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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant' s amendment and response filed 2/2/2026 has been entered and made record. This application contains 8 pending claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/2/2026 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 in claim 1-8 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on pages 4-5 of the remark filed on 2/2/2026 that “… Applicant respectfully submits that the presently recited independent claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application, rendering the claims patent eligible under step 2A. More specifically, the present claims involve a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(c) ("If such a transformation exists, the claims are likely to be significantly more than any recited judicial exception or to integrate any recited judicial exception into a practical application."). In this case, the particular article includes used secondary batteries. The recited used secondary batteries are transformed as recited in both of independent claims 1 and 7. … This adjustment is based on the claimed determination of an aging condition, which is tied to a specific technical purpose of improving performance and reliability of reconfigured battery packs. … Persons of skill would understand the alleged abstract ideas to be integral to this improvement in the tangible articles, thus, integrating the alleged abstract idea into a practical application, and rendering the claims patent eligible. … Applicant respectfully disagree, and again notes that "aging the plurality of used secondary batteries according to the aging condition for each of the plurality of used secondary batteries" involves a physical transformation of the used secondary batteries. Thus, the transformation of the batteries demonstrates the independent Claims 1 and 7, when read as a whole, integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application and impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea, rendering these claims patent eligible under Step 2A.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. Practical application can be demonstrated by additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional element “measures intrinsic parameters of the plurality of used secondary batteries” is considered necessary data gathering and thus, not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e., obtaining the measured data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional elements “an identification number assignment unit that assigns identification information to each of a plurality of used secondary batteries”, and “an aging processing unit that ages the plurality of used secondary batteries according to the aging condition for each of the plurality of used secondary batteries” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The alleged improvement of performance and reliability of reconfigured battery packs relates to improvement to the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the current claims do not recite additional elements that are indicative of integration of an abstract idea into a practical application.
The applicant argues on page 5 of the remark filed that “Further, as also discussed below, the cited prior art fails to disclose the claimed "aging the plurality of used secondary batteries according to the aging condition for each of the plurality of used secondary batteries." Thus, for at least this additional reason, independent Claims 1 and 7 include significantly more than an abstract idea under Step 2B, rendering the claims patent eligible.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. Significantly more can be demonstrated by additional elements that are not well-understood and conventional that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, the claims do not recite them. The limitation of “an identification number assignment unit that assigns identification information to each of a plurality of used secondary batteries”, and “an aging processing unit that ages the plurality of used secondary batteries according to the aging condition for each of the plurality of used secondary batteries” are routine in
determining an aging condition for each of the plurality of used secondary batteries, and
determining whether a used secondary battery is applicable to reconfiguration of an assembled battery, and are well-understood and conventional. Therefore, the claims 1 and 7 do not contain additional elements that are not well-understood and conventional that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Therefore, claims 2-6 and 8 are also patent ineligible.
Hence, the Examiner submits that the rejections of Claims 1-8 are proper.
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/2/2026 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 in claim 1-8 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on pages 5-6 of the remark filed on 2/2/2026 that “… Applicant respectfully disagrees with the rejection, as discussed further below. The Office asserts that Burchardt discloses "an aging condition determination unit" and "an aging processing unit" as recited in independent Claim 7. Applicant respectfully disagrees. … These processes are not taught to physically adjust a degradation degree of any used secondary batteries to a target degradation degree, much less, actively induce degradation of any secondary battery to equalize states of the used secondary batteries. Second, Burchardt fails to disclose the claimed aging processing unit. Burchardt's disclosure of charging and discharging operations, and processing of data, is merely diagnostic, predictive, and recommendatory, and does not perform aging to adjust any degradation degree of any secondary batteries. Burchardt completely fails to disclose or teach intentionally degrading any batteries by aging them according to an aging condition. Thus, Burchardt fails to disclose, teach, or suggest, at least the recited "aging condition determination unit" and "aging processing unit" as well as "determining an aging condition for each of the plurality of used secondary batteries that sets the degradation degrees of the plurality of used secondary batteries as the target degradation degree; and aging the plurality of used secondary batteries according to the aging condition for each of the plurality of used secondary batteries." Accordingly, independent Claims 1 and 7 are not disclosed by Burchardt.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. Burchardt teaches that
the controller performs operations comprising: determining performance data associated with a battery, wherein the performance data comprises one or more performance parameters; determining a state of health of the battery (i.e., determining aging or degradation state of the battery) based on the performance data; comparing the performance data to stored data, wherein the stored data is associated with one or more deployed second use batteries; and predicting a remaining expected life of the battery (i.e., predicting a remaining expected life of the battery based on determined aging or degradation degrees of the battery) based on the comparison of the determined performance data to the stored data, (Burchardt, [0022]). Burchardt also teaches that if an EV battery was operated for extended periods at extreme temperatures (e.g., high or low) in one or more first life applications, the EV battery may show or may begin to show signs of degradation ( or may have an accelerated rate of degradation) during use in a second life application. Accordingly, using the disclosed method, historical use of the battery (e.g., prior operational temperatures) may inform selected use applications and/or operational parameters (e.g., operation at moderate temperatures, moderate or slow charge/discharge rates, lower depth of discharge, lower power, etc.) to prevent further degradation and/or slow a rate of degradation of the EV battery. The threshold amount (e.g., percentage) of an initial capacity may be lower for a second life battery (e.g., 40-60%) compared to a first life battery (e.g., 70%) and subsequently determine optimal use parameters (e.g., depth of discharge, power capacity, etc.) is determined, to ensure best possible operation of the EV battery during its remaining lifetime, and the diagnostic device determines a recommended one or more operational parameters for a battery and/or a recommended use, (Burchardt, [0042]). Thus, the controller and diagnostic device of Burchardt function as both an aging condition unit and an aging processing unit, and Burchardt teaches determining degradation or aging degrees or percentage of the battery. Based on the aging or degradation state of the battery, Burchardt provides recommended one or more operational parameters for any used secondary battery so that the degradation degree battery would be adjusted to a target degradation degree which will ensure best possible operation of the EV battery during its remaining lifetime, (Burchardt, [0042], [0065], [0075]). Therefore, the combination of Burchardt, Izumi, and Yamaguchi teaches
calculating degradation degrees of the plurality of used secondary batteries from the intrinsic parameters of the plurality of used secondary batteries and a parameter in a brand-new state of the used secondary batteries; determining a target degradation degree adapted to the degradation degrees of the plurality of used secondary batteries;
determining an aging condition for each of the plurality of used secondary batteries that sets the degradation degrees of the plurality of used secondary batteries as the target degradation degree; and aging the plurality of used secondary batteries according to the aging condition for each of the plurality of used secondary batteries.
Independent claim 7 is not patent eligible for at least the reasons stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2-6 depend from claim 1, and claim 8 depends from claim 7, and thus, the dependent claims 2-6, and 8 are also ineligible over the same reasons set forth in independent claims 1 and 7.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are “an identification number assignment unit”, “a parameter measurement unit”, “a degradation degree calculation unit”, “a target degradation degree determination unit”, “an aging condition determination unit”, and “an aging processing unit” in claim 7, and “a grouping processing unit”, “a target degradation degree determination unit”, in claim 8. The claim describes the various modules in functional terms of what they do, rather than how they do it. Under 35 USC 112(f), the Specification must identify a specific and readily-identifiable algorithm in the Specification associated with the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For example, [0048] discloses “As illustrated in FIG. 5, the characteristic leveling apparatus 10A includes an ID assignment unit 11, a parameter measurement unit 12, a degradation degree calculation unit 13, a target degradation degree determination unit 14A, an aging condition determination unit 15A, an aging processing unit 16, and a grouping processing unit 17.
In order to exam the merit, Examiner interprets the above mentioned limitations performed by a generic computer.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-8 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.
As to claim 7, the claim recites “A characteristic leveling apparatus comprising:
an identification number assignment unit that assigns identification information to each of a plurality of used secondary batteries;
a parameter measurement unit that measures intrinsic parameters of the plurality of used secondary batteries;
a degradation degree calculation unit that calculates degradation degrees of the plurality of used secondary batteries from the intrinsic parameters of the plurality of used secondary batteries and a parameter in a brand-new state of the used secondary battery;
a target degradation degree determination unit that determines a target degradation degree adapted to the degradation degrees of the plurality of used secondary batteries;
an aging condition determination unit that determines an aging condition for each of the plurality of used secondary batteries that sets the degradation degrees of the plurality of used secondary batteries as the target degradation degree; and
an aging processing unit that ages the plurality of used secondary batteries according to the aging condition for each of the plurality of used secondary batteries.”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process for claims 1 and 7).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions).
In claim 7, the step of “calculates degradation degrees of the plurality of used secondary batteries from the intrinsic parameters of the plurality of used secondary batteries and a parameter in a brand-new state of the used secondary battery” is mathematical concept, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea.
The steps of “determines a target degradation degree adapted to the degradation degrees of the plurality of used secondary batteries”; and
“determines an aging condition for each of the plurality of used secondary batteries that sets the degradation degrees of the plurality of used secondary batteries as the target degradation degree” are a combination of a mathematical concept and a mental process, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim comprises the following additional elements:
an identification number assignment unit that assigns identification information to each of a plurality of used secondary batteries; a parameter measurement unit that measures intrinsic parameters of the plurality of used secondary batteries; a degradation degree calculation unit, a target degradation degree determination unit, an aging condition determination unit, and an aging processing unit that ages the plurality of used secondary batteries according to the aging condition for each of the plurality of used secondary batteries.
The additional elements “an identification number assignment unit that assigns identification information to each of a plurality of used secondary batteries”, and “an aging processing unit that ages the plurality of used secondary batteries according to the aging condition for each of the plurality of used secondary batteries” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. The additional element “measures intrinsic parameters of the plurality of used secondary batteries” represents necessary data gathering and does not integrate the limitation into a practical application.
The additional elements “an identification number assignment unit”, “a parameter measurement unit”, “a degradation degree calculation unit”, “a target degradation degree determination unit”, “an aging condition determination unit”, and “an aging processing unit” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are considered a generic computer element. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, measuring intrinsic parameters of the plurality of used secondary batteries is considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. receiving data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
For example, an aging processing unit that ages the plurality of used secondary batteries according to the aging condition for each of the plurality of used secondary batteries is disclosed by “Burchardt WO 2021014406A1”, [0010], [0040], [0042], [0050]; and “Yamaguchi US 20160105044”, FIGs. 5 and 9, [0114], [0130], [0137], [0196].
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 1 recites subject matter that is similar or analogous to that of claim 7, and therefore, the claim is also patent ineligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-6 and 8 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burchardt (WO 2021014406A1, hereinafter Burchardt) in view of Izumi et al. (US 20200200825, hereinafter Izumi).
As to claims 1 and 7, Burchardt teaches a parameter measurement unit ([0045] discloses the BMS reads voltage and/or current) that measures intrinsic parameters of the plurality of used secondary batteries ([0040] discloses collecting data from deployed second life batteries, and the collected data include internal resistance, voltage, current, impedance, and/or operational temperature);
a degradation degree calculation unit ([0010] discloses the diagnostic device determines the state of health of the battery; [0022] discloses a controller) that calculates degradation degrees of the plurality of used secondary batteries from the intrinsic parameters of the plurality of used secondary batteries ([0040] and [0042] disclose a self-learning algorithm uses the historical data from deployed second life battery systems for predictions of remaining lifetime and/or health status of second life EV batteries; and historical use of the battery (e.g., prior operational temperatures) may inform operational parameters to prevent further degradation and/or slow a rate of degradation of the EV battery; [0053] discloses state of health may be determined or characterized as a percentage ranging from 0% to 100%, which may correspond to a battery that is not operational (i.e., calculates the state of health (SOH) which represents the state of wear or a battery degradation degree of the used batteries, and the state of health of batteries with percentage ranging from 0% to 100% would indicate degradation degrees of the used batteries - emphasis added by Examiner)) and a parameter in a brand-new state of the used secondary battery ([0053] and [0055] disclose state of health may be determined or characterized as a percentage ranging from 0% to 100%, which may correspond to a battery that is not operational and a new battery (i.e., a parameter in a brand-new state of the used secondary battery - emphasis added by Examiner));
a target degradation degree determination unit ([0010] discloses the diagnostic device determines the state of health of the battery; [0022] discloses a controller) that determines a target degradation degree adapted to the degradation degrees of the plurality of used secondary batteries ([0022], [0040], and [0042] disclose the controller determines a state of health of the battery (i.e., determining aging or degradation state of the battery – emphasis added by Examiner) based on the performance data; and predicts a remaining expected life of the battery (i.e., predicting a remaining expected life of the battery based on determined aging or degradation degrees of the battery – emphasis added by Examiner) based on the comparison of the determined performance data to the stored data. A self-learning algorithm uses the historical data from deployed second life battery systems to continuously improve predictions of remaining lifetime and/or health status of second life EV batteries. The end of life for a battery may be defined by operation cycle when a battery capacity falls below a threshold amount (e.g., percentage) of an initial capacity, and the threshold amount may be lower for a second life battery (e.g., 40-60%) (i.e., determines adapted target degradation degree- emphasis added by Examiner) compared to a first life battery (e.g., 70%));
an aging condition determination unit ([0010] discloses the diagnostic device determines the state of health of the battery; [0022] discloses a controller) that determines an aging condition for each of the plurality of used secondary batteries that sets the degradation degrees of the plurality of used secondary batteries as the target degradation degree ([0040], [0042], and [0050] disclose voltage and current of each cells/module within the battery 110 are monitored; and a self-learning algorithm uses the historical data from deployed second life battery systems to predict of remaining lifetime and/or health status of second life EV batteries. The end of life for a battery may be defined by operation cycle when a battery capacity falls below a threshold amount (e.g., percentage) of an initial capacity, and the threshold amount may be lower for a second life battery (e.g., 40-60%) compared to a first life battery (e.g., 70%) (i.e., the aging condition can be calculated using the degradation degree such as 40-60% of degradation, and the degradation degree threshold amount of 40-60% can be set as a target degradation degree for each of the used batteries - emphasis added by Examiner). The historical data such as cycle life, discharge and charge rates, temperature, etc. are relevant in determining a degradation curve of the battery (i.e., the aging condition can also be calculated using the degradation curve - emphasis added by Examiner)); and
an aging processing unit ([0010] discloses the diagnostic device determines the state of health of the battery; [0022] discloses a controller determines a state of health of the battery and predicting a remaining expected life of the battery (i.e., predicting a remaining expected life of the battery based on determined aging or degradation degrees of the battery - emphasis added by Examiner) that ages the plurality of used secondary batteries according to the aging condition for each of the plurality of used secondary batteries ([0040] and [0042] disclose a self-learning algorithm uses the historical data from deployed second life battery systems to continuously improve predictions of remaining lifetime and/or health status of second life EV batteries. The end of life for a battery may be defined by operation cycle when a battery capacity falls below a threshold amount (e.g., percentage) of an initial capacity, and threshold amount may be lower for a second life battery (e.g., 40-60%) compared to a first life battery (e.g., 70%) (i.e., the used batteries that reached degradation degree threshold amount of 40-60% can be considered aged according to the aging threshold of 40-60% degradation or the aging condition - emphasis added by Examiner). The historical data such as cycle life, discharge and charge rates, temperature, etc. are relevant in determining a degradation curve of the battery, and state of health and/or remaining lifetime of the battery pack is estimated using the historical data (i.e., the state of health or the degradation the battery can be determined using the historical data, and the degradation curve of the battery would show the degradation degrees of the used batteries - emphasis added by Examiner)).
Burchardt does not explicitly teach an identification number assignment unit that assigns identification information to each of a plurality of used secondary batteries;
Izumi teaches an identification number assignment unit ([0102] discloses a collection operator 101) that assigns identification information to each of a plurality of used secondary batteries ([0102] discloses as shown in FIG . 8, a collection operator 101 collects used secondary batteries (battery packs) 111, 121, and 131 from vehicles 110, 120, and 130, and the collection operator 101 disassembles the collected battery packs to obtain a plurality of modules from each of the battery packs, and an identification number is assigned to each of the modules).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Izumi into Burchardt for the purpose of estimating a battery capacity of a secondary battery using Nyquist plot and battery capacity. This combination would improve in estimating battery capacity accurately and efficiently.
As to claim 2, the combination of Burchardt and Izumi teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 1.
Burchardt teaches wherein in the aging condition, a degradation rate that is a rate of degradation of the used secondary battery per unit time is set for each of the plurality of used secondary batteries ([0040], [0042], and [0050] disclose voltage and current of each cells/module within the battery 110 are monitored; and a self-learning algorithm uses the historical data from deployed second life battery systems to predict of remaining lifetime and/or health status of second life EV batteries. The historical use of data inform operation parameters and prevent further degradation and/or slow a rate of degradation of the EV batteries. The threshold amount may be lower for a second life battery (e.g., 40-60%) compared to a first life battery (e.g., 70%). The historical data such as cycle life, discharge and charge rates, temperature, etc. are relevant in determining a degradation curve of the battery (i.e., the aging condition of each of the used batteries can be calculated using the degradation rate, the degradation curve, and the degradation degree such as 40-60% of degradation, respectively, and the degradation degree threshold amount of 40-60% can be set as a target degradation degree for each of the used batteries - emphasis added by Examiner)).
As to claim 3, the combination of Burchardt and Izumi teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 1.
Burchardt teaches wherein in the aging condition, at least one of an aging voltage, an aging temperature, and an aging time is set ([0042] discloses if an EV battery was operated for extended periods at extreme temperatures (e.g., high or low) in one or more first life applications, the EV battery may show or may begin to show signs of degradation (or may have an accelerated rate of degradation) (i.e., the extreme temperature is set as the aging condition or the aging temperature for the used batteries - emphasis added by Examiner) during use in a second life application”).
As to claim 4, the combination of Burchardt and Izumi teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 1.
Burchardt teaches wherein the target degradation degree is set to the degradation degree of the used secondary battery in the most advanced degradation state among the plurality of used secondary batteries ([0040], [0042], and [0050] disclose voltage and current of each cells/module within the battery 110 are monitored; and a self-learning algorithm uses the historical data from deployed second life battery systems to predict of remaining lifetime and/or health status of second life EV batteries. The threshold amount is lower for a second life battery (e.g., 40-60%) compared to a first life battery (e.g., 70%) (i.e., the target degradation degree for the used battery can be set at 40% which would be the most advanced degradation state among the plurality of used secondary batteries - emphasis added by Examiner)).
Claims 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burchardt and Izumi, in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 20160105044, hereinafter Yamaguchi).
As to claims 5 and 8, the combination of Burchardt and Izumi teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claims 1 and 7, respectively.
The combination of Burchardt and Izumi does not explicitly teach sorting the plurality of used secondary batteries into a plurality of groups according to the degradation degree, and wherein the target degradation degree is set for each of the plurality of groups.
Yamaguchi teaches sorting the plurality of used secondary batteries into a plurality of groups according to the degradation degree (FIG. 5 shows that the assembled or used batteries are sorted into a plurality of groups such as group A, group B, group C according to the SOH (i.e., the SOH represents the state of wear or a battery degradation degree - emphasis added by Examiner); [0130]), and
wherein the target degradation degree is set for each of the plurality of groups ([0130] discloses “In FIG. 5, the degradation levels of the assembled batteries 34 are grouped into, for example, three groups A to C. In FIG.5, the assembled batteries 34 in which the SOH is 80% or more are grouped into group A, the assembled batteries 34
in which the SOH is 60% to 80% are grouped into group B, and the assembled batteries 34 in which the SOH is less than 60% are grouped into group C, and the smaller the value of the SOH is, the more degraded the assembled batteries 34 is.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Yamaguchi into Burchardt in view of Izumi for the purpose of determining respective degradation levels of assembled batteries by using obtained parameter information and grouping the assembled batteries into a plurality of groups based on the determined degradation levels in order to distinguish usable assembled batteries that have low degradation from unusable assembled batteries that have high degradation. This combination would improve in performing degradation determination processing with high efficiency.
As to claim 6, the combination of Burchardt, Izumi, and Yamaguchi teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 5.
The combination of Burchardt and Izumi does not explicitly teach wherein the target degradation degree is set to the degradation degree of the used secondary battery in the most advanced degradation state in each group of the plurality of groups.
Yamaguchi teaches wherein the target degradation degree is set to the degradation degree of the used secondary battery in the most advanced degradation state in each group of the plurality of groups ([0130] discloses “In FIG. 5, the degradation levels of the assembled batteries 34 are grouped into, for example, three groups A to C. In FIG.5, the assembled batteries 34 in which the SOH is 80% or more are grouped into group A, the assembled batteries 34 in which the SOH is 60% to 80% are grouped into group B, and the assembled batteries 34 in which the SOH is less than 60% are grouped into group C, and the smaller the value of the SOH is, the more degraded the assembled batteries 34 is.”; i.e., the group C of the assembled batteries in which the SOH is less than 60% have the highest or the most advanced degradation level of state in each group of the groups. Thus, the used batteries with SOH less than 60% can be set as the target degradation degree - emphasis added by Examiner)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Yamaguchi into Burchardt in view of Izumi for the purpose of determining respective degradation levels of assembled batteries by using obtained parameter information and grouping the assembled batteries into a plurality of groups based on the determined degradation levels in order to distinguish usable assembled batteries that have low degradation from unusable assembled batteries that have high degradation. This combination would improve in performing degradation determination processing with high efficiency.
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 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 LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 EST.
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, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/LAL CE MANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights