drain electrode of the first tube and the first signal processing circuit [Fig. 3, DARLINGTON BJT connection to both SW2 and “-“ OPAMP1 input], and the drain electrode of the second tube being electrically connected to the positive electrode of the storage battery through the connector [Fig. 3, DARLINGTON BJT connection to battery].
Arora fails to disclose that the tube is a PMOS tube. However, Dinc discloses that any of PMOS, NMOS, or BJT transistors can be used as a switch [Paragraph [0026] – “For example, a PMOS, NMOS, or CMOS FET or BJT, or any combination of these, could be used to implement the clamping switch 308.”]. The use of a PMOS transistor as the switch would have been obvious because one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that its use would have been effective for use as a switch.
Regarding Claim 40, Arora discloses that the first signal processing circuit includes a first operational amplifier [Fig. 3 – “OPAMP1”], a non-inverting input terminal of the first operational amplifier [Fig. 3 – “+” terminal of OPAMP1], an inverting input terminal of the first operational amplifier [Fig. 3 – “-” terminal of OPAMP1] is electrically connected to the drain of the first tube [Fig. 3 – Connection to drain of DARLINGTON transistors] and the source of the second tube [Fig. 3 – Connection to source of MOSFET SW2], and an output terminal of the first operational amplifier is electrically connected to the gate of the second tube [Fig. 3 – Connection of OPAMP1 output to DARLINGTON transistors].
Arora fails to disclose that the tube is a PMOS tube. However, Dinc discloses that any of PMOS, NMOS, or BJT transistors can be used as a switch [Paragraph [0026] – “For example, a PMOS, NMOS, or CMOS FET or BJT, or any combination of these, could be used to implement the clamping switch 308.”]. The use of a PMOS transistor as the switch would have been obvious because one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that its use would have been effective for use as a switch.
Arora discloses that the non-inverting input terminal of the first operational amplifier is adjustable [Page 5, first column – “To model the current in the active mode, Vs sets the discharge current in the active mode, [1..20] mA.”] and that the controller can adjust circuit parameters [Page 5, first column – “The Darlington BJT, OPAMP1 and R4 form a constant-current drain circuit (through MOSFET SW2 controlled by microprocessor digital output D.OUT2) defining the active period discharge.”], but fails to disclose that it is electrically connected to the controller. However, it would have been obvious to electrically connect input Vs to the controller in order to allow the controller to adjust Vs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
222
909
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The corresponding objection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
187
900
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
184
907
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation at issue is “sending an input signal to the storage battery on the conventional vehicle at least twice to control the storage battery to intermittently discharge at a constant current of 25 amperes (A).” This limitation lacks support in the originally-filed Specification. Paragraph [0003] of the instant Specification merely describes the methods of the prior art and fails to disclose intermittent discharging. Paragraphs [0095]-[0098] fails to disclose any particular discharge current.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image4.png
531
919
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
New grounds for rejection are presented above and there is not currently a rejection under 35 USC 112(a) regarding the referred-to limitation.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image5.png
144
906
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The corresponding rejection are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image6.png
69
904
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
517
904
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The corresponding rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image8.png
404
917
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
667
915
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
Applicant’s argument regarding lead-acid batteries is not convincing because Arora discloses the evaluation of lithium-ion batteries [See Fig. 4 and Table 5].
The Examiner agrees that a 25A discharge current would not be feasible in the context of Aurora.
However, Kwok discloses monitoring a conventional vehicle battery [Column 3 lines 32-40 – “The method provides for accurate estimation of charge state even if the system is subject to conditions of dynamic charging/discharging. Examples of systems which expose the battery to dynamic charge and discharging include: in-vehicle charging systems wherein the 12-volt battery is charged during highway driving and subject to various discharge levels while starting, idling, and slowing down; hybrid electric vehicles; and stop-start systems.”] by discharging it at a constant current of 25A [See Fig. 7 and Column 9 lines 11-20 – “The discharge capacity, under any condition, may be related to the reference capacity by means of empirical testing wherein it is assumed that (1) the change in battery performance is a linear function of the capacity removed, and (2) the battery conditions at the end of discharging are identical for each level of discharge current. FIG. 7 illustrates a battery voltage profile in response to the experimental sequence described below for estimating a correction factor, .eta..sub.d while discharging the test battery at a 25A rate at a temperature of 52.degree. C.”].
It would have been obvious to apply the teachings of Arora to such a context and to use a corresponding 25A discharging current accordingly in order to better assess the capacity of such a battery.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image10.png
71
909
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
298
913
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the battery capacity table is pre-constructed using tested batteries and stored in the battery detection device”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image12.png
184
913
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Arora discloses determining a battery reserve capacity corresponding to the target battery parameter [Page 6, 1st column – “Total active time” and “Total charge delivered”Page 6 – “Table 3 shows the percentage increase achieved in the total active time and the charge delivered when batteries were put to discharge with 50% (S = A) and 67% (S = 2A) duty cycling rate in comparison with when no sleep time was allowed. Also, the mean and standard deviation of these parameters were calculated for multiple runs of each discharge pattern for every battery as detailed in Table 4.”], wherein the battery reserve capacity is used to evaluate the performance of the battery [Inherent to the continued operation of the device that the battery is replaced when capacity is fully depleted (see Fig. 4).Page 1, first column – “As such it is desirable to make optimal use of the available power source SO as to prolong the time between required recharge cycles or to replace a non-rechargeable battery [1].”Page 5, second column – “the cut-off voltage when the battery no longer has enough terminal voltage to drive the wearable device.”].
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image13.png
442
900
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
707
911
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Application of the teachings of Arora to the context of Kwok would read on the claim limitations at issue, as explained above.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image15.png
405
900
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is not suggested to technically integrate Arora and Kwok. Application of the teachings of Arora to the context Kwok would naturally involve scaling Arora’s procedures. Arora and Kwok and both directed to the same field of endeavor – battery capacity analysis. Arora and Kwok are technically compatible because they both disclose performing controlled battery discharging in their analyses.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image16.png
294
909
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Arora teaches evaluating the impact of intermittent discharge on battery performance.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image17.png
782
909
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Oh discloses characterizing battery SOC regions based on maximum voltages, minimum voltages, and corresponding slopes [See Figs. 2 and 4 and Paragraphs [0046]-[0050]]. It would have been obvious to perform such a process (with the intermittent discharging of Arora) to better characterize expected battery life.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Coleman et al., An Improved Battery Characterization Method Using a Two-Pulse Load Test, IEEE, 2008
Santos et al., Estimation of Lithium-ion Battery Model Parameters Using Experimental Data, IEEE, 2017
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KYLE ROBERT QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4879. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at (571) 272-2619. 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.
/KYLE R QUIGLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights