DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the state of health confirmation target battery" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
4. Claims 1-9 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 being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two-step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to one of the four statutory class, method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example), we recognize that the limitations “calculating ΔОСV by subtracting the OCV (det) from OCV (ini) previously measured in the same manner as in steps a) and b) at an initial stage of use of the target battery, and d) estimating a state of health (%) of the battery from a magnitude of the ΔОСV,” are abstract ideas as they involve mental process, under the BRI. Similar rejections are made for other dependent claims. Additionally, the dependent claims 2, 4 and 7, 8 are abstract ideas as they recite mathematical concepts (e.g. equations, etc). With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite “a) maintaining a rest state for 0.01 seconds or more in a state in which a target battery for estimating the state of health is fully charged; b) measuring OCV (det) in a state in which a voltage drop is made during the rest state,” but said limitations, recited at high level of generality, are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity. The claims do not improve the functioning of any computers or devices and do not improve other technology. At most, the claims are an improvement in the abstract idea of estimating the SOH. However, improved or new abstract ideas are still abstract ideas, and not eligible. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite “a) maintaining a rest state for 0.01 seconds or more in a state in which a target battery for estimating the state of health is fully charged; b) measuring OCV(det) in a state in which a voltage drop is made during the rest state,” but said limitations, recited at high level of generality, are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity, that are well-understood, routine and conventional. As such, the claims do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al., US-PGPUB 2020/0088807 (hereinafter Ikeda) in view of Naha et al., US-PGPUB 2021/0063490 (hereinafter Naha)
Regarding Claim 1. Ikeda discloses a) maintaining a rest state for 0.01 seconds or more in a state in which a target battery for estimating the state of health is fully charged (Fig. 3, charging period followed by the resting period in time (h));
b) measuring OCV (det) in a state in which a voltage drop is made during the rest state (Fig. 3, OCVs during the resting period), c) calculating ΔОСV by subtracting the OCV (det) from OCV (ini) previously measured in the same manner as in steps a) and b) at an initial stage of use of the target battery (Fig. 3, ΔОСV during the resting period)
Ikeda does not disclose estimating a state of health (%) of the battery from a magnitude of the ΔОСV.
Naha discloses estimating a state of health (%) of the battery from a magnitude of the ΔОСV (Paragraphs [0064]-[0070], equations 5 and 6 and Paragraph [0071], SOH may be a percentage value; Abstract; Paragraph [0004]).
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Naha in Ikeda and estimate a state of health (%) of the battery from a magnitude of the ΔОСV, with accuracy.
Regarding Claim 2. Ikeda discloses the negative correlation function between ΔОСV and SOC (Figs. 4A, 7A), where it’s obvious that SOH would behave similarly
Ikeda does not explicitly disclose negative correlation function between the state of health (%) of the lithium-sulfur battery and the magnitude of ΔОСV.
Naha discloses estimating of the state of health (%) of the battery in step d) is performed using a negative correlation function between the state of health (%) of the lithium-sulfur battery and the magnitude of ОСV (Paragraph [0071], Fig. 2D, SOH decreasing with changing in OCV increase. Paragraphs [0064]-[0069], where ΔОСV(n)=OCV(kn)-OCV(ko), and ΔОСV(1)=OCV(k1)-OCV(ko), ΔОСV(2)=OCV(k2)-OCV(ko), and plotting the increasing ΔОСV(n)’s, against the decreasing SOH, where n = 1, 2, 3….. would result in figure such as Fig. 2D, a negative correlation function)
As such, it would have been obvious to use the teachings of Naha and Ikeda and show negative correlation function between the state of health (%) of the lithium-sulfur battery and the magnitude of ΔОСV and determine SOH with accuracy.
Regarding Claim 6. Ikeda discloses the initial stage in step c) is from the first use of the battery to a timepoint when a deterioration rate of the battery is within 10% (Paragraph [0059], discharged is performed by 10%).
Regarding Claim 8. Ikeda discloses OCV(ini) is OCV measured after the battery is maintained in the rest state for 0.01 seconds or more in the state in which the battery is fully charged at the initial stage of the use of the battery, the OCV(det) is OCV measured after the target battery is maintained in the rest state for the same period as the rest state maintaining period in the state in which the target battery is fully charged (Fig. 3)
Okeda does not disclose wherein the estimating of the state of health (%) of the
battery from the magnitude of ΔОСV in step d) is performed by the following Equation 2:
[Equation 2]
PNG
media_image1.png
60
360
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where j is the highest dimension of a polynomial function, aᵢ is a coefficient of an i-th order term, and c is a value of SoH (%) corresponding to OCV (ini).
Naha discloses ΔОСV(n)=OCV(kn)-OCV(ko), and ΔОСV(1)=OCV(k1)-OCV(ko), ΔОСV(2)=OCV(k2)-OCV(ko), where n = 1, 2, 3….. to determine SOH, and Fig. 2D (Paragraphs [0063]-[0071]). In other words, the cumulative ΔОСV(n)s are used, as a whole to determine SOH. As such, it would have been obvious to arrive at Equation [2], since said equation is merely a mathematical expression of the overall ΔОСV(n)s to arrive at SOH, taking into account initial SOH corresponding to OCV(ini) that obviously exists.
Regarding Claim 9. Ikeda discloses the rest state in step a) is maintained for 0.01 seconds to 3 minutes (Fig. 3)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al., US-PGPUB 2020/0088807 in view of Naha, US-PGPUB 2021/0063490 and Han et al., US-PGPUB 2021/0255246 (hereinafter Han) (cited by the Applicant)
Regarding Claim 3. Ikeda discloses wherein the estimating of the state of health (%) of the battery in step d) is performed by a method of comparing the measured ΔОСV with SOC.
Ikeda does not disclose comparing the measured a state of health (%) mapping reference of the battery prepared in advance and corresponding to the magnitude of ΔОСV
Naja discloses comparing the measured a state of health (%) mapping reference of the battery prepared in advance and corresponding to the magnitude of ΔОСV (Paragraphs [0064]-[0071]; Fig. 2D). As further evidence, Han also discloses “mapping” reference of the battery prepared in advance and corresponding to the magnitude of ΔОСV (Paragraph [0132], mapping SOH to ΔОСV (Paragraph [0132], mapping relationship between variation in OCV with SOH, Fig. 6, Paragraph [0144])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Naha (and Han) in Ikeda and compare the measured a state of health (%) mapping reference of the battery prepared in advance and corresponding to the magnitude of ΔОСV, and determine SOH with accuracy.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al., US-PGPUB 2020/0088807 in views of Naha, US-PGPUB 2021/0063490 and Han, US-PGPUB 2021/0255246 as applied to Claim 3 above, and further in view of Kim, US-PGPUB 2015/0120225 (hereinafter Kim)
Regarding Claim 4. Ikeda discloses repeating full charging and full discharging of a battery manufactured in the same manner (Paragraph [0074], repeating charging-discharging)
The modified Ikeda does not explicitly disclose wherein the state of health (%) mapping reference of the battery corresponding to the magnitude of ΔОСV is data created by repeating full charging and full discharging of a battery manufactured in the same manner as the target battery for estimating the state of health to obtain state of health (%) (SoH (%)) data of the battery according to Equation 1 in each charging/discharging cycle, obtaining ΔОСV data in the same manner as the above manner, and matching these data to each other in a one-to-one manner,
[Equation 1] SoH (%) = [C(det)/C(ini)] X 100
wherein C(ini) refers to a usable capacity of the battery before being deteriorated, and
C(det) refers to a usable capacity of the battery after being deteriorated.
Kim discloses [Equation 1] SoH (%) = [C(det)/C(ini)] X 100 (Fig. 4; Abstract; Paragraphs [0061]-[0081])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Kim in the modified Ikeda and wherein the state of health (%) mapping reference of the battery corresponding to the magnitude of ΔОСV is data created by repeating full charging and full discharging of a battery manufactured in the same manner as the target battery for estimating the state of health to obtain state of health (%) (SoH (%)) data of the battery according to Equation 1 in each charging/discharging cycle, obtaining ΔОСV data in the same manner as the above manner, and matching these data to each other in a one-to-one manner,
[Equation 1] SoH (%) = [C(det)/C(ini)] X 100, wherein C(ini) refers to a usable capacity of the battery before being deteriorated, and C(det) refers to a usable capacity of the battery after being deteriorated, so as to determine SOH with accuracy.
Regarding Claim 5. Naha discloses wherein the state of health mapping reference is a graph showing SoH (%) on a y-axis and the magnitude of ΔОСV on an x-axis or a lookup table in which SoH (%) and the magnitude of ΔОСV corresponding to SoH (%) are matched to each other in a one-to-one manner (Paragraphs [0063]-[0071]; Fig. 2D). Note: while Naha does not explicitly disclose a graph showing SOH on a y-axis and the ΔОСV in x-axis, it would have been obvious to do so, as said graph is merely a visual representation of the relationship between SOH and ΔОСV, absent criticality, based on one’s designer’s choice.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nishiguchi et al., US-PGPUB 2017/0010327
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857