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 Amendment
Claims 1-11 and 13-15 are pending
Claims 1 and 15 have been amended
Claim 12 is cancelled
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 regarding claims 1-15 rejected under U.S.C. 101 and 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues the claim is an improvement to a computer or technology and at the very least integrates the abstract idea into a practical application (Remarks, page 6-8). However, according to MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(g) the claim recites an abstract idea without adding significantly more. Applying a determined power for the purpose of controlling an electrical energy storage system is an extra-solution limitation that’s well known and also amounts to mere data gathering and outputting. Regarding the rejection under U.S.C. 103, the applicant argues Herring does not teach calculating a time dependent averaged current profile, applying the dependent averaged current profile to age the electrical energy storage cell to a predetermined SOH, and determining the power or current limit once the energy storage cell has been aged to the predetermined SOH (Remarks page 9). However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), Herring still teaches all the limitations mentioned. Herring’s predictive model incorporates the calculation of a time dependent averaged current profile. Furthermore, the application of the dependent averaged current profile to age the electrical energy storage cell to a predetermined SOH for battery testing purposes is taught by Herring through it being provided to the one or more battery testing devices 160 for further use or through its establishment of discharge profiles for particular operating conditions, all which age the battery according to the predictive model. Finally, Herring does teach determining the power once the energy storage cell has been aged to the predetermined SOH because it uses a machine learning model to predict how certain conditions will cause a particular battery pack to discharge when the battery pack is operated. This inherently includes determining the power once the battery has reached a certain age. Accordingly, applicant’s argument regarding Herring not teaching calculating a time dependent averaged current profile, applying the dependent averaged current profile to age the electrical energy storage cell to a predetermined SOH, and determining the power or current limit once the energy storage cell has been aged to the predetermined SOH are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a method for estimating a power or current limit for an electrical energy storage system, the method comprising: obtaining vehicle fleet data indicating power usage of a fleet of vehicles in a geographical area; categorizing the vehicle fleet data into a set of power usage profiles depending on an expected amount of power usage determined from the vehicle fleet data; calculating a time dependent averaged current profile from a distribution of the set of power usage profiles; applying the time dependent averaged current profile to an electrical energy storage cell to age the electrical energy storage cell to a predetermined state of health, and determining the power or current limit for the electrical energy storage cell once the energy storage cell has been aged to the predetermined state of health; and applying the determined the power or current limit to a battery management system for controlling the electrical energy storage system.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method, therefore it is a process
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of obtaining vehicle fleet data indicating power usage of a fleet of vehicles in a geographical area; This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed mentally.
The claim recites the limitation of categorizing the vehicle fleet data into a set of power usage profiles depending on an expected amount of power usage determined from the vehicle fleet data; This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed mentally.
The claim recites the limitation of calculating a time dependent averaged current profile from a distribution of the power usage profiles; This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed mentally.
The claim recites the limitation of determining the power or current limit for the electrical energy storage cell once the energy storage cell has been aged to the predetermined state of health; This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed mentally.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. the claims recites the additional elements:
an electrical energy storage cell and a fleet of vehicles; applying the time dependent averaged current profile to an electrical energy storage cell to age the electrical energy storage cell to a predetermined state of health; applying the determined the power or current limit to a battery management system for controlling the electrical energy storage system
The electrical energy storage cell in the claim is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic battery cell performing a generic function of storing charge. This generic battery cell limitation is known to someone ordinary in the art, and does not improve the technology. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The fleet of vehicles in the claim is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic plurality of vehicles. This generic plurality of vehicles limitation is known to someone ordinary in the art.
The examiner finds that each of the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea:
applying the time dependent averaged current profile to an electrical energy storage cell to age the electrical energy storage cell to a predetermined state of health; applying the determined the power or current limit to a battery management system for controlling the electrical energy storage system
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. the additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a battery cell component and a fleet of vehicles. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a battery cell component and a fleet of vehicles, because they are well known in the art by an ordinary examiner, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “… determining state of charge limits from the vehicle fleet data, and applying the time dependent averaged current profile with limits according to the state of charge limits.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 3 depends on claim 2, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “… categorizing state of charge usage from the vehicle fleet data into a set of state of charge profiles depending on state of charge usage derived from the vehicle fleet data, and determining state of charge limits from the categorized state of charge usage.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 4 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “… determining depth of discharge limits from the vehicle fleet data, and applying the time dependent averaged current profile with limits according to the depth of discharge limits.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 5 depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “… categorizing depth of discharge from the vehicle fleet data into a set of depth of discharge limits profiles depending on depth of discharge usage derived from the vehicle fleet data, and determining depth of discharge limits from the categorized depth of discharge limits usage.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 6 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “… determining a charging behaviour from the vehicle fleet data, and applying charging to the battery cell according to the charging behaviour.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 7 depends on claim 6, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the charging behaviour includes a distribution of charging rates including at least two different charging rates.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 8 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein calculating a time dependent averaged current profile comprises calculating a root-mean-square of the categorized vehicle fleet data.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 9 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 9 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the set of profiles comprises three types or levels of vehicle usage.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 10 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 10 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the vehicle fleet data is retrieved from a server.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 11 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 11 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the vehicle fleet data is field data collected from vehicles operating in real-world conditions operated by multiple drivers in the geographical area.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 13 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 13 is further recites the element(s) “A non-transitory computer readable medium carrying a computer program comprising program code for performing the steps of claim 1 when said program code is run on a computer.”, which are/is simply more conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 14 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 14 is further recites the element(s) “A control unit for estimating a power or current limit for an electrical energy storage system, the control unit is configured to perform the steps of the method according to claim 1.”, which are/is simply more conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 15 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 15 is further recites the element(s) “An electrical energy storage system comprising at least one electrical energy storage cell, wherein a power or a current limit for the electrical energy storage cell is determined using the steps of the method according to claim 1.”, which are/is simply more conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
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) 1-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herring; Patrick K. et al. (US publication #US 20200271725 A1; hereinafter Herring; previously cited) in view of BRYNGELSSON HANNA et al. (International Publication #WO 2020187409 A1; hereinafter Bryngelsson; previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Herring teaches a method for estimating a power (par.36 teaches method for estimating power) or current limit for an electrical energy storage system (par.27 “an energy storage device”), the method comprising:
obtaining vehicle fleet data indicating power usage of a fleet of vehicles (par.3 “The method includes receiving, by a processing device, data pertaining to cells within a battery pack installed in each vehicle of a fleet of vehicles operating under a plurality of conditions. The data is received from at least one of each vehicle in the fleet of vehicles.”)
categorizing (fig.5 steps 512 and 514 teach categorization) the vehicle fleet data into a set of power usage profiles (par.23 “one or more discharge profiles”) depending on an expected amount of power usage determined (par.36 teaches an expected amount of power usage determined) from the vehicle fleet data;
calculating a time dependent (par.73 “varies with time.”) averaged current profile (par.35 “… may monitor and/or control … current in or out of the battery pack”) from a distribution of the power usage profiles (par.50 “determining a discharge profile for a particular type of battery pack for a particular type of driving conditions based on the predictive model received from the one or more machine learning servers 150,”); and
applying the time dependent averaged current profile to an electrical energy storage cell (par.27-29; par.35 “the -BMS hardware components 240 may monitor and/or control voltage (e.g., total voltage, voltage of particular modules 210, voltage of particular cells 220, minimum cell voltage, maximum cell voltage, voltage of periodic taps, and/or the like), temperature (e.g., average temperature, coolant intake temperature, coolant output temperature, coolant flow, temperatures of each module 210, temperatures of each cell 220, and/or the like), state of charge (SOC) or depth of discharge (DOD), state of health (SOH), state of power (SOP),” A discharge profile is a data set or graph illustrating how a battery's voltage, current, capacity, and temperature change over time while discharging under a specific load, which is applied via the BMS components. Par.82 further teaches applying discharge profiles) to age the electrical energy storage cell to a predetermined state of health (par.80-81 teaches aging the storage to predetermined state of Health, which is part of the predictive model made up of numerous predicted parameters including the state of health), and
determining the power or current limit for the electrical energy storage cell (par.36 “may calculate various values, including, but not limited to, maximum charge current as a charge current limit (CCL), maximum discharge current as a discharge current limit (DCL)”).
Herring fails to teach in a geographical area; once the energy storage cell has been aged to the predetermined state of health; and applying the determined the power or current limit to a battery management system for controlling the electrical energy storage system.
Bryngelsson does teach in a geographical area (page 13 line 15-25 teaches geographical area through GPS; GPS (Global Positioning System) is a technology for finding precise geographical coordinates of a location using satellite signals)
once the energy storage cell has been aged to the predetermined state of health (pg.8 lines 24-35 teach determination once the energy storage cell has been aged to the predetermined state of health “if a state of health of the energy storage system is above a predetermined threshold level (e.g. 85 %)”); and
applying the determined the power or current limit (pg. 4 lines 20-25 teaches determination of power) to a battery management system for controlling the electrical energy storage system (page.14 lines 31- page 15. Lines 1-4 “the control profile is set to control the energy storage system to be able to provide a constant or substantially constant discharging power over time or to be able to provide a predetermined discharging power.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Herring to include the teachings of Bryngelsson; which would provide an improved method for determining the health of a battery by means of which a control profile for controlling the energy storage system can be set in better accordance with current operational conditions of the vehicle as disclosed by Bryngelsson (page.3 ln 21-22).
Regarding claim 2, Herring in view of Bryngelsson teaches the method according to claim 1, Herring further teaches comprising:
determining state of charge limits from the vehicle fleet data (par.35-36 teaches determining state of charge limit), and
applying the time dependent averaged current profile with limits according to the state of charge limits (par.82 “each discharge profile (and any subspaces thereof) are provided to one or more external devices. For example, one or more discharge profiles may be provided to the battery configuration system 110”;).
Regarding claim 3, Herring in view of Bryngelsson teaches the method according to claim 2, Herring further teaches comprising:
Categorizing (fig.5 steps 512 and 514 teach categorization) state of charge usage from the vehicle fleet data into a set of state of charge profiles (par.81 “each discharge profile”) depending on state of charge usage derived from the vehicle fleet data (par.35-36 teaches state of charge derivation), and
determining state of charge limits from the categorized state of charge usage (par.36 “may calculate various values, including, maximum charge current as a charge current limit (CCL)”).
Regarding claim 4, Herring in view of Bryngelsson teaches the method according to claim 1, Herring further teaches comprising:
determining depth of discharge limits from the vehicle fleet data (par.35 “ the BMS hardware components 240 may monitor and/or control … depth of discharge (DOD)…”), and
applying the time dependent averaged current profile with limits according to the depth of discharge limits (par.82 “each discharge profile (and any subspaces thereof) are provided to one or more external devices. For example, one or more discharge profiles may be provided to the battery configuration system 110” ;).
Regarding claim 5, Herring in view of Bryngelsson teaches the method according to claim 4, Herring further teaches comprising:
categorizing (fig.5 steps 512 and 514 teach categorization) depth of discharge from the vehicle fleet data into a set of depth of discharge limits profiles (par.35 “…depth of discharge (DOD)…”) depending on depth of discharge usage derived from the vehicle fleet data, and
determining depth of discharge limits from the categorized depth of discharge limits usage (par.35-36).
Regarding claim 6, Herring in view of Bryngelsson teaches the method according to claim 1, Herring further teaches comprising:
determining a charging behaviour (par.24 “… may test a battery or component thereof for charge, …, charging time, …”) from the vehicle fleet data, and
applying charging to the battery cell according to the charging behaviour (par.31 “manage electrical output of the module 210 and/or the cells 220 thereof, manage charging of the module 210”).
Regarding claim 7, Herring in view of Bryngelsson teaches the method according to claim 6, Herring further teaches wherein the charging behaviour includes a distribution of charging rates including at least two different charging rates (par.38 “…reducing charging currents such that relatively higher charged modules 210 and/or cells 220 are not damaged, but relatively lower charged modules 210 and/or cells 220 can still to charge, modular charging, and/or the like.”).
Regarding claim 8, Herring in view of Bryngelsson teaches the method according to claim 1, Bryngelsson further teaches wherein calculating a time dependent averaged current profile comprises calculating a root-mean-square of the categorized vehicle fleet data (Pg.16 ln 18-20 “…An upper limit for the charging current may be set to improve the battery lifetime. Furthermore, an upper limit may be set for a root mean square (rms) value of the charging current as measured over a specific time interval.”).
Regarding claim 9, Herring in view of Bryngelsson teaches the method according to claim 1, Herring further teaches wherein the set of profiles comprises three types or levels of vehicle usage (par.50 “…a discharge profile for a particular type of battery pack for a particular type of driving conditions based on the predictive model received from the one or more machine learning servers 150...”).
Regarding claim 10, Herring in view of Bryngelsson teaches the method according to claim 1, Herring further teaches wherein the vehicle fleet data is retrieved (fig.5 step 514) from a server (par.18 “one or more machine learning servers 150”).
Regarding claim 11, Herring in view of Bryngelsson teaches the method according to claim 1, Herring further teaches wherein the vehicle fleet data is field data collected from vehicles operating in real-world conditions (par.23 “any battery pack (including battery packs having different arrangements of cells therein) for a one or more operating conditions”) operated by multiple drivers (par.78 “… the data is collected for a large number of vehicles 122/battery packs 200, each with their own particular driving characteristics (e.g., due to different drivers in each vehicle 122, locations where the vehicle 122 is driven, different driving conditions, different simulated conditions, and/or the like)…”) in the geographical area (fig.5 step 504).
Regarding claim 13, Herring teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium (par.47 “… a volatile and/or a nonvolatile computer-readable medium …”) carrying a computer program comprising program code for performing the steps (par.47 “… The memory component 320 may include one or more programming instructions thereon that, when executed by the processing device 310, cause the processing device 310 to complete various processes,”) of claim 1 when said program code is run on a computer (par.26 “a plurality of computers”).
Regarding claim 14, Bryngelsson teaches a control unit (pg.11 ln 8-9) for estimating a power or current limit for an electrical energy storage system (pg.7 ln 12-23), the control unit is configured to perform the steps of the method according to claim 1 (pg.11 ln 8-9).
Regarding claim 15, Herring teaches an electrical energy storage system comprising at least one electrical energy storage cell (par.29 “Each of the cells 220 within a module 210 of the battery pack 200 may generally be a battery cell that is used for storing electrical energy that is provided to an external component, such as a component of a vehicle.”), wherein a power or a current limit for the electrical energy storage cell is determined (par.36 “… may calculate various values, including, but not limited to, maximum charge current as a charge current limit (CCL), maximum discharge current as a discharge current limit (DCL), energy (e.g., kilowatt-hours (kWh)) delivered since last charge or charge cycle, internal impedance of a module 210 and/or a cell 220, open circuit voltage, charge delivered or stored (e.g., Coulomb counter), total energy delivered since first use, total operating time since first use, total number of cycles, and/or the like.”) using the steps of the method according to claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 9058038 B2; Zhang; Yilu et al. is a Method and system for predicting vehicle battery health using a collaborative vehicle battery health model.
US 8855954 B1; BICKFORD R L et al. is a computer-implemented path classification and estimation method for prognosticating e.g. charge capacity remaining useful life of military aircraft battery, involves estimating battery asset remaining useful life using determined similarity.
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 CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3991. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am -5:00am.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858