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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“series-connected sells” in line 1 should read as “series-connected cells”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 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.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “An outlier diagnosis method for series-connected cells, comprises the following steps:
Step A: calculating an average voltage change at an initial stage of discharge Vx for a cell;
Step B: calculating an average voltage change at an end of charge Vy for the cell;
Step C: calculating an outlier index and z-score for the cell;
Step D: setting a threshold for the z-score; and
Step E: outputting a list of cells exceeding the threshold.”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process for claim 1).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
In claim 1, the steps identified in bold type are a mathematical concept, therefore, they are considered to be abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim comprises the following additional elements:
setting a threshold for the z-score; and outputting a list of cells exceeding the threshold.
The additional element “setting a threshold for the z-score”; and “outputting a list of cells exceeding the threshold” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, setting a threshold for the z-score is disclosed by “Kim US 20220077514”, [0032, [0281]; and “Singidi US 220200117557”, Abstract, FIG. 7, [0020], [0023], [0079].
For example, outputting a list of cells exceeding the threshold is disclosed by “Kim US 20220077514”, [0032], [0281], Claim 21; and “Shim KR 20230088014A”, [0025], [0030], Claim 4.
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-6 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. (US 20200403246, hereinafter Takeda) in view of Zhu et al. (CN 115061043A, hereinafter Zhu), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20220077514, hereinafter Kim).
As to claim 1, Takeda teaches calculating an average voltage change at an initial stage of discharge Vx for a cell ([0159] discloses the cell was subjected to initial charging and discharging, and was adjusted to 50 % state of charge (SOC), and the voltage changes before and after the discharging were measured with a charge-discharge test system. The direct current internal resistance (DC-IR) of the battery was evaluated by calculating the average of voltage change (i.e., measure or calculate an average voltage change at an initial stage of discharge for a cell - emphasis added by Examiner)/current value ratios at the five magnitudes of current);
calculating an average voltage change at an end of charge Vy for the cell ([0159] discloses the cell was subjected to initial charging and discharging, and the direct current internal resistance (DC-IR) of the battery was evaluated by calculating the average of voltage change (i.e., calculating an average voltage change at an end of charge for the cell - emphasis added by Examiner)).
Takeda does not explicitly teach calculating an outlier index for the cell.
Zhu teaches teach calculating an outlier index for the cell (Page 4, Lines 1-8 disclose screening a defective cell comprising: Step S102: performing outlier analysis to the screening matrix, obtaining the outlier index in each battery index of each electric core (i.e., calculating an outlier index for the battery cell - emphasis added by Examiner)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Zhu into Takeda for the purpose of screening a defective cell by obtaining the outlier index in each battery index of each electric core, and removing the defect electric core corresponding to the outlier index from the multiple electric cores according to the outlier index. This combination would further improve the accuracy of the defect cell screening by eliminating the defect electric core corresponding to the outlier index from the multiple electric cores according to the outlier index.
The combination of Takeda and Zhu does not explicitly teach calculating z-score for the cell; setting a threshold for the z-score; and outputting a list of cells exceeding the threshold.
Kim teaches calculating z-score for the cell ([0281] discloses “Z-score obtained for each battery cell”);
setting a threshold for the z-score ([0079] discloses generate a Z-score for the metric; [0281] discloses “compare the Z-score obtained for each battery cell with the reference Z-score (i.e., the reference Z-score would be the threshold for z-score that is set - emphasis added by Examiner)”); and
outputting a list of cells exceeding the threshold ([0148] and [0281] disclose generate the identification signal that manages the state of the battery 100 based
on the received detection information, and determine whether the battery cell is in the abnormal state based on the generated identification signal. The energy storage system 1 compares the Z-score obtained for each battery cell with the reference Z-score, and generate the second identification signal when the obtained Z-score is greater than the reference Z-score (i.e., the generated signal would include
a list of cells exceeding the threshold that are outputted - emphasis added by Examiner)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kim into Takeda in view of Zhu for the purpose of preemptively detecting defect prone memory blocks by comparing a generated Z-score for a metric to a threshold, and handle these memory blocks before they fail and trigger a data loss event. This combination would improve in removing failing memory resources so that future errors can be prevented.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding Claims 2-6, the most pertinent prior arts are “Takeda US 20200403246”, “Zhu CN 115061043A”, “Kim US 20220077514”, “Singidi US 220200117557”, “Shim KR20230088014A”, “Tsuji US 6072300 A”, “Gope US 20240319278”, “Yamada US 20190212397” and “Hodrinsky US 20190335554”.
As to claims 2, Takeda teaches calculating an average voltage change at an initial stage of discharge Vx (Takeda, [0159]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “discharge beginning; when a discharge current of the series-connected cells is greater than a pre-determined current (ampere) threshold”;
“sampling multiple times and calculating each voltage difference (V0 - Vi) at the moment of sampling;
“summing up the voltage differences”;
“stopping when the discharge exceeding P1% capacity off” including all limitations as claimed.
As to claim 4, Takeda teaches charge beginning (Takeda, [0159]);
calculating an average voltage change at an end of charge Vx (Takeda, [0159]).
Hodrinsky teaches sampling multiple times and storing each voltage in a queue (Hodrinsky, [0092], [0129]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “when the voltage data in the queue represents a charge capacity exceeding P2%.” including all limitations as claimed.
As to claim 6, Kim teaches calculating z-score for each cell (Kim, [0281]);
setting a threshold for the z-score (Kim, [0079]);
outputting a list of cells with z-score exceeding the threshold (Kim, [0281]).
Zhu teaches calculating an outlier index for each cell (Zhu, Page 4, Lines 1-8).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “calculating outlier index: x= (Vx*k1 + Vy*k2)/2; wherein k1 and k2 are adjustment coefficients”; and
“calculating z-score for each cell: z = (x-x”)/ σ, wherein x is an outlier index; x-bar is a mean for x.” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 3 and 5 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claims 2 and 4.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Kim US 20240337701” teaches “The present invention discloses an apparatus and method for detecting a deteriorated battery cell including a measurement unit that measures a state of a battery, an estimation unit that estimates a state of health (SOH) of the battery, a diagnosis setting unit that sets a diagnosis start condition, a diagnosis section, and a determination condition of the deteriorated battery cell according to the SOH of the battery, a diagnosis performance decision unit that determines a detection performance condition of the deteriorated battery cell after an end of charging/discharging of the battery, and a deterioration determination unit that determines the deteriorated battery cell by calculating a voltage difference in the charging and discharging end section and comparing the measurement value with a set value.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:00-12:00, 1:00-5:00 EST.
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, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/LAL CE MANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2863