DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under step 1, claims 1, and similarly 9, belong to a statutory category of an apparatus.
Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 1 and similarly 9 recite(s) “determining a characterization state-of-charge and a user-defined state-of-charge for a rechargeable battery” and “convert the initial user-defined state-of-charge to an initial characterization state-of-charge using results of characterization testing obtained for the characterization operating voltage range, and without use of results of characterization testing based on the user-defined operating voltage range; initialize, using the initial characterization state-of-charge, an equivalent circuit model; generate, from operation of the equivalent circuit model, at least the updated characterization state-of-charge; convert, using information derived from the results of the characterization testing obtained for the characterization operating voltage range, the updated characterization state-of-charge to the updated user-defined state-of-charge” which are directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes in view of applicant’s specification for example see Par. 24-25, 54-57, and 62-63.
Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “a state-of-charge remapping system for”, “a rechargeable battery” and “the state-of-charge remapping system comprising: at least one processor; a memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory including instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to:” are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The elements of “receive an initial user-defined state-of-charge, the initial user-defined state-of-charge corresponding to a user-defined operating voltage range, the user-defined operating voltage range being within, and a narrower range than, a characterization operating voltage range that corresponds to the characterization state-of-charge;” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “a state-of-charge remapping system for”, “a rechargeable battery” and “the state-of-charge remapping system comprising: at least one processor; a memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory including instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to:” are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). The elements of “receive an initial user-defined state-of-charge, the initial user-defined state-of-charge corresponding to a user-defined operating voltage range, the user-defined operating voltage range being within, and a narrower range than, a characterization operating voltage range that corresponds to the characterization state-of-charge;” are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)(see prior art of record).
Under step 1, claims 16, belong to a statutory category of a method.
Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 16 recite(s) “a method for online reconfiguration of a battery operating voltage range, the method comprising:” and “adjusting, in response to receiving the signal, the first user-defined operating voltage range to a second user-defined operating voltage range, the second user-defined operating voltage range being different than the first user-defined operating voltage; determining an initial user-defined state-of-charge corresponding to the second user-defined operating voltage range; converting the initial user-defined state-of-charge to an initial characterization state-of-charge using characterization testing obtained for a characterization operating voltage range, the characterization operating voltage range being different than the second user-defined operating voltage range; generating, using the initial characterization state-of-charge, a value for each of one or more parameters of an equivalent circuit model; generating, via operation of the equivalent circuit model, an updated characterization state-of-charge; and converting the updated characterization state-of-charge to an updated user-defined state-of-charge using results of characterization testing using an operating voltage range different than the second user-defined operating voltage range, and without use of results of characterization testing based on the second user-defined state-of-charge” which are directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes in view of applicant’s specification for example see Par. 24-25, 54-57, and 62-63.
Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “receiving a signal in response to a change in a state of health condition of a rechargeable battery, the rechargeable battery being operated at a first user-defined operating voltage range, the first user-defined operating voltage range being different than, and within, a characterization operating voltage range of the rechargeable battery;” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “receiving a signal in response to a change in a state of health condition of a rechargeable battery, the rechargeable battery being operated at a first user-defined operating voltage range, the first user-defined operating voltage range being different than, and within, a characterization operating voltage range of the rechargeable battery;” are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)(see prior art of record).
Claims 2, 5, 10, 12-13, 17-20 are not integrated into a practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity and are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)(see prior art of record).
Claims 3-4, 6-8, 14-15 are considered to further describe the abstract ideas cited above.
Claim 11 “wherein the at least one processor is a processor of a battery management system” are not integrated into a practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are considered to be generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato (US 20220237342 A1).
In claim 1, Sato discloses a state-of-charge remapping system (Fig. 2) for determining a characterization state-of-charge (Par. 32 “state of charge”) and a user-defined state-of-charge (Par. 44 “a battery table BT that stores information on the energy storage device (battery) in association with the user ID”, “the battery table BT may include a link that refers to information such as physical properties, an operation state, and a circuit configuration of the energy storage device” Par. 62 “The open-circuit voltage Vo(t) is given, for example, as a function of the SOC”) for a rechargeable battery (Par. 33 “rechargeable energy storage device”), the state-of-charge remapping system comprising: at least one processor (Fig. 2, 101); a memory coupled to the at least one processor (Fig. 2, 102), the memory including instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to: receive an initial user-defined state-of-charge (Par. 35 “receiving simulation conditions” Par. 44 “a battery table BT that stores information on the energy storage device (battery) in association with the user ID”, “the battery table BT may include a link that refers to information such as physical properties, an operation state, and a circuit configuration of the energy storage device”), the initial user-defined state-of-charge corresponding to a user-defined operating voltage range (Fig. 12, “actual measurement” examiner notes the voltage ranges from slightly less than 12 to about 17, Par. 79 “the current voltage range was set with reference to the test conditions of the SBA-IS test” Par. 89 “a charge voltage-polarization”), the user-defined operating voltage range being within, and a narrower range than (See Fig. 12), a characterization operating voltage range that corresponds to the characterization state-of-charge (Fig. 12, “present application” examiner notes the voltage ranges from slightly less than 12 to about 17.5); convert the initial user-defined state-of-charge to an initial characterization state-of-charge using results of characterization testing obtained for the characterization operating voltage range (Par. 65-66 “The SOC used in the equivalent circuit model ECM was calculated based on the battery capacity and the integrated amount of electricity at full charge”), and without use of results of characterization testing based on the user-defined operating voltage range (Par. 65-66 examiner notes that the calculations are done using the measurements but no “characterization testing” has been applied to said measurements); initialize, using the initial characterization state-of-charge, an equivalent circuit model (Par. 64 “equivalent circuit model ECM”); generate, from operation of the equivalent circuit model, at least the updated characterization state-of-charge (Par. 65-66, claim 8); convert, using information derived from the results of the characterization testing obtained for the characterization operating voltage range, the updated characterization state-of-charge to the updated user-defined state-of-charge (Claim 8 “the measured value as input information and estimating one or both of an optimal SOC”).
In claim 2, Sato further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: output the user-defined state-of-charge obtained from the conversion of the characterization state-of-charge to an external interface (Claim 8, Fig. 2, 105, Par. 37 “display a simulation result.”).
In claim 3, Sato further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to convert the characterization state-of-charge to the user-defined state-of-charge without use of results of characterization testing based on either the initial user-defined state-of-charge or the user-defined state-of-charge (Par. 65-66 examiner notes that the calculations are done using the measurements but no “characterization testing” has been applied to said measurements).
In claim 4, Sato further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to initialize the equivalent circuit model by determining, using the initial characterization state-of-charge, at least a first characterization state-of-charge, the characterization state-of-charge being a function of at least the initial characterization state-of-charge for a given current input at a select time (Par. 60 “current I(t)” 63-66, 72 see Eq. 2).
In claim 5, Sato discloses all of claim 4. Sato further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to receive a battery load profile comprising the given current input and the select time (Par. 79-80 “current behavior when a verification pattern is input is compared with the measured value”, “time”).
In claim 6, Sato further discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to initialize the equivalent circuit model by identifying a value for each of one or more parameters of the equivalent circuit model, the value being at least a function of the initial characterization state-of-charge (Par. 62-66).
In claim 7, Sato further discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to generate, via an operation of the equivalent circuit model, a simulated voltage (Par. 62-66), and determine, using the simulated voltage, a presence of either an overvoltage condition or an under-voltage condition of the rechargeable battery (Par. 62-66 See claim 7 and 4).
In claim 8, Sato further discloses wherein the characterization operating voltage range is an operating range is at least approximately a capacity of the rechargeable battery (Par. 66).
In claim 9, Sato discloses a state-of-charge remapping system (Fig. 2) for determining a characterization state-of-charge (Par. 32 “state of charge”) and a user-defined state-of-charge (Par. 44 “a battery table BT that stores information on the energy storage device (battery) in association with the user ID”, “the battery table BT may include a link that refers to information such as physical properties, an operation state, and a circuit configuration of the energy storage device” Par. 62 “The open-circuit voltage Vo(t) is given, for example, as a function of the SOC”) for a rechargeable battery (Par. 33 “rechargeable energy storage device”) using results of characterization testing obtained for a characterization operating voltage range that corresponds to the characterization state-of-charge (Fig. 12, “present application” examiner notes the voltage ranges from slightly less than 12 to about 17.5), the state-of-charge remapping system comprising: at least one processor (Fig. 2, 101); a memory coupled to the at least one processor (Fig. 2, 102), the memory including instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to: receive a first signal corresponding to a sensed battery voltage (Par. 35 “receiving simulation conditions” Par. 44 “a battery table BT that stores information on the energy storage device (battery) in association with the user ID”, “the battery table BT may include a link that refers to information such as physical properties, an operation state, and a circuit configuration of the energy storage device” Par. 79 “measured value” Claim 8 “current, a voltage, and a temperature each as the measured value as input information”); receive a second signal corresponding to a sensed battery load current (Claim 8 current, a voltage, and a temperature each as the measured value as input information); leverage an equivalent circuit model (Par. 64 “equivalent circuit model ECM”) to estimate, using at least the first and second signals, a characterization state-of-charge (Par. 65-66 examiner notes that the calculations are done using the measurements but no “characterization testing” has been applied to said measurements); convert the characterization state-of-charge to the user-defined state-of-charge using the results of characterization testing obtained for the characterization operating voltage range (Par. 65-66 “The SOC used in the equivalent circuit model ECM was calculated based on the battery capacity and the integrated amount of electricity at full charge”), and without use of results of characterization testing based on the user-defined state-of-charge (Par. 65-66 examiner notes that the calculations are done using the measurements but no “characterization testing” has been applied to said measurements).
In claim 10, Sato further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: output the user-defined state-of-charge obtained from the conversion of the characterization state-of-charge to an external interface (Claim 8, Fig. 2, 105, Par. 37 “display a simulation result.”).
In claim 11, Sato further discloses wherein the at least one processor is a processor of a battery management system (Fig. 2, 100).
In claim 12, Sato further discloses wherein the sensed battery voltage is a measured voltage (Claim 8 “current, a voltage, and a temperature each as the measured value as input information”).
In claim 13, Sato further discloses wherein the sensed battery voltage is a measured current (Claim 8 “current, a voltage, and a temperature each as the measured value as input information”).
In claim 14, Sato further discloses wherein the value for each of one or more parameters of the equivalent circuit model is a function of at least the characterization state-of-charge (Par. 62-65).
In claim 15, Sato further discloses wherein the characterization operating voltage range is an operating range is at least approximately a total capacity of the rechargeable battery (See Fig. 12).
In claim 16, Sato discloses a method for online reconfiguration of a battery operating voltage range (Fig. 2), the method comprising: receiving a signal in response to a change in a state of health condition of a rechargeable battery (Par. 35 “receiving simulation conditions” Par. 44 “a battery table BT that stores information on the energy storage device (battery) in association with the user ID”, “the battery table BT may include a link that refers to information such as physical properties, an operation state, and a circuit configuration of the energy storage device”), the rechargeable battery being operated at a first user-defined operating voltage range (Fig. 12, “actual measurement” examiner notes the voltage ranges from slightly less than 12 to about 17, Par. 79 “the current voltage range was set with reference to the test conditions of the SBA-IS test” Par. 89 “a charge voltage-polarization”), the first user-defined operating voltage range being different than, and within, a characterization operating voltage range of the rechargeable battery (Fig. 12, “present application” examiner notes the voltage ranges from slightly less than 12 to about 17.5); adjusting, in response to receiving the signal, the first user-defined operating voltage range to a second user-defined operating voltage range (see claim 8, Fig. 12), the second user-defined operating voltage range being different than the first user-defined operating voltage (See Fig. 12); determining an initial user-defined state-of-charge corresponding to the second user-defined operating voltage range (Par. 65-66 “The SOC used in the equivalent circuit model ECM was calculated based on the battery capacity and the integrated amount of electricity at full charge”); converting the initial user-defined state-of-charge to an initial characterization state-of-charge using characterization testing obtained for a characterization operating voltage range (Fig. 12, “present application” examiner notes the voltage ranges from slightly less than 12 to about 17.5), the characterization operating voltage range being different than the second user-defined operating voltage range (See Fig. 12); generating, using the initial characterization state-of-charge, a value for each of one or more parameters of an equivalent circuit model (Par. 63-65 “ECM”); generating, via operation of the equivalent circuit model, an updated characterization state-of-charge (Par. 65-66, claim 8); and converting the updated characterization state-of-charge to an updated user-defined state-of-charge using results of characterization testing using an operating voltage range different than the second user-defined operating voltage range (Claim 8 “the measured value as input information and estimating one or both of an optimal SOC”), and without use of results of characterization testing based on the second user-defined state-of-charge (Par. 65-66 examiner notes that the calculations are done using the measurements but no “characterization testing” has been applied to said measurements).
In claim 17, Sato further discloses outputting the user-defined state-of-charge obtained from the conversion of the characterization state-of-charge to an external interface (Claim 8, Fig. 2, 105, Par. 37 “display a simulation result.”).
In claim 18, Sato further discloses determining, using information provided by at least an aging estimator, the second user-defined operating voltage range (Fig. 2 SP); and operating the rechargeable battery to avoid violating both an upper limit (Par. 89 “a charge voltage-polarization voltage (maximum value)”) and a lower limit of the second user-defined operating voltage range (Fig. 12, examiner considers the JSAE to be said lower limit).
In claim 19, Sato further discloses determining, using information provided by at least an aging estimator (Fig. 2 SP), a plurality of operating voltage ranges (Fig. 12); receiving a user selection of a selected operating voltage range from the plurality of operating voltage ranges, the selected operating voltage range being the second user-defined operating voltage range (Par. 44 “a battery table BT that stores information on the energy storage device (battery) in association with the user ID”, “the battery table BT may include a link that refers to information such as physical properties, an operation state, and a circuit configuration of the energy storage device” Par. 62 “The open-circuit voltage Vo(t) is given, for example, as a function of the SOC”); and operating the rechargeable battery to avoid violating both an upper limit (Par. 89 “a charge voltage-polarization voltage (maximum value)”) and a lower limit of the second user-defined operating voltage range (Fig. 12, examiner considers the JSAE to be said lower limit).
In claim 20, Sato further discloses wherein the state of health condition is an indication of aging of the rechargeable battery (Claim 8 “state of health (SOH)” Par. 4 “idling stop life test”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20230120239 A1 BATTERY CHARACTERIZATION SYSTEM AND METHOD; US 20180340981 A1 METHOD FOR ESTIMATING THE CURRENT AND THE STATE OF CHARGE OF A BATTERY PACK OR CELL, WITHOUT DIRECT DETECTION OF CURRENT UNDER OPERATING CONDITIONS; US 20140152315 A1 TRANSIENT DETECTION OF AN EXCEPTIONAL CHARGE EVENT IN A SERIES CONNECTED BATTERY ELEMENT;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON J BECKER whose telephone number is (571)431-0689. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.J.B/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857