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 .
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
Based on applicant filed amendments and arguments, the previously set for the 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to claim 3, it appears the claim should depend from claim 2 based on antecedent basis with respect to “the RC stage”). Appropriate correction is required.
Note: the examiner has examined the claims such that claim 3 depends from claim 2, based on antecedent basis.
With respect to claim 16, it appears the claim should depend from claim 12 based on antecedent basis with respect to “the root”). Appropriate correction is required.
Note: the examiner has examined the claims such that claim 16 depends from claim 12, based on antecedent basis.
With respect to claim 17, it appears the claim should depend from claim 12 based on antecedent basis with respect to “the total battery resistance”). Appropriate correction is required.
Note: the examiner has examined the claims such that claim 17 depends from claim 12, based on antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 19-21 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.
Claim 19 recites two voltage and current measurement circuits? The examiner is unsure if this is a typographical error related to antecedent basis or if applicant intends to have more than one of these respective circuit elements recited? To further prosecution, the examiner has interpreted the claim such that there are only one of these measurement circuits, respectively. However, clarification 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.
Claim(s) 1, 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsumoto et al. (2019/0146038).
With respect to claim 1, Matsumoto et el. teaches in Fig. 4 a circuit, comprising: a processing circuit configurable to: receive, from a voltage measurement circuit (4; [t]he voltage sensor 4 detects a terminal voltage of the battery 1, that is, a potential difference between a positive electrode and a negative electrode of the battery 1 in a state in which the battery 1 is connected to the load 6 and a current flows in the battery 1, and transmits a signal corresponding to the detection value to the battery state estimating part 5; [0036]), a first signal representing a voltage across a battery (1); receive, from a current measurement circuit (3), a second signal representing a current conducted by the battery (as Matsumoto et al. teaches [t]he current sensor 3 detects a discharging current that flows in the battery 1 when electric power is supplied from the battery 1 to the load 6 or a charging current that flows in the battery 1 when electric power is supplied from the load 6 to the battery 1 at the time of braking of the vehicle or the like, and transmits a signal corresponding to the detection value to the battery state estimating part 5); receive, from memory (52), parameters of the battery (1; [0045-0046]); determine (via 53) one or more resistances [0045] of the battery (1) responsive to receiving the first and second signals (via 4 and 3) and the parameters (stored in memory 52); and provide a fourth signal (r1) indicative of a predicted behavior of the battery to a load responsive to determining the one or more resistances (as the calculating part 55 determines from the first and second signals and stored parameters a deteriorated state of the battery, which lends to a predictable behavior of the that battery when responding to a load).
The method of claim 11 is performed during the operation of the rejected circuit of claim 1.
With respect to claim 19, Matsumoto et el. teaches in Fig. 4 a system, comprising: a battery (1); memory (52); a voltage measurement circuit (4) coupled to the battery (1); a current memory circuit (3) coupled to the battery (1); a battery gauge circuit (as seen in Fig. 4) coupled to the memory (52), the voltage measurement circuit (4), and the current measurement circuit battery (3), the battery gauge circuit including: a processing circuit (53) configured to: receive, from a current measurement circuit (3), a second signal representing a current conducted by the battery (as Matsumoto et al. teaches [t]he current sensor 3 detects a discharging current that flows in the battery 1 when electric power is supplied from the battery 1 to the load 6 or a charging current that flows in the battery 1 when electric power is supplied from the load 6 to the battery 1 at the time of braking of the vehicle or the like, and transmits a signal corresponding to the detection value to the battery state estimating part 5); receive, from memory (52), parameters of the battery (1; [0045-0046]); determine (via 53) one or more resistances [0045] of the battery (1) responsive to receiving the first and second signals (via 4 and 3) and the parameters (stored in memory 52); and provide a fourth signal (r1) indicative of a predicted behavior of the battery to a load responsive to determining the one or more resistances (as the calculating part 55 determines from the first and second signals and stored parameters a deteriorated state of the battery, which lends to a predictable behavior of the that battery when responding to a load).
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.
Claim(s) 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (2019/0146038) in view of Kawai et al. (5,864,237).
With respect to claim 22, Matsumoto et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 1 but remains silent regarding wherein the processing circuit is configurable to: receive, from a temperature sensing circuit, a fifth signal representing a current conducted by the battery; and determine the one or more resistances of the battery responsive to receiving the fifth signal.
Kawai et al. teaches a similar method that includes a processing circuit (as indirectly taught) is configurable to: receive, from a temperature sensing circuit (s15), a fifth signal representing a current conducted by the battery (as s15 receives signal data that represents current flow; Col. 7 lines 57 to Col. 8 lines 3); and determine the one or more resistances of the battery responsive to receiving the fifth signal (as the signal is used to determine the internal resistance of the battery by correcting for temperature, Col. 3 line 44 to Col. 4 line 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the processing circuit of Matsumoto to include the temperature sensing circuit of Kawai et al. because Kawai et al. teaches such a modification improves the accuracy of the internal resistance determination by correcting for temperature, thereby improving the overall accuracy of Matsumoto et al.
With respect to claim 23, Matsumoto et el. Teaches all that is claimed in above rejection of claim 1, but remains silent regarding the parameters include a degree of discharge.
Kawai et al. teaches a similar method that include parameter data like a DoD, Col. 1 lines 43-63.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the processing circuit of Matsumoto to include a DoD parameter because Kawai et al. teaches such a modification improves the accuracy of the internal resistance determination, as simply looking solely at the voltage of the battery isn’t enough, thereby improving the overall accuracy of Matsumoto et al.
With respect to claim 24, Matsumoto et el. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 1, but remains silent regarding the fourth signal indicates how much time the battery can supply a particular amount of current before a voltage across the battery falls below a threshold.
Kawai et al. teaches in s10 a signal indicating how much time the battery can supply a particular amount of current before a voltage across the battery falls below a threshold (Col. 7 lines 42-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the circuit of Matsumoto et al. such that the fourth signal indicates the time a battery will be unserviceable as taught in Kawai et al. because such a modification increases the versatility of the circuit by allowing a user to fully grasp how long the battery will last.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10, 12-16, 18, 20 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
BABA et al. (2016/0252585) teaches using a battery model to estimate parameters while reducing a computation load.
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 MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853