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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 10/20/2023, 05/19/2025, and 10/22/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are 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.
“method” (claims 1-28)
“battery” (claims 1-21, 23)
“the noisy signal including uncorrelated noise and correlated signal data” (claim 1)
“equilibrium state” (claims 6-8)
“charge or discharge sequence” (claim 7)
“zero-net change” (claim 8)
“a charge signal” (claim 10)
“a discharge signal” (claim 10)
“electrochemical device” (claims 22-28)
“uncorrelated data and correlated data” (claim 22)
“the filtered signal” (claim 22)
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
“sub-systems port 412” (¶ [33, 35, 38, 42])
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following feature(s) not mentioned in the description:
“chaotic threshold” (Fig. 3)
“intersection points” (Fig. 3
The drawings are further objected to because:
Fig. 1 lacks labels for the vertical axis and units. Fig. 1 is also too blurry and is barely legible. Additionally, the “0.0” on the bottom left seems to be partially cut off.
Fig. 2 lacks labels for both axes with units. The numerical values of Fig. 2 are too blurry to be legible.
Fig. 3 lacks units for the vertical axis “Voltage Delta” in the “Bifurcation Diagram”. The Fig. 3 “Bifurcation Diagram” further lacks labels for the plotted data.
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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶ [9], line 6 misspells “battery” as “batter”.
The specification does not define the term “zero-net change to the battery”, as claimed in claim 8. See the 112b rejection included infra.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-21 and 23-28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
All dependent claims, claims 2-21 and 23-28, should be revised to incorporate a comma between “The method of claim #” and “wherein …”; e.g. “The method of claim 2, wherein” is correct.
Claim 11 reads “identifies correlated signal data”, which should be revised to “identifies the correlated signal data.
Claims 23 and 27 are missing a period at the end of each respective claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 8, 17, and 22-28 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.
Claim 8 recites “a zero-net change to the battery”. The examiner does not recognize this as a widely-known term to one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, the specification does not define this term. Thus, for examination purposes, the examiner interprets “a zero-net change to the battery” to mean the battery is in one or more of the following states: no-load, electrochemical equilibrium, and/or thermal equilibrium.
Claim 17 recites the term “the uncorrelated signal data”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term. The examiner expects claim 17 was intended to recite “the uncorrelated noise is thermal”. However, this language would also be indefinite because it is unclear how noise can be “thermal”. This may mean that heat is produced by the noise. Or, it may mean the noise actually contains information related to thermal properties or states of the battery (assumed for examination).
Claim 22, lines 2-3 recite “uncorrelated data and correlated data including pertaining to electrochemical or electrodynamic process of the electrochemical device”.
This limitation is unclear as to whether “including pertaining to electrochemical or electrodynamic process of the electrochemical device” is intended to modify only “correlated data” (assumed for examination) or the combination of “uncorrelated data and correlated data”.
Further, claim 22, line 7 recites the term “the filtered signal”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term.
One possible revision of claim 22’s first element (lines 2-5) to resolve these indefiniteness issues is as follows:
“filtering a signal of an electrochemical device to produce a filtered 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; and”
Claims 23-28 are further rejected for their dependency on other rejected claims.
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 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To overcome this rejection, it is suggested to amend the independent claims 1 and 22 to incorporate a limitation to do one of the following actions, which would direct the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea:
Incorporate a step to apply a voltage or current signal to the battery, resulting in the generation of the noisy signal.
Incorporate a step to make a change to a charging/discharging process based upon the identified electrochemical or electrodynamic process within the battery. Claims 20-22 nearly achieve this (“altering a charge parameter” / “altering a discharge parameter”), however it does not claim that the altered charge/discharge parameter affects anything. More detail should be included to claim how the altered charge/discharge parameter is used. Claim 26 also nearly achieves this (“reducing at least one of the charge current or the charge voltage”), but does not currently claim that the charge current or charge voltage is applied to the electrochemical device.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims 1-28 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:
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; [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite mathematic concepts because they are mathematical calculations]
and processing the correlated signal data [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite mathematic concepts because they are mathematical calculations] to identify at least one of an electrochemical or electrodynamic process within the battery.
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:
accessing a noisy signal (This could just be data from a previous measurement, and so is insignificant extra-solution activity.)
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:
from a battery,
the noisy signal including uncorrelated noise and correlated signal data;
to identify at least one of an electrochemical or electrodynamic process 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 element “accessing a noisy signal” does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because this activity is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity 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 2-10 and 12-17, 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.
Claim 3: wherein the noisy signal is 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 8: wherein the equilibrium state of the battery is during a zero-net change to 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 a charge signal or a 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 14: wherein the correlated signal data is associated with electrodynamic behavior in the battery
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 is thermal
Claim 11 recites:
The method of claim 1
wherein filtering comprises a domain transform and identifies 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 examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites a mathematic concept because it is a mathematical calculation],
the bifurcation 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:
the bifurcation indicative of the onset of an additional electrochemical or electrodynamic process.
Regarding Claim 20, the examiner finds the following additional element merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea:
altering a charge parameter (The claims do not say the charge parameter is used for anything. Thus, altering it is an insignificant extra-solution activity.)
The examiner finds that the additional element “altering a charge parameter” does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because this activity is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field and thus does not contribute an inventive concept.
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:
based on the identification of the electrochemical or electrodynamic process within the battery
Regarding Claim 21, the examiner finds that the following additional element merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea:
altering a discharge parameter (The claims do not say the discharge parameter is used for anything. Thus, altering it is an insignificant extra-solution activity.)
The examiner finds that the additional element “altering a charge parameter” does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because this activity is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field and thus does not contribute an inventive concept.
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:
based on the identification of the electrochemical or electrodynamic process within the battery
Independent Claim 22 recites:
A method comprising:
from a signal of an electrochemical device including uncorrelated data and correlated data including pertaining to electrochemical or electrodynamic process of the electrochemical device,
filtering the signal to identify the correlated data [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite mathematic concepts because they are mathematical calculations] including information pertaining to the electrochemical or electrodynamic process;
and altering a charge parameter based, at least in part, on identification of a bifurcation in the filtered signal.
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:
and altering a charge parameter (The claims do not say the charge parameter is used for anything. Thus, altering it is an insignificant extra-solution activity.)
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:
from a signal of an electrochemical device including uncorrelated data and correlated data including pertaining to electrochemical or electrodynamic process of the electrochemical device,
including information pertaining to the electrochemical or electrodynamic process;
based, at least in part, on identification of a bifurcation in the filtered signal.
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 element “altering a charge parameter” does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because this activity is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field and thus does not contribute an inventive concept.
The examiner finds that the 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, 25, and 27, 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 25: wherein the charge parameter comprises at least one of charge rate, charge voltage or duty cycle.
Claim 27: wherein the charge parameter comprises a harmonic component of the charge signal
Claim 28: wherein the correlated data pertains to, at least in part, plating of the anode and altering the charge parameter reduces plating.
Regarding Claim 24, the examiner finds the following additional element merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea:
wherein the signal is measured during charge or discharge.
The examiner finds this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because this activity is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field and thus does not contribute an inventive concept.
Regarding Claim 26, the examiner finds the following additional element merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea:
wherein altering the charge parameter comprising reducing at least one of the charge current or the charge voltage. (The claims do not say the charge current or charge voltage is used for anything. Thus, reducing it is an insignificant extra-solution activity.)
The examiner finds this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because this activity is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field and thus does not contribute an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 9-10, 12-15, 20-26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Aoki (US 2022/0299572 A1).
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 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 a battery (“secondary battery 2”; Fig. 1).
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 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 (Fig. 2., step S109: “estimate whether or not electrodeposition has occurred”; Fig. 3, step S202) the correlated signal data (“AC impedance”) to identify an electrochemical (“electrodeposition”; Fig. 4) or electrodynamic process (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”) within the battery (2).
NOTE: 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 both an electrochemical and an electrodynamic behavior.
Regarding Claim 3, Aoki discloses 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).
Regarding Claim 3, Aoki discloses the method of claim 1.
Aoki further discloses the noisy signal (output of “7”) is 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, Aoki discloses 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, Aoki discloses 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, Aoki discloses 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: 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, Aoki discloses the method of claim 9.
Aoki further discloses the transient state (Fig. 2, step S104: “constant current (CC) charging”) is associated with a charge signal (charge signal produced by combination of “external power supply 9” and “voltage current adjustment device 5” for delivery to “secondary battery 2”; Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Aoki discloses 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: The instant application’s specification ¶ [23] describes plating as “including dendrite formation and growth”.
Regarding Claim 13, Aoki discloses 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 14, Aoki discloses the method of claim 1.
Aoki further discloses the correlated signal data (“AC impedance”) is associated with electrodynamic behavior (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”) in the battery (2).
NOTE: 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 behavior.
Regarding Claim 15, Aoki discloses 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: 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, Aoki discloses 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).
Regarding Claim 20, Aoki discloses the method of claim 1.
Aoki further discloses the method (Figs. 2-3) further comprising altering a charge parameter (“charging current” is decreased in step S111 upon detecting electrodeposition; Fig. 2) based on the identification of the electrochemical or electrodynamic process (“electrodeposition” detected in step S110; Fig. 2) within the battery (2).
Regarding Claim 21, Aoki discloses the method of claim 1.
Aoki further discloses the method (Figs. 2-3) altering a discharge parameter (“charging current” is decreased in step S111 upon detecting electrodeposition; Fig. 2; per ¶ [57] and claim 8, the discharge current is set to a smaller value as well; 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”; thus, the method can be extended to reduce discharging current upon detection of electrodeposition) based on the identification of the electrochemical or electrodynamic process (“electrodeposition”) within the battery (2).
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:
Aoki further discloses that from a signal (output of “7”; ¶ [51]: “8 first acquires, as an output signal of the impedance measuring device 7, a waveform of a response voltage”) of an electrochemical device (“secondary battery 2”; Fig. 1) including uncorrelated data (¶ [51]: “noise caused by a high-frequency component”) and correlated data (¶ [51]: “AC impedance”) including pertaining to 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), doing the following.
Aoki further discloses filtering (Fig. 3, step S201: “remove noise”) the signal (output of “7”) to identify the correlated data (¶ [51]: “AC impedance” is used by “controller 8” after noise is filtered out “by using a low-pass filter”) including information pertaining to the 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).
Aoki further discloses altering a charge parameter (“charging current” is decreased in step S111 upon detecting electrodeposition; Fig. 2) based, at least in part, on identification of 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 filtered signal (filtered output of “7”).
PNG
media_image1.png
782
1138
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 23, Aoki discloses 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 24, Aoki discloses the method of claim 22.
Aoki further discloses the signal (output of “7”) is measured (Fig. 2, step S109; more detailed step S109 shown in Fig. 3; Fig. 3, step S202: “amplitude of response voltage”) during charge (step S109 measurement occurs during “constant current (CC) charging”, which starts in step S104; Fig. 2) or discharge (also occurs during discharging per ¶ [25, 28]; ¶ [28]: “cell voltage … measured during charging and discharging”).
Regarding Claim 25, Aoki discloses the method of claim 22.
Aoki further discloses the charge parameter comprises 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, Aoki discloses the method of claim 22.
Aoki further discloses altering the charge parameter (Fig. 2, step S111: “decreasing charging current”) comprising reducing the charge current (¶ [57]: “upon electrodeposition detection, … decreasing the charging current (C rate)”;
Regarding Claim 28, Aoki discloses 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: 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 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.
Claims 6-8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (US 2022/0299572 A1) in view of Christophersen (US 2023/0091066 A1; hereinafter “Chris”).
Regarding Claims 6-8, Aoki discloses 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).
Aoki further does not disclose “the equilibrium state of the battery is during a zero-net change to the battery” (claim 8).
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 the equilibrium state (¶ [83]: “controlled conditions … at electrochemical and/or thermal equilibrium”) of the battery (4) is during a zero-net change (¶ [83]: “at electrochemical and/or thermal equilibrium”; ¶ [68]: “high-fidelity impedance measurements (14a) can be conducted under battery no-load conditions”) to the battery (4).
NOTE: The instant application’s disclosure does not define the meaning of “zero-net change”. The examiner interprets this to mean the battery is in one or more of the following states: no-load, electrochemical equilibrium, and/or thermal equilibrium.
Chris further teaches monitoring the battery at equilibrium conditions during a charge or discharge sequence during which the battery experiences zero-net change 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 to modify the method and noisy signal disclosed by Aoki to be obtained 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 to modify the method and correlated signal data disclosed by Aoki 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 Weber et al. (US 2024/0377471 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Aoki discloses the method of claim 1.
Aoki discloses filtering (Fig. 3, step S201: “remove noise”) identifies 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 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 to modify the filtering disclosed by Aoki 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 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 and Weber teaches the method of claim 11.
The combination of Aoki and Weber teaches the domain transform (Aoki’s filtering with modification from Weber to use a “Fourier transformation”).
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 to modify the domain transform disclosed by the combo of Aoki and 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 Ye et al. (US 2015/0081237 A1)
Regarding Claim 17, Aoki discloses the method of claim 1.
Aoki does not disclose “the uncorrelated signal data is thermal”.
Ye teaches the uncorrelated signal data (interpreted to mean “uncorrelated noise”, as discussed supra in the 112b section) is thermal (¶ [71]: “thermal noise”).
Ye further teaches filtering the thermal data from the correlated signal data because the uncorrelated thermal data 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 to modify the uncorrelated noise disclosed by Aoki to also include thermal noise which is filtered out, as taught by Ye, to improve accuracy of the filtered signal by removing the uncorrelated thermal noise.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (US 2022/0299572 A1) in view of Ghantous et al. (US 2019/0072618 A1; hereinafter “Ghan”).
Regarding Claim 27, Aoki discloses the method of claim 22.
Aoki does not disclose “the charge parameter comprises a harmonic component of the charge signal”.
Ghan teaches the charge parameter (¶ [34]: “pulse width/duration”; ¶ [44]: “charging circuitry adapts, adjusts, and/or controls the … pulse width … of charging or discharging current pulses”) comprises 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 to modify the charge parameter of the charge signal disclosed by Aoki to be 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
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
/JOHN T TRISCHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859