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
Claims 3-6 are 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.
Regarding claim 3, it recites “each reference value of a battery temperature” in lines 2-3. This is too broad without clear boundaries. For examination purpose, --a plurality of reference values of a battery temperature-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 6, it recites “each reference value of a battery temperature” in lines 4-5. This is too broad without clear boundaries. For examination purpose, --a plurality of reference values of a battery temperature-- is assumed.
The other claim(s) not discussed above, or depending on the above claim(s), are rejected for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
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.
MPEP 2106 outlines a two-part analysis for Subject Matter Eligibility as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
Step 2, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. If the claim does not recite a judicial exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), then the claim cannot be directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO), and thus the claim is eligible at Pathway B without further analysis. Abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes.
Step 2A: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions)? Yes (see analysis below).
Prong one: Whether the claim recites a judicial exception? (Yes). The claim recites the limitations “computes a remaining charge time of a power storage apparatus based on linear approximation of correlation between an operating environment of the power storage apparatus and a charge time of the power storage apparatus, the charge time including a charge stop time.” The limitation is directed to mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (or with a pen and paper).
Prong two: Whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception? (No). The claim recites additional elements of “a processor.” However, this is to invoke a generic computer for its computing power to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements (other than the judicial exception) that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No (see analysis below).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two above, the additional element(s) in the claim is to invoke a generic computer for its computing power to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. Also, it is routine and conventional to invoke a computer for data processing. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Considered as a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 is similarly rejected by analogy to claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9 when analyzed as a whole respectively are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they either extend (or add more details to) the abstract idea or the additional recited limitation(s) (if any) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as discussed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that sufficiently integrates the abstract idea into a practical application of, or makes the claims significantly more than, the judicial exception (abstract idea). The additional element(s) (if any) are mere instructions to apply an except, field of use, and/or insignificant extra-solution activities (applied to Step 2A_Prong Two and Step 2B; see MPEP 2016.05(f)-(h)) and/or well-understood, routine, or conventional (applied to Step 2B; see MPEP 2106.05(d)) to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. Note that claim 7 recites the additional element “A power storage apparatus that supplies power to a load apparatus in case of a power supply emergency of an external power source, the load apparatus operating by power supply from the external power source,” However, it is directed to a generic power storage apparatus for providing emergency power supply to a generic load. That is, it is recited at a high level of generality to indicate the environment or a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
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.
Claims 1, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by REN et al. (CN 110146816 B; machine translation provided; hereinafter “REN”).
Regarding claim 1, REN teaches a power storage control apparatus (i.e., “a battery remaining charging time determining method, device, device and storage medium”; see translation p. 2, middle section), comprising:
a processor (i.e., “processor”; see translation p. 2, lower section) that computes a remaining charge time of a power storage apparatus (i.e., “estimating the charging remaining total time”; see translation p. 7, lower section and formula (5); see, also, translation 10, middle section and formula (11)) based on linear approximation (see formulae (3) and (4); see, also, formulae (9) and (10)) of correlation between an operating environment (i.e., “QHeating/PHeating” in formula (3); “DeltaCapacity/SteadyCurrent” in formula (9)) of the power storage apparatus and a charge time (i.e., “HeatingTime” in equation (4); “SteadyTime” in formula (10)) of the power storage apparatus, the charge time including a charge stop time (i.e., “wherein the target charging stage is prohibited charging, heating stage, only heating stage, charging current rising stage, a charging current stabilizing stage, a stage of charging current falling stage”; see translation 4, lower section; see, also, FIG. 2).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as claim 1 and is rejected by applying the same teachings. See translation pp. 14-15 discussing the implementation in computer-readable storage medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REN.
Regarding claim 7, REN does not explicitly disclose (see only the underlined):
A power storage apparatus that supplies power to a load apparatus in case of a power supply emergency of an external power source, the load apparatus operating by power supply from the external power source, wherein the power storage apparatus comprises the power storage control apparatus according to claim 1.
However, it is well-known to use a rechargeable battery as a backup power supply to supply power to a load apparatus in case of a power supply emergency of an external power source. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify REN for emergency backup, and provide a power storage apparatus that supplies power to a load apparatus in case of a power supply emergency of an external power source, the load apparatus operating by power supply from the external power source, wherein the power storage apparatus comprises the power storage control apparatus according to claim 1, as claimed. The rationale would be to add the benefit of informing remaining charge time for an emergency backup battery.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REN in view of WANG et al. (CN 112230147 A; machine translation provided; hereinafter “WANG”).
Regarding claim 2, REN further reaches: wherein the processor
reads correlation data stored in advance in storage, computes the remaining charge time using the read correlation data (note that the formulae are necessarily read from a storage for the calculation of the remaining charge time), and
REN does not explicitly disclose (see only the underlined): wherein the processor
updates the correlation data in the storage based on an actual measurement value of the charge time.
But REN further teaches:
determining the correlation by real vehicle tests (i.e., “kheating heating efficiency, obtained by real vehicle test; thresholdheating heating threshold value, obtained by real vehicle test.”; see translation p. 7, lower section; “kSteady is efficiency, obtained by real vehicle test; thresholdSteady threshold value, obtained by real vehicle test”; see translation p. 10, middle section).
Also, WANG teaches:
updates the correlation data in the storage based on an actual measurement value of the charge time (i.e., “updating the dynamic comparison table according to the actual charging time”; see translation p. 2, middle section; “updating the average value of the plurality of actual charging time to the static comparison table”; see translation p. 3, middle section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify REN in view of WANG by updating the formulae (such as the efficiency and threshold coefficients) with the real data (such as the actual charge time), so that the processor updates the correlation data in the storage based on an actual measurement value of the charge time, as claimed. The rationale would be to keep the formulae updated to reflect the actual condition of the battery.
Regarding claim 3, REN further teaches: wherein,
the correlation data includes battery temperature-specific data set for each reference value of a battery temperature of the power storage apparatus (i.e., “the initial temperature and the pre-established charging current rising stage number group table, determining the charging time of the charging current rising stage of the battery pack”; see translation p. 8, middle section, and Table 1; “according to the initial battery core terminal voltage, the initial temperature and the pre-established charging current descending stage number group table, determining the remaining charging time of the battery pack”; see translation p. 10, lower section, and Table 2), and
the processor computes the remaining charge time using certain battery temperature-specific data corresponding to the battery temperature at a start of charge among the battery temperature-specific data (i.e., “according to the charging time of the charging current rising stage, charging time of charging current stabilizing stage and charging time of charging current descending stage, determining the remaining charging time of the battery pack”; see translation p. 8, middle section, and formula (6); “according to the initial battery core terminal voltage, the initial temperature and the pre-established charging current descending stage number group table, determining the remaining charging time of the battery pack”; see translation p. 10, lower section, and formula (12)).
Notes
Claims 4 and 6 distinguish over the closest prior art of record as discussed below.
Regarding claim 4, the closest prior art of record fails to teach the features: “acquires an estimate of the full charge time by performing adjustment of the reference value of the full charge time based on a difference between the input voltage at the start of charge and the reference value of the input voltage, and acquires an estimate of the remaining charge time by performing adjustment of the acquired estimate of the full charge time based on a state of charge of the power storage apparatus at the start of charge,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Even though REN teaches an OCV-SOC lookup table for calculating state of charge difference DeltaSOC, which is then used for calculating a capacity difference DeltaCapacity during a steady current charge stage, the state of charge difference DeltaSOC is not the “difference between the input voltage at the start of charge and the reference value of the input voltage” as claimed. Moreover, REN does not teach or suggest “performing adjustment of the acquired estimate of the full charge time based on a state of charge of the power storage apparatus at the start of charge,” as claimed.
Takano et al. (US 20150249355 A1) teaches a charge control device, involving calculating an SOC using detected voltage and current. The charge time is determined using the battery SOC, temperature, charge power, and a set of lookup tables. Takano does not teach or suggest the above indicated features as claimed.
SUN et al. (US 20220308114 A1) teaches a method for predicting remaining charging time, including: obtaining a current state of charge (SOC); determining a reference remaining time and a delay time according to the current state of charge; and determining a current remaining charging time according to the reference remaining time and the delay time. SUN does not teach or suggest the above indicated features as claimed.
Bi et al. ("Predicting Charging Time of Battery Electric Vehicles Based on Regression and Time-Series Methods: A Case Study of Beijing" Energies 2018, 11, 1040) teaches a combined model for charging time prediction based on regression and time-series methods, involving a linear regression model between charging time and SOC. SUN does not teach or suggest the above indicated features as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, the closest prior art of record fails to teach the features: “acquires a conversion value of the full charge time by converting the actual measurement value of the charge time; updates the reference value of the full charge time corresponding to a battery temperature at a start of charge based on the acquired conversion value of the full charge time; and updates the reference value of the input voltage corresponding to the battery temperature at the start of charge based on the input voltage at the start of charge,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
REN generally teaches determining the lookup tables and formulae coefficients based on test data (implying actual charge time). Although it would have been obvious to update the reference charge time in the tables based on the actual charge time, REN does not teach or suggest converting the charge time, updating the reference charge time based on the converted actual charge time, and updating the reference voltage, as claimed. Once the lookup tables are built, the reference voltage and reference temperature are fixed. It only needs to update the reference charge time based on test data. Arguably, a new entry may be added to the table based on new test data. However, this is different from updating the existing reference voltage in the tables. None of the prior art of record teaches or suggests the above indicated features as claimed.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
REIPUR et al. (WO 9405068 A1) teaches a method of charging a battery, involving matching a slope of a voltage curve to reference curves to determine a remaining charge time. The reference curves are built during charging with brief charge cut-off times.
ZHU et al. (CN 112834931 A) teaches a battery charging remaining time estimation method, involving, according to an initial voltage and an initial temperature of the battery, as the starting point of the temperature rise curve and the data graph fitting, obtaining the temperature rise curve and a plurality of periodic charging time under the fitting of the data graph.
MA et al. (CN 112216886 A) teaches a method for predicting battery charging time, involving establishing a charging time MAP table; the MAP table comprises N temperature intervals; M voltage intervals and elements Anm representing a charge time.
WANG (CN 105974321 A) teaches a method of calculating a battery remaining charge time, involving linearizing a current and time relationship curve to obtain a reference relation table.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C KUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7066. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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.
/JOHN C KUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857