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 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 15, there should be a conjunction “and” in the end of the line to correct a grammatical error.
In claim 11, line 7, the “and” in the end of the line should be deleted to correct a grammatical error.
In claim 11, line 12, “the threshold capacity value.” should be --the threshold capacity value; and-- to correct a grammatical error.
In claim 15, line 7, the “and” in the end of the line should be deleted to correct a grammatical error.
In claim 15, line 14, “the threshold capacity value.” should be --the threshold capacity value; and-- to correct a grammatical error.
The other claim(s) not discussed above are objected to for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12085626 in view of Takahashi et al. (US 20140335387 A1), LI (US 20200110134 A1), and/or Aoshima et al. (US 20140368206 A1). The patent teaches substantial portions of the independent claims 1, 11, and 15. Any differences in the current independent clams and dependent claims are obvious in view of the above references. The rejections under 35 USC 103 below are incorporated herein by reference to address the differences.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 20140335387 A1; cited previously; hereinafter “Takahashi”) in view of LI (US 20200110134 A1; cited previously).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi teaches a battery diagnosis device for a battery including a parallel connection structure of unit cells (i.e., “an electric storage system including a plurality of electric storage blocks and a controller determining the state of each of the electric storage blocks. The plurality of electric storage blocks are connected in series, and each of the electric storage blocks has a plurality of electric storage elements connected in parallel”; see [0008]), the battery diagnosis device comprising:
a processor (i.e., “controller 40”; see [0049]); and
memory having programmed thereon instructions that, when executed, are configured to cause the processor (i.e., “a memory 41 which stores a program for operating the controller 40”; see [0050]) to:
receive charge/discharge data including a voltage time series indicating a time-dependent change of a voltage across the battery and a current time series indicating a time-dependent change of a charge/discharge current flowing through the battery (i.e., “A monitor unit 20 shown in FIG. 1 detects the voltage of each of the battery blocks 11 and outputs the detection result to the controller 40. A current sensor 31 detects the value of a current passing through the assembled battery 10 and outputs the detection result to the controller 40”; see [0049]; “The parameter of each of the electric storage blocks is acquired over time”; see [0011]; “The values of the current passing through the battery block 11 are summed in a period”; see [0059]);
determine an estimated capacity value indicating a full charge capacity of the battery based on the charge/discharge data (i.e., “the SOC of the battery block 11 is calculated (estimated) at different timings… the SOC can be specified from the OCV… The voltage of the battery block 11 with the polarization eliminated is acquired and this acquired voltage value can be considered as the OCV… The values of the current passing through the battery block 11 are summed in a period in which the SOC of the battery block 11 is changed from the start SOC to the end SOC, thereby calculating an integrated value Ie…. calculate the full charge capacity of the battery block 11 based on the following expression (1). Smax=Ie/|SOC(1)-SOC(2)|x100 (1) In the expression (1), Smax represents the full charge capacity of the battery block 11, and Ie represents the integrated current value. SOC(1) represents the start SOC, and SOC(2) represents the end SOC”; see [0057]-[0060]);
diagnose an abnormality in the parallel connection structure by monitoring a time-dependent change of the estimated capacity value and comparing the time-dependent change of the estimated capacity value with the threshold capacity value (i.e., “the full charge capacity of the battery block 11 is acquired, and when the acquired full charge capacity is lower than the full charge capacity associated with the wear deterioration of the battery block 11, it can be determined that any current breaker 12b is in the operational state”; see [0104]);
in response to diagnosing the abnormality, perform a protection function by turning off a relay connecting the battery and a charging device (i.e., “when the number of breaks m is N, the controller 40 can prevent the charge and discharge of the assembled battery 10… the controller 40 can turn off the system main relays SMR-B, SMR-G, and SMR-P… When the number of breaks m approaches N, the charge and discharge of the assembled battery 10 can be prevented. The number of breaks m when the charge and discharge of the assembled battery 10 is prevented can be set as appropriate from the viewpoint of ensuring the running of the vehicle and the like”; see [0112]-[0113]).
Takahashi does not explicitly disclose:
determine a threshold capacity value based on the full charge capacity and a reference charge capacity.
But Li teaches:
setting a reference charge capacity (i.e., a capacity difference threshold) to represent a capacity drop threshold of gradual wear deterioration (i.e., “The capacity difference threshold is a selected design value known to correlate with the presence of a potential fault, and is set high enough to avoid false indications of a potential fault but low enough to predict the presence of a potential fault. If the capacity difference dQMAX exceeds the capacity difference threshold dQALT5, then the controller 110 determines that a potential fault is present in the battery 102,”; see [0093]).
Note that Takahashi teaches comparing estimated full capacity with a reference (threshold) capacity that is expected under normal wear condition over time. Takahashi does not teach how to calculate the reference (threshold) capacity. But Li teaches setting a capacity difference threshold for the comparison. The capacity difference threshold represents a reference capacity drop over time (e.g., between t1 and t2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takahashi in view of Li, by incorporating the step of determine a threshold capacity value based on the full charge capacity and a reference charge capacity (i.e., capacity difference threshold dQALT5), as claimed. The rationale would be to help determining the threshold capacity value for comparison based on the capacity difference threshold (i.e., the reference capacity value = estimated capacity - the capacity difference threshold).
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi further teaches:
wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to determine a cumulative current value and a state of charge (SOC) change value of the battery, and determine the estimated capacity value from a ratio between the cumulative current value and the SOC change value (i.e., “the SOC of the battery block 11 is calculated (estimated) at different timings… the SOC can be specified from the OCV… The voltage of the battery block 11 with the polarization eliminated is acquired and this acquired voltage value can be considered as the OCV… The values of the current passing through the battery block 11 are summed in a period in which the SOC of the battery block 11 is changed from the start SOC to the end SOC, thereby calculating an integrated value Ie…. calculate the full charge capacity of the battery block 11 based on the following expression (1). Smax=Ie/|SOC(1)-SOC(2)|x100 (1) In the expression (1), Smax represents the full charge capacity of the battery block 11, and Ie represents the integrated current value. SOC(1) represents the start SOC, and SOC(2) represents the end SOC”; see [0057]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi further teaches:
wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to diagnose the abnormality in the parallel connection structure based on two estimated capacity values at a first time at a first time interval (i.e., “The values of the current passing through the battery block 11 are summed in a period in which the SOC of the battery block 11 is changed from the start SOC to the end SOC”; see [0059]; “the controller 40 calculates a capacity change rate based on the full charge capacities at the times t1 and t2 acquired at step S101”; see [0061]) and a second time shifted by a second time interval (i.e., “The times t1 and t2 represent different timings. The time t2 can be set to the present timing when the internal resistance or the full charge capacity is acquired. The time t1 can be set to the previous timing when the internal resistance or the full charge capacity is acquired. In other words, the time t1 is the timing before the time t2”; see [0063]) which is equal to or larger than the first time interval (i.e., “The time t1 may be the timing immediately before the time t2 or earlier. The time t1 is only required to be the timing before the time t2 and can be set as appropriate”; see [0064]; note that the second interval can be the period from t1 to t2, which is flexible but long enough to observe a capacity change, such as 6 months; see, e.g., [0078]).
Regarding claim 4, as a result of modification applied to claim 1 above, Takahashi in view of Li further teaches: wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to:
determine the threshold capacity value for the second time smaller than the estimated capacity value at the first time (note that the threshold capacity value represents a reduced capacity over time based on the capacity difference threshold dQALT5; see discussion of claim 1 above), and
diagnose the abnormality in the parallel connection structure by comparing the estimated capacity value at the second time with the threshold capacity value (see discussion of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 5, as a result of modification applied to claim 1 above, Takahashi in view of Li further teaches:
wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to determine the threshold capacity value by subtracting a reference capacity value from the estimated capacity value at the first time (see discussion of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
Takahashi does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to determine the threshold capacity value by multiplying the estimated capacity value at the first time by a reference factor of less than 1.
However, it is well-known to create a reduced value by multiplying a first value by a factor less than 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Takahashi in view of LI by configuring the instructions to cause the processor to determine the threshold capacity value by multiplying the estimated capacity value at the first time by a reference factor of less than 1, as claimed. The rationale would be to facilitate the determination of the threshold capacity value that represents a threshold of abrupt drop in capacity, as an alternative to the subtracting method.
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi further teaches:
wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to determine a number of faulty unit cells among the plurality of unit cells from the two estimated capacity values at two past times (i.e., “At step S104, the controller 40 specifies the number of the current breakers 12b in the operational state (referred to as the number of breaks) based on the resistance change rate Rr or the capacity change rate Sr calculated at step S102”; see [0081]; “Sr represents the capacity change rate. S1 represents the full charge capacity acquired at the time t1, and S2 represents the full charge capacity acquired at the time t2”; see [0062]) at a time interval which is equal to or less than the second time interval (i.e., the period from t1 to t2), at which a maximum reduction of the full charge capacity is found, when it is diagnosed that the parallel connection structure is faulty (see FIG. 7).
Regarding claim 9, Takahashi further teaches:
a battery pack comprising the battery diagnosis device according to claims 1 (i.e., “battery system”; see [0029] and FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi further teaches:
an electric vehicle comprising the battery pack according to claim 9 (i.e., “The battery system of the present embodiment is mounted on a vehicle”; see [0029]).
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites the same substantive limitations in terms of the method involved as claim 1 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 2 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 3 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 4 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claims 1 and 3-5 combined and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of LI and Aoshima et al. (US 20140368206 A1; cited previously; hereinafter “Aoshima”).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
Takahashi does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to:
when the estimated capacity value at the second time is less than the threshold capacity value, increase a diagnosis count, and
diagnose that the parallel connection structure is faulty in response to the diagnosis count reaching a threshold count.
But Aoshima teaches:
when a measured battery value is out of normal range, increase a diagnosis count (i.e., “The abnormality counter is incremented by one according to the number of times the battery measurement information X is determined to be out of the normal range in step 1103”; see [0049]), and
diagnose that the battery is abnormal in response to the diagnosis count reaching a threshold count (i.e., “If the value of the abnormality counter is not less than 5, the assembly battery control unit 150 proceeds to step 1108”; see [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takahashi in view of LI, further in view of Aoshima, by configuring the instructions to cause the processor to: when the estimated capacity value at the second time is less than the threshold capacity value, increase a diagnosis count, and diagnose that the parallel connection structure is faulty in response to the diagnosis count reaching a threshold count, as claimed. The rationale would be to delay or verify the determination of abnormal battery pack using an abnormality counter.
Response to Arguments
The objections to the specification have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
The arguments regarding double patenting have been fully considered. However, the issue is still present in view of the cited prior art, as discussed above.
The rejections under 35 USC 101 regarding abstract idea have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Regarding 102/103, Applicant argued: Claim 1 has been amended… Takahashi fails to teach or suggest "determining a threshold capacity value based on the full charge capacity and a reference charge capacity," as recited in amended claim 1. Figure 2 of Takahashi depicts line C2, which merely appears to be a reference line indicating changes in full charge capacity over time. This is comparable to line 510 in Figure 5 of the present application. In contrast, amended claim 1 recites a "threshold capacity value" that varies based on both the full charge capacity and a reference charge capacity. This variable threshold is represented by curve 520 in Figure 5 of the present application. Notably, in the present application, the full charge capacity itself is a time-varying value, and the threshold capacity value is dynamically determined based on this time-varying full charge capacity and a reference charge capacity. Takahashi does not disclose or suggest such a dynamically varying threshold capacity. Accordingly, line C2 in Figure 2 of Takahashi does not correspond to the claimed threshold capacity value. Therefore, amended claim 1 is patentable over Takahashi. Independent claim 11 has been similarly amended and is likewise patentable over Takahashi.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the features at issue are taught by Takahashi in view of Li, as indicated above. Note that Takahashi teaches comparing estimated full capacity with a reference (threshold) capacity that is expected under normal wear condition over time (see [0104]). Takahashi does not teach how to calculate the reference (threshold) capacity. But Li teaches setting a capacity difference threshold for the comparison (see [0093]). It would have been obvious to calculate the reference (threshold) capacity by subtracting the capacity difference threshold from the estimated capacity at t1 to obtain the threshold value at t2, because the capacity difference threshold represents a reference capacity drop between t1 and t2.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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