CTFR 18/352,534 CTFR 101487 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Status 12-151-10 AIA 12-51-10 Claim s 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, and 11-13 have been amended and are currently pending. Claims 4, 7 and 10 have been canceled. Response to Arguments The claim amendments have overcome the previous claim objections and 35 USC 112(b) rejections. Hence, the objections and 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn. The examiner agrees with the applicant’s arguments and finds them persuasive. Hence, all previous rejections under 35 USC 101, 102(a)(2), and 103 have been withdrawn. The new grounds for rejection are presented below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim 6 is 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. The claim recites the limitation " the at least one further operational features of a plurality of device batteries". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, and 11-13 are rejected und er 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Hom et al. (US 10522881 B1, hereinaf ter Hom) in view of Kim (US 20120161707 A1) and Ayyapureddi et al. (GB 2595496 A, hereinafter Ayyapureddi). Claims 1, 9, and 11 Hom teaches a meth od for detecting a self-discharge fault of a device battery of a technical device and its criticality ( Fig. 2 ), a processor for carrying it out ( Abstract — “In some embodiments, the technique includes a system including a processor and a memory coupled with the processor. ” ), and a corresponding non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising commands which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to carry out said method ( Abstract — “In some embodiments, the technique includes a system including a processor and a memory coupled with the processor. ”; Claim 18 — “A computer program product for estimating a self-discharge discharge indicator for battery health, the computer program product being embodied in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium in a server and comprising computer instructions …” ), comprising: providing at least one operating variable curve of at least one operating variable of the device battery ( Fig. 5 — Hom teaches providing an operating variable curve of cell voltage vs. SoC ); determining at least one operational feature based on the at least one operating variable curve ( Col. 6, lines 15-17 — “In some embodiments, to account for differences in capacity, cell voltages are converted to state of charge (SOC) for each cell when estimating a self-discharge rate.” ); detecting the self-discharge fault based on a fault criteria depending on the at least one operational feature ( Fig. 13 #1360, #1370 — Hom teaches detecting a self-discharge fault based on state of charge ); determining a criticality of the self-discharge fault depending on which of the fault criteria are met ( Col. 14, lines 1-23 — “These ranges determine whether no remedy or intervention is warranted, whether the self-discharge rate of a problematic self-discharging cell can be remedied by balancing or charging the cell, or whether the battery sub-module having the problematic self-discharging cell should be replaced … The thresholds in FIG. 15 illustrate just one example...”; the ranges demarcated by the thresholds are different orders of criticality ); and signaling the self-discharge fault depending on its criticality ( Col. 14, lines 1-23 — “These ranges determine whether no remedy or intervention is warranted, whether the self-discharge rate of a problematic self-discharging cell can be remedied by balancing or charging the cell, or whether the battery sub-module having the problematic self-discharging cell should be replaced …). Hom fails to teach providing at least one further operational feature including at least one of (i) a balancing frequency during a specified evaluation period, (ii) a balancing duration during the specified evaluation period, (iii) a balancing charge throughput rate during the specified evaluation period, (iv) a state of charge difference of electrode states of charge, and (v) a time gradient of the state of charge difference of the electrode states of charge; detecting the self-discharge fault based on a plurality of fault criteria depending on the at least one operational operating feature and the at least one further operational feature; determining a criticality of the self-discharge fault depending on which of the plurality of fault criteria are met; and the signaling of the self-discharge fault including at least one of (i) derating the device battery, (ii) activating a cooling device to cool the device battery, and (iii) at least partially blocking operation of the device battery. Kim teaches providing at least one further operational feature including at least one of (i) a balancing frequency during a specified evaluation period ( Fig. 4 — The OCV-SoC curve shows there are two balancing events during a full charge cycle , see Fig. 2, #S11, #S14, #S2, #S3, #S4 ), (ii) a balancing duration during the specified evaluation period ( Fig. 2 — #S3 shows providing a balancing duration for a balancing event ), and (iii) a balancing charge throughput rate during the specified evaluation period ( [0030] — “Next, in the balancing operation step S4, a predetermined balancing current flows in the selected battery cell or battery cells during the calculated balancing time. ” ). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further provide the three aforementioned operational features taught by Kim in the method taught by Hom in order to better understand the operating conditions of the battery pack as a whole for the purpose of improving self-discharge fault detection. The combination of Hom and Kim still fails to teach detecting the self-discharge fault based on a plurality of fault criteria depending on the at least one operational operating feature and the at least one further operational feature ; determining a criticality of the self-discharge fault depending on which of the plurality of fault criteria are met; and the signaling of the self-discharge fault including at least one of (i) derating the device battery, (ii) activating a cooling device to cool the device battery, and (iii) at least partially blocking operation of the device battery. Hom already teaches detecting the self-discharge fault based on a fault criteria depending on the at least one operational feature and determining a criticality of the self-discharge fault depending on which of the fault criteria are met. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include further fault criteria depending on the at least one further operational feature taught by Kim on which the detecting the self-discharge fault is based and then determining a criticality of the self-discharge fault depending on which of the now plurality of fault criteria are met for the advantage of better understanding what causes self-discharge faults and more accurately detecting them by considering additional points of failure. The combination of Hom and Kim still fails to teach the signaling of the self-discharge fault including at least one of (i) derating the device battery, (ii) activating a cooling device to cool the device battery, and (iii) at least partially blocking operation of the device battery. Ayyapureddi teaches signaling for at least one of (i) derating the device battery ( Pages 3-4, lines 35-2 — “The control signal may be for implementing a battery cooling system or to divert cooling from elsewhere. For example, cooling may be diverted from a cabin or other vehicle system. Optionally, the control signal may be for derating the battery . Optionally, the control signal may be to stop charging of the battery.” ), (ii) activating a cooling device to cool the device battery ( Pages 3-4, lines 35-2 — “The control signal may be for implementing a battery cooling system or to divert cooling from elsewhere. For example, cooling may be diverted from a cabin or other vehicle system. Optionally, the control signal may be for derating the battery. Optionally, the control signal may be to stop charging of the battery.” ), and (iii) at least partially blocking operation of the device battery ( Pages 3-4, lines 35-2 — “The control signal may be for implementing a battery cooling system or to divert cooling from elsewhere. For example, cooling may be diverted from a cabin or other vehicle system. Optionally, the control signal may be for derating the battery. Optionally, the control signal may be to stop charging of the battery .” ). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the signaling elements taught by Ayyapureddi in the method taught by the combination of Hom and Kim in order to improve device safety by preventing catastrophic failure of the battery. Claim 2 Hom further teaches wherein the at least one operating variable comprises at least one of: a cell voltage ( Hom, Fig. 5 ), a module voltage ( Hom, Col. 12, lines 16-18 — “A sub-module voltage associated with each cell in the plurality of sub-module cells, including the selected cell, is obtained from the selected snapshot at 1340.” ), a pack voltage of battery cells, battery modules, or a battery pack of multiple battery modules, a cell state of charge ( Hom, Fig. 5 ), a module state of charge ( Hom, Col. 12, lines 21-24 — “At 1345, each of the sub-module voltages associated with each cell in the plurality of sub-module cells is converted into a state of charge value associated with each cell in the plurality of sub-module cells. ” ), and a pack state of charge. Claim 3 Hom further teaches wherein the at least one operational feature comprises at least one of: a deviation from a temporal average of the operating variable and a temporal change of the at least one operating variable ( Hom, Fig. 4 — The difference between the voltages values on the two plots show a temporal change between times T1 and T2 ). Claim 5 Hom further teaches wherein the plurality of fault criteria are provided in a rule-based manner ( Hom, Col. 13, lines 12-14 — “A threshold can be determined based on an ability or inability to mitigate or compensate for the loss due to self-discharge by cell balancing and charging.” ). Claim 6 While rejected under 112(b), for the sake of compact prosecution the limitation “…and the at least one further operational features of a plurality of device batteries” is assumed to mean “and at least one further operational features of a plurality of device batteries”. Hom further teaches wherein thresholds are determined depending on the at least one operational features ( Hom, Col. 13, lines 5-14 — “As described above, a threshold can be used to determine whether a self-discharge indicator, including for example, an adjusted state of charge value or an adjusted self-discharge rate for a particular cell is unacceptably high and requires a remedy. In particular, in response to the self-discharge indicator exceeding the threshold, a remedy is recommended for the battery system… A threshold can be determined based on an ability or inability to mitigate or compensate for the loss due to self-discharge by cell balancing and charging.” ). Hom fails to teach wherein thresholds are determined depending on operating variable curves and the at least one further operational features of a plurality of device batteries. Kim teaches determining thresholds depending on operating variable curves ( Fig. 4 — The plot shows thresholds determined on the OCV-SoC operating variable curve ). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine thresholds from operating variable curves as taught by Kim in the method taught by the combination of Hom, Kim, and Ayyapureddi in order to more-accurately diagnose faults and better determine their criticality. The combination of Hom, Kim, and Ayyapureddi still fails to teach wherein thresholds are determined depending on operating variable curves and the at least one further operational features of a plurality of device batteries. Kim already teaches the at least one further operational features of a plurality of device batteries ( [0030] — “Next, in the balancing operation step S4, a predetermined balancing current flows in the selected battery cell or battery cells during the calculated balancing time. ”; performing cell balancing means there are a plurality of device batteries (battery cells) ). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the at least one further operational features of a plurality of device batteries taught by Kim in determining thresholds to improve self-discharge fault detection by considering the additional factor of excessive and/or anomalous battery cell balancing. Claim 8 Hom further teaches wherein a critical self-discharge fault is found when at least one of: an amount of time of a change of a state of charge exceeds a threshold value ( Hom, Col.6, lines — “…the second plot 602 shows that, after the passage of time between T1 and T2, the SOC values all appear to have dropped in value , with two cells—the cell at 410 and the cell at 465—having decreased more in SOC than the others.”; Hom, Col. 8, line 16-21 — “However, while cell 465 clearly has a higher self-discharge rate than the rest of the cells and would therefore be detected by setting a threshold for self-discharge rate that would exclude the problematic self-discharging cells…” ), a self-discharge is greater than a specified threshold ( Hom, Col. 8, line 16-21 — “However, while cell 465 clearly has a higher self-discharge rate than the rest of the cells and would therefore be detected by setting a threshold for self-discharge rate that would exclude the problematic self-discharging cells…” ), self-discharge rates of individual parallel connection plates of cells or of modules differ by a value greater than a specified threshold, and/or a module plane balancing operation is performed at a frequency that is greater than a specified frequency. Claim 12 Hom further teaches wherein the plurality of fault criteria are provided in a rule-based manner as threshold values for the at least one operational feature ( Hom, Col. 13, lines 5-14 — “As described above, a threshold can be used to determine whether a self-discharge indicator, including for example, an adjusted state of charge value or an adjusted self-discharge rate for a particular cell is unacceptably high and requires a remedy … A threshold can be determined based on an ability or inability to mitigate or compensate for the loss due to self-discharge by cell balancing and charging.”; operational features may be self-discharge indicators ). Claim 13 Hom further teaches wherein the plurality of fault criteria are provided in a rule-based manner as threshold values for the at least one operational feature and for the at least one further operational feature ( Hom, Col. 13, lines 5-14 — “As described above, a threshold can be used to determine whether a self-discharge indicator, including for example, an adjusted state of charge value or an adjusted self-discharge rate for a particular cell is unacceptably high and requires a remedy … A threshold can be determined based on an ability or inability to mitigate or compensate for the loss due to self-discharge by cell balancing and charging.”; operational features may be self-discharge indicators ). Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure: Ehara et al. (US 20230278451 A1), Power Supply System, Server, and Power Balancing Method Ye et al. (US 20200223422 A1), Battery Pack Balancing Systems and Control Logic for Multi-Pack Electric-Drive Motor Vehicles Cheng et al. (US 20170098818 A1), Solvent-Free Dry Powder-Coating Method for Electrode Fabrication Lee, Tae-Kyung (US 20160023566 A1), Reduced Order Electrochemical Battery Model for Vehicle Control Barsukov et al. (US 20140077752 A1), System and Method for Battery Pack Management Using Predictive Balancing The examiner used the above prior art to better contextualize the claimed invention within the current state of the art. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 RYAN JAMES STEAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8334. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 EST/EDT. 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 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. /RYAN JAMES STEAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 /ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/352,534 Page 2 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/352,534 Page 3 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/352,534 Page 4 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/352,534 Page 5 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/352,534 Page 6 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/352,534 Page 7 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/352,534 Page 8 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/352,534 Page 9 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/352,534 Page 10 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/352,534 Page 11 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/352,534 Page 12 Art Unit: 2857
Prosecution Insights