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
Claims 4, 5, 18, and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/12/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 1 (see specification [0048]; note that the reference number 1 is not shown in the amended FIG. 1). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because
In FIG. 9, the second graph (c) should be marked as (d).
In FIG. 10, the second graph (c) should be marked as (d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [0089], lines 1-3, “Next, when the second data is less than the second reference value (NO) in operation S250, the first data NV may be compared with the first reference value, in operation S250” should be --Next, when the second data is less than the second reference value (NO) in operation S250, the first data NV may be compared with the first reference value, in operation S260-- to be consistent with the drawing.
In [0110], lines 1-3, “Next, when the fifth data is less than the fifth reference value (NO) in operation S350, the fourth data NV may be compared with the fourth reference value, in operation S350” should be --Next, when the fifth data is less than the fifth reference value (NO) in operation S350, the fourth data NV may be compared with the fourth reference value, in operation S360-- to be consistent with the drawing.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 11, line 2, “one including” should be --one of--- for better clarity, because there are more than one types listed.
The other claim(s) not discussed above, or depending on the above claim(s), are objected to for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
(A) 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 limitation(s) is/are: “a measuring unit,” “a calculating unit,” and “a diagnosing unit” in claim 1, plus their respective functions.
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, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-14, 16, and 17 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 1, the limitations “a measuring unit,” “a calculating unit,” and “a diagnosing unit” plus their respective functions each invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the functions in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Regarding claim 2, it recites “each preset period” in line 3. The term is too broad without clear boundaries. For examination purpose, --each of a plurality of preset periods-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 6, it recites “wherein the state of the battery cell comprises a voltage rise and drop in charging, discharging, and idle periods of the battery cell and long relaxation” in lines 1-3. It appears that the state comprises conflicting conditions (e.g., a voltage rise and drop in charging, discharging, and idle period). For examination purpose, --wherein the state of the battery cell comprises one of (i) a voltage rise or drop in one of charging, discharging, and idle periods of the battery cell and (ii) long relaxation-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 16, it recites “each preset period” in line 3. The term is too broad without clear boundaries. For examination purpose, --each of a plurality of preset periods-- 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).
Claims 1-3 and 6-14 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As indicated above, claim 1 invokes 35 US 112(f), but there are no correspondent structures disclosed in the specification. Consequently, the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement.
The other claim(s) not discussed above, or dependent of the above claim(s), are rejected for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by PURKAYASTHA et al. (US 20210234386 A1; cited previously; hereinafter “PURKAYASTHA”).
Regarding claim 1, PURKAYASTHA teaches a battery management apparatus (see FIG. 1) comprising:
a measuring unit configured to measure a voltage and a current of a battery cell (i.e., “a cell monitoring device configured to measure a current flowing through the at least one battery cell and a voltage of the at least one battery cell at a plurality of different times during the time period”; see [0008]);
a calculating unit (i.e., “a battery management system”, “a controller”) configured to determine an operating period of the battery cell based on the current of the battery cell (i.e., “determining a time series of normalised voltage of at least one battery cell corresponding to a time period during which a first current flows through the at least one battery cell”; see [0008]), and calculate a comparison value for the battery cell by normalizing the voltage of the battery cell (i.e., “The normalised voltage therefore provides a measure of the voltage of the cell which is independent of the current flowing through the battery cell during the time period. This may allow the normalised voltage to be compared, for example, to reference voltage data and/or to voltages measured during different charge and/or discharge cycles of at least one battery cell (e.g. when a different current flows through the at least one battery cell)”; see [0010]); and
a diagnosing unit (i.e., “a controller”; see [0008]) configured to diagnose a state of the battery cell by comparing the comparison value of the battery cell with a reference value (i.e., “This may allow the normalised voltage to be compared, for example, to reference voltage data and/or to voltages measured during different charge and/or discharge cycles of at least one battery cell (e.g. when a different current flows through the at least one battery cell). This may, for example, allow the normalised voltage to be used to determine the state of charge and/or a measure of the state of health of the at least one battery cell”; see [0010]).
Regarding claim 6, PURKAYASTHA further teaches:
wherein the state of the battery cell comprises a voltage rise and drop in charging, discharging, and idle periods of the battery cell and long relaxation (i.e., “The first current may vary with time during the time period. Alternatively, the first current may remain substantially constant during the time period. In embodiments in which the first current is substantially constant during the time period, the first constant current is different to the second constant current. In embodiments in which the first current varies with time during the time period, the second current is different to the first current for at least some of the time period”; see [0009]; “The tolerance within which a normalised voltage is determined may increase with increasing current flowing through the at least one battery cell”; see [0024]; “a normalised voltage may be determined which corresponds to an estimate of the equivalent voltage of the battery cell if zero current were flowing through the battery cell throughout the time period”; see [0143]; “during discharge of a lithium sulphur battery cell, lithium sulphide forms and dissolves into solution, until it supersaturates. The sudden precipitation of lithium sulphide leads to a marked dip in the voltage of the battery cell which may be referred to as a transition voltage and/or supersaturation voltage. The voltage of the cell may subsequently increase again which may be indicative of an equilibrium being reached, and a rate of lithium sulphide dissolution becoming relatively constant”; see [0197]).
Regarding claim 9, PURKAYASTHA further teaches:
wherein the calculating unit is further configured to determine whether the operating period of the battery cell is included in any one of a charging period, a discharging period, or an idle period, based on the current of the battery cell (i.e., “determining a time series of normalised voltage of at least one battery cell corresponding to a time period during which a first current flows through the at least one battery cell”; see [0008]; “determined whether the cell is charging or discharging between the first and second states of charge. For example, it may be determined whether the cell is charging or discharging based on measurements of the current flowing through the cell made in between the first and second times”; see [0193]).
Regarding claim 11, PURKAYASTHA further teaches:
wherein an abnormal type of the battery cell comprises one including lithium precipitation, an internal short-circuit, and a battery tab break (i.e., “during discharge of a lithium sulphur battery cell, lithium sulphide forms and dissolves into solution, until it supersaturates. The sudden precipitation of lithium sulphide leads to a marked dip in the voltage of the battery cell which may be referred to as a transition voltage and/or supersaturation voltage. The voltage of the cell may subsequently increase again which may be indicative of an equilibrium being reached, and a rate of lithium sulphide dissolution becoming relatively constant”; see [0197]”).
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 1 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PURKAYASTHA.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
PURKAYASTHA does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the diagnosing unit is further configured to classify the abnormal type of the battery cell as one including the lithium precipitation when a voltage behavior of the battery cell is at least one of a charging voltage drop, an idle voltage drop after charging, a discharging voltage idle voltage rise after discharging.
But PURKAYASTHA further teaches:
the lithium precipitation occurs when a voltage behavior of the battery cell is at least one of a charging voltage drop, an idle voltage drop after charging, a discharging voltage idle voltage rise after discharging (i.e., “during discharge of a lithium sulphur battery cell, lithium sulphide forms and dissolves into solution, until it supersaturates. The sudden precipitation of lithium sulphide leads to a marked dip in the voltage of the battery cell which may be referred to as a transition voltage and/or supersaturation voltage. The voltage of the cell may subsequently increase again which may be indicative of an equilibrium being reached, and a rate of lithium sulphide dissolution becoming relatively constant”; see [0197]”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify PURKAYASTHA such that the diagnosing unit is further configured to classify the abnormal type of the battery cell as one including the lithium precipitation when a voltage behavior of the battery cell is at least one of a charging voltage drop, an idle voltage drop after charging, a discharging voltage idle voltage rise after discharging, as claimed. The rationale would be to inform the user of the occurrence of lithium precipitation to help assessing the health of the battery cell.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PURKAYASTHA in view of Schmid et al. (“Data-Driven Fault Diagnosis in Battery Systems Through Cross-Cell Monitoring” IEEE SENSORS JOURNAL, VOL. 21, NO. 2, JANUARY 15, 2021; cited in IDS; hereinafter “Schmid”).
Regarding claim 10, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
PURKAYASTHA does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the battery cell comprises a battery cell previously diagnosed as abnormal through a principal component analysis (PCA).
But Schmid teaches:
diagnosing a battery cell as abnormal through a principal component analysis (PCA) (i.e., “This work presents a novel data-driven approach to fault diagnosis based on a comparison of single cell voltages based on a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of the data”; see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify PURKAYASTHA in view of Schmid such that the battery cell comprises a battery cell previously diagnosed as abnormal through a principal component analysis (PCA), as claimed. The rationale would be to warn the user of a battery fault (see Schmid, Abstract).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PURKAYASTHA in view of EIFERT et al. (US 20160103188 A1; hereinafter “EIFERT”).
Regarding claim 13, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
PURKAYASTHA does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the diagnosing unit is further configured to classify the abnormal type of the battery cell as one including the internal short-circuit when the voltage behavior of the battery cell is at least one of a charging and discharging voltage drop or an idle voltage drop after charging and discharging.
But EIFERT teaches:
classifying the abnormal type of the battery cell as one including the internal short-circuit when the voltage behavior of the battery cell is at least one of a charging and discharging voltage drop or an idle voltage drop after charging and discharging (i.e., “an internal short-circuit is identified by an alarm signal of an evaluation unit when the battery current does not fall after the battery has been charged over a long time period, or when the no-load voltage or discharge voltage of the battery drops or rapidly drops after a relatively long charging operation”; see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify PURKAYASTHA in view of EIFERT, such that the diagnosing unit is further configured to classify the abnormal type of the battery cell as one including the internal short-circuit when the voltage behavior of the battery cell is at least one of a charging and discharging voltage drop or an idle voltage drop after charging and discharging, as claimed. The rationale would be to help alerting the user of a problem in the battery cell (see EIFERT, Abstract).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PURKAYASTHA in view of Pressman et al. (US 20200319259 A1; hereinafter “Pressman”).
Regarding claim 14, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
PURKAYASTHA does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the diagnosing unit is further configured to classify the abnormal type of the battery cell as one including the battery tab break when the voltage behavior of the battery cell is at least one of a discharging voltage drop or a charging and discharging voltage rise.
But Pressman teaches:
classifying the abnormal type of the battery cell as one including the battery tab break when the voltage behavior of the battery cell is at least one of a discharging voltage drop or a charging and discharging voltage rise (i.e., “if the monitored voltage of one cell increases or decreases under load faster than other cells based on the voltage measurements generated by the voltage sensors, then the control circuit may estimate that a cell [tab of] the cell may be broken or damaged”; see [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify PURKAYASTHA in view of Pressman such that the diagnosing unit is further configured to classify the abnormal type of the battery cell as one including the battery tab break when the voltage behavior of the battery cell is at least one of a discharging voltage drop or a charging and discharging voltage rise, as claimed. The rationale would be to help notifying the user of an issue of the battery cell (see Pressman, [0089]).
Notes
Claims 2, 7, and 16 distinguish over the closest prior art of record as discussed below.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, the closest prior art of record fails to teach the features of claim 2 (as the representative): “wherein the comparison value of the battery cell comprises first data that is a value obtained by normalizing an average voltage output value for each preset period for the battery cell, second data that is an amount of change of the first data, and third data that is a value obtained by normalizing the second data,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant. PURKAYASTHA only concerns about the moralized voltage and does not suggest or require normalizing an average voltage for each of a plurality of periods, nor does it teach or suggest determining an amount of change of the normalized average voltage and normalizing the amount of change.
Regarding claim 7, the closest prior art of record fails to teach the features of: “wherein the calculating unit is further configured to calculate the comparison value when a size of a period for performing normalization on the voltage of the battery cell is less than a reference value,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant. PURKAYASTHA and the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the timing of calculating the comparison value (i.e., normalized voltage) as claimed.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
OYAMA et al. (US 20210382114 A1) teaches a battery diagnosis apparatus, involving measuring a voltage response to application of a current pulse; obtaining a chronopotentiogram (CP) indicating a change in the voltage response over time; normalizing the CP; and diagnosing the battery based on the normalizing CP.
PARK (US 20170126027 A1) teaches a battery management method, involving normalizing voltage difference information and temperature information, and deriving unbalance data by combining the normalized voltage difference information and temperature difference information; projecting the unbalance data to a feature space by principle component analysis (PCA) to obtain feature data; and determining a battery based on determined distribution information of the feature data.
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