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 § 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.
Claim 15 is 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. The claim recites the phrase “in a laboratory measure” and it is unclear as to how the phrase imposes and/or further limits on the step of determining at least one of at least a part of the parameterization of the open-circuit voltage curve of the battery with respect to the multiple independent parameters or a model for determining the values of the multiple independent parameters based on the at least one stress spectrum.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitation, determining an estimate of the state of the battery based on the open-circuit voltage curve” is broader in scope when compared to the limitation, “estimating a state-of-health of the battery based on the open-circuit voltage curve”, since the phrase “state of the battery” includes a state-of-health of the battery, a physical state of the battery and more. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-3, 6, 10, 12, 14-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laskowsky et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0317771).
Regarding claims 1-3, 6, 10, 12 and 14-16, Laskowsky teaches a computer program product for improved estimation of an ageing state of a battery, the computer program product having a series of operating instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium that direct the operation of at least one processor to perform operations (para. 22) comprising:
obtaining at least one stress spectrum indicative of a strength of multiple stress factors onto a battery during an observation duration (the model 42 receives the voltage and current data that are collected by the battery state estimator 32 during a charging event (i.e. an observation duration), and the current data is indicative of a stress factor of the battery, see para. 18);
based on the at least one stress spectrum, determining values of multiple independent parameters of a predetermined parameterization associated with an open-circuit voltage curve of the battery (cathode concentration model 36, 38 and stoichiometry estimator 40 calculate stoichiometry conditions of the cathode and of the anode from the charging current profile over time. The stoichiometry conditions are indicative of the concentration of solid material at the cathode and anode, which according to the present application, are degradation modes of the battery, and thus independent parameters associated with the OCV curve, para. 20-22 and 26-33);
determining the open-circuit voltage curve based on the values of the multiple independent parameters of the open-circuit voltage curve (an SOC-OVC curve is determined from the stoichiometry conditions, para. 26-33);
estimating a state-of-health of the battery based on the open-circuit voltage curve (the SOC-OVC is an estimator of the state-of-health of the battery as it ages, para. 2) [claim 14];
wherein the multiple independent parameters of the parameterization parametrize multiple degradation modes of the battery (para. 20-22 and 26-33) [claim 2];
wherein the multiple independent parameters comprise a first indicator indicative of loss of active material at an electrode of the battery at an end of the observation duration and a second indicator indicative of loss of a mobile charge carrier inventory of the battery an end of the observation duration (para. 20-23) [claims 3 and 16];
wherein the multiple stress factors are associated with both cyclic ageing as well as calendrical ageing of the battery (para. 2, the cell ageing implied both cyclic ageing and calendrical ageing) [claim 6]; and
obtaining at least one indicator indicative of an ageing state of the battery associated with the observation duration (para. 20, ll. 1-5);
wherein the multiple independent parameters are further determined based on at least one indicator indicative of the ageing state of the battery (stoichiometry conditions are indicative of the concentration of solid material in the cathode and anode which are degradation modes of the battery and independent parameters associated with the OCV curve) [claim 10];
wherein the multiple independent parameters define a shape and an amplitude of the open circuit voltage curve of the battery (stoichiometry conditions are indicative of the concentration of solid material in the cathode and anode which are degradation modes of the battery and independent parameters associated with the OCV curve, para. 26-33) [claim 12]; and
in a laboratory measurement, determining at least one of at least a part of the parameterization of the open-circuit voltage curve of the battery with respect to the multiple independent parameters or a model for determining the values of the multiple independent parameters based on the at least one stress spectrum (para. 26-33) [claim 15].
Regarding claims 18-20, Laskowsky teaches a device, comprising:
one or more processors to perform operations for improved estimation of an ageing state of a battery, the operations including:
obtaining at least one stress spectrum indicative of a strength of multiple stress factors onto a battery during an observation duration (the model 42 receives the voltage and current data that are collected by the battery state estimator 32 during a charging event, i.e. an observation duration, and the current data is indicative of a stress factor of the battery, see para. 18);
based on the at least one stress spectrum, determining values of multiple independent parameters of a predetermined parameterization associated with an open-circuit voltage curve of the battery (cathode concentration model 36, 38 and stoichiometry estimator 40 calculate stoichiometry conditions of the cathode and of the anode from the charging current profile over time. The stoichiometry conditions are indicative of the concentration of solid material at the cathode and anode, which according to the present application, are degradation modes of the battery, thus independent parameters associated with the OCV curve, para. 20-22 and 26-33),
determining the open-circuit voltage curve based on the values of the multiple independent parameters of the open-circuit voltage curve (an SOC-OVC curve is determined from the stoichiometry conditions, para. 26-33); and
estimating a state-of-health of the battery based on the open-circuit voltage curve (the SOC-OVC is an estimator of the state-of-health of the battery as it ages, para. 2);
wherein the multiple independent parameters comprise a first indicator indicative of loss of active material at an electrode of the battery at an end of the observation duration and a second indicator indicative of loss of a mobile charge carrier inventory of the battery at an end of the observation duration (para. 20-23) [claim 19]; and
wherein the operations further include determining at least one a part of the parametrization of the open-circuit voltage curve of the battery with respect to the model for determining the values of the multiple independent parameters based on the at least one stress spectrum (para. 20-22 and 26-33) [claim 20].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 7-9, 11, 13 and 17 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/19/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Laskowsky et al., as cited above.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH Q PHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3898. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
MINH Q. PHAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2852
/MINH Q PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852