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
This is the second Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-25 are currently pending. Claims 1, 3-6, and 13 are currently amended and claims 21-25 are newly added. This action is FINAL.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 09/25/2025 has been entered.
In view of the objections to the Specification, Applicant’s amendments have been acknowledged and objections have been withdrawn.
In view of the objections to claim 3, Applicant’s amendment has been acknowledged and objection has been withdrawn.
In view of the Claims, Applicant’s amendments have been acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 24 line 1, “batter” should read “battery”.
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.
Claims 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 21 and 25 recite, at least, a “weighting matrix” to predict an improved battery state of health for associated fixes and to rank the fixes based on the predicted impact. However, in the original specification, it only describes assigning the weights and percentages at a conceptual level. The specification does not describe or suggest a “matrix” based structure or mapping.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo et al. (US20160303977A1) in view of Du et al. (US20220169264A1), and further in view of Davidson (US20190385386A1), hereinafter Kudo, Du and Davidson.
Regarding claim 1, Kudo teaches of a method of determining a state of health of a vehicle battery ("diagnosis method for a battery monitoring system", [0015]) on a hybrid vehicle ("hybrid automobile", [0009]), the vehicle battery being comprised of a plurality of battery cells ("detects battery states of a plurality of battery cells", [0014]), the method comprising the steps of: receiving diagnostic data from a vehicle, the diagnostic data (Kudo does not explicit give a structure name to this information however it is known that this information is gathered and received by the battery monitoring system) including temperature of the cells in the vehicle battery ("measurement of cell temperature", [0061]); monitoring vehicle battery charging and vehicle battery discharging ("monitor the states of the battery cells…control their charge/discharge states", [0009]); requesting cell voltage for each of the plurality of battery cells when the vehicle battery charging meets a charging threshold ("comparing each cell voltage of a plurality of battery cells… with an excessive charge threshold value", [0015]; see also [0104]) and the vehicle battery discharging meets a discharging threshold ("compares together the terminal voltage of the battery cell BC2 and the decision reference value OD for excessive discharge (i.e. the excessive discharge threshold value), [0109], see also [0107]); receiving cell voltage from each of the plurality of battery cells and determining a voltage balance ("the value of ΔV depends upon the cell voltages of the battery cells BC at which balancing is performed…", [0147]) by comparing received voltages to a known average voltage range ("the variations of the cell voltages are kept within a predetermined voltage range", [0145]); and calculating a battery state of health (“executes diagnosis synchronized with this measurement”, [0084]) based on the temperature of the cells in the vehicle battery ("measurement of cell temperature", [0061]), and the voltage balance ("the value of ΔV depends upon the cell voltages of the battery cells BC at which balancing is performed…", [0147]).
However, Kudo does not teach, of a battery state of health score; the diagnostic data including a diagnostic trouble code status and an internal resistance of the cells in the vehicle battery; calculating a battery state of health based on a combined assessment of the diagnostic trouble code status the internal resistance of the cells in the vehicle battery; storing each calculated battery state of health score with a corresponding timestamp in a memory; compiling a series of battery state of health scores over a period of time; displaying, on a display, a trend of the battery state of health scores over the period of time; and identifying at least one fix to improve the battery state of health score.
Du, in the same field of endeavor, teaches, that the diagnostic data includes a diagnostic trouble code status and an internal resistance of the cells in the vehicle battery ([0057]); of calculating a battery state of health based on a combined assessment of the diagnostic trouble code status ("the DTCs...may be referred to or be associated with cause indications", [0057]) the internal resistance of the cells in the vehicle battery (the vehicle health management (VHM) information "may be based on continuously assessing over an extended period of time various parameters that indicate state of health...As an example...a battery internal resistance", [0057]); or and identifying at least one fix to improve the battery state of health ("The system health information report 612 may indicate a MPC, a LPC, and a recommendation", [0079], implicit that if the most probable cause (MPC) was the vehicle battery the report would give a recommendation to improve the battery health).
However, Du does not teach, of a battery state of health score; storing each calculated battery state of health score with a corresponding timestamp in a memory; compiling a series of battery state of health scores over a period of time; and displaying, on a display, a trend of the battery state of health scores over the period of time.
Davidson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a battery state of health score ("real-time battery status rating indicators representative of the health of the battery status", [0126]); storing each calculated battery state of health score with a corresponding timestamp in a memory ("Event data typically includes a record of a vehicle event. This may include one or more of a maintenance event, a repair event or a failure event. For example, with a vehicle battery the maintenance event would be a record of charging or boosting a battery repair. A repair event would be a record of replacing the battery. A failure event would be a record of a dead battery. Event data typically includes a date and time associated with each event", [0139], "the telematics hardware device monitoring at least one vehicle component from at least one vehicle and logging operational component data of the at least one vehicle component…the remote device storing at least one threshold operational value representative of health of the vehicle component based upon the measured component event", [0009]); compiling a series of battery state of health scores over a period of time ("Vehicle component data is specific parameters monitored over the life cycle and logged for a particular vehicle component being assessed for predictive component failure", [0139]); and displaying, on a display, a trend of the battery state of health scores over the period of time ("Fig. 8d shows a battery health status rating", [0126], "Accordingly, it should be understood that a real time battery health rating may be ascertained for each vehicle in the fleet or across differing fleets. For normalized rating this scaled rating will be between 0 and 100 with 0 representing a battery that is going to fail and 100 representing a new battery", [0129]);
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the method of determine the vehicle battery state of health of Kudo through the monitoring of temperature, charge and discharge of battery cells, and voltage balance with the teachings of Du to calculate the battery state of health using diagnostic trouble code status and internal resistance, while also identifying a fix and the teachings of Davidson to utilize a health score, store a record of vehicle component health over time, and display the trend of the health scores over time with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a more accurate assessment of the vehicle battery state of health, while also providing a fix to improve the health. Additionally, to maintain an accurate representation of the battery health over time (Davidson, [0139]), and to allow for real time predictions of the health status of the vehicle components by utilizing a normalized health score (Davidson, [0129]).
Regarding claim 22, modified Kudo teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above, specifically, wherein the steps of receiving diagnostic data, monitoring vehicle battery charging and vehicle battery discharging, requesting cell voltage, receiving cell voltage.
However, modified Kudo does not teach of calculating a battery state of health score occur repeatedly at a prescribed frequency.
Davidson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of calculating a battery state of health score occur repeatedly at a prescribed frequency (“Vehicle component data is specific parameters monitored over the life cycle and logged for a particular vehicle component being assessed”, [0138], “Vehicle component data is the historical operational data obtained over time from a vehicular telemetry hardware system”, [0140]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teachings of modified Kudo with the teachings of Davidson to calculate the battery state of health repeatedly at a frequency with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to produce historical operational data across the life cycle of the battery which is used for the prediction of future battery health (Davidson, [0140]).
Regarding claim 23, modified Kudo teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above, specifically, wherein the steps of receiving diagnostic data, monitoring vehicle battery charging and vehicle battery discharging, requesting cell voltage, receiving cell voltage.
However, modified Kudo does not teach of occurs continuously.
Davidson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of occurs continuously (“Vehicle component data is specific parameters monitored over the life cycle and logged for a particular vehicle component being assessed”, [0138], “Vehicle component data is the historical operational data obtained over time from a vehicular telemetry hardware system”, [0140]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teachings of modified Kudo with the teachings of Davidson to calculate the battery state of health continuously with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to produce historical operational data across the life cycle of the battery which is used for the prediction of future battery health (Davidson, [0140]).
Regarding claim 24, modified Kudo teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
However, modified Kudo does not teach of wherein the step of calculating the batter state of health score is based on a vehicle-specific assessment.
Davidson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of wherein the step of calculating the batter state of health score is based on a vehicle-specific assessment (“Vehicle component data includes operational component data from at least one type of vehicle based upon fuel based vehicles, hybrid based vehicles or electric based vehicles. The broad categories include: fuel and air metering, emission control, ignition system control, vehicle idle speed control, transmission control and hybrid propulsion”, [0141], “Vehicle component data is the historical operational data obtained over time from a vehicular telemetry hardware system”, [0140], “Accordingly, it should be understood that a real time battery health rating may be ascertained for each vehicle in the fleet or across differing fleets”, [0129], further stating that battery health is per-vehicle or vehicle specific assessment).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teachings of modified Kudo with the teachings of Davidson to calculate the battery state of health continuously with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve monitoring of vehicle component health by avoiding generalized parameters for a class of vehicles and instead using parameters specific to the individual vehicle (Davidson, [0138]).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo, Du, and Davidson, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR20150084354A), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 2, Kudo, Du, and Davidson teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
However, Kudo, Du, and Davidson does not teach that the diagnostic data additionally includes a number of cells in a vehicle battery on the vehicle.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that the diagnostic data additionally includes a number of cells ("cell balancing history storage unit (14) receives the number of cells", [0029]) in a vehicle battery on the vehicle (Kim does not explicitly refer to a vehicle battery however does say that “The scope of adopting and utilizing secondary batteries capable of stable power supply and charging is expanding across industries including electric vehicles”, [0002]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the determination of the state of health of a vehicle battery of Kudo, Du, and Davidson with the teaching of Kim to include the number of cells in a vehicle battery as a part of the diagnostic data to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements as the number of cells in a battery is a notable factor in determining a battery’s state of health.
Regarding claim 3, modified Kudo teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
However, modified Kudo does not teach of calculating the battery state of health additionally includes an assessment of the number of cells in the vehicle battery on the vehicle.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of calculating the battery state of health additionally includes an assessment of the number of cells in the vehicle battery on the vehicle ("estimates the SOH of the battery pack (11) based on the number of target cells", [0031]).
However, Kim does not teach of a battery state of health score.
Davidson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a battery state of health score ("real-time battery status rating indicators representative of the health of the battery status", [0126])
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the determination of the state of health of a vehicle battery of modified Kudo with the teaching of Kim to include the number of cells in a vehicle battery as a part of the calculation of the battery state of health and the teaching of Davidson to utilize a health score when calculating the battery state of health to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements as the number of cells in a battery is a notable factor in determining a battery’s state of health, and to allow for real time predictions of the health status of the vehicle components by utilizing a normalized health score (Davidson, [0129]).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo, Du, and Davidson, and further in view of Huang et al. (US20090027056A1), hereinafter Huang.
Regarding claim 4, modified Kudo teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
However, modified Kudo does not teach that the step of displaying the calculated battery state of health on a display.
Huang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that the step of displaying the calculated battery state of health on a display ("SOH can be clearly displayed to a user on a single fuel gauge type display", [0103]).
However, Huang does not teach of a battery state of health score.
Davidson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a battery state of health score ("real-time battery status rating indicators representative of the health of the battery status", [0126])
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the determination of the state of health of a vehicle battery of modified Kudo with the teaching of Huang to display the calculated battery state of health on a display and the teaching of Davidson to utilize a health score when calculating the battery state of health to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements to easily communicate the battery state of health to a user and make informed decisions concerning maintenance, and to allow for real time predictions of the health status of the vehicle components by utilizing a normalized health score (Davidson, [0129]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kudo teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
However, modified Kudo does not teach that the step of displaying includes displaying the calculated battery state of health on a digital gauge.
Huang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that the step of displaying includes displaying the calculated battery state of health on a digital gauge ("SOH can be clearly displayed to a user on a single fuel gauge type display", [0103]).
However, Huang does not teach of a battery state of health score.
Davidson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a battery state of health score ("real-time battery status rating indicators representative of the health of the battery status", [0126])
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the determination of the state of health of a vehicle battery of modified Kudo with the teaching of Huang to display the calculated battery state of health on a digital gauge and the teaching of Davidson to utilize a health score when calculating the battery state of health to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements to easily communicate the battery state of health to a user by providing a visual representation of the battery state of health to assist the user in making informed decisions concerning maintenance, and to allow for real time predictions of the health status of the vehicle components by utilizing a normalized health score (Davidson, [0129]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo, Du, Davidson, and Huang, further in view of Newman et al. (US10598734B2), hereinafter Newman.
Regarding claim 6 modified Kudo teaches of all limitations of claim 4 as stated above.
However, modified Kudo does not teach that the step of displaying includes displaying the calculated battery state of health on a digital table.
Newman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that the step of displaying includes displaying the calculated battery state of health on a digital table ("the report may simply correspond to a display (e.g., LED or LCD presentation) of the SOH information…report may be formatted in an electronic document or spreadsheet", [0086]).
However, Newman does not teach of a battery state of health score.
Davidson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a battery state of health score ("real-time battery status rating indicators representative of the health of the battery status", [0126])
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the determination of the state of health of a vehicle battery of modified Kudo with the teaching of Newman to display the calculated battery state of health on a digital table and the teaching of Davidson to utilize a health score when calculating the battery state of health to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements to provide the user with detailed information (e.g., DTCs, temperature of battery, number of faulty cells, etc.) concerning the battery state of health to assist the user in making informed decisions concerning maintenance, and to allow for real time predictions of the health status of the vehicle components by utilizing a normalized health score (Davidson, [0129]).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo, Du, and Davidson, further in view of Masuda (WO2012049559A2).
Regarding claim 7, Kudo, Du, and Davidson teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
However, Kudo, Du, and Davidson does not teach that the charging threshold is associated with a specified vehicle deceleration.
Masuda, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that the charging threshold ("limits of charging electric power") is associated with a specified vehicle deceleration ("brake operation", [0028] – [0029]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the determination of the state of health of a vehicle battery of Kudo, Du, and Davidson with the teaching of Masuda that the charging threshold is associated with a specified vehicle deceleration to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements to ensure that charging occurred from the deceleration of a vehicle (e.g. ‘regenerative braking’) along with its charging threshold are factored into the assessment of the vehicle battery state of health.
Regarding claim 8, Kudo, Du, and Davidson teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
However, Kudo, Du, and Davidson does not teach that the discharging threshold is associated with a specified vehicle acceleration.
Masuda, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that the discharging threshold ("limits of...discharging electric power”) is associated with a specified vehicle acceleration ("accelerator operation", [0028] – [0029]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the determination of the state of health of a vehicle battery of Kudo, Du, and Davidson with the teaching of Masuda that the discharging threshold is associated with a specified vehicle acceleration to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements to ensure that discharging occurred from the acceleration of a vehicle along with its discharging threshold are factored into the assessment of the vehicle battery state of health.
Regarding claim 9, Kudo, Du, and Davidson teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
However, Kudo, Du, and Davidson does not teach that the step of identifying driving instructions associated with a specified vehicle deceleration associated with the charging threshold and a specified vehicle acceleration associated with the discharging threshold.
Masuda, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that the step of identifying driving instructions ("generates control instructions") associated with a specified vehicle deceleration ("brake operation") associated with the charging threshold ("limits of charging electric power") and a specified vehicle acceleration ("accelerator operation") associated with the discharging threshold ("limits of...discharging electric power", [0028] – [0029]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the determination of the state of health of a vehicle battery of Kudo, Du, and Davidson with the teaching of Masuda to identify driving instructions associated with the vehicle deceleration and acceleration along with its corresponding associated charging and discharging thresholds to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements to provide actionable items concerning the vehicle battery state of health which factors in the vehicle deceleration and acceleration along with its corresponding charging and discharging thresholds.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo, Du, Davidson, and Masuda, further in view of Pham et al. (US20200342694A1), hereinafter Pham.
Regarding claim 10, Kudo, Du, Davidson, and Masuda teaches of all limitations of claim 9 as stated above.
However, Kudo, Du, Davidson, and Masuda does not teach that the step of displaying the identified driving instructions on a handheld electronic device.
Pham, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that the step of displaying the identified driving instructions on a handheld electronic device ("handheld electronic device to display the driving procedure", [0017]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the determination of the state of health of a vehicle battery of Kudo, Du, Davidson, and Masuda with the teaching of Pham to display driving instructions on a handheld electronic device to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements to provide a driver, or other user with driving instructions (e.g., “maintain current speed”) that would help maintain vehicle battery state of health.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo, Du, and Davidson, further in view of Ishigaki et al. (JP2015002573A), hereinafter Ishigaki.
Regarding claim 11, Kudo, Du, and Davidson teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
However, Kudo, Du, and Davidson does not teach that the step of identifying a drive cycle associated with the step of determining the voltage balance.
Ishigaki, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that the step of identifying a drive cycle ("driving pattern") associated with the step of determining the voltage balance ("Voltage adjustment control unit 710 generates voltage adjustment flag Fvb based on voltage adjustment permission flag Fpt received from driving pattern prediction unit 750...710 turns on the voltage adjustment flag Fvb in response to the comparison of the voltage difference...with judgement value Vt", [0224]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the determination of the state of health of a vehicle battery of Kudo, Du, and Davidson with the teaching of Ishigaki to identify a drive cycle associated with determining the voltage balance to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements in order to more accurately assess the vehicle battery state of health under varying drive cycles (e.g., urban, rural, or highway driving cycles) and their associated voltage balances.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo, Du, Davidson, and Ishigaki, further in view of Liu et al. (CN113992785A), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claim 12, Kudo, Du, Davidson, and Ishigaki teaches of all limitations of claim 11 as stated above.
However, Kudo, Du, Davidson, and Ishigaki does not teach that the drive cycle is vehicle specific, and the method further comprising the step identifying the drive cycle based on vehicle identification information associated with the vehicle.
Liu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that the drive cycle is vehicle specific, the method further comprising the step identifying the drive cycle based on vehicle identification information associated with the vehicle ("uses the vehicle VIN as a unique identifier, and calculates…driving cycle required power, and driving cycle mileage, [0024]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the determination of the state of health of a vehicle battery of Kudo, Du, Davidson, and Ishigaki with the teaching of Liu of identifying the drive cycle based on vehicle identification information associated with the vehicle to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements to utilize accurate drive cycle data specific to a vehicle (i.e., specific make or model) when assessing the vehicle battery state of health.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo, Du, and Davidson, and further in view of Chen et al. (US20190304213A1), hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 13, Kudo teaches a method of determining a state of health of a vehicle battery ("diagnosis method for a battery monitoring system", [0015]) on a hybrid vehicle ("hybrid automobile", [0009]), the method comprising the steps of: receiving diagnostic data from a vehicle, the diagnostic data (Kudo does not explicit give a structure name to this information however it is known that this information is gathered and received by the battery monitoring system) including temperature of the cells in the vehicle battery ("measurement of cell temperature", [0061]); monitoring vehicle battery charging and vehicle battery discharging ("monitor the states of the battery cells…control their charge/discharge states", [0009]) in accordance with a prescribed schedule ("a predetermined cycle…performs correlated internal diagnosis (for example, excessive charge detection)", [0134]); requesting cell voltage for each of the plurality of battery cells when the vehicle battery charging meets a charging threshold ("comparing each cell voltage of a plurality of battery cells… with an excessive charge threshold value", [0015]) and the vehicle battery discharging meets a discharging threshold ("compares together the terminal voltage of the battery cell BC2 and the decision reference value OD for excessive discharge (i.e. the excessive discharge threshold value), [0109]); receiving cell voltage from each of the plurality of battery cells and determining a voltage balance ("the value of ΔV depends upon the cell voltages of the battery cells BC at which balancing is performed…", [0147]) by comparing received voltages to a known average voltage range ("the variations of the cell voltages are kept within a predetermined voltage range", [0145]); and calculating a battery state of health (“executes diagnosis synchronized with this measurement”, [0084]) based on the temperature of the cells in the vehicle battery ("measurement of cell temperature", [0061]), and the voltage balance ("the value of ΔV depends upon the cell voltages of the battery cells BC at which balancing is performed…", [0147]).
However, Kudo does not teach, of a device for determining a state of health of a vehicle battery on a hybrid vehicle, the device comprising: a data connector operatively engageable with a diagnostic port on the vehicle and a processor in communication with the data connector, the processor being configured to implement the steps of: receiving the diagnostic data including a diagnostic trouble code status and an internal resistance of the cells in the vehicle battery; calculating a battery state of health based on a combined assessment of the diagnostic trouble code status and the internal resistance of the cells in the vehicle battery; identifying at least one fix to improve the battery state of health; predicting a remaining service life of the vehicle battery based on the calculated battery state of health and historical battery health data; adjusting the predicted remaining service life in view of a selected one of the at least one fix to improve the battery state of health; and displaying the adjusted predicted remaining service life on a display.
Du, in the same field of endeavor, teaches, that the diagnostic data includes a diagnostic trouble code status and an internal resistance of the cells in the vehicle battery ([0057]); of calculating a battery state of health based on a combined assessment of the diagnostic trouble code status ("the DTCs...may be referred to or be associated with cause indications", [0057]) the internal resistance of the cells in the vehicle battery (the vehicle health management (VHM) information "may be based on continuously assessing over an extended period of time various parameters that indicate state of health...As an example...a battery internal resistance", [0057]); identifying at least one fix to improve the battery state of health ("The system health information report 612 may indicate a MPC, a LPC, and a recommendation", [0079], implicit that if the most probable cause (MPC) was the vehicle battery the report would give a recommendation to improve the battery health); and in view of a selected one of the at least one fix to improve the battery state of health (the vehicle health management (VHM) information "may be based on continuously assessing over an extended period of time various parameters that indicate state of health...As an example...a battery internal resistance", [0057], "the health related information includes…a recommendation for repair", [0012]).
However, Du, additionally, does not teach of a device for determining a state of health of a vehicle battery on a hybrid vehicle, the device comprising: a data connector operatively engageable with a diagnostic port on the vehicle and a processor in communication with the data connector; predicting a remaining service life of the vehicle battery based on the calculated battery state of health and historical battery health data; adjusting the predicted remaining service life; and displaying the adjusted predicted remaining service life on a display.
Chen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a system including a data acquisition and transfer device disposable in communication with a vehicle computer on a vehicle to receive diagnostic data ([0011]) the device comprising: a data connector operatively engageable with a diagnostic port on the vehicle ("a data connector connectable with the diagnostic port on the vehicle", [0068]); and a processor in communication with the data connector (“…to facilitate data communication between the ECU 26 and the dongle 14”, [0068]; “The processor is in wireless communication with at least the dongle and/or the ECU”, [0042]).
However, Chen does not teach of predicting a remaining service life of the vehicle battery based on the calculated battery state of health and historical battery health data; adjusting the predicted remaining service life; and displaying the adjusted predicted remaining service life on a display.
Davidson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of predicting a remaining service life of the vehicle battery based on the calculated battery state of health and historical battery health data ("Vehicle component data is specific parameters monitored over the life cycle and logged for a particular vehicle component being assessed for predictive component failure", [0139], "Vehicle component data is also the life cycle data for a component from a new installation to failure situation", [0140], "The generation of normalized real time electrical system health status rating parameters…allows for prediction in real time of the health status of the electrical system components", [0129], "normalization of fleet health data may be associated with component known lifespan to predict real time component remaining effective life", [0067]); adjusting the predicted remaining service life ("Vehicle component data is specific parameters monitored over the life cycle and logged for a particular vehicle component being assessed for predictive component failure", [0139], "Vehicle component data is also the life cycle data for a component from a new installation to failure situation", [0140], "In an embodiment the operational life cycle includes operational values from a new component to a failed component", [0023], "The generation of normalized real time electrical system health status rating parameters…allows for prediction in real time of the health status of the electrical system components", [0129]); and displaying the adjusted predicted remaining service life on a display ("Fig. 8d shows a battery health status rating", [0126], "Accordingly, it should be understood that a real time battery health rating may be ascertained for each vehicle in the fleet or across differing fleets. For normalized rating this scaled rating will be between 0 and 100 with 0 representing a battery that is going to fail and 100 representing a new battery", [0129]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the method of determine the vehicle battery state of health of Kudo through the monitoring of temperature, charge and discharge of battery cells, and voltage balance with the teachings of Du to calculate the battery state of health using diagnostic trouble code status and internal resistance while also identifying a fix or recommendation based on battery health parameters, the device of Chen, and the teachings of Davidson to predict the remaining service life based on health data from historical records and other parameters of vehicle battery health, and displaying the prediction onto a display to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements such that the device of Chen is able to perform the teachings of Kudo and Du in order for the device to provide a more accurate assessment of the vehicle battery state of health, while also providing a fix to improve the health. Additionally, in order to provide a predictive assessment of the vehicle battery that reflects both current health status and the expected impact of recommended fixes, thereby improving the diagnostic accuracy and enabling informed maintenance decisions (Davidson, [0067]- [0068], Du, [0079]).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo, Du, Davidson, and Chen, further in view of Huang.
Regarding claim 14, Kudo, Du, Davidson, and Chen teach of all limitations of claim 13 as stated above.
However, Kudo, Du, Davidson, and Chen do not teach of a display screen in communication with the processor, the display screen being configured to display information related to the battery state of health.
Huang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a display screen in communication with the processor (“microprocessors can be used to…communicate data through an input/output device. The input/output device can be a digital or analog display”, [0082]), the display screen being configured to display information related to the battery state of health ("SOH can be clearly displayed to a user on a single fuel gauge type display", [0103]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the device for determining of the state of health of a vehicle battery of Kudo, Du, Davidson, and Chen with the teaching of Huang to display the calculated battery state of health on a display to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements to easily communicate the battery state of health to a user and make informed decisions concerning maintenance.
Regarding claim 15, Kudo, Du, Davidson, and Chen teach of all limitations of claim 13 as stated above.
However, Kudo, Du, Davidson, and Chen do not teach that the display screen is configured to display the battery state of health in the format of a digital gauge.
Huang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that the display screen is configured to display the battery state of health in the format of a digital gauge ("SOH can be clearly displayed to a user on a single fuel gauge type display", [0103]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the device for determining the state of health of a vehicle battery of Kudo, Du, Davidson, and Chen with the teaching of Huang to display the calculated battery state of health on a digital gauge to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements to easily communicate the battery state of health to a user by providing a visual representation of the battery state of health to assist the user in making informed decisions concerning maintenance.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo, Du, Davidson, Chen, and Huang, in view of Pham and further in view of Ishigaki.
Regarding claim 16, Kudo, Du, Davidson, Chen, and Huang teach of all limitations of claim 14 as stated above.
However, Kudo, Du, Davidson, Chen, and Huang do not teach that the processor is further configured to implement displaying driving instructions on the display screen for a drive cycle associated with the determination of the voltage balance.
Pham, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that the processor is further configured to implement displaying driving instructions on the display screen (“The processor 22 may compare the received live data with the parameters associated with the driving procedure…the display screen 24 may display…at least one driving parameter associated with the driving procedure”, [0042-0043]).
However, Pham does not teach of a drive cycle associated with the determination of the voltage balance.
Ishigaki, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a drive cycle ("driving pattern") associated with the determination of the voltage balance ("Voltage adjustment control unit 710 generates voltage adjustment flag Fvb based on voltage adjustment permission flag Fpt received from driving pattern prediction unit 750...710 turns on the voltage adjustment flag Fvb in response to the comparison of the voltage difference...with judgement value Vt", [0224]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the device for determining the state of health of a vehicle battery of Kudo, Du, Davidson, Chen, and Huang with the teaching of Pham that the processor implements displaying driving instructions and the teaching of Ishigaki of identifying a drive cycle associated with determining the voltage balance to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements to provide a driver, or other user with driving instructions on a display in order to more accurately assess the vehicle battery state of health under varying drive cycles (e.g., urban, rural, or highway driving cycles) and their associated voltage balances.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo, Du, Davidson, Chen, Huang, Pham, and Ishigaki, further in view of Masuda.
Regarding claim 17, Kudo, Du, Davidson, Chen, Huang, Pham, and Ishigaki teach of all limitations of claim 16 as stated above.
However, Kudo, Du, Davidson, Chen, Huang, Pham, and Ishigaki do not teach that the processor is further configured to implement identification of driving instructions associated with a specified vehicle deceleration associated with the charging threshold and a specified vehicle acceleration associated with the discharging threshold.
Masuda, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of driving instructions ("generates control instructions") associated with a specified vehicle deceleration ("brake operation") associated with the charging threshold ("limits of charging electric power") and a specified vehicle acceleration ("accelerator operation") associated with the discharging threshold ("limits of...discharging electric power", [0029]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the processor of Kudo, Du, Davidson, Chen, Huang, Pham, and Ishigaki with the teaching of Masuda to identify driving instructions associated with the vehicle deceleration and acceleration along with its corresponding associated charging and discharging thresholds to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements to provide actionable items concerning the vehicle battery state of health which factors in the vehicle deceleration and acceleration along with its corresponding charging and discharging thresholds.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo, Du, Davidson, Chen, Huang, Pham, and Ishigaki, further in view of Liu.
Regarding claim 18, Kudo, Du, Davidson, Chen, Huang, Pham, and Ishigaki teach of all limitations of claim 16, as stated above.
However, Kudo, Du, Davidson, Chen, Huang, Pham, and Ishigaki do not teach that the drive cycle is vehicle specific, the processor further being configured to identify the drive cycle based on vehicle identification information associated with the vehicle
Liu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that the drive cycle is vehicle specific, the method further comprising the step identifying the drive cycle based on vehicle identification information associated with the vehicle ("uses the vehicle VIN as a unique identifier, and calculates…driving cycle required power, and driving cycle mileage, [0024]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the processor of Kudo, Du, Davidson, Chen, Huang, Pham, and Ishigaki with the teaching of Liu of identifying the drive cycle based on vehicle identification information associated with the vehicle to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements to utilize accurate drive cycle data specific to a vehicle (i.e., specific make or model) when assessing the vehicle battery state of health.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo, Du, Davidson, and Chen, further in view of Kim.
Regarding claim 19, Kudo, Du, Davidson, and Chen teach of all limitations of claim 13 as stated above.
However, Kudo, Du, Davidson, and Chen does not teach that the diagnostic data additionally includes a number of cells in a vehicle battery on the vehicle.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that the diagnostic data additionally includes a number of cells ("cell balancing history storage unit (14) receives the number of cells", [0029]) in a vehicle battery on the vehicle (Kim does not explicitly refer to a vehicle battery however does say that “The scope of adopting and utilizing secondary batteries capable of stable power supply and charging is expanding across industries including electric vehicles”, [0002]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the device for determining the state of health of a vehicle battery of Kudo, Du, Davidson, and Chen with the teaching of Kim to include the number of cells in a vehicle battery as a part of the diagnostic data to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements as the number of cells in a battery is a notable factor in determining a battery’s state of health.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo, Du, Davidson, and Chen, further in view of Masuda.
Regarding claim 20, Kudo, Du, Davidson, and Chen teach of all limitations of claim 13 as stated above.
However, Kudo, Du, Davidson, and Chen do not teach that the charging threshold is associated with a specified vehicle deceleration.
Masuda, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that the charging threshold ("limits of charging electric power") is associated with a specified vehicle deceleration ("brake operation", [0029]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the device for determining the state of health of a vehicle battery of Kudo, Du, Davidson, and Chen with the teaching of Masuda that the charging threshold is associated with a specified vehicle deceleration to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements to ensure that charging occurred from the deceleration of a vehicle (e.g. ‘regenerative braking’) along with its charging threshold are factored into the assessment of the vehicle battery state of health.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 12, filed 09/25/2025, with respect to the objections to the Specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the Specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument, see Page 12, filed 09/25/2025, with respect to the claim 3 objection has been fully considered and is persuasive. The objection of claim 3 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 12-14, filed 09/25/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kudo in view of Du and further in view of Davidson.
Regarding Applicant’s argument for claim 1 rejected under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that Kudo nor Du teach or suggest: “Storing each calculated SOH score with a timestamp in memory, autonomously compiling a time-series of SOH scores over multiple calculation events, or displaying a trend diagram or graph of SOH scores over time to the user”. Examiner finds Applicant’s argument persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kudo in view of Du and further in view of Davidson, as discussed above. Each of claims 2-12 and 22-24, depend directly or indirectly, from claim 1 and, by dependency, are rejected under 35 USC 103, as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 14-15, filed 09/25/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 13 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kudo, Du, and Davidson, and further in view of Chen.
Regarding Applicant’s argument for claim 13 rejected under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that Kudo nor Du teach of the amended features of the instant application. Examiner finds Applicant’s argument persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kudo in view of Du and further in view of Davidson, as discussed above. Each of claims 2-12 and 22-24, depend directly or indirectly, from claim 1 and, by dependency, are rejected under 35 USC 103, as discussed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL LEE ESPINOZA whose telephone number is (571)272-4889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571) 270-5376. 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.
ABIGAIL LEE ESPINOZA
Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657