DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/26/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9 is/are now pending in the application. Applicant's amendments have addressed all informalities as previously set forth in the non-final action mailed on 11/28/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SRINVASAN ET AL. (US 20210349157 A1) (hereinafter “SRINVASAN”) in view of LEE (US 20160023566 A1).
With respect to Claim(s) 1, SRINVASAN teaches a battery analysis system and method and the BRI of:
detecting a fault of a device battery or battery cell in a technical device (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-17)
using
an electrochemical battery model (See, e.g., ¶ 0051-0053; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-17),
wherein
the battery model is designed to
indicate a progression of a operational variable dependent on an internal battery state determined by a model parameter of the battery model (See, e.g., ¶ 0051-0053; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-17),
comprising the following steps:
providing a temporal operational variable progression of multiple operational variables for a period of time (See, e.g., ¶ 0136; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-17);
detecting an anomaly (See, e.g., ¶ 0136; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-17) based on a comparison of the progression of the operational variable and the operational variable progression (See, e.g., ¶ 0039, 0052, 0090, 0095, 0106-0108; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-17);
determining an ageing state for the device battery or battery cell (See, e.g., ¶ 0039, 0046, 0052, 0098, 0107, 0108, 0116, 0139; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-17);
recalibrating the predetermined model parameter (See, e.g., ¶ 0044, 0050, 0053, 0055, 0058, 0075, 0081, 0083, 0098; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6)
according to
the determined ageing state when an ageing state change has occurred by a predetermined non-zero change amount, the ageing state change based on the determined ageing state and a detected ageing state related to the detected anomaly (See, e.g., ¶ 0077, 0078; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 14A-15);
adjusting the model parameter of the electrochemical battery model based on the operational variable progression over the period of time (See, e.g., ¶ 0014-0017; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-17);
detecting a fault type dependent on a predetermined rule (See, e.g., ¶ 0050, 0059, 0061, 0074, 0081, 0105, 0106, 0119, 0121, 0136, 0146, 0147, 0165, 0167; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-17),
wherein
the rule indicates a fault condition dependent on a deviation of the model parameter of the electrochemical battery of the electrochemical battery model from a corresponding predetermined model parameter (See, e.g., ¶ 0027, 0078, 0106, 0114, 0117, 0125, 0134; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-17);
and
when the fault condition of the rule is satisfied,
signaling the fault type (See, e.g., ¶ 0050, 0059, 0061, 0074, 0081, 0105, 0106, 0119, 0121, 0136, 0146, 0147, 0165, 0167; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-17)
and
restricting charge or discharge functionality of the device battery or the battery cell (See, e.g., ¶ 0154-0158; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-17).
However, SRINVASAN is lacking the explicit language of:
the battery model is based on a differential equation system.
LEE teaches an electrochemical battery model and the BRI of:
a battery model based on a differential equation system (See, e.g., ¶ 0038-0090)
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SRINVASAN to include a battery model is based on a differential equation system.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify SRINVASAN because it would be beneficial to determine battery state/performance features. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 7, 9, SRINVASAN teaches a battery analysis system and method and the BRI of:
An apparatus
comprising
a data processing device (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1)
configured to:
provide a temporal operational variable progression of multiple operational variables for a period of time (See, e.g., ¶ 0136; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-17);
detect an anomaly (See, e.g., ¶ 0136; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-17) based on a comparison of the progression of the operational variable and the operational variable progression (See, e.g., ¶ 0039, 0052, 0090, 0095, 0106-0108; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-17);
determine an ageing state for the device battery or battery cell (See, e.g., ¶ 0039, 0046, 0052, 0098, 0107, 0108, 0116, 0139; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-17);
recalibrate the predetermined model parameter (See, e.g., ¶ 0044, 0050, 0053, 0055, 0058, 0075, 0081, 0083, 0098; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6)
according to
the determined ageing state when an ageing state change has occurred by a predetermined non-zero change amount, the ageing state change based on the determined ageing state and a detected ageing state related to the detected anomaly (See, e.g., ¶ 0077, 0078; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 14A-15);
adjust a model parameter of an electrochemical battery model based on the operational variable progression over the period of time (See, e.g., ¶ 0014-0017; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-17),
wherein
the electrochemical battery model is designed to
indicate a progression of a operational variable dependent on an internal battery state determined by a model parameter of the battery model (See, e.g., ¶ 0051-0053; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-17);
detect a fault type dependent on a predetermined rule (See, e.g., ¶ 0050, 0059, 0061, 0074, 0081, 0105, 0106, 0119, 0121, 0136, 0146, 0147, 0165, 0167; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-17),
wherein
the rule indicates a fault condition dependent on a deviation of the model parameter of the electrochemical battery model from a corresponding predetermined model parameter (See, e.g., ¶ 0027, 0078, 0106, 0114, 0117, 0125, 0134; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-17);
and
when the fault condition of the rule is satisfied,
signal the fault type (See, e.g., ¶ 0027, 0078, 0106, 0114, 0117, 0125, 0134; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-17)
and
restricting charge or discharge functionality of the device battery (See, e.g., ¶ 0154-0158; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-17).
However, SRINVASAN is lacking the explicit language of:
the electrochemical battery model is based on a differential equation system.
LEE teaches an electrochemical battery model and the BRI of:
a electrochemical battery model based on a differential equation system (See, e.g., ¶ 0038-0090)
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SRINVASAN to include a battery model is based on a differential equation system.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify SRINVASAN because it would be beneficial to determine battery state/performance features. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 3, SRINVASAN teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
SRINVASAN further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the adjustment of the model parameter of the electrochemical battery model is performed based on the operational variable progression of the device battery or battery cell (See, e.g., ¶ 0039; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-17),
which
progression is recorded during a charging operation of the device battery at a constant charging current (See, e.g., ¶ 0039; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-17).
With respect to Claim(s) 4, SRINVASAN teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
SRINVASAN further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the method is performed in a central unit external to the device (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1)
and
communicatively connected to a plurality of device batteries (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1)
and
providing the electrochemical battery model for all battery cells of the device batteries (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1),
wherein
operational variable progressions of all device batteries and the battery cells are provided in the central unit (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1),
and
adjustment of the model parameter based on the operational variable progressions is performed in the central unit (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1).
With respect to Claim(s) 5, SRINVASAN teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
SRINVASAN further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
adjustment of the model parameter is performed when the provided operational variable progression deviates from an operational variable progression modeled using the battery model by a of the operational variables in an amount by more than one threshold level within the predetermined time period (See, e.g., ¶ 0027; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-17).
With respect to Claim(s) 6, SRINVASAN teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
SRINVASAN further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the operational variables of the operational variable progression comprise
a battery current (See, e.g., ¶ 0136; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-17),
a battery voltage (See, e.g., ¶ 0136; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-17),
a state of charge (See, e.g., ¶ 0136; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-17), and
a battery temperature (See, e.g., ¶ 0136; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-17),
wherein
adjustment of the model parameter is performed
if the battery voltage progression provided deviates at least once from a battery voltage modeled using the battery model within the predetermined time period by more than one voltage threshold and/or if the battery temperature progress provided deviates from a battery temperature modeled using the battery model by at least once by more than one predetermined temperature threshold within the predetermined time period (See, e.g., ¶ 0027; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-17).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed on 02/26/2026, have been entered and fully considered. In light of the applicant’s amendments changing the scope of the claimed invention, the rejection(s) have been withdrawn or updated. However, upon further consideration, a new or updated ground(s) of rejection(s) have been made, and applicant's argument(s)/remark(s) pertaining to the amended language have been rendered moot.
Applicant's argument(s)/remark(s), see page(s) 7, filed 02/26/2026, with respect to the 101 rejection(s) has/have been fully considered.
-Applicant states
“III. Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. & 101
Claims 1-7 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rejection of claims 1-7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is respectfully traversed. Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 7, and 9 to include elements to be more clearly directed to patent-eligible subject matter, and that claims 1, 7, and 9 are allowable under the standards of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits claims 1, 7, and 9 are patent eligible under the standards of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Each of dependent Claims 2-6 depends from independent claim 1 and satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 101 at least for that reason.”.
Examiner agrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
Said rejection(s) has/have been withdrawn.
Applicant's argument(s)/remark(s), see page(s) 7-9, filed 02/26/2026, with respect to the art rejection(s) has/have been fully considered.
-Applicant states
“IV. Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. & 103
Claims 1-7 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0349157 ("Srinvasan") and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0023566 ("Lee"). Applicant respectfully disagrees. As set forth herein, the cited references, taken alone or in combination, fail to teach, disclose, or suggest the subject matter of the pending claims.
A combination of references must teach or suggest every feature of a claim in order to render the claim obvious. See In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974). Claim 1 has been amended to include the features of claim 2. Claim 1 is patentable over Srinvasan and Lee because, e.g., the cited references does not teach, disclose, or suggest at least the following subject matter: "recalibrating the predetermined model parameter according to the determined ageing state when an ageing state change has occurred by a predetermined non-zero change amount, the ageing state change based on the determined ageing state and a detected ageing state related to the detected anomaly," as recited in claim 1 as amended.
The Office asserts that paragraphs [0039], [0046], [0052], [0098], [0106]-[0108], [0116], and [0139] disclose the features of claim 2. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Paragraph [0139] of Srinvasan recites:
A model update criterion (e.g., condition or criterion upon in response to which the model can be updated) can include: an accuracy of the model, a change in the application or operation of the battery or external system, a change (e.g., increase or decrease) in the processing power of the computing system running the state estimator (or simulation engine), new models being generated, a model no longer being validated, new states being identified, a threshold battery property (e.g., when a battery achieves a predetermined age, the model can be changed), a threshold change in model parameter, and/or for any suitable criterion.
As such, Srinvasan discloses updating a model when a predetermined battery age is reached, a threshold change in a model parameter, and/or a new state. However, the cited portions of Srinvasan fails to disclose any calibration process that uses an ageing state of a current state and an ageing state related to an anomaly. In addition, the cited portions of Srinvasan do not disclose or suggest identifying an anomaly-time ageing state as a reference baseline or that ageing recalibration should be gated by anomaly occurrence. While Srinvasan discloses general ageing-based updates, Srinvasan does not disclose or support recalibrating a predetermined model parameter based on a comparison between a current ageing state and an ageing state attributed to a detected anomaly, nor does Srinvasan disclose that that comparison to exceed a predetermined non-zero change amount. In contrast, claim 1 recites recalibrating the predetermined model parameter according to the determined ageing state when an ageing state change has occurred by a predetermined non-zero change amount, the ageing state change based on the determined ageing state and a detected ageing state related to the detected anomaly. Put another way, claim 1 requires a two-condition trigger (e.g., anomaly + ageing delta satisfaction) before recalibration, preventing false recalibration during transient anomalies. In addition, the phrase "new states" is used as an open-ended category. The cited portions of Srinvasan do not define the new state, tie the new state to anomaly timing, describe how a new state is compared to a prior state, or specify that a new state must be an ageing state associated with an anomaly. Accordingly, Srinvasan does not teach, disclose, or suggest "recalibrating the predetermined model parameter according to the determined ageing state when an ageing state change has occurred by a predetermined non-zero change amount, the ageing state change based on the determined ageing state and a detected ageing state related to the detected anomaly," as recited in claim 1 as amended.
In addition, the Office cites Lee for disclosing "an electrochemical battery model, wherein the battery model is based on a differential equation system," as recited in claim 1. It has not been shown that Lee discloses "recalibrating the predetermined model parameter according to the determined ageing state when a change has occurred by a predetermined change amount, the change based on the determined ageing state and a detected ageing state occurring during the detected anomaly," as recited in claim 1 as amended. Therefore, Lee does not cure the deficiencies of Srinvasan, as discussed herein.
For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that the cited references, taken alone or in combination, fail to teach, disclose, or suggest the subject matter of the pending claims. Thus, claim 1 is allowable for at least the reasons stated.
Claims 2-6 depend from claim 1 and are therefore allowable at least by virtue of their dependency from claim 1. Claims 7 and 9 recited similar subject matter as claim 1 and is allowable for at least the same reasons as claim 1. Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the rejection of claim(s) 1-7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 be rescinded and the claims passed to allowance.”.
The underlined argument(s)/remark(s) are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the previous rejected limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND NIMOX whose telephone number is (469)295-9226. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 10am-8pm CT.
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.
RAYMOND NIMOX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/RAYMOND L NIMOX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit