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 .
Status of Claims
In the communication filed on 06/08/2026, claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-13, 15-20, 22-23, and 25-31 are pending. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-13, 15-20, 22-23, and 25-28 are amended. Claims 29-31 are new. Claims 3, 8, 14, 21, and 24 are presently cancelled.
The amended independent claims 1 and 22 changed scopes by incorporating previously-unclaimed subject matter, such as “a chaotic threshold”. Thus, the amended claims require new grounds of rejection.
Response to Arguments
A subset of the prior objections to the Drawings are withdrawn due to the amendments.
The remaining objections to the Drawings, detailed infra, are maintained because they are necessary for a complete understanding of the claimed invention.
Though objections remain, the replacement drawings (filed 06/08/2026) improve on the original drawings (filed 03/28/2023) and should thus be entered into the record. A copy of the replacement drawings is attached with annotations to indicate the replacement drawings are okay to enter.
The prior objections to the Specification are withdrawn due to the amendments.
A copy of the clean substitute specification (filed 06/08/2026) is attached with annotations to indicate the specification amendments are okay to enter.
The prior objections to the Claims are withdrawn due to the amendments.
The prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn due to the amendments.
The prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
As presently written, the claim 1 limitation “reducing the applied charge signal or discharge signal …” is rendered optional by the prior-recited option to apply only a “probe signal” instead of a “charge signal” or “discharge signal”.
To overcome the 101 rejections of claim 1 and its dependents, it is suggested to amend the line 2 limitation “applying a probe signal, a charge signal, or a discharge signal to a battery” to remove the optional species wherein a “probe signal” is applied instead of a “charge signal” or “discharge signal”. If the applicant also wants to claim the application of a “probe signal”, it is suggested this be moved to a separate limitation rather than being an optional alternative to the “charge signal” or “discharge signal”.
As presently written, the claim 22 limitation “reducing a charge signal …” is rendered optional by the prior-recited option to apply only a “probe signal” instead of a “charge signal”.
Similarly, to overcome the 101 rejections of claim 22 and its dependents, it is suggested to amend the line 8 limitation “applying a probe signal or a charge signal to an electrochemical device” to remove the optional species wherein a “probe signal” is applied instead of a “charge signal”. If the applicant also wants to claim the application of a “probe signal”, it is suggested this be moved to a separate limitation rather than being an optional alternative to the “charge signal”.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of amended independent claims 1 and 22, along with their dependents, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) was submitted on 06/08/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“a method” (claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-13, 15-20, 22-23, 25-31)
“a battery” (claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-13, 15-20, 23)
“an electrochemical device” (claims 22-23, 25-31)
“the noisy signal including uncorrelated noise and correlated signal data” (claim 1)
“the signal includes uncorrelated data and correlated data” (claim 22)
“an equilibrium state” / “equilibrium processes” (claims 6-7, 16)
“a charge or discharge sequence” (claim 7)
“a probe signal” (claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-13, 15-20)
“a charge signal” (claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-13, 15-20, 22-23, 25-31)
“a discharge signal” (claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-13, 15-20)
“the filtered signal” (claim 22)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) and/or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The Abstract language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Thus, the Abstract (filed 03/28/2023) should be revised to avoid using the phrase “Aspects of the present disclosure”.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 17, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, line 2 recites “prove signal”, which should be revised to “[[prove]] probe signal”.
Claim 17, lines 2-3 recite “change carriers within the batter”, which should be revised to “[[change]] charge carriers within the [[batter]] battery”.
Claim 22, line 18 recites “reducing a charge signal”, which should be revised to “reducing [[a]] the charge signal” because this feature is introduced prior in claim 22.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 17 is 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.
Claim 17 recites “the uncorrelated signal comprises thermally-generated noise arising from random thermal motion of change [sic] carriers within the batter [sic]”. In contrast, the instant application’s specification ¶ [6] simply recites “the uncorrelated signal data may be thermal, which can be seen as noise, and hence removing thermal information may help isolate the correlated signal data”. Thus, the amended claim 17 is claiming subject matter (random thermal motion of charge carriers) which was not adequately described in the specification.
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.
Claims 25-26 and 28 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.
Claims 25- 26 each recite “the battery”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claim language.
Claim 28 recites “the anode” and “the charge parameter”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these terms in the claim language.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 4, 9-10, 12-13, 15, 19-20, 22-23, 25-26, and 28-31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 9-12, 14, and 17 of copending Application No. 18/621,049 (claims received 03/28/2024).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
The following table compares the instant and copending applications. The patentably indistinct claim language is identified with bold text.
Instant Application 18/127,634
Copending Application 18/621,049
Claim 1
A method comprising:
applying a probe signal, a charge signal, or a discharge signal to a battery;
accessing a noisy signal from the battery, the noisy signal including uncorrelated noise and correlated signal data,
wherein the noisy signal is responsive to the applied probe signal, charge signal, or discharge signal;
filtering the noisy signal to isolate the correlated signal data;
and processing the correlated signal data to identify information indicative of a chaotic threshold in the correlated signal data, wherein the chaotic threshold is associated with an onset of an electrodynamic process occurring within the battery;
reducing the applied charge signal or discharge signal delivered to or from the battery based on the onset of the electrodynamic process.
Claim 1
A method comprising:
Claim 14: a probe signal to the battery
Claim 1
accessing a noisy signal from a battery, the noisy signal including uncorrelated noise and correlated signal data;
Claim 14
the signal is responsive to a probe signal to the battery
Claim 1
filtering the noisy signal to isolate the correlated signal data;
processing the correlated signal data to identify plating within the battery;
Claim 11: computing a Lyapunov Exponent; …
identifying that the Lyapunov Exponent has met a threshold associated with chaotic behavior.
Claim 1
initiating at least one of reducing charge, stopping charge, discharging the battery or generating an electric field to at least partially stop or reverse plating.
Claim 2
The method of claim 1,
wherein the noisy signal is a voltage measurement or a current measurement.
Claim 2: the noisy signal is a voltage measurement.
Claim 3: the noisy signal is a current measurement
Claim 4
The method of claim 1,
wherein the noisy signal is a generated measurement from at least one of a current measurement and a voltage measurement.
Claim 2: the noisy signal is a voltage measurement.
Claim 3: the noisy signal is a current measurement
Claim 9
The method of claim 1,
wherein the noisy signal is obtained in a transient state of the battery.
Claim 9
the signal is measured during charge or discharge
Claim 10
The method of claim 9,
wherein the transient state is associated with the applied prove signal, the applied charge signal, or the applied discharge signal.
Claim 9
the signal is measured during charge or discharge
Claim 12
The method of claim 1,
wherein the correlated signal data is associated with plating.
Claim 4
the correlated signal data is associated with plating.
Claim 13
The method of claim 1,
wherein the correlated signal data is associated with dendrite formation and growth.
Claim 5
the correlated signal data is further associated with dendrite formation and growth.
Claim 15
The method of claim 1,
wherein the correlated signal data is representative of a specific battery or a specific type of battery.
Claim 1: a battery
(NOTE: The claim language “representative of a specific battery” is written broadly. The fact that the correlated signal data is measured from a single battery also means it is representative of that single battery. Similarly, that single battery inherently is built as a “type”. Thus, the correlated signal data would also be representative of the type of the single battery.)
Claim 19
The method of claim 1,
wherein processing the correlated signal data involves identifying a bifurcation,
the bifurcation corresponding to the chaotic threshold at which the correlated signal data transitions from periodic behavior to chaotic behavior,
and wherein the bifurcation is indicative of the onset of an additional electrochemical or electrodynamic process.
Claim 6: processing the correlated signal data involves identifying a bifurcation,
Claim 11: identifying that the Lyapunov Exponent has met a threshold associated with chaotic behavior.
Claim 6: the bifurcation indicative of the onset of an additional electrochemical or electrodynamic process.
Claim 20
The method of claim 1,
wherein reducing the applied charge signal or discharge signal delivered to or from the battery based on the identified onset of the electrodynamic process includes reducing a charge current applied to the battery or reducing a discharge current from the battery.
Claim 17
charging of the battery resumes at a charge magnitude less than a charge magnitude before identifying that the Lyapunov Exponent has met the threshold associated with chaotic behavior.
Claim 29
The method of claim 1,
wherein processing the correlated signal data to identify information indicative of the chaotic threshold comprises computing a nonlinear stability metric of the correlated signal data over time,
and wherein the chaotic threshold is identified when the computed nonlinear stability metric approaches or crosses a value indicative of a transition from periodic behavior to chaotic behavior in the correlated signal data.
Claim 11
from a signal of a battery, computing a Lyapunov Exponent;
…
identifying that the Lyapunov Exponent has met a threshold associated with chaotic behavior.
Claim 30
The method of claim 29,
wherein the nonlinear stability metric is a Lyapunov exponent computed from the correlated signal data,
and wherein the chaotic threshold is identified when the computed Lyapunov exponent approaches or crosses zero.
Claim 11
from a signal of a battery, computing a Lyapunov Exponent;
…
identifying that the Lyapunov Exponent has met a threshold associated with chaotic behavior.
Claim 12: wherein the threshold is a value of 0.
Claim 31
The method of claim 30,
wherein the chaotic threshold is associated with a bifurcation in the correlated signal data,
wherein the bifurcation is identified when the computed Lyapunov exponent crosses zero,
and wherein the bifurcation is indicative of a transition from a first electrochemical or electrodynamic process to a parallel second electrochemical or electrodynamic process occurring concurrently within the battery.
Claim 6: wherein processing the correlated signal data involves identifying a bifurcation,
Claim 11: from a signal of a battery, computing a Lyapunov Exponent; … identifying that the Lyapunov Exponent has met a threshold associated with chaotic behavior.
Claim 12: wherein the threshold is a value of 0.
Claim 6: the bifurcation indicative of the onset of an additional electrochemical or electrodynamic process.
Claim 22
A method comprising:
applying a probe signal or a charge signal to an electrochemical device;
filtering a signal of the electrochemical device to produce a filtered signal,
wherein the signal is responsive to the applied probe signal or charge signal,
wherein the signal includes uncorrelated data and correlated data,
wherein the filtered signal includes the correlated data,
and wherein the correlated data includes information pertaining to an electrochemical or electrodynamic process of the electrochemical device;
processing the filtered signal to identify a bifurcation in the correlated data, the bifurcation corresponding to a chaotic threshold in the correlated data,
wherein the chaotic threshold is associated with an onset of an electrochemical or electrodynamic process occurring within the electrochemical device;
reducing a charge signal applied to the electrochemical device based, at least in part, on the identified bifurcation, thereby modifying the charge signal delivered to the electrochemical device.
Claim 1
A method comprising:
Claim 14: a probe signal to the battery
Claim 1
filtering the noisy signal to isolate the correlated signal data;
Claim 14
the signal is responsive to a probe signal to the battery
Claim 1
accessing a noisy signal from a battery, the noisy signal including uncorrelated noise and correlated signal data;
filtering the noisy signal to isolate the correlated signal data;
Claim 5: the correlated signal data is further associated with dendrite formation and growth.
Claim 6: wherein processing the correlated signal data involves identifying a bifurcation, the bifurcation indicative of the onset of an additional electrochemical or electrodynamic process.
Claim 11: computing a Lyapunov Exponent; …
identifying that the Lyapunov Exponent has met a threshold associated with chaotic behavior.
Claim 1: initiating at least one of reducing charge, stopping charge, discharging the battery or generating an electric field to at least partially stop or reverse plating.
Claim 23
The method of claim 22,
wherein the electrochemical device is a battery.
Claim 1: a battery
Claim 25
The method of claim 22,
wherein reducing the charge signal applied to the battery involves altering at least one of charge rate, charge voltage or duty cycle.
Claim 1
initiating at least one of reducing charge
Claim 26
The method of claim 22,
wherein reducing the charge signal applied to the battery includes reducing a charge current to the battery or reducing a discharge current from the battery or the charge voltage.
Claim 17
charging of the battery resumes at a charge magnitude less than a charge magnitude before identifying that the Lyapunov Exponent has met the threshold associated with chaotic behavior.
Claim 28
The method of claim 22,
wherein the correlated data pertains to, at least in part, plating of the anode and altering the charge parameter reduces plating.
Claim 10
the correlated data pertains to, at least in part, plating of the anode and altering the charge parameter reduces or reverses plating.
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 14 of copending Application No. 18/621,049 (claims received 03/28/2024) in view of Aoki (US 2022/0299572 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, the copending application does not claim “the noisy signal is a generated impedance measurement”.
Aoki teaches (see detailed claim mapping included infra in prior art rejection) the noisy signal is a generated impedance measurement, which enables the detection of and protection against electrodeposition (per Abstract; Figs. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the noisy signal claimed by the copending application to be an impedance measurement, as taught by Aoki, to enable the detection of and protection against electrodeposition.
Claims 6-7 and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 14 of copending Application No. 18/621,049 (claims received 03/28/2024) in view of Christophersen (US 2023/0091066 A1; hereinafter “Chris”).
Regarding Claims -6-7, the copending application does not claim “the noisy signal is obtained in an equilibrium state of the battery” and “the equilibrium state of the battery is during a charge or discharge sequence of the battery.”.
Chris teaches (see detailed claim mapping included infra in prior art rejection) the noisy signal is obtained in an equilibrium state of the battery, wherein the equilibrium state of the battery is during a charge or discharge sequence of the battery.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method and noisy signal claimed by the copending application to obtain the noisy signal in an equilibrium state of the battery, as taught by Chris, to ensure the correlated signal data is accurate and repeatable.
Regarding Claim 16, the copending application does not claim “the correlated signal data is associated with equilibrium processes within the battery”.
Chris teaches (see detailed claim mapping included infra in prior art rejection) the correlated signal data is associated with equilibrium processes within the battery.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method and correlated signal data claimed by the copending application to be associated with equilibrium processes within the battery, as taught by Chris, to ensure the correlated signal data is accurate and repeatable.
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 14 of copending Application No. 18/621,049 (claims received 03/28/2024) in view of Weber et al. (US 2024/0377471 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, the copending application does not claim “filtering comprises a domain transform and identifies the correlated signal data”.
Weber teaches (see detailed claim mapping included infra in prior art rejection) filtering comprises a domain transform and identifies the correlated signal data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the filtering claimed by the copending application to incorporate a domain transform, as taught by Weber, to improve the filtering out of the noise, which improves the accuracy of the battery monitoring method.
Claim 18 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 14 of copending Application No. 18/621,049 (claims received 03/28/2024) in view of Weber et al. (US 2024/0377471 A1) and Durak (L. Durak et al., Adaptive fractional Fourier domain filtering, 2009, Signal Processing 90, pages 1188-1196).
Regarding Claim 18, the copending application does not claim “the domain transform is one of a partial or fractional domain transform”.
Durak teaches (see detailed claim mapping included infra in prior art rejection) the domain transform is one of a partial or fractional domain transform.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the domain transform claimed by the copending application with modifications from Weber to be a fractional domain transform, as taught by Durak, to improve the filtering more accurately filtering the noise from the signal with lower error compared to other filtering methods.
Claim 17 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 14 of copending Application No. 18/621,049 (claims received 03/28/2024) in view of Ye et al. (US 2015/0081237 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, the copending application does not claim “the uncorrelated signal data comprises thermally-generated noise arising from random thermal motion of change carriers within the batter”.
Ye teaches (see detailed claim mapping included infra in prior art rejection) the uncorrelated signal data comprises thermally-generated noise arising from random thermal motion of change carriers within the batter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method claimed by the copending application to filter out the thermally-generated noise arising from random thermal motion of charge carriers within the battery, as taught by Ye, to improve accuracy of the filtered signal by removing the uncorrelated thermally-generated noise.
Claim 27 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-6, 11, and 14 of copending Application No. 18/621,049 (claims received 03/28/2024) in view of Ghantous et al. (US 2019/0072618 A1; hereinafter “Ghan”).
Regarding Claim 27, the copending application does not claim “altering a harmonic component of the charge signal”.
Ghan teaches (see detailed claim mapping included infra in prior art rejection) altering a harmonic component of the charge signal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method claimed by the copending application to alter a harmonic component of the charge signal, as taught by Ghan, to reduce battery degradation by reducing the battery’s propensity to plate metallic lithium during charging and discharging.
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 1-2, 4-7, 9-13, 15-20, 22-23, and 25-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Suggestions to overcome this rejection are included supra in the “Response to Arguments” section.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-13, 15-20, 22-23, and 25-31 recite “a method”. Thus, the claims are to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea?
Independent Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
applying a probe signal, a charge signal, or a discharge signal to a battery;
accessing a noisy signal from the battery, the noisy signal including uncorrelated noise and correlated signal data;
wherein the noisy signal is responsive to the applied probe signal, charge signal, or discharge signal;
filtering the noisy signal to isolate the correlated signal data [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite mathematic concepts because they are mathematical calculations];
and processing the correlated signal data to identify information indicative of a chaotic threshold in the correlated signal data [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite mathematic concepts because they are mathematical calculations],
wherein the chaotic threshold is associated with an onset of an electrodynamic process occurring within the battery;
reducing the applied charge signal or discharge signal delivered to or from the battery based on the onset of the electrodynamic process [this limitation is not applicable because the examiner is considering the scenario wherein only the “probe signal” is applied].
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application?
The elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements.
The examiner finds that each of the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea:
applying a probe signal, a charge signal, or a discharge signal to a battery;
accessing a noisy signal from the battery
The examiner finds that each of the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps of the method are performed:
the noisy signal including uncorrelated noise and correlated signal data;
wherein the noisy signal is responsive to the applied probe signal, charge signal, or discharge signal;
wherein the chaotic threshold is associated with an onset of an electrodynamic process occurring within the battery;
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
The examiner finds that the additional elements which are insignificant extra-solution activities do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the activities are a well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the field and thus does not contribute an inventive concept.
The examiner finds that the other additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Claims 2, 4-7, 9-10, 12-13, and 15-17, the examiner finds that each of the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use:
Claim 2: wherein the noisy signal is a voltage measurement or a current measurement.
Claim 4: wherein the noisy signal is a generated measurement from at least one of a current measurement and a voltage measurement.
Claim 5: wherein the noisy signal is a generated impedance measurement.
Claim 6: wherein the noisy signal is obtained in an equilibrium state of the battery.
Claim 7: wherein the equilibrium state of the battery is during a charge or discharge sequence of the battery.
Claim 9: wherein the noisy signal is obtained in a transient state of the battery.
Claim 10: wherein the transient state is associated with the applied prove signal, the applied charge signal, or the applied discharge signal.
Claim 12: wherein the correlated signal data is associated with plating.
Claim 13: wherein the correlated signal data is associated with dendrite formation and growth.
Claim 15: wherein the correlated signal data is representative of a specific battery or a specific type of battery.
Claim 16: wherein the correlated signal data is associated with equilibrium processes within the battery.
Claim 17: wherein the uncorrelated signal data comprises thermally-generated noise arising from random thermal motion of change carriers within the batter.
Claim 11 recites:
The method of claim 1,
wherein filtering comprises a domain transform and identifies the correlated signal data [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite mathematic concepts because they are mathematical calculations].
Claim 18 recites:
The method of claim 11,
wherein the domain transform is one of a partial or fractional domain transform [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites a mathematic concept because it is a mathematical calculation].
Claim 19 recites:
The method of claim 1,
wherein processing the correlated signal data involves identifying a bifurcation, the bifurcation corresponding to the chaotic threshold at which the correlated signal data transitions from periodic behavior to chaotic behavior [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites a mathematic concept because it is a mathematical calculation],
and wherein the bifurcation is indicative of the onset of an additional electrochemical or electrodynamic process.
The elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements.
The examiner finds that the following additional element does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use:
wherein the bifurcation is indicative of the onset of an additional electrochemical or electrodynamic process.
Regarding Claim 20, the examiner finds limitations to be not applicable because the examiner is considering the scenario wherein only the “probe signal” is applied. Claim 20 is only applicable if either the “charge signal” or “discharge signal” is applied.
Dependent Claim 29 recites:
The method of claim 1,
wherein processing the correlated signal data to identify information indicative of the chaotic threshold comprises computing a nonlinear stability metric of the correlated signal data over time [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite mathematic concepts because they are mathematical calculations],
and wherein the chaotic threshold is identified when the computed nonlinear stability metric approaches or crosses a value indicative of a transition from periodic behavior to chaotic behavior in the correlated signal data [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite mathematic concepts because they are mathematical calculations].
Dependent Claim 30 recites:
The method of claim 29,
wherein the nonlinear stability metric is a Lyapunov exponent computed from the correlated signal data [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite mathematic concepts because they are mathematical calculations],
and wherein the chaotic threshold is identified when the computed Lyapunov exponent approaches or crosses zero [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite mathematic concepts because they are mathematical calculations].
Dependent Claim 31 recites:
The method of claim 30,
wherein the chaotic threshold is associated with a bifurcation in the correlated signal data [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite mathematic concepts because they are mathematical relationships],
wherein the bifurcation is identified when the computed Lyapunov exponent crosses zero [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite mathematic concepts because they are mathematical calculations],
and wherein the bifurcation is indicative of a transition from a first electrochemical or electrodynamic process to a parallel second electrochemical or electrodynamic process occurring concurrently within the battery.
The elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements.
The examiner finds that the following additional element does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use:
the bifurcation is indicative of a transition from a first electrochemical or electrodynamic process to a parallel second electrochemical or electrodynamic process occurring concurrently within the battery.
Independent Claim 22 recites:
A method comprising:
applying a probe signal or a charge signal to an electrochemical device;
filtering a signal of the electrochemical device to produce a filtered signal [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite mathematic concepts because they are mathematical calculations],
wherein the signal is responsive to the applied probe signal or charge signal,
wherein the signal includes uncorrelated data and correlated data,
wherein the filtered signal includes the correlated data, and wherein the correlated data includes information pertaining to an electrochemical or electrodynamic process of the electrochemical device;
processing the filtered signal to identify a bifurcation in the correlated data, the bifurcation corresponding to a chaotic threshold in the correlated data [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite mathematic concepts because they are mathematical calculations],
wherein the chaotic threshold is associated with an onset of an electrochemical or electrodynamic process occurring within the electrochemical device;
reducing a charge signal applied to the electrochemical device based, at least in part, on the identified bifurcation, thereby modifying the charge signal delivered to the electrochemical device [this limitation is not applicable because the examiner is considering the scenario wherein only the “probe signal” is applied].
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application?
The elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements.
The examiner finds that each of the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea:
applying a probe signal or a charge signal to an electrochemical device;
The examiner finds that each of the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps of the method are performed:
wherein the signal is responsive to the applied probe signal or charge signal,
wherein the signal includes uncorrelated data and correlated data,
wherein the filtered signal includes the correlated data,
wherein the correlated data includes information pertaining to an electrochemical or electrodynamic process of the electrochemical device;
wherein the chaotic threshold is associated with an onset of an electrochemical or electrodynamic process occurring within the electrochemical device;
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
The examiner finds that the additional elements which are insignificant extra-solution activities do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the activities are a well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the field and thus does not contribute an inventive concept.
The examiner finds that the other additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Claims 23 and 28, the examiner finds that each of the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use:
Claim 23: wherein the electrochemical device is a battery.
Claim 28: wherein the correlated data pertains to, at least in part, plating of the anode and altering the charge parameter reduces plating.
Regarding Claims 25-27, the examiner finds limitations to be not applicable because the examiner is considering the scenario wherein only the “probe signal” is applied. Claims 25-27 are only applicable if the “charge signal” is applied.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, 12-13, 15, 19-20, and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (US 2022/0299572 A1) in view of the IEEE publication by Bandong (S. Bandong et al., Chaotic Behavior of Battery State of Health, November 2019, 6th International Conference on Electrical Vehicular Technology, pp. 323-327) (hereinafter “Ban”).
The Ban reference is currently accessible at the following hyperlink:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8993986
Regarding Claim 1, Aoki discloses a method (Figs. 2-3; Abstract: “detecting the generation of electrodeposition in an all-solid-state lithium-ion secondary battery”) comprising the following.
Aoki further discloses applying a probe signal (the charge signal output from “9” & “5” may also be interpreted as a probe signal), a charge signal (charge signal produced by combo of “external power supply 9” & “voltage current adjustment device 5” for delivery to “2”; Fig. 1), or a discharge signal (discharging of “2” per ¶ [57]: “Alternatively, the controller 8 may perform, as the control performed upon electrodeposition detection, discharging processing for a predetermined time at a predetermined current value … smaller than the charging current”; ¶ [57]: “the progress of the electrodeposition in the solid electrolyte layer in … discharging processing can be prevented by appropriately setting … the current value”) to a battery (“secondary battery 2”; Fig. 1).
Aoki further discloses accessing (accessed by combo of “controller 8”, “current sensor 6”, “voltage sensor 3”, and “impedance measuring device 7”; Fig. 1) a noisy signal (¶ [51]: “8 first acquires, as an output signal of the impedance measuring device 7, a waveform of a response voltage”) from the battery (2).
Aoki further discloses the noisy signal (output of “7”) including uncorrelated noise (¶ [51]: “noise caused by a high-frequency component”) and correlated signal data (¶ [51]: “AC impedance”).
Aoki further discloses the noisy signal (output of “7”) is responsive to the applied probe signal (interpreted to be same as the charge signal) or charge signal (charge signal produced by combo of “9” & “5” for delivery to “2”; Fig. 1).
Aoki further discloses filtering (Fig. 3, step S201: “remove noise”) the noisy signal (output of “7”) to isolate the correlated signal data (¶ [51]: “AC impedance” is used by “controller 8” after noise is filtered out “by using a low-pass filter”).
Aoki further discloses processing the correlated signal data (“AC impedance”, obtained in Fig. 3, step S201) to identify information indicative of a threshold (Fig. 3, step S202: “amplitude of response voltage in discharge direction”) in the correlated signal data (“AC impedance”).
Aoki further discloses the threshold (Fig. 3, step S202: “amplitude of response voltage in discharge direction”) is associated with an onset of an electrodynamic process (“electrodeposition” detected in step S110; Fig. 2; dendrite generates and grows from Fig. 4A to 4D; ¶ [6, 53-54]; ¶ [53]: “when electrodeposition occurs, the internal resistance value of the battery decreases, … the response voltage also decreases”; see note 1-1, included infra) occurring within the battery (2).
NOTE 1-1: The instant application’s specification ¶ [23] states “electrodynamic noise induced conductive pathways may then cause localized current concentrations leading to plating and dendrite formation”. Thus, it is interpreted that dendrite formation is an electrodynamic process.
Aoki further discloses reducing the applied charge signal (Fig. 2, step S111: “decreasing charging current”; ¶ [57]: “upon electrodeposition detection, … decreasing the charging current (C rate)”) or discharge signal (per ¶ [57] and claim 8, the method can be extended to reduce discharging current upon detection of electrodeposition; claim 8: “discharges … with a current smaller than a charging current”; ¶ [57]: “Alternatively, the controller 8 may perform, as the control performed upon electrodeposition detection, discharging processing for a predetermined time at a predetermined current value … smaller than the charging current”; ¶ [57]: “the progress of the electrodeposition in the solid electrolyte layer in … discharging processing can be prevented by appropriately setting … the current value”) delivered to or from the battery (2) based on the onset of the electrodynamic process (“electrodeposition” detected in step S110; Fig. 2).
As addressed supra, Aoki discloses processing the correlated signal data to identify information indicative of a threshold in the correlated signal data, wherein the threshold is associated with an onset of an electrodynamic process occurring within the battery, However, Aoki does not disclose that said threshold is “a chaotic threshold”.
Ban teaches processing the correlated signal data (voltage and current data of Fig. 2; measured using a “30 V 10 A Battery Analyzer” per section II.A. Stage of Research) to identify information (“Lyapunov exponent (LE) λi”, obtained in the “Lyapunov Exponent Calculation” step of Fig. 1; pp. 325, section II.E. Lyapunov Exponent; pp. 326, section III.D. Calculation of Lyapunov Exponent) indicative of a chaotic threshold (chaotic threshold is when Lyapunov crosses zero; Abstract: “Lyapunov Exponent are considered to identify the chaotic nature of SoH”; section III.D. Calculation of Lyapunov Exponent explains that for any time series of data, those “relative” LE values less than zero are more stable and less chaotic than “different” LE values greater than zero; section IV. Conclusions: “positive values … chaotic behavior”, “negative values on the summation of Lyapunov exponent which implied the system did not grow unbounded and diverge to infinity”) in the correlated signal data (voltage and current data of Fig. 2).
Ban further teaches the chaotic threshold (Lyapunov exponent = 0) is associated with an onset of an electrodynamic process (section I. Introduction: “predicting a decrease in SOH”) occurring within the battery (“Panasonic 18650BE lithium battery”, per section II.A.).
NOTE 1-2: Though Ban’s information indicative of a chaotic threshold (“Lyapunov exponent”) is not equivalent to Aoki’s information (“AC impedance”), each of these is associated with the state of health (SOH) of the battery. Further, each of the Aoki’s and Ban’s methods are based on processing voltage and current time-series data that characterizes a battery’s real-time behavior. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art understands the teachings of Ban are analogous and applicable to modify the method disclosed by Aoki.
Ban further teaches using the Lyapunov Exponent value to model the chaotic behavior of the battery charging data (Abstract), which improves predictions of the state of health (section I. Introduction). Ban further teaches the negative LE values are associated with stable state of health behaviors (Abstract). By properly understanding the stable operating points and the associated SOH/degradation impacts, the charging profile can be adjusted to better minimize degradation. Thus, Ban’s teachings help to better manage battery health, thus, improving the reliability of the energy storage system (section I. Introduction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Aoki to also identify information indicative of a chaotic threshold, as taught by Ban, to improve the predictions of the battery’s state of health, thus improving the method’s ability to minimize future deterioration of the battery during future charging cycles and improving reliability of operating the battery.
Regarding Claim 2, the combo of Aoki & Ban teaches the method of claim 1.
Aoki further discloses the noisy signal (output of “7”) is a voltage measurement (“response voltage” is measured when “applying an alternating current as an input signal” to the battery; ¶ [34]; thus, the impedance measurement would be a voltage measurement) or a current measurement (“response current” is measured when “an alternating-current voltage may be applied as an input signal” to the battery; ¶ [34]; thus, the impedance measurement would be a current measurement).
Regarding Claim 4, the combo of Aoki & Ban teaches the method of claim 1.
Aoki further discloses the noisy signal (output of “7”) is a generated measurement (¶ [34]: “impedance measuring device 7 is configured to measure an AC impedance”) from at least one of a current measurement (¶ [34]: “conversely, a response current may be acquired”) and a voltage measurement (¶ [34]: “acquiring a response voltage to the alternating current”).
Regarding Claim 5, the combo of Aoki & Ban teaches the method of claim 4.
Aoki further discloses the noisy signal (output of “7”) is a generated impedance measurement (¶ [34]: “impedance measuring device 7 is configured to measure an AC impedance”).
Regarding Claim 9, the combo of Aoki & Ban teaches the method of claim 1.
Aoki further discloses the noisy signal (output of “7”) is obtained in a transient state (the battery “2” is undergoing charging, starting with step S104, when the noisy signal is observed in step S109; Fig. 2) of the battery (2).
NOTE 9-1: The claimed term “transient state” is broad. This can mean the battery is experiencing a change of any kind. The instant application’s specification ¶ [5] states “a transient state of the battery, which may be associated with a charge signal or a discharge signal”. Thus, a battery being charged is considered to be in a transient state because its charge level is changing.
Regarding Claim 10, the combo of Aoki & Ban teaches the method of claim 9.
Aoki further discloses the transient state (Fig. 2, step S104: “constant current (CC) charging”) is associated with the applied prove signal (interpreted to be same as the charge signal) or the applied charge signal (charge signal produced by combo of “9” & “5” for delivery to “2”; Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 12, the combo of Aoki & Ban teaches the method of claim 1.
Aoki further discloses the correlated signal data (“AC impedance”) is associated with plating (dendrite generates and grows from Fig. 4A to 4D; ¶ [6, 53-54]; ¶ [53]: “when electrodeposition occurs, the internal resistance value of the battery decreases, … the response voltage also decreases”).
NOTE 12-1: The instant application’s specification ¶ [23] describes plating as “including dendrite formation and growth”.
Regarding Claim 13, the combo of Aoki & Ban teaches the method of claim 1.
Aoki further discloses the correlated signal data (“AC impedance”) is associated with dendrite formation and growth (dendrite generates and grows from Fig. 4A to 4D; ¶ [6, 53-54]; ¶ [53]: “when electrodeposition occurs, the internal resistance value of the battery decreases, … the response voltage also decreases”).
Regarding Claim 15, the combo of Aoki & Ban teaches the method of claim 1.
Aoki further discloses the correlated signal data (“AC impedance”) is representative of a specific battery (2) or a specific type of battery (¶ [27]: “2 is a normal all-solid-state lithium ion secondary battery”).
NOTE 15-1: The claim language “representative of a specific battery” is written broadly. The fact that the correlated signal data is measured from a single battery also means it is representative of that single battery. Similarly, that single battery inherently is built as a “type”. Thus, the correlated signal data would also be representative of the type of the single battery.
Regarding Claim 19, the combo of Aoki & Ban teaches the method of claim 1.
Aoki further discloses processing the correlated signal data (“AC impedance” signal drawn in Fig. 4; see annotated Fig. 4, included infra in the claim 22 rejection) involves identifying a bifurcation (bifurcation in signal’s amplitude detected in part B of Fig. 4 and progressively grows in parts B-D).
Aoki further discloses the bifurcation is indicative of the onset of an additional electrochemical or electrodynamic process (bifurcation is used to detect electrodeposition in Fig. 2, step S110; this is in addition to any process occurring prior, which includes the electrochemical process of building charge in response to the “constant current (CC) charging” of Fig. 2, step S104).
Analogously to Aoki’s threshold, the prior-set forth secondary reference Ban (teachings incorporated prior in claim 1 section supra) teaches processing the correlated signal data (voltage and current data of Fig. 2) involves identifying a bifurcation (bifurcates from periodic to chaotic when Lyapunov exponent crosses zero).
Ban further teaches the bifurcation (bifurcates from periodic to chaotic when Lyapunov exponent crosses zero) corresponding to the chaotic threshold (Lyapunov exponent = 0) at which the correlated signal data (voltage and current data of Fig. 2) transitions from periodic behavior to chaotic behavior (section III.D. Calculation of Lyapunov Exponent explains that for any time series of data, those “relative” LE values less than zero are more stable and less chaotic than “different” LE values greater than zero; section IV. Conclusions: “positive values … chaotic behavior”, “negative values on the summation of Lyapunov exponent which implied the system did not grow unbounded and diverge to infinity”).
Ban further teaches the bifurcation (bifurcates from periodic to chaotic when Lyapunov exponent crosses zero) is indicative of the onset of an additional electrochemical or electrodynamic process (section I. Introduction: “predicting a decrease in SOH”; battery damages cause the reduced SOH per section I.B. State of Health (SoH); the internal battery damages are the additional electrochemical or electrodynamic process).
Thus, when viewed in combination for the reasons set forth supra in claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the combination of Aoki and Ban teaches that processing the correlated signal data involves identifying a bifurcation (per Aoki and analogous Ban teachings), the bifurcation corresponding to the chaotic threshold at which the correlated signal data transitions from periodic behavior to chaotic behavior (per Ban), and wherein the bifurcation is indicative of the onset of an additional electrochemical or electrodynamic process (per Aoki and analogous Ban teachings).
Regarding Claim 20, the combo of Aoki & Ban teaches the method of claim 1.
Aoki further discloses reducing the applied charge signal or discharge signal delivered to or from the battery (2) based on the identified onset of the electrodynamic process (“electrodeposition” detected in step S110; Fig. 2) includes reducing a charge current (Fig. 2, step S111: “decreasing charging current”; ¶ [57]: “upon electrodeposition detection, … decreasing the charging current (C rate)”) applied to the battery (2) or reducing a discharge current (per ¶ [57] and claim 8, the method can be extended to reduce discharging current upon detection of electrodeposition; claim 8: “discharges … with a current smaller than a charging current”; ¶ [57]: “Alternatively, the controller 8 may perform, as the control performed upon electrodeposition detection, discharging processing for a predetermined time at a predetermined current value … smaller than the charging current”; ¶ [57]: “the progress of the electrodeposition in the solid electrolyte layer in … discharging processing can be prevented by appropriately setting … the current value”) from the battery (2).
Regarding Claim 29, the combo of Aoki & Ban teaches the method of claim 1.
The combo of Aoki & Ban teaches processing the correlated signal data (Aoki: “AC impedance”; analogous Ban data: voltage and current data of Fig. 2) to identify information indicative of the chaotic threshold (Ban: chaotic threshold is when Lyapunov crosses zero) comprises computing a nonlinear stability metric (Ban: “Lyapunov exponent (LE) λi”) of the correlated signal data over time.
The combo of Aoki & Ban teaches the chaotic threshold (Ban: chaotic threshold is when Lyapunov crosses zero) is identified when the computed nonlinear stability metric (Ban: “Lyapunov exponent (LE) λi”) approaches or crosses a value (zero) indicative of a transition from periodic behavior to chaotic behavior (Ban: section III.D. Calculation of Lyapunov Exponent explains that for any time series of data, those “relative” LE values less than zero are more stable and less chaotic than “different” LE values greater than zero; section IV. Conclusions: “positive values … chaotic behavior”, “negative values on the summation of Lyapunov exponent which implied the system did not grow unbounded and diverge to infinity”) in the correlated signal data (Aoki: “AC impedance”; analogous Ban data: voltage and current data of Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 30, the combo of Aoki & Ban teaches the method of claim 29.
The combo of Aoki & Ban teaches the nonlinear stability metric (Ban: “Lyapunov exponent (LE) λi”) is a Lyapunov exponent computed from the correlated signal data (Aoki: “AC impedance”; analogous Ban data: voltage and current data of Fig. 2).
The combo of Aoki & Ban teaches the chaotic threshold is identified when the computed Lyapunov exponent approaches or crosses zero (Ban: section III.D. Calculation of Lyapunov Exponent explains that for any time series of data, those “relative” LE values less than zero are more stable and less chaotic than “different” LE values greater than zero; section IV. Conclusions: “positive values … chaotic behavior”, “negative values on the summation of Lyapunov exponent which implied the system did not grow unbounded and diverge to infinity”).
Regarding Claim 31, the combo of Aoki & Ban teaches the method of claim 30.
Aoki further discloses the threshold (Fig. 3, step S202: “amplitude of response voltage in discharge direction”, associated with onset of electrodeposition) is associated with a bifurcation (bifurcation in signal’s amplitude detected in part B of Fig. 4 and progressively grows in parts B-D; bifurcation is used to detect electrodeposition in step S110; Fig. 2; see annotated Fig. 4) in the correlated data (“AC impedance”).
Aoki further discloses the bifurcation is indicative of a transition from a first electrochemical or electrodynamic process (normal charging/discharging of battery without electrodeposition; i.e., the electrochemical process of building charge in response to the “constant current (CC) charging” of Fig. 2, step S104) to a parallel second electrochemical or electrodynamic process (onset of electrodeposition) occurring concurrently within the battery (2).
Analogously to Aoki’s threshold, the prior-set forth secondary reference Ban (teachings incorporated prior in claim 1 section supra) teaches the chaotic threshold (Lyapunov exponent = 0) is associated with a bifurcation (bifurcates from periodic to chaotic when Lyapunov exponent crosses zero; section III.D. Calculation of Lyapunov Exponent explains that for any time series of data, those “relative” LE values less than zero are more stable and less chaotic than “different” LE values greater than zero; section IV. Conclusions: “positive values … chaotic behavior”, “negative values on the summation of Lyapunov exponent which implied the system did not grow unbounded and diverge to infinity”) in the correlated signal data (voltage and current data of Fig. 2).
Ban further teaches the bifurcation is identified when the computed Lyapunov exponent crosses zero (bifurcates from periodic to chaotic when Lyapunov exponent crosses zero; section III.D. Calculation of Lyapunov Exponent explains that for any time series of data, those “relative” LE values less than zero are more stable and less chaotic than “different” LE values greater than zero; section IV. Conclusions: “positive values … chaotic behavior”, “negative values on the summation of Lyapunov exponent which implied the system did not grow unbounded and diverge to infinity”).
Ban further teaches the bifurcation (bifurcates from periodic to chaotic when Lyapunov exponent crosses zero) is indicative of a transition from a first electrochemical or electrodynamic process (normal charging/discharging of the battery) to a parallel second electrochemical or electrodynamic process (section I. Introduction: “predicting a decrease in SOH”; battery damages cause the reduced SOH per section I.B. State of Health (SoH); the internal battery damages are the parallel second electrochemical or electrodynamic process) occurring concurrently within the battery (“Panasonic 18650BE lithium battery”, per section II.A.).
Thus, when viewed in combination for the reasons set forth supra in claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the combination of Aoki and Ban teaches that the chaotic threshold is associated with a bifurcation in the correlated signal data (per Aoki and analogous Ban teachings), wherein the bifurcation is identified when the computed Lyapunov exponent crosses zero (per Ban), and wherein the bifurcation is indicative of a transition from a first electrochemical or electrodynamic process to a parallel second electrochemical or electrodynamic process occurring concurrently within the battery (per Aoki and analogous Ban teachings).
Claims 6-7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (US 2022/0299572 A1) in view of Bandong (S. Bandong et al., Chaotic Behavior of Battery State of Health, November 2019, 6th International Conference on Electrical Vehicular Technology, pp. 323-327) (hereinafter “Ban”) and Christophersen (US 2023/0091066 A1; hereinafter “Chris”).
Regarding Claims 6-7, the combo of Aoki & Ban teaches the method of claim 1.
Aoki does not disclose “the noisy signal is obtained in an equilibrium state of the battery” (claim 6).
Aoki further does not disclose “the equilibrium state of the battery is during a charge or discharge sequence of the battery” (claim 7).
Chris teaches the noisy signal (“response signal 11”; Fig. 3A) is obtained in an equilibrium state (¶ [83]: “impedance measurement (14) should be performed upon occurrence of controlled conditions … at electrochemical and/or thermal equilibrium”) of the battery (“battery 4”; Fig. 3A).
Chris further teaches the equilibrium state (¶ [83]: “controlled conditions … at electrochemical and/or thermal equilibrium”) of the battery (4) is during a charge (¶ [68]: “breaks within a battery charge algorithm (58) after the battery (4)(P)(M)(C) has had a chance to electrochemically or thermally stabilize”) or discharge sequence (¶ [68]: “… or during extended rest intervals after a discharge”) of the battery (4).
Chris further teaches monitoring the battery at equilibrium conditions during a charge or discharge sequence during to ensure accurate and repeatable measurements (¶ [48]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and noisy signal disclosed by the combo of Aoki & Ban to obtain the noisy signal in an equilibrium state of the battery, as taught by Chris, to ensure the correlated signal data is accurate and repeatable.
Regarding Claim 16, Aoki discloses the method of claim 1.
Aoki does not disclose “the correlated signal data is associated with equilibrium processes within the battery”.
Chris teaches the correlated signal data (“impedance measurement signal 10′” after filtering by “smoothing filter 47”; Fig. 3A; ¶ [59]) is associated with equilibrium processes (¶ [83]: “impedance measurement (14) should be performed upon occurrence of controlled conditions … at electrochemical and/or thermal equilibrium”) within the battery (“battery 4”; Fig. 3A).
Chris further teaches monitoring the battery at equilibrium conditions to ensure accurate and repeatable measurements (¶ [48]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and correlated signal data disclosed by the combo of Aoki & Ban to be associated with equilibrium processes within the battery, as taught by Chris, to ensure the correlated signal data is accurate and repeatable.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (US 2022/0299572 A1) in view of Bandong (S. Bandong et al., Chaotic Behavior of Battery State of Health, November 2019, 6th International Conference on Electrical Vehicular Technology, pp. 323-327) (hereinafter “Ban”) and Weber et al. (US 2024/0377471 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, the combo of Aoki & Ban teaches the method of claim 1.
Aoki discloses filtering (Fig. 3, step S201: “remove noise”) identifies the correlated signal data (¶ [51]: “AC impedance” is used by “controller 8” after noise is filtered out “by using a low-pass filter”).
Aoki does not disclose “filtering comprises a domain transform”.
Weber teaches filtering (¶ [92]: “DC components or "interference frequencies" can be easily filtered out of the measured spectrum of the current and cell voltages”) comprises a domain transform (“Fourier transformation” is used to transform the measured data from the time domain to the frequency domain; ¶ [14, 92]) and identifies the correlated signal data (“impedance”; ¶ [14, 92]).
Weber further teaches using a domain transform as a very precise method of filtering out noise for an impedance measurement (¶ [92]) and improve the accuracy of the battery monitoring method (¶ [2]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filtering disclosed by the combo of Aoki & Ban to incorporate a domain transform, as taught by Weber, to improve the filtering out of the noise, which improves the accuracy of the battery monitoring method.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (US 2022/0299572 A1) in view of Bandong (S. Bandong et al., Chaotic Behavior of Battery State of Health, November 2019, 6th International Conference on Electrical Vehicular Technology, pp. 323-327) (hereinafter “Ban”), Weber et al. (US 2024/0377471 A1), and Durak (L. Durak et al., Adaptive fractional Fourier domain filtering, 2009, Signal Processing 90, pages 1188-1196).
NOTE: As of the current date, Durak can be downloaded from the following link:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016516840900423X
Regarding Claim 18, the combo of Aoki, Ban, & Weber teaches the method of claim 11.
The combo of Aoki, Ban, & Weber teaches the domain transform (Aoki’s filtering with modification from Weber to use a “Fourier transformation”).
The combo of Aoki, Ban, & Weber does not disclose “the domain transform is one of a partial or fractional domain transform”.
Durak teaches the domain transform is a fractional domain transform (title: “Adaptive fractional Fourier domain filtering”)
Durak further teaches the fractional domain transform as an improved method of filtering noise from a signal, by more accurately filtering the noise from the signal with lower error compared to other filtering methods (Abstract: “fractional Fourier domain adaptive filtering schemes provide less error”; page 1196, Conclusion: “total error energy of adaptive filtering in fractional Fourier domain is significantly less”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the domain transform disclosed by the combo of Aoki, Ban, & Weber to be a fractional domain transform, as taught by Durak, to improve the filtering more accurately filtering the noise from the signal with lower error compared to other filtering methods.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (US 2022/0299572 A1) in view of Bandong (S. Bandong et al., Chaotic Behavior of Battery State of Health, November 2019, 6th International Conference on Electrical Vehicular Technology, pp. 323-327) (hereinafter “Ban”) and Ye et al. (US 2015/0081237 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, the combo of Aoki & Ban teaches the method of claim 1.
Aoki further discloses the uncorrelated signal data (part of the unfiltered output of “7”; ¶ [51]: “noise caused by a high-frequency component”) comprises noise.
Aoki does not disclose “the uncorrelated signal data comprises thermally-generated noise arising from random thermal motion of change carriers within the batter”.
Ye teaches the uncorrelated signal data (data filtered out by the “relaxation filter” and the “Kalman filter”; Abstract, ¶ [7, 53]) comprises thermally-generated noise (¶ [71]: “thermal noise”) arising from random thermal motion of change carriers (electrons inherently present in all batteries) within the batter (title: “lithium batteries”).
NOTE 17-1: The instant application’s specification ¶ [6] simply recites “the uncorrelated signal data may be thermal, which can be seen as noise, and hence removing thermal information may help isolate the correlated signal data”. It is interpreted that Ye’s “thermal noise” reads on this broad disclosure related to the claimed “thermally-generated noise”.
Ye further teaches filtering the thermally-generated noise because the uncorrelated thermal noise negatively affects the characterization of the battery (¶ [71]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by the combo of Aoki & Ban to filter out the thermally-generated noise arising from random thermal motion of charge carriers within the battery, as taught by Ye, to improve accuracy of the filtered signal by removing the uncorrelated thermally-generated noise.
Claims 22-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (US 2022/0299572 A1) in view of Bandong (S. Bandong et al., Chaotic Behavior of Battery State of Health, November 2019, 6th International Conference on Electrical Vehicular Technology, pp. 323-327) (hereinafter “Ban”).
Regarding Claim 22, Aoki discloses a method (Figs. 2-3; Abstract: “detecting the generation of electrodeposition in an all-solid-state lithium-ion secondary battery”) comprising the following.
Aoki further discloses applying a probe signal (the charge signal output from “9” & “5” may also be interpreted as a probe signal) or a charge signal (charge signal produced by combo of “external power supply 9” & “voltage current adjustment device 5” for delivery to “2”; Fig. 1) to an electrochemical device (“secondary battery 2”; Fig. 1).
Aoki further discloses filtering (Fig. 3, step S201: “remove noise”) a signal (¶ [51]: “8 first acquires, as an output signal of the impedance measuring device 7, a waveform of a response voltage”) of the electrochemical device (2) to produce a filtered signal (filtered output of “7”, representing the “AC impedance”; obtained in Fig. 3, step S201).
Aoki further discloses the signal (output of “7”) is responsive to the applied probe signal (interpreted to be same as the charge signal) or charge signal (charge signal produced by combo of “9” & “5” for delivery to “2”; Fig. 1).
Aoki further discloses the signal (output of “7”) includes uncorrelated data (¶ [51]: “noise caused by a high-frequency component”) and correlated data (¶ [51]: “AC impedance” is used by “controller 8” after noise is filtered out “by using a low-pass filter”).
Aoki further discloses the filtered signal (filtered output of “7”) includes the correlated data (“AC impedance”).
Aoki further discloses the correlated data (“AC impedance”) includes information pertaining to an electrochemical or electrodynamic process (amplitude used to identify electrodeposition shown in Fig. 4; Fig. 2., step S109: “estimate whether or not electrodeposition has occurred”; Fig. 3, step S202) of the electrochemical device (2).
Aoki further discloses processing the filtered signal (filtered output of “7”) to identify a bifurcation (bifurcation in signal’s amplitude detected in part B of Fig. 4 and progressively grows in parts B-D; bifurcation is used to detect electrodeposition in step S110; Fig. 2; see annotated Fig. 4, included infra) in the correlated data (“AC impedance”).
PNG
media_image1.png
782
1138
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Aoki further discloses the bifurcation (bifurcation in signal’s amplitude detected in part B of Fig. 4 and progressively grows in parts B-D) corresponding to a threshold (Fig. 3, step S202: “amplitude of response voltage in discharge direction”) in the correlated data (“AC impedance”).
Aoki further discloses the threshold (Fig. 3, step S202) is associated with an onset of an electrochemical or electrodynamic process (yes response to step S202 results in detection of the onset of electrodeposition; bifurcation is used to detect electrodeposition in Fig. 2, step S110; this is in addition to any process occurring prior, which includes the electrochemical process of building charge in response to the “constant current (CC) charging” of Fig. 2, step S104; Fig. 2; dendrite generates and grows from Fig. 4A to 4D; ¶ [6, 53-54]; ¶ [53]: “when electrodeposition occurs, the internal resistance value of the battery decreases, … the response voltage also decreases”) occurring within the electrochemical device (2).
Aoki further discloses reducing a charge signal (Fig. 2, step S111: “decreasing charging current”; ¶ [57]: “upon electrodeposition detection, … decreasing the charging current (C rate)”) applied to the electrochemical device (2) based, at least in part, on the identified bifurcation (bifurcation in signal’s amplitude detected in part B of Fig. 4 and progressively grows in parts B-D; results in the detection of electrodeposition), thereby modifying the charge signal (Fig. 2, step S111) delivered to the electrochemical device (2).
As addressed supra, Aoki discloses the bifurcation corresponding to a threshold in the correlated data, wherein the threshold is associated with an onset of an electrochemical or electrodynamic process occurring within the electrochemical device. However, Aoki does not disclose the threshold is “a chaotic threshold”.
Ban teaches to identify a bifurcation (bifurcates from periodic to chaotic when Lyapunov exponent crosses zero) in the correlated data, (voltage and current data of Fig. 2)
Ban further teaches the bifurcation (bifurcates from periodic to chaotic when Lyapunov exponent crosses zero) corresponding to a chaotic threshold (Lyapunov exponent = 0) in the correlated data (voltage and current data of Fig. 2).
Ban further teaches the chaotic threshold (Lyapunov exponent = 0) is associated with an onset of an electrochemical or electrodynamic process (section I. Introduction: “predicting a decrease in SOH”; battery damages cause the reduced SOH per section I.B. State of Health (SoH); the internal battery damages are the additional electrochemical or electrodynamic process) occurring within the electrochemical device (“Panasonic 18650BE lithium battery”, per section II.A.).
Ban further teaches using the Lyapunov Exponent value to model the chaotic behavior of the battery charging data (Abstract), which improves predictions of the state of health (section I. Introduction). Ban further teaches the negative LE values are associated with stable state of health behaviors (Abstract). By properly understanding the stable operating points and the associated SOH/degradation impacts, the charging profile can be adjusted to better minimize degradation. Thus, Ban’s teachings help to better manage battery health, thus, improving the reliability of the energy storage system (section I. Introduction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Aoki to also identify a chaotic threshold corresponding to the bifurcation, as taught by Ban, to improve the predictions of the battery’s state of health, thus improving the method’s ability to minimize future deterioration of the battery during future charging cycles and improving reliability of operating the battery.
Thus, when viewed in combination for the reasons set forth supra, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the combination of Aoki and Ban teaches processing the filtered signal to identify a bifurcation in the correlated data (per Aoki and analogous Ban teachings), the bifurcation corresponding to a chaotic threshold in the correlated data (per Ban), wherein the chaotic threshold is associated with an onset of an electrochemical or electrodynamic process occurring within the electrochemical device (per Aoki and analogous Ban teachings).
Regarding Claim 23, the combo of Aoki & Ban teaches the method of claim 22.
Aoki further discloses the electrochemical device (2) is a battery (¶ [27]: “2 is a normal all-solid-state lithium ion secondary battery”).
Regarding Claim 25, the combo of Aoki & Ban teaches the method of claim 22.
Aoki further discloses reducing the charge signal (charge signal produced by combo of “external power supply 9” & “voltage current adjustment device 5” for delivery to “2”; Fig. 1) applied to the battery involves altering charge rate (¶ [57]: “upon electrodeposition detection, … decreasing the charging current (C rate)”; as is widely understood in the art, “C rate” is a common term for charge rate).
Regarding Claim 26, the combo of Aoki & Ban teaches the method of claim 22.
Aoki further discloses reducing the charge signal (charge signal produced by combo of “external power supply 9” & “voltage current adjustment device 5” for delivery to “2”; Fig. 1) applied to the battery (2) includes reducing a charge current (Fig. 2, step S111: “decreasing charging current”; ¶ [57]: “upon electrodeposition detection, … decreasing the charging current (C rate)”) to the battery (2) or reducing a discharge current (per ¶ [57] and claim 8, the method can be extended to reduce discharging current upon detection of electrodeposition; claim 8: “discharges … with a current smaller than a charging current”; ¶ [57]: “Alternatively, the controller 8 may perform, as the control performed upon electrodeposition detection, discharging processing for a predetermined time at a predetermined current value … smaller than the charging current”; ¶ [57]: “the progress of the electrodeposition in the solid electrolyte layer in … discharging processing can be prevented by appropriately setting … the current value”) from the battery (2).
Regarding Claim 28, the combo of Aoki & Ban teaches the method of claim 22.
Aoki further discloses the correlated data (¶ [51]: “AC impedance”) pertains to, at least in part, plating of the anode (dendrite generates and grows from Fig. 4A to 4D; ¶ [6, 53-54]; ¶ [6]: “when electrodeposition of metal lithium occurs, there is a problem that the deposited dendrite penetrates an electrolyte layer”; ¶ [53]: “when electrodeposition occurs, the internal resistance value of the battery decreases, … the response voltage also decreases”).
NOTE 28-1: The instant application’s specification ¶ [23] describes plating as “including dendrite formation and growth”.
Aoki further discloses altering the charge parameter (Fig. 2, step S111: “decreasing charging current”) reduces plating (¶ [36]: “in a case where it is determined that electrodeposition has occurred in the solid electrolyte layer of the all-solid-state battery 2, the controller 8 changes conditions of the charging processing so that the electrodeposition is less likely to proceed (control performed upon electrodeposition detection)”; thus, the reduced charging current is intended to reduce the further development of dendrites).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (US 2022/0299572 A1) in view of Bandong (S. Bandong et al., Chaotic Behavior of Battery State of Health, November 2019, 6th International Conference on Electrical Vehicular Technology, pp. 323-327) (hereinafter “Ban”) and Ghantous et al. (US 2019/0072618 A1; hereinafter “Ghan”).
Regarding Claim 27, the combo of Aoki & Ban teaches the method of claim 22.
Aoki does not disclose “altering a harmonic component of the charge signal”.
Ghan teaches altering (¶ [34]: “pulse width/duration”; ¶ [44]: “charging circuitry adapts, adjusts, and/or controls the … pulse width … of charging or discharging current pulses”) a harmonic component (¶ [129]: “the current pulse(s) and resulting voltage variations can be decomposed into its various frequency (or harmonic) components that constitute the pulse(s); thus, the charge pulses are made up of harmonic components) of the charge signal (“charge pulse” of Figs. 4a-4g).
Ghan further teaches adjusting a harmonic component of the charge signal to reduce battery degradation by reducing the battery’s propensity to plate metallic lithium during charging and discharging (¶ [44, 66, 74, 99, 123, 146]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by the combo of Aoki & Ban to alter a harmonic component of the charge signal, as taught by Ghan, to reduce battery degradation by reducing the battery’s propensity to plate metallic lithium during charging and discharging.
Conclusion
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 Daniel P McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM Eastern.
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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/DANIEL P MCFARLAND/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights