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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 10 and 28-33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “the lower limit’” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. It should be written as “ a lower limit”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “the normality window” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. It should be written as “ a normality window”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 28 recites “an RCE-based limit” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. It should be written as “ the RCE-based limit”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 10, 28-31 and 39-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Machine Translation of JP2011127958A, hereinafter 958’
As to claims 1, 40 and 42, 958’ discloses in figures 1-7, a method of managing a secondary electrochemical unit, the method comprising [see figure 2]: at the beginning of a current charging cycle, causing charging circuitry to add charge to the secondary electrochemical unit [step S1]; automatically determining a cumulative charge added by the charging circuit during the current charging cycle [Step S1; the charging current senser uses integrated current to determine the current inputted] ; automatically evaluating whether or not the cumulative charge added causes a reverse- coulombic-efficiency (RCE)-based health measure to violate an RCE-based limit [see Step S2]; and when the RCE-based health measure violates the RCE-based limit, automatically causing a physical component to take a predetermined action that is a function of the RCE-based limit [according to steps S1-S3 the charging current is integrated and the state of charge (SOC) determined and charging is interrupted when SOC is above a predetermined value. Interrupting requires the charging circuit /physical components to take an action; see ¶0023-0024].
As to claim 2, 958’ discloses in figures 1-7, wherein when the RCE-based health measure violates the RCE-based limit, automatically causing charging circuitry to stop adding charge to the secondary electrochemical unit [see ¶0023-0024; discloses interrupting charging].
.
As to claim 4, 958’ discloses in figures 1-7, wherein when the RCE-based health measure violates the RCE-based limit, automatically causing a battery management system to disable use of the secondary electrochemical unit [see ¶0023-0024].
As to claim 10, 958’ discloses in figures 1-7, wherein when the RCE-based health measure is outside of the normality window, causing a battery management system to change one or more cycling parameters of the secondary electrochemical unit [noted that the battery is charged when the battery is outside the predetermined value; see ¶0023-0024].
As to claim 28, 958’ discloses in figures 1-7, wherein while the charging circuitry is adding charge to the secondary electrochemical unit during the current charging cycle, continually and automatically: determining the cumulative charge added by the charging circuit; and evaluating whether or not the cumulative charge added causes the RCE-based health measure to violate an RCE-based limit [noted that the battery is charged when the battery is outside the predetermined value; see ¶0023-0024].
As to claim 29, 958’ discloses in figures 1-7, wherein when the RCE-based health measure violates the RCE-based limit, automatically causing the charging circuitry to stop adding charge to the secondary electrochemical unit [¶0023-0024].
As to claim 30, 958’ discloses in figures 1-7, wherein the RCE-based charge-shutoff limit comprises an RCE normality window, and the evaluating includes comparing a measure of the cumulative charge-added amount to the normality window [Steps S1-S3 and ¶0023-0024].
As to claim 31, 958’ discloses in figures 1-6, wherein the RCE-based limit comprises an RCE normality-window upper limit that is equal to or greater than a net discharged amount of charge discharged from the secondary electrochemical unit since a full-charge charging cycle occurring most recently relative to the current charging cycle, and the evaluating includes comparing the measure of the cumulative charge-added amount to the RCE normality- window upper limit [see ¶0023-0024].
As to claim 39, 958’ discloses in figures 1-7, evaluating whether or not the cumulative charge added causes the RCE-based health measure to violate an RCE-based healing threshold
As to claim 41, 958’ discloses in figures 1-7, charging parameter acquisition system operatively configured to acquire one or more charging parameters during charging to allow the determining of the cumulative amount of charge added to the secondary electrochemical unit during the current charging cycle [Steps S1-S3 and ¶0023-0024].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 6, 17, 20, 32-33 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 958’ in view of Iwaizono (US 6,577,105)
As to claim 6, 958’ discloses all of the claim limitations except, wherein when the RCE-based health measure is less than the lower limit, automatically causing a microprocessor to flag the secondary electrochemical unit as having an anomaly.
Iwaizono discloses in figures 1-6, wherein when the RCE-based health measure is less than the lower limit, automatically causing a microprocessor to flag the secondary electrochemical unit as having an anomaly [see Col. 3, lines 1-25 and claim 5 and also see Col. 6, lines 34-50] .
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify controller of 958’ and to set charging and discharging limit of the battery as taught by Iwaizono in order to avoid battery damage due to overcharging and oversharing.
As claim 17, Iwaizono discloses in figures 1-6, wherein: the RCE-based limit is an RCE normality window; evaluating whether or not the cumulative charge added causes the RCE-based health measure to violate the RCE-based limit includes determining whether or not the RCE- based health measure is outside of the normality window; and when the RCE-based health measure is outside of the normality window, causing a battery management system to limit usage of the secondary electrochemical unit [see Col. 3, lines 1-25 and claim 5 and also see Col. 6, lines 34-50; charging and discharging of the battery prohibited which implies battery usage is limited].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify controller of 958’ and to set charging and discharging limit of the battery as taught by Iwaizono in order to avoid battery damage due to overcharging and oversharing.
As to claim 20, Iwaizono discloses in figures 1-6, wherein: the RCE-based limit is an RCE normality window; evaluating whether or not the cumulative charge added causes the RCE-based health measure to violate the RCE-based limit includes determining whether or not the RCE- based health measure is outside of the normality window; and when the RCE-based health measure is outside of the normality window, causing a battery management system to change one or more cycling parameters of the secondary electrochemical unit [see Col. 3, lines 1-25 and claim 5 and also see Col. 6, lines 34-50; charging and discharging ranges of the battery are considered as normality window to control the charging and discharging of the battery].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify controller of 958’ and to set charging and discharging window limit of the battery as taught by Iwaizono in order to avoid battery damage due to overcharging and oversharing.
As to claim 32, Iwaizono discloses charging and discharging limit values as charging and discharging window.
However, neither 958’ nor Iwaizono discloses, wherein the RCE normality-window upper limit is less than about 1.05 times the discharged amount.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use appropriate charging and discharging windows in order to have protect battery damage, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As to claim 33, neither 958’ nor Iwaizono discloses, wherein the RCE normality-window upper limit is in a range of greater than the discharged amount to less than about 1.05 times the discharged amount of charge.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use appropriate charging and discharging windows in order to have protect battery damage, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As to claim 43, Iwaizono discloses in figures 1-7, wherein the RCE-based health measure is an end-of-charge value, and the method further comprises automatically causing a battery management system to disable use of the secondary electrochemical unit [see Col. 3, lines 1-25 and claim 5 and also see Col. 6, lines 34-50; charging and discharging of the battery prohibited which implies battery usage is limited].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify controller of 958’ and to set charging and discharging limit of the battery as taught by Iwaizono in order to avoid battery damage due to overcharging and oversharing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tamegai et al. (US 2018/0306866) discloses current monitoring circuit and coulomb counter circuit. Lee et al. (US 2021/0190878) discloses battery management apparatus and method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL BERHANU whose telephone number is (571)272-8430. The examiner can normally be reached M_F.
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, Julian A. Huffman can be reached at Julian.Huffman@uspto.gov. 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.
/SAMUEL BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights