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 11/06/2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-20 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 08/08/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (See 2019 Update: Eligibility Guidance).
Independent Claim(s) 1 recites
calculate an estimate of state-of-charge of the AC rechargeable battery based on at least one of a DC impedance of the AC rechargeable battery or an AC impedance of the AC rechargeable battery
used to
calculate resistance and capacitance values for an equivalent circuit module,
wherein
previously measured current is input to a first module
configured to
calculate using a coulomb gauge a preliminary state-of-charge pre1 and a preliminary state-of-charge pre2,
and
wherein
the previously measured current and the preliminary state-of-charge pre1 and the preliminary state-of-charge pre2 are input to a second module
configured to
calculate an estimated terminal voltage that is compared to previously measured voltage
to
calculate an input to an extended kalman filter (EKF)
to autonomously
estimate the state-of-charge of the AC rechargeable battery
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation].
Independent Claim(s) 11, 20 recites
calculating an estimate of state-of-charge of an AC rechargeable battery based on at least one of a DC impedance of the AC rechargeable battery or an AC impedance of the AC rechargeable battery
used to
calculate resistance and capacitance values for an equivalent circuit module,
inputting previously measured current to a first module
configured to
calculate using a coulomb gauge a preliminary state-of-charge pre1 and a preliminary state-of- charge pre2,
and
inputting the previously measured current and the preliminary state-of- charge pre1 and the preliminary state-of-charge pre2 to a second module
configured to
calculate an estimated terminal voltage that is compared to previously measured voltage
to
calculate an input to an extended kalman filter (EKF)
to autonomously
estimate the state-of-charge of the AC rechargeable battery
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation].
In combination with Independent Claim(s) 1, 11, Claim(s) 2-10, 12-19 recite(s)
wherein,
when the DC impedance of the AC rechargeable battery is used to calculate the estimate of state-of-charge of the AC rechargeable battery,
the previously measured voltage and current are determined at a time 1 and a time 2.
wherein
a duration from the time 1 to the time 2 is about 1 second to about 1 minute.
calculate a preliminary state-of-charge_pre1 and a preliminary state-of-charge_pre2 based on a coulomb count taken at the time 1 and the time 2.
determine an estimate open circuit voltagepre1 and an open circuit voltage pre2 based on the preliminary state-of-charge pre1 and the preliminary state-of-charge pre2, respectively, using a look-up table comprising open circuit voltages and corresponding preliminary state-of-charges.
wherein,
the DC impedance and the AC impedance of the AC rechargeable battery are determined for at least one of a predetermined temperature of the AC rechargeable battery or a C-rate of the AC rechargeable battery.
wherein,
when the AC impedance of the AC rechargeable battery is used to calculate the estimate of state-of-charge of the AC rechargeable battery,
the previously measured voltage and current are determined at a time 1.
wherein
a duration of the time 1 is about 1 second to about 1 minute.
perform a Fast Fourier transform analysis to
calculate voltage and current of AC signals with certain frequencies embedded in the power converter DC voltage and current.
perform curve fitting to
calculate resistance and capacitance values for the equivalent circuit module in real time while the power converter is operating
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation].
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (i.e. a power converter…configured to);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) (i.e. an AC rechargeable battery; and a power converter operably coupled to the AC rechargeable battery).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) (i.e. See Alice Corp. and cited references for evidence of additional elements (i.e., generic computer structure; AC rechargeable battery)).
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) 1-4, 6-8, 10-14, 16-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WILD ET AL. (US 2022/0082631) (hereinafter “WILD”) in view of SHARMA ET AL. (US 2022/0302724) (hereinafter “SHARMA”).
With respect to Claim(s) 1, WILD teaches determining the state of health (including state of charge and relative age) of a Lithium Sulfur battery, module or cell and the BRI of:
an AC rechargeable battery (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT);
and
a power converter operably coupled to the AC rechargeable battery (See, e.g., Fig(s). 3, 5)
and configured to
calculate an estimate of state-of-charge of the AC rechargeable battery (See, e.g., Fig(s). 3, 5)
used to
calculate resistance and capacitance values for an equivalent circuit module (See, e.g., ¶ 0166-0168; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 18-20; See also, e.g., Claim(s). 39, 38),
wherein
previously measured current is input to a first module
configured to
calculate using a coulomb gauge a preliminary state-of-charge pre1 and a preliminary state-of-charge pre2 (See, e.g., ¶ 0129; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 18-20; See also, e.g., Claim(s). 39, 38),
and
wherein
the previously measured current and the preliminary state-of-charge pre1 and the preliminary state-of-charge pre2 are input to a second module configured to calculate an estimated terminal voltage that is compared to previously measured voltage (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT, 0162, 0166; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 18-20; See also, e.g., Claim(s). 39, 38)
to
calculate an input to an extended kalman filter (EKF) (See, e.g., ¶ 0034, 0060, 0161-0178; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 18-20; See also, e.g., Claim(s). 39, 38)
to autonomously
estimate the state-of-charge of the AC rechargeable battery (See, e.g., Fig(s). 3, 5).
However, WILD is lacking the explicit language of:
calculate an estimate of state-of-charge of the AC rechargeable battery based on at least one of a DC impedance of the AC rechargeable battery or an AC impedance of the AC rechargeable battery.
SHARMA teaches a battery power management unit and the BRI of:
calculate an estimate of state-of-charge of the rechargeable battery based on at least one of an impedance of the rechargeable battery (See, e.g., ¶ 0066, 0070, 0081).
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 WILD to include calculate an estimate of state-of-charge of the rechargeable battery based on at least one of a impedance of the rechargeable battery.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify WILD because it would be beneficial to improve the management of battery parameters. 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) 11, 20, WILD teaches determining the state of health (including state of charge and relative age) of a Lithium Sulfur battery, module or cell and the BRI of:
calculating an estimate of state-of-charge of an AC rechargeable battery (See, e.g., Fig(s). 3, 5)
used to
calculate resistance and capacitance values for an equivalent circuit module (See, e.g., ¶ 0166-0168; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 18-20; See also, e.g., Claim(s). 39, 38),
inputting previously measured current to a first module configured to calculate using a coulomb gauge a preliminary state-of-charge pre1 and a preliminary state-of- charge pre2 (See, e.g., ¶ 0129; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 18-20; See also, e.g., Claim(s). 39, 38),
and
inputting the previously measured current and the preliminary state-of- charge pre1 and the preliminary state-of-charge pre2 to a second module configured to calculate an estimated terminal voltage that is compared to previously measured voltage (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT, 0162, 0166; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 18-20; See also, e.g., Claim(s). 39, 38)
to
calculate an input to an extended kalman filter (EKF) (See, e.g., ¶ 0034, 0060, 0161-0178; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 18-20; See also, e.g., Claim(s). 39, 38)
to autonomously
estimate the state-of-charge of the AC rechargeable battery (See, e.g., Fig(s). 3, 5).
However, WILD is lacking the explicit language of:
calculate an estimate of state-of-charge of the AC rechargeable battery based on at least one of a DC impedance of the AC rechargeable battery or an AC impedance of the AC rechargeable battery.
SHARMA teaches a battery power management unit and the BRI of:
calculate an estimate of state-of-charge of the rechargeable battery based on at least one of a impedance of the rechargeable battery (See, e.g., ¶ 0066, 0070, 0081)
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 WILD to include calculate an estimate of state-of-charge of the rechargeable battery based on at least one of a impedance of the rechargeable battery.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify WILD because it would be beneficial to improve the management of battery parameters. 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) 2, 12, WILD in view of SHARMA teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
SHARMA further teaches the BRI of:
wherein,
when the DC impedance of the AC rechargeable battery is used to calculate the estimate of state-of-charge of the AC rechargeable battery, the previously measured voltage and current are determined at a time 1 and a time 2 (See, e.g., ¶ 0066, 0070, 0081, 0082).
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 WILD to include wherein, when the DC impedance of the AC rechargeable battery is used to calculate the estimate of state-of-charge of the AC rechargeable battery, the previously measured voltage and current are determined at a time 1 and a time 2.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify WILD because it would be beneficial to improve the management of battery parameters. 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) , 13, WILD in view of SHARMA teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
SHARMA further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
a duration from the time 1 to the time 2 is about 1 second to about 1 minute (See, e.g., ¶ 0066, 0070, 0081, 0082).
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 WILD to include wherein a duration from the time 1 to the time 2 is about 1 second to about 1 minute.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify WILD because it would be beneficial to improve the management of battery parameters. 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) 4, 14, WILD in view of SHARMA teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
SHARMA further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the power converter is further configured to
calculate a preliminary state-of-charge_pre1 and a preliminary state-of-charge_pre2 based on a coulomb count taken at the time 1 and the time 2 (See, e.g., ¶ 0066, 0070, 0081, 0082).
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 WILD to include wherein the power converter is further configured to calculate a preliminary state-of-charge_pre1 and a preliminary state-of-charge_pre2 based on a coulomb count taken at the time 1 and the time 2.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify WILD because it would be beneficial to improve the management of battery parameters. 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, 17, WILD in view of SHARMA teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
SHARMA further teaches the BRI of:
wherein,
when the AC impedance of the AC rechargeable battery is used to calculate the estimate of state-of-charge of the AC rechargeable battery, the previously measured voltage and current are determined at a time 1 (See, e.g., ¶ 0066, 0070, 0081, 0082).
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 WILD to include wherein, when the AC impedance of the AC rechargeable battery is used to calculate the estimate of state-of-charge of the AC rechargeable battery, the previously measured voltage and current are determined at a time.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify WILD because it would be beneficial to improve the management of battery parameters. 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) 8, 18, WILD in view of SHARMA teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
SHARMA further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
a duration of the time 1 is about 1 second to about 1 minute (See, e.g., ¶ 0066, 0070, 0081, 0082).
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 WILD to include wherein a duration of the time 1 is about 1 second to about 1 minute
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify WILD because it would be beneficial to improve the management of battery parameters. 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) 6, 16, WILD in view of SHARMA teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
WILD further teaches the BRI of:
wherein,
the DC impedance and the AC impedance of the AC rechargeable battery are determined for at least one of a predetermined temperature of the AC rechargeable battery or a C-rate of the AC rechargeable battery (See, e.g., ¶ 0069).
With respect to Claim(s) 10, WILD in view of SHARMA teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
WILD further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the power converter is further configured to
perform curve fitting to
calculate resistance and capacitance values for the equivalent circuit module in real time while the power converter is operating (See, e.g., ¶ 0121, 0124, 0126, 0127).
Claim(s) 5, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) in further view of ARAUJO XAVIER ET AL. (US 2022/0212545) (hereinafter “ARAUJO XAVIER”).
With respect to Claim(s) 5, 15, WILD in view of SHARMA teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
WILD further teaches the BRI of:
the power converter.
However, WILD is lacking the explicit language of:
determine an estimate open circuit voltagepre1 and an open circuit voltage pre2 based on the preliminary state-of-charge pre1 and the preliminary state-of-charge pre2, respectively, using a look-up table comprising open circuit voltages and corresponding preliminary state-of-charges.
ARAUJO XAVIER teaches a controller configured to control at least one of the electric machine and the traction battery using an estimated battery power capability or estimated battery state of charge based on battery parameters initialized upon requesting activation of the traction battery with an open circuit voltage that varies based on elapsed time from the traction battery becoming inactive and the BRI of:
determine estimate open circuit voltage(s) based on the preliminary state-of-charge(s), respectively, using a look-up table comprising open circuit voltages and corresponding preliminary state-of-charges (See, e.g., ¶ 0035).
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 WILD to include determine estimate open circuit voltage(s) based on the preliminary state-of-charge(s), respectively, using a look-up table comprising open circuit voltages and corresponding preliminary state-of-charges.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify WILD because it would be beneficial to improve battery parameter processing. 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.
Claim(s) 9, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) in further view of DING ET AL. (US 11,644,513) (hereinafter “DING”).
With respect to Claim(s) 9, 19, WILD in view of SHARMA teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
WILD further teaches the BRI of:
the power converter.
However, WILD is lacking the explicit language of:
perform a Fast Fourier transform analysis to calculate voltage and current of AC signals with certain frequencies embedded in the power converter DC voltage and current.
DING teaches a Battery Management System (BMS) inspects a battery pack using AC impedance and the BRI of:
perform a Fast Fourier transform analysis to calculate voltage and current of AC signals with certain frequencies embedded in the power converter DC voltage and current (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT).
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 DING to include perform a Fast Fourier transform analysis to calculate voltage and current of AC signals with certain frequencies embedded in the power converter DC voltage and current.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify DING because it would be beneficial to improve the management of batteries. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed on 11/06/2025, 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) 8-9, filed 11/06/2025, with respect to the 101 rejection(s) has/have been fully considered.
-Applicant states
“A. 35 U.S.C. §101 Claims 1-20
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The Applicant has amended the claims in a manner that is believed to overcome the rejection. For example, claim 1, as a representative claim recites wherein previously measured current is input to a first module configured to calculate using a coulomb gauge a preliminary state-of- charge pre1 and a preliminary state-of-charge pre2, and wherein the previously measured current and the preliminary state-of-charge pre1 and the preliminary state-of- charge pre2 are input to a second module configured to calculate an estimated terminal voltage that is compared to previously measured voltage to calculate an input to an extended kalman filter (EKF) to autonomously estimate the state-of-charge of the AC rechargeable battery. As noted in the Applicant's disclosure, the methods and apparatus described therein eliminate a need for using specific testing devices, eliminate a need of a time-consuming pretesting step (e.g., six (6) to twelve (12) months) for conventional EKF methods by applying an online measurement instead, and can be used to update a SoC model in the field over a life of a battery. Additionally, the methods and apparatus described herein eliminate a need for purchasing or sharing bandwidth of specific testing devices (e.g., >$30,000 for a four (4)-channel tester), reduce a time/labor cost (e.g., six (6) to twelve (12) months to build a database for conventional EKF), and can be sold as a kit (e.g., for additional revenue). In view of the foregoing, the Applicant respectfully submits that a storage system configured in a manner as recited in the Applicant' claims amounts to more than an abstract idea and is directed to patentable subject matter.
Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection and the claims allowed.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
Examiner’s BRI of the claimed inventions is generic computer structure being used as a tool to mathematically estimate parameters corresponding to an AC rechargeable battery.
When examining step 2A Prong 1, Examiner determines if there is an abstract idea present. One skilled in the art can at least perform the identified abstract idea utilizing Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation. The arguments, in light of the specification, fail to convince the Examiner that utilizing Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes does not fit within the scope of the identified abstract limitations.
When examining step 2A Prong 2, Examiner examines the additional elements to determine if the identified abstract idea has been practically applied in a particular way in a particular technology. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination with the identified abstract idea, do not add anything beyond mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding generic ‘apply it’ language, and generically linking the identified abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use.
When examining step 2B, Examiner examines the additional elements to determine if they amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The only additional element(s) is/are the generic computer structure, communicatively coupled to an ac battery, being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. An improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
Applicant's argument(s)/remark(s), see page(s) 9-12, filed 11/06/2025, with respect to the art rejection(s) has/have been fully considered.
-Applicant states
“B. 35 U.S.C. §103 Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-14, 16-18, and 20
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103, as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0082631 filed by Wild et al. (hereinafter "Wild") in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0302724 filed by Sharma et al. (hereinafter "Sharma"). As noted above, claim 1 recites wherein previously measured current is input to a first module configured to calculate using a coulomb gauge a preliminary 1 and a preliminary state-of-chargepre2, and wherein the previously measured current and the preliminary state-of- chargepre1 and the preliminary state-of-chargepre2 are input to a second module configured to calculate an estimated terminal voltage that is compared to previously measured voltage to calculate an input to an extended kalman filter (EKF) to autonomously estimate the state-of-charge of the AC rechargeable battery. Support for the amendment can at least be found in [0034, 0042, and 0043]. The Applicant notes that claim 1 has been amended to include some of the recitations of claim 4, with modification. The Applicant respectfully submits that the art of record does not disclose, teach, or suggest a method as recited in the Applicant's claims. For example, the Examiner acknowledges that Wild does not disclose the recitations of claim 4 and relies on Sharma.
In [0066], Sharma discloses, in relevant part, that each BPMU 30 is also configured to determine state of health (SOH) of each respective battery pack 20 using coulomb counting, electrochemical impedance measurement, or a combination thereof. In [0070], Sharma discloses, in relevant part, that the BPMU 30 can be configured to: read data from the internal BMU 25 of a respective battery pack 20 to establish capacity, an energy baseline, and an initial value of state of charge (SOC) of the respective battery pack 20; check or measure voltage and current of the respective battery pack 20 at a time interval; calculate power of the respective battery pack 20 to integrate the power into an energy reading of the respective battery pack; and determine and update state of charge (SOC) of the respective battery pack 20 based on the initial value of SOC, the current, and the time interval. Sharma does not disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed recitation inputting previously measured current to a first module configured to calculate using a coulomb gauge a preliminary l and a preliminary state-of-chargepre2 and inputting the previously measured current and the preliminary state-of- charge prel and the preliminary state-of-chargepre2 to a second module configured to calculate an estimated terminal voltage that is compared to previously measured voltage to calculate an input to an extended kalman filter (EKF) to autonomously estimate the state-of-charge of the AC rechargeable battery. That is Sharma merely discloses reading data from the internal BMU 25 of a respective battery pack 20 to establish an initial value of state of charge (SOC) of the respective battery pack 20 and checking or measuring voltage and current of the respective battery pack 20 at a time interval using coulomb counting, but does not disclose, teach, or suggest that such operations comprise calculating a preliminary l and a preliminary state-of-chargepre2based on previously measured current, inputting the previously measured current and the preliminary 1 and the preliminary state-of-chargepre2 to a second module, and calculating an estimated terminal voltage that is compared to previously measured voltage for calculating an input to an extended kalman filter (EKF) to autonomously estimate the state-of-charge of the AC rechargeable battery. Therefore, Sharma does not cure the deficiencies of Wild with respect to the Applicant's claims.
Thus, claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-14, 16-18, and 20 are patentable over Wild in view of Sharma. Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection be withdrawn and the claims allowed.”.
The argument(s)/remark(s) are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the previous rejected limitations.
-Applicant states
“C. 35 U.S.C. §103 Claims 5 and 15
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103, as being unpatentable over Wild in view of Sharma in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0212545 filed by Araujo Xavier et al. (hereinafter "Araujo Xavier").
Araujo Xavier is cited merely to allegedly disclose, inter alia, determining an estimate open circuit prel and an open circuit voltage pre2 based on the preliminary state- of-charge prel and the preliminary state-of-charge pre2, respectively, using a look-up table comprising open circuit voltages and corresponding preliminary state-of-charges. However, Araujo Xavier also fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed recitation wherein previously measured current is input to a first module configured to calculateusing a coulomb gauge a preliminary 1 and a preliminary state-of-chargepre2, and wherein the previously measured current and the preliminary state-of- chargepre1 and the preliminary state-of-chargepre2 are input to a second module configured to calculate an estimated terminal voltage that is compared to previously measured voltage to calculate an input to an extended kalman filter (EKF) to autonomously estimate the state-of-charge of the AC rechargeable battery, as recited in the Applicant's claims. Thus, there is no teaching, suggestion, or other motivation in Araujo Xavier to modify Wild in a manner that would yield the limitations recited in the claim. Accordingly, even if one were to combine the references, the combination would still fail to yield the limitations recited in the claims. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established.
Thus, claims 5 and 15 are patentable over Wild in view of Sharma in further view of Araujo Xavier. Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection be withdrawn and the claims allowed.”.
The argument(s)/remark(s) are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the previous rejected limitations.
-Applicant states
“D. 35 U.S.C. §103 Claims 9 and 19
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103, as being unpatentable over Wild in view of Sharma in further view of U.S. Patent No. 11,644,513 issued to Ding et al. (hereinafter "Ding").
Ding is cited merely to allegedly disclose, inter alia, performing Fast Fourier transform analysis to calculate voltage and current of AC signals with certain frequencies embedded in the power converter DC voltage and current. However, Ding also fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed recitation wherein previously measured current is input to a first module configured to calculate using a coulomb gauge a preliminary state-1 and a preliminary state-of-chargepre2, and wherein the previously measured current and the preliminary state-of-chargepre1 and the preliminary state-of- chargepre2 are input to a second module configured to calculate an estimated terminal voltage that is compared to previously measured voltage to calculate an input to an extended kalman filter (EKF) to autonomously estimate the state-of-charge of the AC rechargeable battery, as recited in the Applicant's claims. Thus, there is no teaching, suggestion, or other motivation in Ding to modify Wild in a manner that would yield the limitations recited in the claim. Accordingly, even if one were to combine the references, the combination would still fail to yield the limitations recited in the claims. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established.
Thus, claims 9 and 19 are patentable over Wild in view of Sharma in further view of Ding. Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection be withdrawn and the claims allowed.”.
The 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