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 .
Responses to Amendments and Arguments
The amendments filed 3/20/2026 have been entered. Claims 1 and 3 are amended, and Claim 11 is canceled. Claims 1-10 and 12-18 remain pending in the application.
Applicant's amendments filed 3/20/2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the rejections of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 3/20/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and persuasive. However, Applicant’s amendments raise the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 10, which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
On pages 5-8 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that Heise fails to teach (or suggest) determining an internal resistance of an electrical storage based on detected first and second voltages, "which are detected by the periodic switch-over between the first and second current magnitudes," as required by independent claim 1. … The consecutive connection (e.g., steps 43, 49 in Heise Fig. 4), however, does not comprise any periodicity between the first and second current magnitudes and therefore cannot teach or suggest a periodic switch-over between the current magnitudes. … Heise therefore fails to teach (or suggest) determining an internal resistance of an electrical storage based on detected first and second voltages, "which are detected by the periodic switch-over between the first and second current magnitudes," as required by independent claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
At least Fig. 2 and paragraphs 0003 and 0028 in Heise dislcose the features related to operating switching-over with switches 22, 24 to thereby measure voltages and currents (i.e., the first and second current magnitudes) in internal resistances of two test loads 21, 23 which are connected in parallel, which teach the structure of Annotated Fig. 4 as well as the claimed features of “determining an internal resistance of an electrical storage based on detected first and second voltages, which are detected by the periodic switch-over between the first and second current magnitudes”. Respectfully note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, " the periodic switch-over " (Emphasis added) itself is not critical to be distinctly result-effective features but merely indicative of a switching-over operation with switches 450, 460 in Annotated Fig. 4 of the instant application which are taught by Heise at least at Fig. 2, Steps 43, 49 of Fig. 4, and paragraphs 0003 and 0028. If " the periodic switch-over " is a key aspect for determining the internal resistance, as Applicant alleges, at a minimum the claims describe some specific features, structure and/or actions, for example, how and/or under what period/time/frequency/interval/operations/features the periodic switch-over operation is presented with, for example, a corresponding structure/circuit configured to perform periodic switching-over. MPEP § 2145(VI).
At least claim 3 in the MURRAY reference teaches a plurality of switching-over operations. (See the detail addressed below in the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103).
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.
1. Claims 1-7, 9-10, 12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEISE VOLKER (EP 1632782 A1, hereinafter referred to as “HEISE” cited in IDS dated 08/01/2023) in view of MURRAY (US 1984688 A, hereinafter referred to as “MURRAY”)
Regarding Claim 1, HEISE teaches a method of determining an internal resistance of a rechargeable electrical energy storage (Figs. a battery 10) in a measuring process (Para 0007, “calculating the internal resistance or the impedance of the battery according to the voltage and current measured during connection of the first and second test load to the battery”), the method comprising:
detecting a first voltage of the energy storage while a first current magnitude is drained from the energy storage (Fig. 2 and paragraphs 0007-0008 teaches measuring first voltage and current across the first test load 21; “connecting a first test load to the battery, measuring the voltage and the current across said first test load”);
detecting a second voltage of the energy storage while a second current magnitude is drained from the energy storage (Fig. 2 and paragraphs 0007-0008 teaches measuring second voltage and current across the second test load 23 after switching from first test load 21 to second test load 23; “connecting a second test load to the battery, measuring the voltage and the current across said second test load and calculating the internal resistance or the impedance of the battery according to the voltage and current measured during connection of the first and second test load to the battery”), the second current magnitude being larger than the first current magnitude (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, at least paragraph 0031 teaches the formular Ri=ΔU/ΔI=(U1-U2)/(I1-I2) to calculate the internal resistance by calculating the difference of the first and second voltages, where the difference includes an option indicative of “the second current magnitude being larger than the first current magnitude”);
implementing a periodic switch-over (Fig. 2, switch 22, 24) between the drain of the first current magnitude and the drain of the second current magnitude (Fig. 2, control device 19 teaches implementing switching switch 22 and 24 at the first and second test load 21, 23 to thereby to measure voltages between the first and second test loads and calculate internal resistance of a battery 10; Para 0028, “The control device 19 is an exemplary embodiment of the controlling means 19 for selectively connecting the first or second test load 21, 23 to the battery 10 and of the calculating means 19 for calculating the internal resistance (R.sub.i) of the battery 10 according to the voltage and current measurable during connection of the first and second test load 21, 23 to the battery 10. The battery sensor 20 is an exemplary embodiment of the measuring means 20 for measuring the voltage and the current across said first and second test load 21, 23.”); and
determining the internal resistance based on the detected first and second voltages, which are detected by the periodic switch-over between the first and second current magnitudes, … (Para 0031, “A final step 56 is provided to calculate the internal resistance (R.sub.i) of the battery according to the current and voltage measures obtained during step 43 and step 49. More specifically, the internal resistance (R.sub.i) is calculated according to the following formula Ri=ΔU/ΔI=(U1-U2)/(I1-I2), …”).
HEISE fails to explicitly disclose the feature related to a plurality of switching-over operations with respect to “wherein the measuring process comprises a plurality of the periodically switched-over first and second current magnitudes”. However, MURRAY teaches wherein the measuring process comprises a plurality of the periodically switched-over first and second current magnitudes (Claim 3, “a step-by-step rotary switch having a plurality of bank contacts, time control contacts periodically operated to step said switch over its bank contacts … operate said stepping switch”).
HEISE is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of a plurality of switching-over operation in electrical circuits. Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, " the periodic switch-over " (Emphasis added) itself is not critical to be distinctly result-effective features but merely indicative of a switching-over operation with switches 450, 460 in Annotated Fig. 4 of the instant application which are taught by Heise at least at Fig. 2, Steps 43, 49 of Fig. 4, and paragraphs 0003 and 0028. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Heise to incorporate the teachings of MURRAY by providing a plurality of switching-over operations between switches in electrical circuits, as taught by MURRAY at least at Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 2, HEISE teaches wherein the internal resistance is determined based on a subset of the detected first and second voltages (At least paragraphs 0012 and 0031 teach calculating the average of the voltage readings which are indicative of a set of measured first and second voltage; “taking a predetermined number of measures of voltage and current, calculating the average and standard deviation of the measures, …, and applying the average of the voltage and current measures when calculating the internal resistance of the battery provided that …”).
Regarding Claim 3, HEISE teaches wherein the subset of the detected first and second voltages comprises a subset of the first and second voltages detected towards an end of the measuring process and/or excludes a subset of the first and second voltages detected at a beginning of the measuring process (At least paragraphs 0012-0013 teach taking the consecutive measures when the first or second test load, excluding (i.e., discarding) a series of measures or even restart the monitoring process within a certain range).
Regarding Claim 4, HEISE teaches wherein a change rate (i.e., deviation) of the first voltage and/or of the second voltage is larger than a first threshold value during the excluded beginning of the measuring process, and/or wherein a change rate of the first voltage and/or of the second voltage is smaller than a second threshold value during the subset detected towards the end of the measuring process. (At least paragraphs 0012-0013 teach calculating the standard deviation of the consecutive measures taken when the first or second test load, excluding (i.e., discarding) a series of measures or even restart the monitoring process based on a predetermined threshold within a certain range; “By calculating the standard deviation of the consecutive measures taken when the first or second test load is connected to the battery it is possible to discard a series of measures or even restart the monitoring process if the standard deviation exceeds a predetermined threshold, i.e. if the readings of voltage and current are not at least distributed within a certain range. In other words: if the standard deviation exceeds that threshold then the reading of current and/or voltage is too faulty or too much influenced by side effects, parasitic induction or similar negative effects. Since the calculation of the internal resistance of the battery is not to be based on faulty readings such readings are discarded”).
Regarding Claim 5, HEISE teaches wherein, to determine the internal resistance per duration of the first and second current magnitude, the first or second voltage, respectively, is detected only in one section of the duration (At least paragraphs 0020 and 0032 teach calculating the internal resistance per a predetermined duration, “Said predetermined amount of time is preferably defined by the duration of a predetermined number of consecutive ripple periods, where a ripple period is either a complete sine wave of the bold graph 70, 72 or if the measuring method allows for a more detailed resolution a complete sine wave of the thin graph 71, 73. Said predetermined number of consecutive ripple periods is preferably greater or equal to ten consecutive ripple periods or smaller or equal to ten consecutive ripple periods”).
Regarding Claim 6, HEISE teaches wherein the first and second current magnitude are each constant with a rectangle-shaped curve of the current magnitude (At least Fig. 2 and paragraphs 0029-0030 teaches rectangular shaped current curve 31 depicting the current readings over the time).
Regarding Claim 7, HEISE teaches wherein the duration of the drain of the first and second current magnitude are identical, and/or wherein a duty cycle of the duration of the first and second current magnitude is proportionate to a period duration of the switch-over and/or a frequency of the periodic switch-over is independent of a capacity of the rechargeable electrical energy storage (At least paragraphs 0003, 0020 and 0032 teach controlling the length of time for the switch to calculate the internal resistance per a predetermined duration; para 0003 “connects a test load to the battery via a solid-state switch for short amounts of time and measures the voltage across the test load. The microcontroller controls the length of time the switch is closed”; para 0032, “Said predetermined amount of time is preferably defined by the duration of a predetermined number of consecutive ripple periods, where a ripple period is either a complete sine wave of the bold graph 70, 72 or if the measuring method allows for a more detailed resolution a complete sine wave of the thin graph 71, 73. Said predetermined number of consecutive ripple periods is preferably greater or equal to ten consecutive ripple periods or smaller or equal to ten consecutive ripple periods”).
Regarding Claim 9, HEISE teaches wherein the rechargeable electrical energy storage is discharged via a first resistor (Fig. 2, 21; Para 0017, “said first and second test load is preferably a double stage transistor load device comprising two branches connected parallel to the battery, each comprising a resistance and a solid state switch”) in order to drain the first current magnitude and is discharged via a second resistor (Fig. 2, 23; para 0017) or via a parallel connection of the first resistor and of a second resistor (Fig. 2 teaches a parallel connection of first and second test loads 21, 23 each including a resistance) in order to drain the second current magnitude, and/or wherein measuring values of resistors of a measuring apparatus, on which the first current magnitude and the second current magnitude are based, are stored in the measuring apparatus, and/or wherein measuring values of the resistors of the measuring apparatus are at least ten times larger than the internal resistance (Para 0007-0008 and 0031, “connecting a second test load to the battery, measuring the voltage and the current across said second test load and calculating the internal resistance or the impedance of the battery according to the voltage and current measured during connection of the first and second test load to the battery”).
Regarding Claim 10, HEISE teaches wherein, when periodically switching over between the first and second current magnitude, a switch-over takes place between the first and second resistors by a field effect transistor or the second resistor (Fig.2, 21 and 23) is connected in parallel to the first resistor by a field effect transistor (Fig.2, 22 and 24) (At least Fig. 2, paragraphs 0007-0008, 0017 and 0031 teach switching over, using switches 22 and 24 of a transistor, between the first load and the second load to measure the current/voltage at the first and second loads to thereby calculate the internal resistance therebetween; Para 0017, “said first and second test load is preferably a double stage transistor load device comprising two branches connected parallel to the battery, each comprising a resistance and a solid state switch”).
Regarding Claim 12, HEISE teaches wherein the first current magnitude and the second current magnitude are kept constant by a regulation (At least Fig. 2, paragraphs 0028 and 0031-0033 teach periodically measuring the voltages and currents across the first and second test load 21, 23; Para 0033, “voltage and current readings across the first and/or second test load 21, 23 shall be stored at least at a sampling rate (t.sub.s) of twice the desired frequency”).
Regarding Claim 14, it is a device type claim depending on as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above. The additional limitations of “a controller” is taught by at least Fig. 2, control device 19.
Regarding Claim 15, it is a device type claim depending on as of claim 14 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above. The additional limitations of “a rechargeable electrical energy storage” is taught by at least Fig. 2, a battery 10.
Regarding Claim 16, HEISE teaches wherein the second threshold value is smaller than or equal to the first threshold value (At least paragraphs 0020 and 0032 teach calculating the internal resistance per a predetermined duration based on a predetermined threshold, “Said predetermined amount of time is preferably defined by the duration of a predetermined number of consecutive ripple periods, where a ripple period is either a complete sine wave of the bold graph 70, 72 or if the measuring method allows for a more detailed resolution a complete sine wave of the thin graph 71, 73. Said predetermined number of consecutive ripple periods is preferably greater or equal to ten consecutive ripple periods or smaller or equal to ten consecutive ripple periods”)
Regarding Claim 17, HEISE teaches wherein, to determine the internal resistance per duration of the first and second current magnitude, the first or second voltage, respectively, is detected at an end or in a last quarter of the duration of the first or second current magnitude, respectively (At least paragraphs 0020 and 0032 teach calculating the internal resistance per a predetermined duration, “Said predetermined amount of time is preferably defined by the duration of a predetermined number of consecutive ripple periods, where a ripple period is either a complete sine wave of the bold graph 70, 72 or if the measuring method allows for a more detailed resolution a complete sine wave of the thin graph 71, 73. Said predetermined number of consecutive ripple periods is preferably greater or equal to ten consecutive ripple periods or smaller or equal to ten consecutive ripple periods”).
2. Claims 8, 13 and 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEISE in view of MURRAY, and further in view of Jin et al. (US 2017/0225584 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Jin”).
Regarding Claim 8, HEISE in view of MURRAY fails to explicitly disclose, but Jin teaches wherein the rechargeable electrical energy storage comprises electrochemical cells, and/or wherein a nominal voltage or no-load voltage of the rechargeable electrical energy storage is in a range from 12 V to 48 V, and/or wherein a capacity of the rechargeable electrical energy storage is in a range from 1Ah to 100 Ah (Para 0022, “Such battery systems may include one or more battery modules, each battery module having a number of battery cells (e.g., lithium-ion (Li-ion) electrochemical cells) arranged and electrically interconnected to provide particular voltages and/or currents” , Para 0024-0025, “these high voltage electrical devices utilize voltage greater than 12 volts, for example, up to 48 volts … utilize a 12 volt lithium ion battery or a 48 volt lithium ion battery”; Para 0055, “a cell with an 8 Ah actual capacity was assumed to have an estimated 10 Ah capacity”).
HEISE and Jin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified HEISE in view of MURRAY to incorporate the teachings of Jin by providing cells of a battery to recharge in a range from 12 volts, for example, up to 48 volts and has a capacity in a range of 8 Ah or 10 Ah, taught by Jin at least at paragraphs 0022, 0024-0025 and 0055.
Regarding Claim 13, HEISE teaches wherein the first current magnitude and the second current magnitude have a ratio of 1 to 2. HEISE a sampling rate of voltage and current readings across the first and/or second test load 21, 23 (Para 0033, “voltage and current readings across the first and/or second test load 21, 23 shall be stored at least at a sampling rate (t.sub.s) of twice the desired frequency”). However, HEISE in view of MURRAY and Jin fails to explicitly disclose the ratio of 1 to 2. It has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratio taught by HEISE to be in the claimed range in order to optimize detecting the first and second current magnitudes as per a user’s interest and routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 18, HEISE teaches wherein a frequency of the periodic switch-over is larger than or equal to 100 Hz. (Para 0033, “voltage and current readings across the first and/or second test load 21, 23 shall be stored at least at a sampling rate (t.sub.s) of twice the desired frequency”). However, HEISE in view of MURRAY and Jin fails to explicitly disclose where the frequency of the periodic switch-over is larger than or equal to 100 Hz. It has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frequency (sampling rate) taught by HEISE to be in the claimed range in order to optimize the periodic switching over as per a user’s interest and routine experimentation.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Burchardt (US 20220146589 A1) teaches EV battery to measure cell and/or module voltages and currents within the battery pack for several different depths of discharge, where a self-learning algorithm implemented by the diagnostic device, which uses historical data and diagnostic information from the battery pack, determines a condition of the battery and provide recommended operational conditions for future use of the battery, and teaches a method that includes obtaining, from a secondary battery system, at least one or more pieces of battery information (i.e., selected from a resistance, a capacity, a battery use time, a resistance change rate, a capacity change rate, and a battery use intensity), determining if an obtained piece of battery information has reached a preset threshold value, reclaiming the secondary battery module upon determination that the threshold value has been reached; grading the reclaimed secondary battery module based on its corresponding battery; and, applying the reclaimed secondary battery module to a system having threshold value conditions under which it can operate at the performance of the battery that the secondary battery module has at the time when it is being reclaimed.
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 BYUNG RO LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3707. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:00pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on (571) 270-5628. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-2555.
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, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private 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.
/BYUNG RO LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights