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 .
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim to foreign priority. Receipt is acknowledged of the certified copies.
Detailed Action
The following NON-FINAL Office Action is in response to application 18/289,344 filed on 11/02/2023.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 11/02/2023 are accepted.
IDS
The information disclosure statements filed on 11/02/2023 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 and are considered.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Representative claim 1 recites:
A device for estimating an impedance spectrum of a battery cell, the device comprising:
a non-transitory computer readable memory;
and at least one processor performing at least one command stored in the memory,
wherein the at least one command includes instructions for:
acquiring an electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) measurement value of a battery assembly,
modeling an equivalent circuit model (ECM) of the battery assembly, and determining initial parameter values for the equivalent circuit, based on the EIS measurement value,
deriving a first parameter value by converting at least one of the initial parameter values by using a predefined conversion constant, and calculating a first cell voltage value based on the first parameter value,
acquiring a second cell voltage value measured by charging or discharging the battery cell,
comparing the first cell voltage value and the second cell voltage value, and correcting the conversion constant based on a comparison result,
calculating a final parameter value based on the corrected conversion constant, and
acquiring an EIS estimation value for the battery cell by applying the final parameter value to the equivalent circuit.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of independent claims 8 and 15, which recite the following claim limitations.
Claim 8: A method for estimating an impedance spectrum of a battery cell, the method comprising:
acquiring an electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) measurement value of a battery assembly;
modeling an equivalent circuit model (ECM) of the battery assembly, and determining initial parameter values for the equivalent circuit, based on the EIS measurement value;
deriving a first parameter value by converting at least one of the initial parameter values by using a predefined conversion constant, and calculating a first cell voltage value based on the first parameter value;
acquiring a second cell voltage value measured by charging or discharging the battery cell;
comparing the first cell voltage value and the second cell voltage value, and correcting the conversion constant based on a comparison result;
calculating a final parameter value based on the corrected conversion constant; and
acquiring an EIS estimation value for the battery cell by applying the final parameter value to the equivalent circuit.
Claim 15: A system for estimating an impedance spectrum of a battery cell, the system comprising:
an electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) device configured to measure an impedance spectrum value of a battery assembly;
an impedance estimation device of the battery cell configured to calculate a first cell voltage for the battery cell, and acquire an EIS estimation value of the battery cell;
and a battery charging/discharging measurement device configured to measure a second cell voltage by charging or discharging the battery cell,
wherein the impedance estimation device of the battery cell:
models an equivalent circuit model (ECM) of the battery assembly, and determines at least one of initial parameter values for the equivalent circuit, based on the impedance spectrum value,
derives a first parameter value by converting at least one of the initial parameter values by using a predefined conversion constant, and calculates a first cell voltage value based on the first parameter value,
corrects the conversion constant by comparing the calculated first cell voltage value, and the second cell voltage value measured by the battery charging/discharging measurement device,
calculates a final parameter value based on the corrected conversion constant, and
acquires the EIS estimation value for the battery cell by applying the final parameter value to the equivalent circuit.
Under step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a machine claim. Claim 8 is a process claim. Claim 15 is a machine claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification of the steps recited in Claim 1 include at least one judicial exception, that being a mathematical concept and/or mental process. This can be seen in the claim limitation of “modeling an equivalent circuit model (ECM)” given that [p.21]: “…the battery equivalent circuit model (ECM) may be expressed as a sum of an impedance P1 depending on an electrolyte, an impedance P2 of the EIS device, an impedance P3 depending on of an SEI layer, an impedance P4 depending on electric charge movement between an electrode and an electrolytic solution interface, and a Warburg impedance coefficient P5.” Given that this modeling process involves mathematical calculations, the claim limitation qualifies under the category of mathematical concept. As for “determining initial parameter values”, this may include [p.4]: “…a parameter value of at least one of a resistance, a capacitor, an inductor, and a constant phase element (CPE).” Given that this determining process can reasonably be done within the human mind by, for example, observing a resistance value off of a measurement device, it qualifies under the category of mental process.
“Deriving a first parameter value by converting at least one of the initial parameter values by using a predefined conversion constant”, where [p.23] a processor “divides the initial parameter value by a conversion constant n-factor to acquire a battery cell-unit first parameter value”, and where [p.24] “some initial values R1, R2, and R3 of the conversion constants n-factor may be defined based on the number of battery cells (20 battery cells) included in the module.” This claim limitation qualifies as a mathematical concept and/or mental process given that a mathematical calculation is required to divides the initial parameter value by a conversion constant n-factor, where the predefined conversion constant is based on a number of battery cells, and where an initial parameter can simply be a resistance value. Furthermore, this derivation, given that it involves the basic arithmetic described above, can be done within the human mind with the aid of pen and paper.
The claim limitation of “calculating a first cell voltage value based on the first parameter value” involves [p.4]: “…converting the equivalent circuit into an impedance function for a time, and acquiring an internal impedance by applying the initial parameter value to the impedance function, and calculating the first cell voltage value by multiplying the internal impedance by a current value”, where [p.7] the impedance function may “convert the equivalent circuit into a function for the time by using a predefined differential equation.” This claim limitation qualifies as a mathematical concept and/or mental process given that a mathematical calculation involving differential equations is required to apply the initial parameter to the impedance function and multiply the internal impedance by a current value. Furthermore, this calculation can be done within the human mind with the aid of pen and paper given that it involves a basic use of differential equations and multiplication.
“Comparing the first cell voltage value and the second cell voltage value and correcting the conversion constant based on a comparison result”, where Fig. 9 shows a graph of voltage (V) over time (s) [p.10]: “comparing a first cell voltage value… and a second cell voltage value…” This claim limitation qualifies under the category of a mathematical concept and/or mental process given that simply completing the fundamental mathematical tool of graphically overlaying the calculated voltage and measured voltage values on a Cartesian plane involves mathematical relationships and/or calculations. Furthermore, this comparison process can be done within the human mind with the aid of pen and paper given voltage data and graph paper.
As for “correcting the conversion constant”, this process involves “comparing the calculated first cell voltage value, and the second cell voltage value measured by the battery charging/discharging measurement device…” where [p.29-30] “the processor may correct the conversion constant n-factor” using Equations 1-6.
This process involves mathematical calculations and relationships and/or mental process given that one could perform mentally with the aid of pen and paper or via mathematical calculations. For example, comparing a calculated value to a measured value. Furthermore, the processor uses Equations 1-6, which include differential equations, square roots and Ohm’s Law in the correcting process, which are considered mathematical calculations, relationships and/or a law of nature. Therefore, the claim limitation qualifies as a mathematical concept and/or mental process.
As for “calculating a final parameter value”, this is [p.32] “acquired by correcting the conversion constant.” This process involves mathematical calculations and relationships and/or a mental process given that one could perform mentally with the aid of pen and paper the mathematical calculations. For example, comparing a calculated value to a measured value. Furthermore, the processor uses Equations 1-6, which include differential equations, square roots and Ohm’s Law in the correcting process, which are considered mathematical calculations, relationships and/or a law of nature. Therefore, the claim limitation qualifies as a mathematical concept and/or mental process.
“Acquiring an EIS estimation value for the battery cell by applying the final parameter value to the equivalent circuit”, where [p.32] “the processor”, using Equations 1-6, “may acquire the impedance spectrum estimation value for each battery cell by substituting the impedance spectrum measurement value acquired from the pack or module-unit battery assembly into the corrected equivalent circuit model to which the corrected final parameter value is applied.” This process involves mathematical calculations and relationships and/or a mental process given that one could perform mentally with the aid of pen and paper the mathematical calculations. For example, substituting the impedance spectrum measurement value acquired from the pack or module-unit battery assembly into the corrected equivalent circuit model and performing the differential equation, square root, etc. calculations mentally. Furthermore, the processor uses Equations 1-6, which include differential equations, square roots and Ohm’s Law in the correcting process, which are considered mathematical calculations, relationships and/or a law of nature. Therefore, the claim limitation qualifies as a mathematical concept and/or mental process.
The limitations of claims 8 and 15 recite analogous abstract ideas and are thus rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
In claim 1, the additional elements in the preamble are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, the claimed machine recites additional elements including “a device for estimating an impedance spectrum of a battery cell”, “a non-transitory computer readable memory”, “and at least one processor performing at least one command stored in the memory”, where [p.9] “FIG. 5 is a block diagram of a device for estimating an impedance spectrum according to an embodiment of the present invention.” Fig. 5 includes a memory (ROM, RAM), storage device, a processor, input interface, output interface, and a transceiver.
In this claim, merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient in integrating the abstract ideas into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(a)). These generic computing functions do not meaningfully limit the claim.
Claim 1 also recites the additional elements of “acquiring an electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) measurement value of a battery assembly”, where [p.15] “the electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) device…measures the impedance spectrum of the battery pack or module…and may transmit an impedance spectrum measurement value of the battery pack or module…” and “Acquiring a second cell voltage value measured by charging or discharging the battery cell”, which may be [p.4]: “measured by discharge pulse current of the battery cell…”
However, these elements are found to be data gathering/output steps, which are recited at a high level of generality, and thus merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.”
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2. The abstract ideas do not amount to significantly more given that the additional elements merely involve insignificant extra-solution activit(ies) (claim 1). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a communication network) and as evidenced by Kaushik and Christophersen, which measure cell voltages.
Christophersen uses (0047) EIS to (0041) estimate the impedance of the one cell (C) or more cells within a plurality of cells. In addition, it is disclosed that (0004) conventional real time battery monitoring through a battery management system (“BMS”) typically senses voltage (“V”).
Kaushik (Abstract) discloses a method for estimating a plurality of parameters pertaining to an electrochemical model of a cell may include: obtaining, by a device, an Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS) spectrum and a Constant Current-Constant Voltage (CC-CV)…and extracting, by the device, a plurality of features from the EIS spectrum and a plurality of features from the CC-CV charge-CC discharge response of the cell…
The additional elements in claim 8 are analogous to the additional elements in claim 1 and are thus rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 15 recites the same additional elements as claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons as well as the additional elements analyzed below.
Additionally, claim 15 recites the additional elements of “an electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) device”, “an impedance estimation device”, and a “battery charging/discharging measurement device”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these elements are found to be generic instruments used for data gathering/output. The devices are recited at a high level of generality, and thus merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.”
Under Step 2B, claims 8 and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a communication network) and as evidenced by Kaushik and Christophersen.
Christophersen uses (0047) EIS to (0041) estimate the impedance of the one cell (C) or more cells within a plurality of cells. In addition, it is mentioned that (0004) conventional real time battery monitoring through a battery management system (“BMS”) typically senses voltage (“V”).
Kaushik (Abstract) discloses a method for estimating a plurality of parameters pertaining to an electrochemical model of a cell may include: obtaining, by a device, an Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS) spectrum and a Constant Current-Constant Voltage (CC-CV)…and extracting, by the device, a plurality of features from the EIS spectrum and a plurality of features from the CC-CV charge-CC discharge response of the cell…
With regards to dependent claims 2-7 and 9-14, they provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claim (additionally comprising abstract idea steps) and, therefore, these claims are not eligible without meaningful additional elements that reflect a practical application and/or additional elements that qualify for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to claim 1.
For example, claims 2 and 9 include initial parameter values of at least one of a resistance, a capacitor, an inductor, and a constant phase element (CPE). However, these terms are recited in generality and therefore not meaningful. For example, a parameter value of 100 ohms would be more substantial.
Claims 3 and 10 further narrow the abstract ideas of claim 1.
Claims 4 and 11 are merely a further expansion of the abstract ideas recited in claim 1.
Claims 5 and 12 are merely a further expansion of the abstract ideas recited in claim 1.
Claims 6 and 13 recite additional elements similar to those in claim 1 regarding measuring cell voltage.
Claims 7 and 14 are merely a further expansion of the abstract ideas recited in claim 1.
Examiner Note with Regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 1-15 are distinguished over the prior art of record based on the reasons below.
In regards to claims 1, 8 and 15, the claims differ from the closest prior art Kaushik, Yun, Christophersen, Berger, and Christensen, either singularly or in combination, because they fail to anticipate or render obvious deriving a first parameter value by converting at least one of the initial parameter values by using a predefined conversion constant, and calculate a first cell voltage value based on the first parameter value, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
The dependent claims are distinguished over the prior art of record based on their dependence from the independent claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Examiner Note with Regards to Prior Art of Record."
Conclusion
An inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN D COONS whose telephone number is
(571) 272-2698. (via email: logan.coons@uspto.gov “without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via internet e-mail to an internet correspondence” MPEP 502.02 II). The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30am – 6pm ET.
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, SPE Shelby Turner, can be reached at (571) 272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LOGAN D COONS/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863