DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-15 have been presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
PRIORITY
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) to CHINA 2021107987635 filed 07/15/2021, CHINA 2021111787222 filed 10/11/2021, CHINA 2021115133275 filed 12/12/2021, and PCTCN2022097748 filed 06/09/2022.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 5/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
i) It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at www.uspto.gov/FindPatentAttorney.
ii) Applicants arguments on pages 1-10 reference numerous opinions and statements such as “None of the cited references can reliably predict battery life under the random, partial charge- discharge conditions that characterize everyday use.” Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., such as “reliably predict battery life under the random, partial charge- discharge conditions that characterize everyday use”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
iii) Applicants argue that the claims do not recite a mental process since for example the calculating requires real time measurement of current and voltage at the battery terminals and the processor is not a generic computer. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the real time aspect is not present in at least the independent claims and the processor which is not recited in all the independent claims and even when its recited there is no detail recited with the processor to infer the specific nature of the processor beyond a mere generic processor) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Applicant points to several sections of their specification to support their allegations in at least pages 11-14 to address the 101 rejection. The Examiner notes that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case Applicants argue numerous features which are limited in their recitation to the specification and are not explicitly recited in the generically presented claims particularly in view of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. With respect to the recitation of “real time” in some dependent claims the Examiner notes once again that even assuming the measurements are taken in “real time” the claims do not recite the complexity argued by Applicants and the mere monitoring or data collection of a battery could be performed as a mental process and at best would represent mere data gathering and/or insignificant extra solution activity and the claimed “historical period” could represent any period of time such as those short enough to be reasonably observed by a person including minutes or hours. Therefore the 101 rejection is MAINTAINED.
iv) Following Applicants amendments several of the previously presented 112 rejections are WITHDRAWN. However, the narrative nature of the claims remains and therefore the 112 rejection for narrative form is MAINTAINED. See below.
v) The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 5/14/26 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-15 based upon Hu, Xiaosong, et al. "Battery lifetime prognostics." Joule 4.2 (2020): 310-34 as set forth in the last Office action because: It refer(s) only to the system described in the above referenced application and not to the individual claims of the application. Thus, there is no showing that the objective evidence of nonobviousness is commensurate in scope with the claims. See MPEP § 716.
vi) Following Applicants amendments and arguments the prior art rejection is MAINTAINED. With respect to Applicants arguments, see page 25 of the remarks, regarding “cumulative-consumption-indicators…while expressly excluding cycle counts, iteration counts, and calendar service time” it is once again noted that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case Applicants argue numerous features which are limited in their recitation to the specification and are not explicitly recited in the generically presented claims particularly in view of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. With respect to Applicants claimed “wherein the cumulative-consumption-indicators comprise: an accumulated amount obtained by accumulating values of a usage-metric of the rechargeable-battery; but the usage-metric do not comprise: a charging iteration, a discharging iteration, a merge of charging and discharging iteration, or a service duration;
and the cumulative-consumption-indicators do not comprise: an accumulated amount of the charging iteration, an accumulated amount of the discharging iteration, an accumulated amount of the merge of charging and discharging iteration, or an accumulated amount of the service duration;” which appear to be the primary argument it is expressly noted that Applicants recite “the cumulative-consumption-indicators comprise: an accumulated amount obtained by accumulating values of a usage-metric of the rechargeable-battery.” As noted in at least page 313 of Hu, 2nd paragraph, “Batteries were charged and discharged at different temperatures, and the impedance was recorded after each cycle. Among them, the most commonly used datasets are B0005-B0007 and B0018. To collect these datasets, batteries were subjected to three different operational profiles (charge, discharge, and electro chemical impedance spectroscopy) at room temperature. After each charge discharge cycle, an electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) test was carried out to measure the impedance and obtain internal parameters that reflected the battery aging.” As noted by Applicants assuming for the sake of argument we exclude the teachings in Hu of charge/discharge then Hu also recites “electro chemical impedance spectroscopy) at room temperature. After each charge discharge cycle, an electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) test was carried out to measure the impedance and obtain internal parameters that reflected the battery aging.” In view of the broadest reasonable interpretation of Applicants claimed “an accumulated amount obtained by accumulating values of a usage-metric of the rechargeable-battery” Hu reads on the claimed invention. In fact the Hu reference, as per page 317 2nd paragraph, uses the “internal impedance shows a linear relationship with capacity at 1 C current. By taking advantage of this relationship, the internal impedance was used to obtain RUL.” Hu also recites in Page 317, last paragraph, “Two empirical models were developed for battery RUL prediction, namely, the weighted Ah aging model and event-oriented aging model. Under standard conditions, a certain amount of energy can be put into a battery until it reaches its lifetime threshold. In the weighted Ah aging model, the criterion of battery failure is the point at which the weighted cumulative Ah value exceeds the threshold.” This section further reads on the claimed “usage-metric of the rechargeable-battery.” Applicants are encouraged to recite explicitly their argued limitations within the claims to avoid differing interpretations based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. As such the prior art rejection is MAINTAINED.
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.
5. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
i) In view of Step 1 of the analysis, claim(s) 1 is directed to a statutory category as a process, , and claims 14 and 15 are directed to a machine as electronic equipment, which each represent a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-15 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
ii) In view of Step 2A, Prong One, claims 1, 14, and 15 recite the abstract idea of simulating the lifetime prognosis of a rechargeable battery which constitutes an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper as well as and alternatively as Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
The limitation in claim 1, similarly recited in claim 14, of " constructing a comprehensive-lifetime-index, using one or a plurality of the cumulative-consumption-indicators, for the rechargeable-battery; wherein the comprehensive-lifetime- index is selected or constructed from one or more cumulative-consumption-indicators; wherein the comprehensive-lifetime-index is a numerical value representing accumulated usage; constructing, at an appropriate modelling moment, a dynamic-degradation-model for the rechargeable-battery; predicting a remaining-lifetime of the rechargeable-battery, at a prognosis-execution-time, using the dynamic-degradation-model; wherein the appropriate modelling moment comprises at least one of: after a predetermined time period elapses, when a predetermined timestamp is reached, or when a predetermined event is triggered” would be analogous to a person evaluating and predicting the values of a battery based on provided data points and thus fall under Mental Processes. In addition, the steps would constitute Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper, as well as and alternatively as Mathematical Concepts.
As to claim 15, other than reciting “a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Dependent claims 2-13 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
iii) In view of Step 2A, Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claim 15, the additional element of “a processor module” merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitation in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 14 and 15 of “obtaining available-degradation-data-samples of the rechargeable-battery as model-inputs of the dynamic-degradation-model;” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation of “obtaining available-degradation-data-samples of the rechargeable-battery as model-inputs of the dynamic-degradation-model;” in claims 1, 14, and 15, alternatively can be viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-13 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
iv) In view of Step 2B, claims 1, 14, and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 15, the additional element of “a processor module” merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitation in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 14 and 15 of “obtaining available-degradation-data-samples of the rechargeable-battery as model-inputs of the dynamic-degradation-model;” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation of “obtaining available-degradation-data-samples of the rechargeable-battery as model-inputs of the dynamic-degradation-model;” in claims 1, 14, and 15, alternatively can be viewed as an insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 2 further defines elements of the variables, parameters, and calculations which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts.
Dependent claim 3 further defines elements of the variables, parameters, and calculations which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts.
Dependent claim 4 further defines elements of the variables, parameters, and calculations which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts.
Dependent claim 5 further defines elements of the variables, parameters, and calculations which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts.
Dependent claim 6 further defines elements of the variables, parameters, and calculations which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts.
Dependent claim 7 further defines elements of the variables, parameters, and calculations which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts.
Dependent claim 8 further defines elements of the variables, parameters, and calculations which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts.
Dependent claim 9 further defines elements of the variables, parameters, and calculations which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts.
Dependent claim 10 further defines elements of the variables, parameters, and calculations which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts.
Dependent claim 11 further defines elements of the variables, parameters, and calculations which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts.
Dependent claim 12 further defines elements of the variables, parameters, and calculations which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts.
Dependent claim 13 further defines elements of the variables, parameters, and calculations which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts.
v) Accordingly, claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
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.
6. Claims 4-13 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.
i) The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Further examples include:
a) as per claim 4, “wherein an alternative approach…”, is improperly recited
b) as per claim 4, numerous or/alternative statements in the first sentence with no bearing on which to select in the alternative which is repeated in each of the subsequent claims 5-13,
c) using “” to define a phrase mid-claim which is improper practice,
d) as per claim 5 “organic integration of multiple battery cells or battery packs” and no explanation of what “organic” means in the context of battery packs,
e) in at least claim 5 “similar or identical” which is a relative statement and includes a relative term “similar” (see MPEP 2173.05(b)(III),
f) as per claim 9 “be able to predict…”, where an ability is not an explicit claim limitation nor is it a recognized term of art and would further support the mental process arguments in the 101 rejection above,
g) these represent exemplary of the narrative, idiomatic, and indefinite nature of the claims.
The claims once again do not conform to proper U.S. practice as they do not explicitly claim limitations but mostly consist of a list of alternative mathematical determinations, values, and calculations. The Examiner notes issued patent 11774513 as exemplary of proper U.S. practice with respect to claim presentation. As such the claims are rendered vague and indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
All claims dependent upon a rejected base claim are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 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.
7. Claims 1-3, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Hu, Xiaosong, et al. "Battery lifetime prognostics." Joule 4.2 (2020): 310-346.
Regarding Claim 1: The reference discloses A lifetime prognosis method for a rechargeable-battery based on cumulative-consumption-indicators, characterized in that the method comprising:
constructing a comprehensive-lifetime-index, using one or a plurality of the cumulative-consumption-indicators, for the rechargeable-battery; (Abstract, “After introducing the degradation mechanisms, this paper provides a timely and comprehensive review of the battery lifetime prognostic technologies with a focus on recent advances in model-based, data-driven, and hybrid approaches”)
constructing, at an appropriate modelling moment, a dynamic-degradation-model for the rechargeable-battery, wherein the comprehensive-lifetime- index is selected or constructed from one or more cumulative-consumption-indicators; (Page 312, 1st paragraph, “RUL prediction has attracted increasing attention in recent years. Some studies have reviewed existing RUL prediction methods and categorized them according to the models and algorithms used. According to the existing literature, RUL prediction methods include model-based, data-driven, and hybrid approaches. Model-based approaches aim to establish a mathematical model to describe the degradation trajectory based on battery dynamics.”)
obtaining available-degradation-data-samples of the rechargeable-battery as model-inputs of the dynamic-degradation-model; (Page 312, 1st paragraph, “On the contrary, data-driven approaches attempt to extract hidden correlations from a large amount of data and predict the RUL without a battery mathematical model. The data-driven approach does not need to analyze the system mechanism and is feasible and practical when large amount of data is available. In recent years, hybrid approaches that combine the model-based and data-driven approaches have also been proposed because they can combine the relative strengths of different methods.”)
predicting a remaining-lifetime of the rechargeable-battery, at a prognosis-execution-time, using the dynamic-degradation-model; wherein the appropriate modelling moment comprises at least one of: after a predetermined time period elapses, when a predetermined timestamp is reached, or when a predetermined event is triggered. (Page 314, 2nd paragraph, “A degradation modeling process is required after extracting the RHI from the original battery measurements. Degradation modeling has two main purposes: (1) to evaluate the correlation between RHI and DHI (usually battery capacity) and validate the effectiveness of the proposed RHI, and (2) to establish a relationship between RHI and DHI. Therefore, after degradation modeling, the battery RUL can be effectively predicted based on the future RHI trajectory.” See also Page 317, last paragraph, “Two empirical models were developed for battery RUL prediction,52 namely, the weighted Ah aging model and event-oriented aging model. Under standard conditions, a certain amount of energy can be put into a battery until it reaches its lifetime threshold. In the weighted Ah aging model, the criterion of battery failure is the point at which the weighted cumulative Ah value exceeds the threshold.”)
Regarding Claim 2: The reference discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the dynamic-degradation-model is used to describe a dynamic degradation pattern of the rechargeable-battery that characterized by decay in the value of the comprehensive-lifetime-index, during a degradation process of the rechargeable-battery, as the value of the comprehensive lifetime index constantly increases; (Page 327, 1st paragraph, “Wiener Process. A degradation process {X(t), t > 0} can be modeled as a WP with a linear drift.126 The lifetime of the system is often defined as the first hitting time when the degradation exceeds a certain threshold.127 Based on the definition of the first hitting time, the RUL Lk of a system at time tk is defined as the remaining time from tk to the first time when X(t) exceeds the failure threshold w.”)
wherein constructing the comprehensive-lifetime-index comprises: selecting one of the cumulative-consumption-indicators as the comprehensive-lifetime-index; (Page 327, 1st paragraph, “Wiener Process. A degradation process {X(t), t > 0} can be modeled as a WP with a linear drift.126 The lifetime of the system is often defined as the first hitting time when the degradation exceeds a certain threshold.127 Based on the definition of the first hitting time, the RUL Lk of a system at time tk is defined as the remaining time from tk to the first time when X(t) exceeds the failure threshold w.”)
wherein the cumulative-consumption-indicators comprise: an accumulated amount obtained by accumulating values of a usage-metric of the rechargeable-battery; (Figure 3)
but the usage-metric do not comprise: a charging iteration, a discharging iteration, a merge of charging and discharging iteration, or a service duration; (Figure 3)
and the cumulative-consumption-indicators do not comprise: an accumulated amount of the charging iteration, an accumulated amount of the discharging iteration, an accumulated amount of the merge of charging and discharging iteration, or an accumulated amount of the service duration; (Figure 3)
wherein the available-degradation-data-samples comprise: degradation-data sampled in real-time, the degradation-data sampled over a historical period, or the degradation-data sampled at partial of the historical spans or moments; (Page 340, last paragraph, “Furthermore, considering the onboard computing power of the battery management system, achieving a balance between model complexity and accuracy in model-based approaches, decreasing data demands and computational loads in data-driven approaches, and developing more effective frameworks for hybrid approaches are critical for real-time application”)
wherein the degradation-data comprises: performance monitoring data that are correlated with the degradation process of the rechargeable-battery. (Page 322, last paragraph, “For battery RUL prognosis, the training data for artificial intelligence mainly consist of cycling numbers, current, voltage, temperature, and capacity. Because the expected output values are known, it can be classified as supervised learning. Under the framework of supervised learning, a HI that represents battery performance is first selected.”)
Regarding Claim 3: The reference discloses The method of claim 2, wherein the usage-metric comprise: a charging-electricity-quantity, a discharging-electricity-quantity, a merge of absolute charging and discharging electricity-quantity; (Page 325, middle paragraph)
wherein the cumulative-consumption-indicators further comprise: an accumulated amount of the charging-electricity-quantity, an accumulated amount of the discharging-electricity-quantity, or an accumulated amount of the merge of absolute charging and discharging electricity-quantity; (Page 326, last paragraph, “Grey Model. The grey system theory was proposed by Ju-long Deng in 1982 and is capable of solving small-sample and poor-information problems.121,122 The grey model, GM(1,1), is one of the most widely used grey prediction models. For a non-negative historical time series, smoothing algorithms (e.g., accumulated generating operation)”)
wherein the usage-metric further comprise: a charging-electric-work, a discharging-electric-work, a merge of absolute charging and discharging electric-work; (Page 325, middle paragraph)
wherein the cumulative-consumption-indicators further comprise: an accumulated amount of the charging-electric-work, an accumulated amount of the discharging-electric-work, or an accumulated amount of the merge of absolute charging and discharging electric-work; (Page 326, last paragraph, “Grey Model. The grey system theory was proposed by Ju-long Deng in 1982 and is capable of solving small-sample and poor-information problems.121,122 The grey model, GM(1,1), is one of the most widely used grey prediction models. For a non-negative historical time series, smoothing algorithms (e.g., accumulated generating operation)”)
wherein the usage-metric further comprise: a charging duration, a discharging duration, a merge of charging and discharging duration; (Page 325, middle paragraph)
wherein the cumulative-consumption-indicators further comprise: an accumulated amount of the charging duration, an accumulated amount of the discharging duration, or an accumulated amount of the merge of charging and discharging duration; (Page 326, last paragraph, “Grey Model. The grey system theory was proposed by Ju-long Deng in 1982 and is capable of solving small-sample and poor-information problems.121,122 The grey model, GM(1,1), is one of the most widely used grey prediction models. For a non-negative historical time series, smoothing algorithms (e.g., accumulated generating operation)”)
wherein the usage-metric further comprise: a resting iteration, a resting duration; (Page 331, last paragraph, “Most of the studies in the previous sections focus on the battery capacity fade under working conditions, and different model-based, data-driven, and hybrid approaches were proposed for RUL prediction. Although the capacity fade, including both calendar aging and cycle aging, is modeled, the above studies excluded long-time rest conditions from experiments in order to accelerate the battery degradation.”)
wherein the cumulative-consumption-indicators further comprise: an accumulated amount of the resting iteration, or an accumulated amount of the resting duration; (Page 331, last paragraph, “Most of the studies in the previous sections focus on the battery capacity fade under working conditions, and different model-based, data-driven, and hybrid approaches were proposed for RUL prediction. Although the capacity fade, including both calendar aging and cycle aging, is modeled, the above studies excluded long-time rest conditions from experiments in order to accelerate the battery degradation.”)
wherein the process to acquire a value of one of the cumulative-consumption-indicators at a sampling time, comprise: selecting all of the historical spans or moments during a period from a production date of the rechargeable-battery to the sampling time as an accumulation-range, then selecting the usage-metric of the rechargeable-battery according to actual needs as object for accumulation, and then accumulating the values of the usage-metric within the accumulation-range to get an accumulated result, finally using the accumulated result as the value of one of the cumulative-consumption-indicators at the sampling time. (Page 325, middle paragraph) (Page 331, last paragraph, “Most of the studies in the previous sections focus on the battery capacity fade under working conditions, and different model-based, data-driven, and hybrid approaches were proposed for RUL prediction. Although the capacity fade, including both calendar aging and cycle aging, is modeled, the above studies excluded long-time rest conditions from experiments in order to accelerate the battery degradation.”)
Regarding Claim 14: See rejection for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15: See rejection for claim 1 and 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 4-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as well as resolving all intervening issues such as the 101 and 112 rejections above.
Claim 4 recites: The method of claim 3 wherein an alternative approach for selecting the accumulation-range, during the process to acquire the value of one of the cumulative-consumption-indicators at the sampling time, further comprises: selecting all of the historical spans or moments during a period from a put-into-use date of the rechargeable-battery to the sampling time as the accumulation-range, or appointing a certain fixed time as an initial accumulation point then selecting all of the historical spans or moments during a period from the initial accumulation point to the sampling time as the accumulation-range, or selecting partial of the historical spans or moments during a period from the production date of the rechargeable-battery to the sampling time as the accumulation-range; wherein constructing the health-status-index comprises: selecting one of the key- performance-indicators as the health-status-index; wherein one of the key-performance-indicators is defined as one of working performances of the rechargeable-battery, and a value of the one of the working performances will decay with long-term usage of the rechargeable-battery; specifically, a value of the one of the key-performance-indicators at the sampling time is also the value of the one of the working performances at the sampling time; wherein "decay with long-term usage" means that a value of said working performance changes progressively (e.g., increases or decreases) as the rechargeable-battery is used, with said decay being determined by comparison to an initial state or a rated state of the rechargeable-battery; wherein a failure threshold is a value within feasible value range of the health-status-index of the rechargeable-battery, and the rechargeable-battery fails when a value of the health- status-index decays to the failure threshold; wherein the key-performance-indicators comprise: an actual-quantity-capacity, or an attenuation of the actual-quantity-capacity; wherein the key-performance-indicators further comprise: an actual-internal-resistance, or an attenuation of the actual-internal-resistance; wherein the key-performance-indicators further comprise: an actual-work-capacity, or an attenuation of the actual-work-capacity.
The closest prior art of record includes:
i) Wang, Dong, et al. "Battery remaining useful life prediction at different discharge rates." Microelectronics Reliability 78 (2017): 212-219.
ii) Lin, Chun-Pang, et al. "Battery state of health modeling and remaining useful life prediction through time series model." Applied Energy 275 (2020): 115338.
iii) Sarasketa-Zabala, Elixabet, et al. "Validation of the methodology for lithium-ion batteries lifetime prognosis." 2013 World Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition (EVS27). IEEE, 2013.
iv) U.S. Patent Publication No. 20020000790
v) U.S. Patent Publication No. 20110029265
However, the closest prior art of record does not explicitly teach or render obvious the limitations above,
particularly in combination with the other limitations within the claims. The dependent claims are allowable for at least the same reasons as their respective independent claims.
Conclusion
9. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
10. All Claims are rejected.
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
i) Wang, Dong, et al. "Battery remaining useful life prediction at different discharge rates." Microelectronics Reliability 78 (2017): 212-219.
ii) Lin, Chun-Pang, et al. "Battery state of health modeling and remaining useful life prediction through time series model." Applied Energy 275 (2020): 115338.
iii) Sarasketa-Zabala, Elixabet, et al. "Validation of the methodology for lithium-ion batteries lifetime prognosis." 2013 World Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition (EVS27). IEEE, 2013.
iv) U.S. Patent Publication No. 20020000790
v) U.S. Patent Publication No. 20110029265
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saif A. Alhija whose telephone number is (571) 272-8635. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10:00-6:00.
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, Renee Chavez, can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Informal or draft communication, please label PROPOSED or DRAFT, can be additionally sent to the Examiners fax phone number, (571) 273-8635.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
SAA
/SAIF A ALHIJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights