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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-28, drawn to a controller for a battery, using several models to control charging, classified in G01R 31/392.
II. Claims 29-42, drawn to a method of battery charging using constraints and cost function optimization, classified in G01R 31/367.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination I has separate utility such as predicting the variables used in an optimization function without using constraints on the optimization. Furthermore, subcombination II has separate utility such as performing a charging signal optimization without needing to estimate the parameters used. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions require a different field of search, including at least different search strategies and search queries.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Gregory Durbin on 11/13/25 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-28. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 29-42 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 1 and 17 both recite "a processing unit including computer executable instructions of: ...", and then listing limitations that consist of models receiving variables and outputting other variables. One of skill in the art would not be enabled to make or use the claimed invention wherein the processors (as opposed to a memory) include instructions, and the processor does not actually perform the steps included in the instructions.
Examiner has interpreted and suggests amending this to read
"a processing unit; a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer executable instructions, which, when executed by the processing unit, cause the processing unit to perform:"
Claims 1 and 17 both further recite "the processing unit further comprising computer executable instructions to generate...". One of skill in the art would not be enabled to make or use the claimed invention wherein the processors (as opposed to a memory) include instructions.
Examiner has interpreted and suggests amending this to read, " the non-transitory computer-readable medium further comprising computer-executable instructions ,which, when executed by the processing unit, cause the processing unit".
The remaining claims are rejected under 112(a) only for the defects they inherit through their dependence on claims 1 and 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-11, 13, 17-26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas as indicated by in-line comments below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for reasons also indicated by in-line comments below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons also indicated by in-line comments below.
1. A controller for a battery comprising:
a processing unit (does not integrate into a practical application because generic computer performing generic computer functions; not significantly more because generic computer performing generic computer functions) including computer executable instructions of:
a first model receiving a battery voltage measurement and a battery current measurement, and producing a predicted state of charge of the battery (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations);
a second model receiving the battery voltage measurement and the battery current measurement, and producing a predicted battery temperature (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations);
a third model receiving the battery voltage measurement and the battery current measurement, and producing a frequency based on an impedance assessment based on battery voltage measurement and the battery current measurement (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations);
the processing unit further comprising computer executable instructions to generate controls for a charge signal based on the predicted state of charge of the battery, the predicted battery temperature and the frequency (abstract; mental processes; observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion).
2. The controller for the battery of claim 1 further comprising:
a fourth model producing a state of health metric from the impedance assessment (abstract; mental processes; observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion).
3. The controller for the battery of claim 2 wherein the impedance assessment includes an equivalent circuit model of the battery, with the circuit model including an R value representing a battery cell bulk resistance and the state of health metric based on the R value (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations).
4. The controller of claim 3 wherein the fourth model is a neural network receiving a component value from the equivalent circuit, the neural network producing the state of health metric (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations).
5. The controller for the battery of claim 1 the processing unit further comprising computer executable instructions to generate the charge signal accessing a preestablished battery charging constraint (does not integrate into a practical application because insignificant extra-solution activity; not significantly more because insignificant extra-solution activity).
6. The controller for the battery of claim 5 wherein the preestablished battery charging constraint is set through a user interface (does not integrate into a practical application because insignificant extra-solution activity; not significantly more because insignificant extra-solution activity).
7. The controller for the battery of claim 5 wherein the preestablished battery charging constraint is weighted (merely further details of ineligible subject matter).
8. The controller for the battery of claim 5 wherein the preestablished battery charging constraint is either a soft constraint that may be violated or a hard constraint that may not be violated (merely further details of ineligible subject matter).
9. The controller for the battery of claim 5 wherein the preestablished battery charging constraint comprises one or more of a battery temperature constraint, a charge rate constraint, a state of charge constraint, a battery capacity constraint, and a battery health constraint (merely further details of ineligible subject matter).
10. The controller for the battery of claim 1 the processing unit further comprising computer executable instructions to generate a mean current for the charge signal (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations).
11. The controller for the battery of claim 10 wherein the first model further receives the mean current and the second model further receives the mean current (does not integrate into a practical application because insignificant extra-solution activity; not significantly more because insignificant extra-solution activity).
13. The controller for the battery of claim 1 wherein the charge signal based on the frequency defines a shaped leading edge of the charge signal (merely further details of ineligible subject matter).
17. A controller (does not integrate into a practical application because generic computer performing generic computer functions; not significantly more because generic computer performing generic computer functions) for a battery comprising:
a processing unit (does not integrate into a practical application because generic computer performing generic computer functions; not significantly more because generic computer performing generic computer functions) including computer executable instructions of:
a battery state of charge model receiving a battery parameter, and producing a predicted state of charge of the battery (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations);
a battery temperature model receiving the battery parameter, and producing a predicted battery temperature (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations);
an impedance model receiving the battery parameter, and producing a frequency based on an impedance assessment using the battery parameter (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations); and
the processing unit further comprising computer executable instructions to generate a charge signal based on the predicted state of charge of the battery, the predicted battery temperature and the frequency (abstract; mental processes; observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion).
Regarding claims 18-19, see the foregoing rejections of claims 2-3, respectively.
Regarding claims 20-26, see the foregoing rejections of claims 5-11, respectively.
28. The controller for the battery of claim 17 wherein the battery parameter comprises at least one of a battery current measurement, a battery voltage measurement or a battery temperature measurement (merely further details of ineligible subject matter).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hariharan (20120303208) is cited for disclosing a battery recharging method, wherein a recharging time and charge state are estimated based on impedance and frequency data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY T EVANS whose telephone number is (571)272-2369. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/GEOFFREY T EVANS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2852 /WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852