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 Objections
Claims 1 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
There appears to be a grammatical error where the claim recites “in which groups into which the reference batteries.” The examiner has interpreted the claim to mean “in which groups of the reference batteries.” ¶0004 and ¶0005 of the specification have the same error and are also objected to. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1 of the 101 analysis, claims 1-17 are directed to one of the enumerated statutory categories, namely an apparatus.
Considering claim 1:
At Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim recites an abstract idea, as follows (with the abstract idea limitations in bold).
Claim 1 recites:
“A battery deterioration degree prediction apparatus comprising:
an obtaining unit configured to obtain a history of types of operation parameters for a target battery, histories of the types of operation parameters for reference batteries, and degrees of deterioration of the reference batteries, the target battery being a battery for traveling provided in a target vehicle, the reference batteries each being a battery for traveling provided in a vehicle different from the target vehicle; and
a controller configured to predict a degree of deterioration of the target battery,
wherein the controller is configured to predict the degree of deterioration of the target battery using map data in which groups into which the reference batteries are classified and coefficients representing rates of change in the degrees of deterioration of the reference batteries are associated with each other,
the groups in the map data are classified by a trend of histories of a first group parameter included in the types of operation parameters, and
the coefficients in the map data are derived based on the histories for the reference batteries and the degrees of deterioration of the reference batteries belonging to one of the groups that is associated with the coefficients.”
The above limitations in bold are mathematical concepts and/or mental processes that may be carried out in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. These limitations are therefore considered to be parts of an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong 2, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim (beyond the abstract idea limitations identified above) are the “obtain” steps, an obtaining unit, a controller, a target battery, reference batteries, a target vehicle. The “obtain” step merely pertains to data gathering for the abstract idea to be implemented. The obtaining unit and controller are merely generic computer components/units that are invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea. The specifying of target and reference batteries from traveling vehicles are not enough to implement the abstract idea as a practical application. The claim does not recite applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), nor does the claim affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)). As such, the additional element limitation does not impose a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, and does not integrate the claim into a particular practical application.
At Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to Prong 2.
Claim 1 is therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 17 is analogous to claim 1, except that claim 17 additionally recites circuitry. This is an additional element separate from the abstract idea that needs to be considered at Prong 2 of the 101 analysis. However, this additional element is merely a generic computer component that is invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which does not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 17 is therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 as well.
Dependent claims 2-16 merely add to the abstract idea limitations discussed above.
None of these dependent claims described above recite any further additional elements which would cause the claim as a whole to integrate the recited abstract idea into a particular practical application at Prong 2, or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea at Step 2B. Dependent claims 2-16 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (JP 2015081823; hereinafter Kobayashi) in view of Hanafusa (US 20140089692; hereinafter Hanafusa), and further view of Harada (WO 2015011534; hereinafter Harada).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi teaches: A battery deterioration degree prediction apparatus comprising: an obtaining unit configured to obtain a history of types of operation parameters for a target battery [see ¶0024 CMU 102 acquires T, C, and I], the target battery being a battery for traveling provided in a target vehicle [see ¶0003 battery installed in a vehicle]; and a controller configured to predict a degree of deterioration of the target battery [see ¶0025 BMU 200 calculates the deterioration amount of the battery 100].
Kobayashi does not teach: obtain histories of the types of operation parameters for reference batteries, and degrees of deterioration of the reference batteries.
Hanafusa teaches: obtain histories of the types of operation parameters for reference batteries [see Fig. 5; Fig. 7;¶0095; ¶0100; ¶0131 usage history info for other batteries e.g. T, V charging/discharging], and degrees of deterioration of the reference batteries [see ¶0100; Fig. 7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kobayashi with the teaching of Hanafusa, namely obtain histories of the types of operation parameters for reference batteries, and degrees of deterioration of the reference batteries in order to acquire more data for predictions.
Kobayashi does not teach: the reference batteries each being a battery for traveling provided in a vehicle different from the target vehicle.
Hanafusa teaches: separate battery systems 21a-n that communicate information with the cloud server 11 [see Fig. 1; ¶0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kobayashi with the teachings of Hanafusa, namely the reference batteries each being a battery for traveling provided in a vehicle different from the target vehicle in order to acquire similar data as the target battery.
Kobayashi does not teach: using map data in which groups into which the reference batteries are classified and coefficients representing rates of change in the degrees of deterioration of the reference batteries are associated with each other.
Harada teaches: using map data [see Fig. 5] in which groups into which the reference batteries are classified [see Fig. 5; ¶0085-0086 classified based on temperature] and coefficients representing rates of change in the degrees of deterioration of the reference batteries are associated with each other [see Fig. 6; ¶0089-0090 current capacity retention rate Cap(T2)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kobayashi and Hanafusa with the teachings of Harada, namely using map data in which groups into which the reference batteries are classified and coefficients representing rates of change in the degrees of deterioration of the reference batteries are associated with each other.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this in order to get data from batteries with similar operating parameters e.g. T.
Kobayashi does not teach: the groups in the map data are classified by a trend of histories of a first group parameter included in the types of operation parameters.
Harada teaches: the groups in the map data are classified by a trend of histories of a first group parameter included in the types of operation parameters [see Fig. 5; ¶0085-0086 classified based on usage history of temperature].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kobayashi and Hanafusa with the teachings of Harada, namely by classifying the groups in the map data by a trend of histories of a first group parameter included in the types of operation parameters in order to get data from batteries with similar operating parameters e.g. T.
Kobayashi does not teach: the coefficients in the map data are derived based on the histories for the reference batteries and the degrees of deterioration of the reference batteries belonging to one of the groups that is associated with the coefficients.
Hanafusa teaches: the deterioration models of storage batteries with similar operating parameters are generated in one deterioration model [see ¶0097; Fig. 5 and Fig. 7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kobayashi and Harada with the teachings of Hanafusa, namely deriving the coefficients in the map data based on the histories for the reference batteries and the degrees of deterioration of the reference batteries belonging to one of the groups that is associated with the coefficients.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this in order to get more accurate coefficients by using more battery data.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is analogous to claim 1 with the addition of processing circuitry. It would have been obvious to include processing circuitry in order to carry out the proposed invention of claim 1 on a computer.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kobayashi, Hanafusa, and Harada render obvious the apparatus of claim 1, but Kobayashi does not teach: wherein the controller is configured to extract, from the map data, a coefficient associated with one of the groups that matches a trend of the history of the first group parameter of the target battery, and predict the degree of deterioration of the target battery based on the extracted coefficient.
Harada teaches: extract a deterioration model [see ¶0134 when a deterioration model…cannot be extracted] associated with one of the groups that matches a trend of the history of the operating history of a battery, and predict the degree of deterioration of the battery based on the extracted deterioration model [see ¶0134-0135 similarity determined between operating history of battery and models in database in order to estimate deterioration state].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kobayashi and Harada with the teachings of Hanafusa, namely by configuring the controller to extract, from the map data, a coefficient associated with one of the groups that matches a trend of the history of the first group parameter of the target battery, and predict the degree of deterioration of the target battery based on the extracted coefficient in order to get an accurate estimate based on usage history of other batteries with similar operating history.
Regarding claims 3-4, the combination of Kobayashi, Hanafusa, and Harada render obvious the battery deterioration degree prediction apparatus according to claims 1 and 2, and Kobayashi further teaches: wherein the degree of deterioration of a battery includes a degree of cycle deterioration representing deterioration due to charging/ discharging, a degree of storage deterioration representing deterioration during storage, and a degree of overall deterioration combining the degree of charging/ discharging deterioration and the degree of storage deterioration [see ¶0030].
Kobayashi does not teach: wherein the degree of deterioration of each of the target battery and the reference batteries includes a degree of cycle deterioration representing deterioration due to charging/ discharging, a degree of storage deterioration representing deterioration during storage, and a degree of overall deterioration combining the degree of cycle deterioration and the degree of storage deterioration.
It would have been obvious to have the degree of deterioration of each of the target battery and the reference batteries include a degree of cycle deterioration representing deterioration due to charging/ discharging, a degree of storage deterioration representing deterioration during storage, and a degree of overall deterioration combining the degree of cycle deterioration and the degree of storage deterioration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this in order to calculate the reference batteries in the same way, and use the deterioration degrees of the reference batteries to aid in estimation of a target battery.
Kobayashi further teaches: a storage deterioration rate [see ¶0047]; current values are read from storage history, and it is determined whether the average value of current is greater than a predetermined threshold value [see ¶0044].
Kobayashi does not teach: the map data includes first map data in which a coefficient indicating a rate of change in the degree of storage deterioration is registered, the first map data is calculated based on one or more histories of one or more of the reference batteries that has inactive current frequency limited to a first threshold or greater, and the first group parameter includes temperature and voltage.
Hanafusa further teaches: associating all obtained operation parameters with a deterioration model (including SOC, T, number of charges/discharges) for a more accurate deterioration model [see ¶0103; Fig. 7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kobayashi and Harada with the teachings of Hanafusa, namely by having first map data in which a coefficient indicating a rate of change in the degree of storage deterioration is registered, the first map data is calculated based on one or more histories of one or more of the reference batteries that has inactive current frequency limited to a first threshold or greater, and the first group parameter includes temperature and voltage.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this in order to make more accurate deterioration models by grouping batteries with similar operation parameters [see ¶0103].
Regarding claims 5-6, the combination of Kobayashi, Hanafusa, and Harada render obvious the battery deterioration degree prediction apparatus according to claims 1-4, and Kobayashi further teaches: a charge/discharge deterioration rate [see ¶0044]; current values are read from storage history, and it is determined whether the average value of current is less than a predetermined threshold value [see ¶0046].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have the map data include second map data in which a coefficient indicating a rate of change in the degree of cycle deterioration is registered, the second map data is calculated based on one or more histories of one or more of the reference batteries that has inactive current frequency limited to a second threshold or less, and the first group parameter includes temperature.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this in order to make more accurate deterioration models as discussed by Hanafusa [see ¶0103].
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (JP 2015081823; hereinafter Kobayashi) in view of Hanafusa (US 20140089692; hereinafter Hanafusa), and further view of Harada (WO 2015011534; hereinafter Harada), and Yoon (US 20210178923; hereinafter Yoon).
Regarding claims 7-8, the combination of Kobayashi, Hanafusa, and Harada render obvious the battery deterioration degree prediction apparatus according to claims 1-4, and Kobayashi further teaches: wherein the degree of deterioration of each of the target battery and the reference batteries includes a degree of cycle deterioration representing deterioration due to charging/ discharging, a degree of storage deterioration representing deterioration during storage, and a degree of overall deterioration combining the degree of cycle deterioration and the degree of storage deterioration [see ¶0006].
Kobayashi does not teach: the map data includes second map data in which a coefficient indicating a rate of change in the degree of cycle deterioration is registered, the second map data is calculated based on one or more histories of one or more of the reference batteries that has inactive current frequency limited to a second threshold or less, and the first group parameter includes temperature.
Yoon teaches: classifying a plurality of groups by a travelling pattern and by average current occupation; may classify a group based on the average current occupation being less than a predetermined average current occupation rate [see ¶0053-0054; Fig. 5 and Fig. 6].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kobayashi, Hanafusa, and Harada with the teachings of Yoon, namely having the map data include second map data in which a coefficient indicating a rate of change in the degree of cycle deterioration is registered, the second map data is calculated based on one or more histories of one or more of the reference batteries that has inactive current frequency limited to a second threshold or less, and the first group parameter includes temperature.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this in order to group batteries with similar operating parameters and to make more accurate deterioration models as discussed by Hanafusa [see ¶0103].
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (JP 2015081823; hereinafter Kobayashi) in view of Hanafusa (US 20140089692; hereinafter Hanafusa), and further view of Harada (WO 2015011534; hereinafter Harada), Kim et al. (US 20180143254; hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claims 9-14, the combination of Kobayashi, Hanafusa, and Harada render obvious the battery deterioration degree prediction apparatus according to claims 1-6, and Kobayashi further teaches: obtaining a degree of storage deterioration [see ¶0056] and a degree of charge/discharge deterioration [see ¶0051]; a table that stores that results of equations (1 and 2), which are related to storage deterioration and charge/discharge deterioration [see ¶0061].
Kobayashi does not explicitly teach: the map data includes first map data for obtaining a degree of storage deterioration and second map data for obtaining a degree of cycle deterioration.
However, it would have been obvious to use the first and second map data to calculate degrees of storage and cycle deterioration because that is where the relevant data is for the calculations.
Kobayashi does not explicitly teach: a data table indicating a relationship among an inactive current frequency of the target battery.
Kim teaches: a data table indicating a relationship among an inactive current frequency of the target battery [see table 2; ¶0088-0090].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kobayashi, Hanafusa, and Harada with the teachings of Kim, namely a data table indicating a relationship among an inactive current frequency of the target battery in order to obtain a more accurate SOH.
Kobayashi further teaches: a weighting coefficient for the degree of cycle deterioration [see equation (1), Iavr; ¶0034].
Kobayashi does not teach: a weighting coefficient for the degree of storage deterioration.
Kim teaches: a weight is determined based on an average current value in order to correct the state of a battery [see ¶0087-0088; Table 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kobayashi, Hanafusa, and Harada with the teachings of Kim, namely a weighting coefficient for the degree of storage deterioration in order to obtain a more accurate SOH.
Kobayashi does not directly teach: predict the degree of overall deterioration of the target battery based on a coefficient extracted from the first map data, a coefficient extracted from the second map data, and the weighting coefficient for the degree of storage deterioration and the weighting coefficient for the degree of cycle deterioration.
However, it would have been obvious to predict the degree of overall deterioration of the target battery based on a coefficient extracted from the first map data, a coefficient extracted from the second map data, and the weighting coefficient for the degree of storage deterioration and the weighting coefficient for the degree of cycle deterioration in order to make the prediction using the data corrected by the weighted coefficients and obtain a more accurate result.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (JP 2015081823; hereinafter Kobayashi) in view of Hanafusa (US 20140089692; hereinafter Hanafusa), and further view of Harada (WO 2015011534; hereinafter Harada), Kim, and Yoon.
Regarding claims 15-16, the combination of Kobayashi, Hanafusa, Harada, and Yoon render obvious the battery deterioration degree prediction apparatus according to claims 7-8, and Kobayashi further teaches: obtaining a degree of storage deterioration [see ¶0056] and a degree of charge/discharge deterioration [see ¶0051]; a table that stores that results of equations (1 and 2), which are related to storage deterioration and charge/discharge deterioration [see ¶0061].
Kobayashi does not explicitly teach: the map data includes first map data for obtaining a degree of storage deterioration and second map data for obtaining a degree of cycle deterioration.
However, it would have been obvious to use the first and second map data to calculate degrees of storage and cycle deterioration because that is where the relevant data is for the calculations.
Kobayashi does not explicitly teach: a data table indicating a relationship among an inactive current frequency of the target battery.
Kim teaches: a data table indicating a relationship among an inactive current frequency of the target battery [see table 2; ¶0088-0090].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kobayashi, Hanafusa, Yoon and Harada with the teachings of Kim, namely a data table indicating a relationship among an inactive current frequency of the target battery in order to obtain a more accurate SOH.
Kobayashi further teaches: a weighting coefficient for the degree of cycle deterioration [see equation (1), Iavr; ¶0034].
Kobayashi does not teach: a weighting coefficient for the degree of storage deterioration.
Kim teaches: a weight is determined based on an average current value in order to correct the state of a battery [see ¶0087-0088; Table 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kobayashi, Hanafusa, Yoon and Harada with the teachings of Kim, namely a weighting coefficient for the degree of storage deterioration in order to obtain a more accurate SOH.
Kobayashi does not directly teach: predict the degree of overall deterioration of the target battery based on a coefficient extracted from the first map data, a coefficient extracted from the second map data, and the weighting coefficient for the degree of storage deterioration and the weighting coefficient for the degree of cycle deterioration.
However, it would have been obvious to predict the degree of overall deterioration of the target battery based on a coefficient extracted from the first map data, a coefficient extracted from the second map data, and the weighting coefficient for the degree of storage deterioration and the weighting coefficient for the degree of cycle deterioration in order to make the prediction using the data corrected by the weighted coefficients and obtain a more accurate result.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Satpathy et al. (US 12228613) – prediction of the state of health of the battery unit generated from a small number of parameters. This differs from the proposed invention because it doesn’t disclose grouping reference batteries by current usage or temperature.
FUKUSHIMA (US 20220179010) – prediction of the state of health of batteries; correcting SOH values using coefficient tables based on temperature. This differs from the proposed invention because it doesn’t disclose grouping batteries.
Liao et al. (US 20220206079) – prediction of the state of health of a battery; scoring measurements of the battery based on parameters such as average current usage, temperature, and number of charge/discharge cycles. This differs from the proposed invention because it doesn’t disclose grouping or using reference battery data.
Maeda (US 20130278221) – detecting degradation of a battery; using weighting factors for storage and conducting temperature. This differs from the proposed invention because it doesn’t disclose grouping or using reference battery data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON G MACGREGOR whose telephone number is (571)272-2217. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00pm CST.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/BRANDON GEORGE MACGREGOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights