DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 are currently presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The majority of the equations in the specification are blurry.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a thermal model” which is improper as there is a previous recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a cylindrical power lithium-ion” which is improper as there is a previous recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a temperature” which is improper as there is a previous recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a surface” which is improper as there is a previous recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a current” which is improper as there is a previous recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a cylindrical power lithium-ion” which is improper as there is a previous recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a thermal model” which is improper as there is a previous recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a cylindrical power lithium-ion” which is improper as there is a previous recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a temperature” which is improper as there is a previous recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a surface” which is improper as there is a previous recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a current” which is improper as there is a previous recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a cylindrical power lithium-ion” which is improper as there is a previous recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
Module M1 in claims 8 and 9
Module M2 in claim 8
Module M3 in claim 8
Module M4 in claim 8
Module M1.1 in claims 9 and 10
Module M1.2 in claim 9
Module M1.1.1 in claim 10
Module M1.1.2 in claim 10
Module M1.1.3 in claim 10
Module M1.1.4 in claim 10
Module M1.1.5 in claim 10
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner’s Note: For the purposes of examination, the hardware associated with the modules will be interpreted as a "microcontroller" as seen in [0056] of the specification.
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 8-10 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 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. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of Module M1, Module M2, Module M3, Module M4, Module M1.1, Module M1.2, Module M1.1.1, Module M1.1.2, Module M1.1.3, Module M1.1.4, Module M1.1.5. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations Module M1, Module M2, Module M3, Module M4, Module M1.1, Module M1.2, Module M1.1.1, Module M1.1.2, Module M1.1.3, Module M1.1.4, Module M1.1.5 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification discloses a "microcontroller" in [0056] of the specification, it is devoid of the algorithms that provide structures to convert the generic microcontroller into a special purpose microcontroller to perform the claimed functions. (MPEP 2181.11.(B)) There is no disclosure of any particular algorithms, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the actions of modules. The use of the term " microcontroller " alone is not adequate structure because it does not describe a special purpose microcontroller for performing the functions. As such, the specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure performs the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, the claims recite “the battery” which renders the claim indefinite because “a power lithium-ion battery”, “a cylindrical power lithium-ion battery” and “a specific power lithium-ion battery.” It is unclear which battery is being referred back to when stating “the battery”, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
Regarding claims 3, 4, 5 and 10, the claims are indefinite as they do not recite what each variable is. A description of each and every variable must be recited in the claims. The following variables are not defined:
PNG
media_image1.png
89
324
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
119
236
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
40
472
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
34
22
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
71
536
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
37
619
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
55
374
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
41
88
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
102
739
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
106
679
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
31
209
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Cx + Du
PNG
media_image12.png
38
350
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
72
288
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
287
763
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 3 and 10, TM is used to denote the temperature of the surface of the battery and a temperature of an outer layer of the battery. As the term is used to denote two different things, the metes and bounds of the claim is rendered unclear.
Regarding claims 3 and 10, q is used to denote a total heating power and a system input. As the term is used to denote two different things, the metes and bounds of the claim is rendered unclear.
All claims dependent on a 112 rejected base claim are rejected based on their dependency
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.
Regarding claims 1-10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 8-10 are directed to a system, which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-10 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1 and 8 recite the abstract idea of building a thermal model of a lithium-ion battery, constituting an abstract idea based on Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations or alternatively Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of "step S 1. discretizing a second order partial differential heat conduction equation of a power lithium-ion battery according to a finite differential method, thereby building a thermal model of the power lithium-ion battery:” covers mathematical concepts in the form of setting up an equation using a known method, or alternatively mental processes including evaluating an equation using a known method and making a judgment on how to build a model from it. Additionally, the limitation of “step S2: carrying out a dynamic working condition test by using a cylindrical power lithium-ion battery selected as an object, thereby acquiring test data such as a temperature, a current, a voltage, and a temperature of a surface of the battery;” covers mathematical concepts in the form of performing a series of calculations, or alternatively mental processes including evaluating a system using a series of calculations that can be performed with pencil and paper. Additionally, the limitation of “step S3: identifying an electrochemical parameter of the power lithium-ion battery according to an optimal parameter algorithm by using test data acquired in a dynamic working condition, thereby building a thermal model of the power lithium-ion battery; and” covers mathematical concepts in the form of performing a series of calculations, or alternatively mental processes including evaluating a parameter using a series of equations until the user has judged that the parameter is good enough. Additionally, the limitation of “step S4: verifying accuracy of the thermal model of the power lithium-ion battery by using test data acquired in another dynamic working condition:” covers mental processes including evaluating the accuracy of the model by comparing it to another condition. Additionally, the limitation of “step S.5·acquiring a temperature of a specific power lithium-ion battery by using a verified thermal model of the power lithium-ion battery, comparing the acquired temperature with a predetermined threshold, and” covers mental processes including observing a set of data and then making an evaluation in comparison to a threshold. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-10 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claim 8, the additional element of “Module M1”, “Module M2”, “Module M3”, “Module M4”, as well as “Module M1.1”, “Module M1.2” in claim 9, as well as “Module M1.1.1”, “Module M1.1.2”, “Module M1.1.3”, “Module M1.1.4”, “Module M1.1.5” in claim 10 merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The additional limitation of “controlling a switch of the specific power lithium-ion battery to turn off according to a comparison result” recited in claims 1 and 8 only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations of “step S2.2: allowing the battery to stand still in a 25 °C incubator for 2 h; step S2.3: charging the battery in a constant-current and constant-voltage manner to a fully charged state, namely, SOC=100%; discharging the batte1y at a speed of C/3 to SOC=95%; and allowing the battery to stand still for 2 h; step S2.4: loading a dynamic working condition (UDDS) to the battery by an appropriate proportion till SOC of the battery decreases to about 5%; step S2.7: changing the temperature of the incubator to 5°C, l0°C, and 35°C; repeating steps S2.2 to S2.6: and acquiring test data at each of the temperatures in the dynamic working conditions” in claim 6 can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-10 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claims 1 and 8 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In Claim 8, the additional element of “Module M1”, “Module M2”, “Module M3”, “Module M4”, as well as “Module M1.1”, “Module M1.2” in claim 9, as well as “Module M1.1.1”, “Module M1.1.2”, “Module M1.1.3”, “Module M1.1.4”, “Module M1.1.5” in claim 10 merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The additional limitation of “controlling a switch of the specific power lithium-ion battery to turn off according to a comparison result” recited in claims 1 and 8 only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations of “step S2.2: allowing the battery to stand still in a 25 °C incubator for 2 h; step S2.3: charging the battery in a constant-current and constant-voltage manner to a fully charged state, namely, SOC=100%; discharging the batte1y at a speed of C/3 to SOC=95%; and allowing the battery to stand still for 2 h; step S2.4: loading a dynamic working condition (UDDS) to the battery by an appropriate proportion till SOC of the battery decreases to about 5%; step S2.7: changing the temperature of the incubator to 5°C, l0°C, and 35°C; repeating steps S2.2 to S2.6: and acquiring test data at each of the temperatures in the dynamic working conditions” in claim 6 can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more. This is akin to performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claims 2 and 9 are directed to further defining the use of additional equations, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 3 and 10 are directed to further defining the equations used by the system, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 4 is directed to further defining the equations used by the system, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 5 is directed to further defining an equation used by the system, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 6 is directed to further defining a testing sequence of the system, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Accordingly, claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
The closest prior art references of record are Deep blue, Ardani, Huang and Zhang. These references alone or in combination do not disclose the limitations including using a finite differential method with multiple second order partial differential equations, with a verified thermal model that is used to control a switch of a battery, in combination with the remaining limitations. Therefore, claims 1-10 as drafted, are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the prior art of the record and the available field of prior art. The claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112 and 101 rejection of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Darcovich et al. “Coupled electrochemical and thermal battery models for thermal management of prismatic automotive cells”: Also teaches the coupling of a thermal model containing differential equations, including the Arrhenius equation, to control a battery pack in an electric vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571-272-4071. 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.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188