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 .
Priority
Application 18/316,432 filed on 05/12/2023 claims benefit of 63/343,440 filed on 05/18/2022.
Current Status
This office action is a first office action, non-final rejection based on the merits wherein claims 1-22 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-11 and 21-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 10 and 21: Claims 10 and 21 claim “temperature range is between 20-35C.” Examiner believes this is a typographical error and should read “temperature range is between 20-35°C.” However, it could be a different concept intended by the Applicant, explanations are requested.
Regarding claims 11 and 22: Claims 11 and 22 claim “temperature range is between 25-30C.” Examiner believes this is a typographical error and should read “temperature range is between 25-30°C.” However, it could be a different concept intended by the Applicant, explanations are requested.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7, 9-11, 16, 18, 20-22 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.
Regarding claim 7 and 18: Applicant claims “the starting battery temperature” (claim 7 line 4 and 6, claim 18 line 6 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Examiner respectfully points out that claims 2 and 13 claim “a starting battery temperature” however, claims 7 does not depend from claim 2 and claim 18 does not depend from claim 13. However, it could be a different concept intended by the Applicant, explanations are requested.
Regarding claim 9: Applicant claims, on line 9-10. “a predicted starting battery SOC.” Examiner believes “a predicted starting battery SOC” is in reference to “a predicted starting battery SOC” claimed on line 8 and should read “the predicted starting battery SOC.”
Additionally, Applicant claims, “a predicted starting battery temperature” (line 12-13.) Examiner believes “a predicted starting battery temperature” is in reference to “a predicted starting battery temperature” claimed on line 11 and should read “the predicted starting battery temperature.”
Regarding claim 16: Applicant claims “the reference waveform” on line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim. Examiner respectfully points out that claim 15 claims “the reference waveform” however, claims 16 does not depend from claim 15. However, it could be a different concept intended by the Applicant, explanations are requested.
Regarding claim 20: Applicant claims, “a starting battery temperature” (line 14) Examiner believes “a starting battery temperature” is in reference to “a predicted starting battery temperature” claimed on line 7 and should read “the starting battery temperature.” However, it could be a different concept intended by the Applicant, explanations are requested.
Regarding claims 10-11 and 21-22: Claims 10-11 and 21-22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they depend from claim 9 and claim 20 respectively.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a process or product as a computer implemented method or a computer system/product.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 1 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A method for monitoring state of health (SOH) of a battery in a vehicle, comprising: determining a route for the vehicle to travel;
selecting a SOH testing segment on the route, the SOH testing segment having a distance and a grade; selecting a SOH test comprising a charging rate for supplying electric power to the battery or a discharging rate for supplying electric power from the battery and a time duration for supplying the electric power to or from the battery;
selectively operating a motor/generator (M/G) as a generator to supply the electric power to the battery at the charging rate for the time duration or as a motor operating on electric power supplied from the battery at the discharging rate as the vehicle travels along the SOH testing segment; and
determining a change in an internal resistance, a temperature, a voltage, a SOC, or a combination thereof based on the charging rate or discharging rate of the battery to determine the SOH of the battery.
Claim 12 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A system for determining state of health (SOH) for a battery on a vehicle, the system comprising:
a server storing instructions that are configured when executed by the server to: determine a route between a route start point and a route end point for a vehicle; determine a plurality of segments between the route start point and the route end point, each segment comprising a grade and a distance;
select a SOH testing segment from the plurality of segments;
select a SOH test comprising a charging rate for supplying electric power to the battery or a discharging rate for drawing electric power from the battery and a time duration for supplying the electric power or drawing the electric power; and
communicate information comprising the SOH test and the SOH testing segment to the vehicle; and
a controller in the vehicle storing instructions that are configured when executed by the controller to:
receive the SOH test and the SOH testing segment;
selectively operate a motor/generator (M/G) as a generator to supply the electric power to the battery at the charging rate or as a motor to draw the electric power from the battery at the discharging rate for the time duration as the vehicle travels along the SOH testing segment; and determine a change in internal resistance, a temperature, a voltage and a SOC, or a combination thereof based on the charging rate or discharging rate of the battery to determine the SOH of the battery.
Regarding the underlined limitation “determining a route for the vehicle to travel:” it is an abstract idea as it could be analyzing data using an algorithm or program to determine a route where the algorithm or program is a mathematical routine or it could be set of mental steps as a person could determine a route.
Regarding the underlined limitation selecting a SOH testing segment on the route, the SOH testing segment having a distance and a grade; selecting a SOH test comprising a charging rate for supplying electric power to the battery or a discharging rate for supplying electric power from the battery and a time duration for supplying the electric power to or from the battery:” it is an abstract idea as it could be analyzing data using an algorithm or program to select a SOH testing segment and select a SOH test where the algorithm or program is a mathematical routine or it could be a set of mental steps as a person could analyze the data and select the SOH testing segment and the SOH test that complies with the given conditions of the testing segment and test.
Regarding the underlined limitation: “determining a change in an internal resistance, a temperature, a voltage, a SOC, or a combination thereof based on the charging rate or discharging rate of the battery to determine the SOH of the battery:” it is an abstract idea as it is a set of programming routines and patterns for determining a change of specific quantities (internal resistance, temperature, voltage, SOC) under specific conditions where the programming routines and patterns are an algorithm or program which is a mathematical routine or a set of mental steps.
Regarding the underlined limitations: “determine a route between a route start point and a route end point for a vehicle; determine a plurality of segments between the route start point and the route end point, each segment comprising a grade and a distance:” they are abstract ideas as they could be analyzing data using programming routines and patterns to determine a route using a plurality of routes with specific conditions where the algorithm or program is a mathematical routine or it could be a set of mental steps as a person could analyze the data and determine the route that complies with the given conditions.
Regarding the underlined limitations “select a SOH testing segment from the plurality of segments; select a SOH test comprising a charging rate for supplying electric power to the battery or a discharging rate for drawing electric power from the battery and a time duration for supplying the electric power or drawing the electric power:” they are abstract ideas as they could be analyzing data using programming routines and patterns to select a SOH testing segment and SOH test with specific conditions where the algorithm or program is a mathematical routine or it could be a set of mental steps as a person could analyze the data and select a SOH testing segment and SOH test that complies with the given conditions.
Regarding the underlined limitations “determine a change in internal resistance, a temperature, a voltage and a SOC, or a combination thereof based on the charging rate or discharging rate of the battery to determine the SOH of the battery:” it is an abstract idea as it is a set of programming routines and patterns for determining a change of specific quantities (internal resistance, temperature, voltage, SOC) under specific conditions where the programming routines and patterns are an algorithm or program which is a mathematical routine or a set of mental steps.
In summary, the highlighted steps in the claim above therefore recite an abstract idea at Prong 1 of the 101 analysis.
The additional elements in the claim have been left in normal font. The additional concepts of “operating a motor/generator” supplying a charge or using the charge is routine and well known and not a specific practical application. In addition, the limitation “to determine the SOH of the battery” describes an intended use and therefore is not a specific practical application.
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. (Manipulating data from one form to another or obtaining a mathematical answer using input data does not qualify as a transformation in the sense of Prong 2.)
The claim does not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea. (This is understood in the sense of the claimed invention from Diamond v Diehr, in which the claim as a whole recited a complete rubber-curing process including a rubber-molding press, a timer, a temperature sensor adjacent the mold cavity, and the steps of closing and opening the press, in which the recited use of a mathematical calculation served to improve that particular technology by providing a better estimate of the time when curing was complete. Here, the claim does not recite carrying out any comparable particular technological process.) In all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the abstract idea itself, rather than integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2a, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-22 are similarly ineligible. The dependent claims merely add limitations, such as “calculating,” “determining,” “comparing,” “identifying,” and “selecting,” which further detail the abstract idea, namely further mathematical steps. Limitations such as “measuring,” “storing,” “supplying,” and “receiving” constitute extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These do not help to integrate the claim into a practical application or make it significant more than the abstract idea (which is recited in slightly more detail, but not in enough detail to be considered to narrow the claim to a particular practical application itself). Considering all the limitations individually and in combination, the claimed additional elements do not show any inventive concept to applying algorithms such as improving the performance of a computer or any technology, and do not meaningfully limit the performance of the application. therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dufford et al., hereinafter Dufford, U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0275788 A1 in view of Wang, U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0106138 A1.
Regarding Independent claim 1 Dufford teaches:
“A method for monitoring state of health (SOH) of a battery in a vehicle” (Dufford, fig. 1, ¶ 0024: Dufford teaches “battery sensors may measure a voltage, a current, a temperature, a charge acceptance, an internal resistance, self-discharges, magnetic properties, a state of health and/or other states or parameters of the battery 118” (¶ 0024) where battery 118 is part of vehicle 100 (see fig. 1).)
“determining a route for the vehicle to travel” (Dufford, Abstract: Dufford teaches a “method/system for optimizing vehicle operations for a predicted route and/or route set” where the “vehicle may predict that a particular route segment or route will likely be driven” (Abstract) disclosing “determining a route for the vehicle to travel.”
“selecting a SOH testing segment on the route, the SOH testing segment having a distance and a grade” (Dufford, ¶ 0040-¶ 0042, ¶ 0062: Dufford teaches “When the vehicle 100 drives on a route segment, the distance of the route segment is known” (¶ 0040) and “the processor collects and stores vehicle operation data for the route segment and/or the route” (¶ 0044) disclosing the “route segment” as a “SOH testing segment” with a known distance as the processor collects “operational data.” Moreover the predicted route will be “uphill” or “downhill” (¶ 0062) disclosing a “grade.”)
“selecting a SOH test comprising a charging rate for supplying electric power to the battery or a discharging rate for supplying electric power from the battery and a time duration for supplying the electric power to or from the battery” (Dufford, fig. 1, fig. 2, ¶ 0021, ¶ 0046: Dufford teaches the “motor 130 may include one or more motor-generator . . .” which “may use battery power to drive the wheels” (¶ 0021) disclosing a “discharge rate” and the “processor may further store the engine operating time and number of engine starts/stops” (¶ 0046) disclosing a “time duration for supplying the electric power from the battery.”)
“selectively operating a motor/generator (M/G) as a generator to supply the electric power to the battery at the charging rate for the time duration or as a motor operating on electric power supplied from the battery at the discharging rate as the vehicle travels along the SOH testing segment” (Dufford, fig. 1, fig. 2, ¶ 0044: Dufford teaches “the processor collects and stores vehicle operation data for the route segment and/or the route” and “For each route segment, route and/or route set, the energy efficiency value may be determined based on fuel flow, electrical energy consumption (based on, for example, the SOC), consumption or regeneration of other forms of energy” (¶ 0044) where “electrical energy consumption” discloses “discharging rate,” “route segment” discloses “SOH testing segment,” and “collects and stores vehicle operation data for the route segment” discloses the “vehicle travels along the SOH testing segment.”)
Dufford does not teach:
“determining a change in an internal resistance, a temperature, a voltage, a SOC, or a combination thereof based on the charging rate or discharging rate of the battery to determine the SOH of the battery.”
Wang teaches:
“determining a change in an internal resistance, a temperature, a voltage, a SOC, or a combination thereof based on the charging rate or discharging rate of the battery to determine the SOH of the battery” (Wang, fig. 1, fig. 5B, ¶ 0022, ¶ 0037: Wang teaches an SOH monitor 106 that includes an ammeter 110, voltmeter 112, and temperature sensor 120 (see fig 1) collects data during “charging or discharging of battery” (¶ 0022). Moreover, “controller 108 determines if the largest change of SOC
∆
S
O
C
M
A
X
is acceptable” (¶ 0037, fig. 5B 426) and “controller 108 determines if the largest change in temperature
∆
T
M
A
X
is acceptable” (¶ 0037, fig. 5B 428). The acceptability of these values leads to the determination of the SOH of the battery (¶ 0041, fig 5B 438).)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of monitoring the state of health of a battery in a vehicle as taught by Dufford by including using the change in temperature and change in state of charge in monitoring the state of health of the battery as disclosed by Wang in order to avoid extreme heat or charge levels to provide a system that reports a “low SOH when the determined SOH is below a threshold value” (Wang, ¶ 0033).
Regarding Independent claim 12 Dufford teaches:
“A system for determining state of health (SOH) for a battery on a vehicle, the system” (Dufford, fig. 1, ¶ 0024: Dufford teaches “battery sensors may measure a voltage, a current, a temperature, a charge acceptance, an internal resistance, self-discharges, magnetic properties, a state of health and/or other states or parameters of the battery 118” (¶ 0024) where battery 118 is part of vehicle 100 (see fig. 1).)
“a server storing instructions that are configured when executed by the server” (Dufford, fig. 1, ¶ 0032: Dufford teaches a processor with a memory that stores instructions for carrying out steps (¶ 0032).):
“determine a route between a route start point and a route end point for a vehicle” (Dufford, Abstract, ¶ 0035: Dufford teaches a “method/system for optimizing vehicle operations for a predicted route and/or route set” where the “vehicle may predict that a particular route segment or route will likely be driven” (Abstract). Additionally, the “processor may store the start/stop location and the start/stop time of each route in the memory” (¶ 0035) and a “route, as used herein, may refer to a distance travelled between an event signaling a beginning of a trip and an event signaling an end of a trip” (¶ 0034) thereby disclosing “determining a route between a route start point and a route end point for a vehicle.”)
“determine a plurality of segments between the route start point and the route end point, each segment comprising a grade and a distance” (Dufford, ¶ 0035, ¶ 0040, ¶ 0062: Dufford teaches “Each route may further include a plurality of route segments” (¶ 0035) and “When the vehicle 100 drives on a route segment, the distance of the route segment is known” (¶ 0040). Moreover the predicted route will be “uphill” or “downhill” (¶ 0062) disclosing a “grade.”)
“select a SOH testing segment from the plurality of segments” (Dufford, ¶ 0044: Dufford teaches “the processor collects and stores vehicle operation data for the route segment and/or the route” (¶ 0044) disclosing the “route segment” as a “SOH testing segment” as the processor collects “operational data.”)
“select a SOH test comprising a charging rate for supplying electric power to the battery or a discharging rate for drawing electric power from the battery and a time duration for supplying the electric power or drawing the electric power” (Dufford, fig. 1, fig. 2, ¶ 0021, ¶ 0046: Dufford teaches the “motor 130 may include one or more motor-generator . . .” which “may use battery power to drive the wheels” (¶ 0021) disclosing a “discharge rate” and the “processor may further store the engine operating time and number of engine starts/stops” (¶ 0046) disclosing a “time duration for supplying the electric power from the battery.”)
“communicate information comprising the SOH test and the SOH testing segment to the vehicle” (Dufford, fig. 2, ¶ 0034: Dufford teaches “the processor may collect information regarding route segment and/or a route using sensors 120 and/or the navigation unit 122” (¶ 0034) where the processor is part of the vehicle 100 (see fig. 1).)
“a controller in the vehicle storing instructions that are configured when executed by the controller to: receive the SOH test and the SOH testing segment” (Dufford, fig. 1, fig. 2, ¶ 0031, ¶ 0044: Dufford teaches “the processor collects and stores vehicle operation data for the route segment and/or the route”(¶ 0044) where the “processor may also be implemented as a combination of computing devices” (¶ 0031). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a modern computer, a “computing device,” contains a processor, memory, and a controller.
“selectively operate a motor/generator (M/G) as a generator to supply the electric power to the battery at the charging rate or as a motor to draw the electric power from the battery at the discharging rate for the time duration as the vehicle travels along the SOH testing segment” (Dufford, fig. 1, fig. 2, ¶ 0044: Dufford teaches “For each route segment, route and/or route set, the energy efficiency value may be determined based on fuel flow, electrical energy consumption (based on, for example, the SOC), consumption or regeneration of other forms of energy” (¶ 0044) where “electrical energy consumption” discloses “discharging rate,” “route segment” discloses “SOH testing segment,” and “collects and stores vehicle operation data for the route segment” discloses the “vehicle travels along the SOH testing segment.”)
Dufford does not teach:
“determine a change in internal resistance, a temperature, a voltage and a SOC, or a combination thereof based on the charging rate or discharging rate of the battery to determine the SOH of the battery”
Wang teaches:
“determine a change in internal resistance, a temperature, a voltage and a SOC, or a combination thereof based on the charging rate or discharging rate of the battery to determine the SOH of the battery” (Wang, fig. 1, fig. 5B, ¶ 0022, ¶ 0037: Wang teaches an SOH monitor 106 that includes an ammeter 110, voltmeter 112, and temperature sensor 120 (see fig 1) collects data during “charging or discharging of battery” (¶ 0022). Moreover, “controller 108 determines if the largest change of SOC
∆
S
O
C
M
A
X
is acceptable” (¶ 0037, fig. 5B 426) and “controller 108 determines if the largest change in temperature
∆
T
M
A
X
is acceptable” (¶ 0037, fig. 5B 428). The acceptability of these values leads to the determination of the SOH of the battery (¶ 0041, fig 5B 438).)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of monitoring the state of health of a battery in a vehicle as taught by Dufford by including using the change in temperature and change in state of charge in monitoring the state of health of the battery as disclosed by Wang in order to avoid extreme heat or charge levels to provide a system that reports a “low SOH when the determined SOH is below a threshold value” (Wang, ¶ 0033).
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dufford as modified by Wang as applied to claim 1 and 12 respectively above, and further in view of Xie et al., hereinafter Xie, U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0135110 A1.
Regarding claim 2 Dufford as modified teaches:
“operating the M/G as a generator to supply the electric power to the battery at the charging rate or operating the M/G as a motor using the electric power supplied from the battery for the time duration” (Dufford teaches “The motor 130 may include one or more motor-generator. For example, under certain conditions, at least one of the motor-generators may use battery power to drive the wheels, and under certain conditions, at least one of the motor-generators may utilize regenerative braking and/or energy generated by the engine 106 to charge the battery 118” (¶ 0021) disclosing the motor-generator is used as a generator to supply energy and a motor to use energy.
Dufford does not teach:
“measuring a starting battery temperature at the start of the time duration;
measuring an end battery temperature at the end of the time duration;
calculating a battery temperature differential for the time duration;
determining a voltage increase or a voltage decrease based on the battery temperature differential and the SOC of the battery; and
determining the state of health of the battery corresponding to the voltage increase or voltage decrease and the SOC of the battery.”
Xie teaches:
“measuring a starting battery temperature at the start of the time duration; measuring an end battery temperature at the end of the time duration; calculating a battery temperature differential for the time duration” (Xie teaches measuring skin temperature for each cell
T
s
,
i
and calculating a temperature differential
d
T
s
,
i
d
t
(¶ 0038). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand and initial temperature and final temperature are needed to calculated a temperature differential.)
“determining a voltage increase or a voltage decrease based on the battery temperature differential and the SOC of the battery” (Xie teaches, in Fig 6A, the relationship between voltage, temperature, and current where the graph of temperature discloses “the battery temperature differential” and current discloses “the SOC of the battery.”) “determining the state of health of the battery corresponding to the voltage increase or voltage decrease and the SOC of the battery” (Xie teaches “Other parameters of cells such as voltage (V), state of charge (SoC), internal temperature (Ti), cell surface temperature differential (dTs/dt), and impedance (Z1) can also serve as parameters for monitoring the state of health and detecting failure of a cell” (¶ 0052) disclosing the state of health corresponds to voltage increase or decrease and state of charge of the battery.)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of monitoring the state of health of a battery in a vehicle as taught by Dufford by including using the temperature differential and SOC of a battery to determine the state of health of the battery as taught by Xie in order to provide a system with “improved fault detection” by “identifying cell-level, module-level, and pack-level faults and/or failures” (Xie, ¶ 0008).
Regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 cites analogous limitations to claim 2 above and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claims 4-5 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dufford as modified by Wang as applied to claim 1 and 12 respectively above, and further in view of Chen et al., hereinafter Chen,” Reviving Aged Lithium-Ion Batteries and Prolonging their Cycle Life by Sinusoidal Waveform Charging Strategy” downloaded from DOI: 10.1002/batt.201900022 and Kelley et al., hereinafter Kelley, U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0238203 A1.
Regarding claim 4 Dufford as modified teaches:
“measuring the internal resistance of the battery comprises: operating the M/G as a generator for generating electric power; storing the internal resistance of the battery in the memory” (Dufford, fig. 1, fig. 2, ¶ 0021, ¶ 0046: Dufford teaches measuring “an internal resistance” (¶ 0024) and “motor 130 may include one or more motor-generator” which utilizes “energy generated by the engine 106 to charge the battery 118” (¶ 0021). Moreover, “the processor collects and stores vehicle operation data for the route segment and/or the route” (¶ 0044) disclosing the “internal resistance” is stored in memory.
Dufford does not teach:
“supplying the electric power to the battery according to a reference waveform; measuring the voltage increase;
calculating the internal resistance of the battery based on the voltage increase for the reference waveform”
Chen teaches:
“supplying the electric power to the battery according to a reference waveform” (Chen teaches “density functional theory (DFT) calculations were applied to determine a moderate voltage exhibiting a sinusoidal waveform for charging Li-ion Batteries” (2nd column of first page) where “sinusoidal waveform” discloses a “reference waveform.”)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of monitoring the state of health of a battery in a vehicle as taught by Dufford by including using a reference waveform to supply electric power to a battery as taught by Chen because “sinusoidal waveform charging can reduce charging time by half and maximum rise in temperature by 6° C” in order to increase battery cycle life (Chen, 1st column, 1st page).
Kelley teaches:
“measuring the voltage increase; calculating the internal resistance of the battery based on the voltage increase for the waveform” (Kelley teaches “charging the battery until a voltage across the battery increases to a predetermined maximum voltage” (¶ 0009) disclosing “measuring the voltage increase” and “The cell resistance of battery 10 at 100% SOC may ten be measured by applying a double pulse on the battery and calculating the change in voltage divided by the change in current” (¶ 0022) disclosing the “internal resistance of the battery” is “based on the voltage increase” for the waveform.)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of monitoring the state of health of a battery in a vehicle as taught by Dufford by including calculating the cell resistance using voltage increase as disclosed by Kelley in order to provide a system for “accurately determining the age of battery cells” (Kelley, ¶ 0006).
Chen teaches the waveform is the reference waveform (see above).
Regarding claim 5 Dufford as modified does not teach:
“the reference waveform comprises a series of pulses of the supplied electric power”
Chen teaches:
“the reference waveform comprises a series of pulses of the supplied electric power” (Chen teaches “density functional theory (DFT) calculations were applied to determine a moderate voltage exhibiting a sinusoidal waveform for charging Li-ion Batteries” (2nd column of first page) where “a sinusoidal waveform” discloses a “reference waveform” with a “series of pulses.”)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of monitoring the state of health of a battery in a vehicle as taught by Dufford by including using a reference waveform to supply electric power to a battery as disclosed by Chen because “sinusoidal waveform charging can reduce charging time by half and maximum rise in temperature by 6° C” in order to increase battery cycle life (Chen, 1st column, 1st page).
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 cites analogous limitations to claim 4 above and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 cites analogous limitations to claim 5 above and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claims 6, 10-11, 17, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dufford as modified by Wang as applied to claim 1 and 12 respectively above, and further in view of Kelley et al., hereinafter Kelley, U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0238203 A1.
Regarding claim 6 Dufford as modified does not teach:
“the SOH test comprises a constant charging rate or discharging rate”
Kelley teaches:
“the SOH test comprises a constant charging rate or discharging rate” (Kelley teaches “determining the age of battery cells” (¶ 0008) where the “age” discloses SOH and where Kelley teaches creating “the look-up tables of the invention for a battery” and “the battery is charged at this constant current until the voltage across the battery, as measured by voltmeter 6 reaches a maximum permitted voltage” (¶ 0019) at which time the current is reduced until it reaches “1/50th or less of the charging current required to charge the cell in one hour” (¶ 0020) then the resistance of the battery in measured and used in a look-up table (¶ 0021 and fig. 2) and the look-up tables are used “to determine the state of charge and age of a battery” (¶ 0017) where “age” discloses SOH.”)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of monitoring the state of health of a battery in a vehicle as taught by Dufford by including a constant charging or discharging rate as disclosed by Kelley in order to provide a system for “accurately determining the age of battery cells” (Kelley, ¶ 0006).
Regarding claim 10 Dufford as modified does not teach:
“the starting battery SOC range is between 20% and 80% and the starting battery temperature range is between 20-35C”
Kelley teaches:
“the starting battery SOC range is between 20% and 80% and the starting battery temperature range is between 20-35C” (Kelley teaches a battery SOC at 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, and 70% (¶ 0027) disclosing the “starting battery SOC” is withing the range “between 20% and 80%” and temperatures of +30° C (¶ 0028) disclosing a “starting battery temperature” “between 20-35 C.”)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of monitoring the state of health of a battery in a vehicle as taught by Dufford by including a starting SOC and temperature range as disclosed by Kelley to insure the SOC and temperature are in a normal working range in order to provide a system for “accurately determining the age of battery cells” (Kelley, ¶ 0006).
Regarding claim 11 Dufford as modified does not teach:
“the starting battery SOC range is between 40% and 60% and the starting battery temperature range is between 25-30C”
Kelley teaches:
“the starting battery SOC range is between 40% and 60% and the starting battery temperature range is between 25-30C” (Kelley teaches a battery SOC at 50%, (¶ 0027) disclosing the “starting battery SOC” is withing the range “between 40% and 60%” and temperatures of +30° C (¶ 0028) disclosing a “starting battery temperature” “between 20-30 C.”)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of monitoring the state of health of a battery in a vehicle as taught by Dufford by including a starting SOC and temperature range as disclosed by Kelley to insure the SOC and temperature are in a normal working range in order to provide a system for “accurately determining the age of battery cells” (Kelley, ¶ 0006).
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 cites analogous limitations to claim 6 above and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 21:
Claim 21 cites analogous limitations to claim 10 above and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 22:
Claim 22 cites analogous limitations to claim 11 above and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wild et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0082631, teaches a terminal voltage behavior of a battery cell at different states of charge of the cell for different operating conditions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Denise R Karavias whose telephone number is (469)295-9152. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 - 3:00 M-F.
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 M. 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.
/DENISE R KARAVIAS/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights