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 Amendment
Claims 1-17 are canceled.
Claims 18-23 are new.
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 18-23 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 18 recites “computing for each interval an interval-mean standard score” and “when the variation trend exhibits a divergence magnitude corresponding to a developing inconsistency condition” the support for the amendments cited by the applicant does not describe “an interval-mean standard score” or “a divergence magnitude” nor has the examiner been able to find support when reviewing the specification.
Claims 19-23 are rejected based on their inherited deficiencies.
Claim 23 is 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 23 recites “a processor” and “the processor”, however, claim 18 already recites “a processor” making it unclear if these are the same or different processor and which processor is being referred to by “the processor”. This similarly applies to “A terminal device for analyzing a state of a battery pack”.
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 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under step 1, claim 18 belongs to a statutory category of a method.
Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 18 recite(s) “analyzing a state of a battery pack,” and “performing, by the processor, data cleaning on the acquired cell parameters by removing abnormal values using a statistical filtering algorithm, and classifying the remaining cell parameters into charging, discharging, and standing modes based on operating conditions of the battery pack, to generate cleaned cell parameters; for the cell parameters in each operating mode, calculating, by the processor, a voltage standard score for each cell in form of a z-score transformation using a mean voltage value, µc, and a standard-deviation,
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
σ, of the cell voltages computed over the preset time window, wherein said z-score score transformation
PNG
media_image2.png
42
92
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,wherein Vi represents the voltage of the i-th cell in the battery pack; classifying, by the processor, each cell into one of a plurality of predefined states based on a comparison of a median or average value of the voltage standard score against a plurality of predetermined threshold ranges; and performing, by the processor, a time-domain analysis by dividing the preset time window into equal-length intervals, computing for each interval an interval-mean standard score, generating a linear variation trend curve that represents a variation trend of the internal state of the battery pack” which are directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes based on applicant’s specification see pages 4, 8, 14 and 16.
Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “a computer-implemented method”, “a battery pack”, and “executed by a processor of a terminal device” are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The elements of “acquiring, by an acquisition circuit coupled to the battery pack, cell parameters of the battery pack at a plurality of sampling times within a preset time window, wherein the cell parameters include voltages and currents of each cell at the plurality of sampling times” and “outputting an abnormal cell indication when the variation trend exhibits a divergence magnitude corresponding to a developing inconsistency condition” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “a computer-implemented method”, “a battery pack”, and “executed by a processor of a terminal device” are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). The elements of ‘acquiring, by an acquisition circuit coupled to the battery pack, cell parameters of the battery pack at a plurality of sampling times within a preset time window, wherein the cell parameters include voltages and currents of each cell at the plurality of sampling times” and “outputting an abnormal cell indication when the variation trend exhibits a divergence magnitude corresponding to a developing inconsistency condition” are considered to be merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself per MPEP 2106.05(h) and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see prior art of record).
Claims 19-22 further describe the abstract ideas cited above.
In claim 23, “a memory; said memory is used to store computer programs; and wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer program stored in the memory, so that the terminal device executes the method according to claim 18” is not integrated into a practical application or not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 18-19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HONG QINGHE et al. (CN113030763A) see translation attached hence forth NPL in view of Zhang (WO 2021226797 A1) see translation attached hence forth NPL 2.
In claim 18 Hong discloses for analyzing a state of a battery pack (see NPL Page 1 “battery pack”, “voltage”, Page 3 “state of charge”), executed by a processor (NPL page 1, “a data acquisition module, an original data processing module, a characteristic parameter extraction module, and a consistency difference potential risk judgment module”), the method comprising: acquiring, by an acquisition circuit (See NPL Page 1 “a data acquisition module”) coupled to the battery pack, cell parameters of the battery pack (see NPL Page 3, “original data collected by the data collection module” “voltage cell”) at a plurality of sampling times within a preset time window (see NPL Page 3 “original data collected by the data collection module” “voltage of the single battery” “real-time operation” page 4 “window length”), wherein the cell parameters include voltages and currents of each cell at the plurality of sampling times (See NPL Page 3 “current” “voltage cell”); performing, by the processor, data cleaning on the acquired cell parameters (see NPL Page 1, “raw data processing module is used to clean the raw data and classify the raw data into various data sets”) by removing abnormal values using a statistical filtering algorithm (see NPL Page 5 “z function calculates the abnormal voltage coefficient of the abnormal value in the characteristic data”, “restricting and processing the original data such as data dimensions, data types, data missing, and abnormal values”), and classifying the remaining cell parameters into charging, discharging, and standing modes based on operating conditions of the battery pack, to generate cleaned cell parameters (See NPL Page 3, “classifies the original data according to the working state of the battery” “a charging process” “a discharging process” “a resting process”); for the cell parameters in each operating mode, calculating, by the processor, a voltage standard score for each cell in form of a z-score transformation (See Hong Par. 66) using a mean voltage value, µc, and a standard-deviation, σ, of the cell voltages computed over the preset time window (See Hong Par. 66), wherein said z-score score transformation
PNG
media_image2.png
42
92
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(See Hong Par. 66), wherein Vi represents the voltage of the i-th cell in the battery pack (See Hong Par. 66); classifying, by the processor, each cell into one of a plurality of predefined states based on a comparison of a median or average value of the voltage standard score (See NPL Page 5 “average”) against a plurality of predetermined threshold ranges (See NPL Page 5 “is less than or equal to 2,”); and performing, by the processor, a time-domain analysis (see NPL Pages 4-5 Examiner considers “the battery that fails may be the fastest or the slowest within a certain period of time” to be time domain analysis) by dividing the preset time window into equal-length intervals (See NPL Page 4 “frequency of each interval”), computing for each interval an interval-mean standard score (See NPL Page 4), generating a variation trend curve that represents a variation trend of the internal state of the battery pack (See NPL Page 4 “inconsistency difference of the lithium battery pack changes, the voltage of different batteries is always different”), and outputting an abnormal cell indication (NPL Page 4 “The consistency difference potential risk judgment module judges whether the value of the characteristic parameter exceeds the set range, and then calculates the inconsistency of the lithium battery pack based on the information entropy, otherwise it will output the judgment result that the battery is normal”) when the variation trend exhibits a divergence magnitude corresponding to a developing inconsistency condition (See NPL Page 5, “abnormal voltage coefficient is greater than 2, it is judged that the battery pack has occurred Inconsistent failure”).
Hong does not explicitly disclose a computer-implemented method, a terminal device, generating a linear variation trend curve that represents a variation trend of the internal state of the battery pack (emphasis added).
Zhang teaches a computer-implemented method (See NPL2 Page 7 “program modules are loaded and executed by the processor”), a terminal device (See NPL2 Page 7-8 “a processor; and a memory” Fig. 1, 100), generating a linear variation trend curve that represents a variation trend of the internal state of the battery pack (See NPL2, Page 14 “first variation curve”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filled to have a computer-implemented method, a terminal device, generating a linear variation trend curve that represents a variation trend of the internal state of the battery pack based on the teachings of Zhang in Hong in order to correlate the charging voltage under the number of cycles and the actual battery capacity (See NPL2, Page 14), thus leading to a more accurate system.
In claim 19 Hong discloses wherein said classifying, by the processor, each cell into one of the predefined states comprises: calculating the median or average value of the voltage standard score within the preset time window (See NPL Page 5 “average” ), wherein when the median or average value of the voltage standard score|< a first threshold value, it is determined that the cell is in a healthy state (See NPL Page 5 “is less than or equal to 2,”); when the first threshold value < the median or average value of the voltage standard score|< a second threshold value, it is determined that inconsistency occurs in the cell (See NPL Page 5 “When the absolute value of the abnormal voltage coefficient is greater than 2, it is judged that the battery pack has occurred Inconsistent failure”); when the second threshold value < the median or average value of the voltage standard score|< a third threshold value, it is determined that the inconsistency of the battery pack begins getting worsen (See NPL Page 5 “it is considered that the consistency is poor”); and when the third threshold value < the median or average value of the voltage standard score l, it is determined that it is necessary to intervene in the inconsistency of the cell (See NPL Page 5 “is considered to be poor, so as to diagnose the potential risk of consistency in the vehicle power battery”).
In claim 23 Hong does not explicitly disclose a memory; said memory is used to store computer programs; and wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer program stored in the memory, so that the terminal device executes the method according to claim 18.
Zhang teaches a memory (See NPL2 Page 7 “a processor; and a memory”); said memory is used to store computer programs (See NPL2 Page 7 “memory stores a plurality of program modules”); and wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer program stored in the memory, so that the terminal device executes the method according to claim 18 (See NPL2 Page 7 “program modules are loaded and executed by the processor”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filled to have a memory; said memory is used to store computer programs; and wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer program stored in the memory, so that the terminal device executes the method according to claim 18 as taught by Zhang in order to execute the estimation method (See NPL2 Page 7), thus providing structure to perform the method in an quick and effective manner which would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient.
Claim(s) 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HONG in view of Zhang in view of TATSUMI HIROYUKI et al. (JP 2007010588 A) see translation attached hence forth NPL3.
In claim 20 Hong does not explicitly disclose calculating a voltage speed, dv/dt, as a first derivative of the cell voltages with respect to time; and based on the voltage speed, determining internal resistance consistency of each cell and whether a micro-short circuit occurs.
Tatsumi teaches calculating a voltage speed, dv/dt, as a first derivative of the cell voltages with respect to time (See NPL3 Page 2 “dV / dt”); and based on the voltage speed, determining internal resistance consistency of each cell and whether a micro-short circuit occurs (See NPL3 Page 2 “internal resistance” “determined as a micro short-circuit”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filled to have calculating a voltage speed, dv/dt, as a first derivative of the cell voltages with respect to time; and based on the voltage speed, determining internal resistance consistency of each cell and whether a micro-short circuit occurs as taught by Tatsumi to Hong in order to detect micro short circuits (See NPL3 Page 2) thus increasing the accuracy of the determinations.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Zhang in view of IIDA TAKUMA (JP 2007113953 A) see translation attached hence forth NPL4.
In claim 21 Hong does not explicitly disclose calculating a voltage acceleration
PNG
media_image3.png
58
78
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, as a second derivative of each cell voltages with respect to time; andbased on the voltage acceleration, determining internal resistance consistency of the cell and whether a micro-short circuit occurs.
IIDA teaches calculating a voltage acceleration
PNG
media_image3.png
58
78
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(See NPL4 Page 16 “ΔVn / T”), as a second derivative of each cell voltages with respect to time (See NPL4 Page 16 “ΔVn / T”); and based on the voltage acceleration, determining internal resistance consistency of the cell and whether a micro-short circuit occurs (See NPL4 Page 20 “internal resistance by a micro short circuit
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filled to have calculating a voltage acceleration
PNG
media_image3.png
58
78
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, as a second derivative of each cell voltages with respect to time; andbased on the voltage acceleration, determining internal resistance consistency of the cell and whether a micro-short circuit occurs as taught by IIDA in order to detect micro short circuits (See NPL4 Page 20) thus increasing the accuracy of the determinations.
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Zhang in view of Du (US 20210119275 A1).
In claim 22 Hong does not explicitly disclose calculating an amount of electricity, q, based on the current of each cell; calculating dq/dv based on the amount of electricity and the voltage; and based on the dq/dv, determining capacity consistency of the cell and whether the capacity decay occurs.
Du teaches calculating an amount of electricity, q, based on the current of each cell (Par. 15 “currents”, “charged capacity”); calculating dq/dv based on the amount of electricity and the voltage (Par. 15 “calculating the differential capacity”); and based on the dq/dv, determining capacity consistency of the cell and whether the capacity decay occurs (Fig. 6, 404).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filled to have for calculating an amount of electricity, q, based on the current of each cell; calculating dq/dv based on the amount of electricity and the voltage; and based on the dq/dv, determining capacity consistency of the cell and whether the capacity decay occurs.as taught by Du in Hong in order to ensures the accuracy of the corrected SOC value of the battery pack (Du Par. 59) thus leading to a more accurate system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicants 101 arguments on pages 6-9, examiner notes that the “specific technique” cited are abstract ideas implemented using generic computer components. Further outputting an early warning amount to data gathering/outputting which is not enough to be significantly more or a practical application. Regarding the 103 arguments, the updated rejection above covers the amended limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 6278257 B1 Method For Detecting Abnormal Cell.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON J BECKER whose telephone number is (571)431-0689. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/B.J.B/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857