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 .
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, 5, 7, 8, 10-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brorein et al. (US 20180164363 A1; cited previously hereinafter “Brorein”) in view of OKURA (US 20220043047 A1; cited previously).
Regarding claim 1, Brorein teaches a battery detection apparatus (i.e., “a system for determining a self-discharge current characteristic of a storage cell”; see Abstract), comprising:
a voltage measurement module (i.e., “a first voltage measurement circuit 215, a second voltage measurement circuit 220”; see [0024]), configured to be connected to a battery (see FIG. 2), and measure a single, open-circuit, voltage of the battery (i.e., “The first voltage resolution allows the processing unit 205 to carry out a measurement of an open circuit voltage of the storage cell 230 with millivolt level accuracy”; see [0026]; “The second voltage measurement circuit 220 provides a second voltage resolution that is significantly higher than the first voltage resolution and offers a higher level of measurement granularity. Thus, the second voltage resolution allows the processing unit 205 to use the second voltage measurement circuit 220 to identify the storage cell 230 as having an open circuit voltage of 4.305375V”; see [0029]);
a processor (i.e., “processing unit 205”), connected to the voltage measurement module, and configured to obtain the single, open-circuit, voltage (i.e., “the second voltage resolution allows the processing unit 205 to use the second voltage measurement circuit 220 to identify the storage cell 230 as having an open circuit voltage of 4.305375V. The processing unit 205 can then change the potentiostat voltage provided by the voltage source 210 to match the open circuit voltage of the storage cell 230 down to microvolt levels of accuracy”; see [0029] and FIG. 2);
a constant voltage source (i.e., “voltage source 210”), connected to the processor, and configured to input a test voltage to the battery under control of the processor (i.e., “The processing unit 205 can then change the potentiostat voltage provided by the voltage source 210 to match the open circuit voltage of the storage cell 230 down to microvolt levels of accuracy”; see [0029] and FIG. 2); and
a current measurement module (i.e., “current measurement circuit 225”), connected to the battery (see FIG. 2), and configured to measure an instantaneous current of' the battery after the test voltage is inputted (i.e., “After setting of the potentiostat voltage… the processing unit 205 uses the current measurement circuit 225 to measure an amplitude of a self-discharge current flowing through the storage cell 230”; see [0032] and FIG. 2);
wherein the processor is also connected to the current measurement module and configured to obtain the instantaneous current (i.e., “the processing unit 205 uses the current measurement circuit 225 to measure an amplitude of a self-discharge current flowing through the storage cell 230”; see [0032] and FIG. 2) and determine a self-discharge characteristic of the battery according to the instantaneous current (i.e., “using the one or more self-discharge leakage current measurements to determine a self-discharge leakage current characteristic of the storage cell (or the bank of storage cells)”; see [0005]).
Brorein does not explicitly disclose (see only the underlined):
a constant voltage source, connected to the processor, and configured to input a test voltage to the battery under control of the processor after the battery stands for a preset time, wherein the test voltage is the same as the open-circuit voltage.
But Brorein further teaches:
the battery voltage will drop after a period of time due to self-discharge (i.e., “after a period of time, such as for example, a few days, the voltage of the cell begins to drop as a result of a flow of leakage current in the storage cell 115. The drop in the voltage is countered by the potentiostat voltage provided by the DC power source 105 that tends to maintain the storage cell 115 at the measured open circuit voltage”; see [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brorein by configuring the constant voltage source to input a test voltage to the battery under control of the processor after the battery stands for a preset time, as claimed. The rationale would be to wait for a sufficient time for the voltage drop due to self-discharge to manifest itself, so that the self-discharge current is large enough to be detectable.
Brorein does not explicitly disclose (see only the underlined):
wherein the processor is also connected to the current measurement module and configured to obtain the instantaneous current and determine a self-discharge characteristic of the battery according to the instantaneous current and a preset current threshold.
But OKURA teaches:
determining a defect battery based on a leak current being greater than a preset threshold (i.e., “When the detected convergence current value Ibs is greater than a predetermined reference current value Ibk (Ibs>Ibk), the battery is determined to be a defective product having a low insulation property (i.e., in which a minute internal short circuit has occurred)”; see [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brorein in view of OKURA to configure the processor to: obtain the instantaneous current and determine a self-discharge characteristic of the battery according to the instantaneous current and a preset current threshold, as claimed. The rationale would be to help inspecting the battery.
Regarding claim 5, as a result of modification applied to claim 1 above, Brorein in view of OKURA further teaches: wherein in determining the self-discharge characteristic of the battery, the processor is configured to:
determine that the battery is an abnormal self-discharge product if the instantaneous current is greater than the preset current threshold (see discussion in claim 1 and OKURA [0004]); and
determine that the battery is anormal self-discharge product if the instantaneous current is less than or equal to the preset current threshold (see discussion in claim 1 and OKURA [0004]).
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 1 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 5 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 1 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 1 and is rejected by applying the same teachings, except for the “measurement module” to measure the open-circuit voltage and the instantaneous current. However, this is also taught by Brorein (i.e., the combination of 215, 220, and 225 in FIG. 2; or the combination of 215 and 355 in FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 5 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 1 and is rejected by applying the same teachings. See Brorein, [0024], discussing the implementation in a non-transitory computer storage medium.
Claims 6, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brorein in view of OKURA and Ro (US 20110234232 A1; cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
Brorein does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the detection apparatus further comprises a placing apparatus, the placing apparatus is connected to the processor, and the processor is further configured to:
control the placing apparatus to place the battery to a first position if it is determined that the battery is an abnormal self-discharge product; and
control the placing apparatus to place the battery to a second position if it is determined that the battery is anormal self-discharge product.
But Ro teaches:
a battery placing apparatus for placing sorted battery in corresponding group (i.e., “The battery cell sorting machine may further include a sorting unit configured to move the battery cell of each group sorted by the control unit and to load the battery cell in the corresponding group”; see [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brorein in view of OKURA, further in view of Ro, by incorporating a placing apparatus, such that the detection apparatus further comprises a placing apparatus, the placing apparatus is connected to the processor, and the processor is further configured to: control the placing apparatus to place the battery to a first position if it is determined that the battery is an abnormal self-discharge product; and control the placing apparatus to place the battery to a second position if it is determined that the battery is anormal self-discharge product, as claimed. The rationale would be to help placing the battery to a corresponding place for further processing (e.g., use or disposal).
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 6 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 6 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Response to Arguments
The objections to the claims have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Regarding 35 USC 03, Applicant argued: The operation of Brorein is outlined for example in its claim 1, and it involves: … a/ measuring a first open voltage of a battery to be tested with a first (low resolution) voltage measurement circuit… c/ measuring a second open voltage of the battery with a second (higher resolution) voltage measurement circuit… In other words, Brorein teaches making two voltage measurements (one coarse, one precise, to determine a precise open voltage value that is fed to the battery such that, after a few days, a current begins to flowing to the battery, where this current is the leakage current of the battery. The Applicant notes in particular that Brorein discloses as a necessary feature that two voltage measurements be made (steps a/ and c/ above).
At least because Borein discloses making two open circuit voltage measurements, it does not anticipate claim 1 as amended, which recites measuring a single open circuit voltage of the battery. Further, it is known that suppressing a necessary feature of an invention changes the operating principles of the invention. It is also known that an amendment that changes the operating principles of an invention is not an obvious change. For at least this reason, it would not have been obvious to modify Brorein to make a single open circuit voltage measurement instead of two, and claim 1 as amended is non-obvious and patentable in view of Brorein. At least because the Examiner has failed to show that Okura would cure the deficiencies of Brorein with respect to claim 1 as amended, no obvious combination of Brorein and Okura would have led the skilled person in an obvious manner to claim 1 as amended.
The Examiner respectfully submits that Applicant appears to interpret the amended claim 1 to completely exclude any further measurements of the open-circuit voltage of the battery by the voltage measurement module, due to the “single, open-circuit, voltage” limitation. However, the claim can also be interpreted as measuring one (i.e., single) open-circuit voltage at a time. Therefore, Brorein’s teaching of measuring the open-circuit voltage at a first time and at a later time still corresponds to the claimed limitation.
Even if, arguendo, the claim requires the voltage measurement module to measure only one open-circuit voltage at all time, Brorein still teaches the limitation. The voltage measurement module (i.e., the combination of first voltage measurement circuit 215 and the second voltage measurement circuit 220) only measures the open-circuit voltage once after initializing the current (see [0031]). The first measurement by the first voltage measurement circuit 215 is not performed by the combination, but by only the first voltage measurement circuit 215.
Alternatively, the second voltage measurement circuit 220 of Brorein (rather than the combination of 215 and 220) can be viewed as “the voltage measurement module” of the claim. The second voltage measurement circuit 220 only measures the open-circuit voltage once (seen [0029]).
Yet alternatively, Brorein [0032] suggests the current initialization to be optional (i.e., “with or without”). Without current initialization, the combination of first voltage measurement circuit and the second voltage measurement circuit will measure the open-circuit voltage once only.
Accordingly, Brorein teaches the limitation at issue.
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 JOHN C KUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7066. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/JOHN C KUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights