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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding to the claim limitation that the data computation process computes a capacity degradation rate and a direct current internal resistance change rate, the Specification as filed does not specific on how such computation takes place. The Specification indeed is silent on the data resulted from the performance test and from that the capacity degradation rate and the direct current internal resistance change rate are computed accordingly. As a result, due to such lacking of description, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to use/make the claimed invention.
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(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyaki (US 2014/0107956) in view of Shiraishi et al. (US 2016/0091573).
Regarding to claims 1, 7, 13, 20:
Miyaki discloses a method for evaluating an accelerated idle life of a secondary battery (FIG. 1: BATTERY LIFE), comprising:
an evaluation condition input process including inputting, as evaluation conditions, an
idle temperature (FIG. 1: TEMPERATURE = T) and a measurement period (FIG. 1: NUMBER OF DAYS = Y) for a reference performance test to evaluate the accelerated idle life of the secondary battery;
a data computation process including, based on results of the reference performance
test performed for every measurement period under the idle temperature, computing an evaluation period, in which a state of health of the secondary battery reaches a set range, a capacity degradation rate (paragraphs [0055] and [0085]: The computation of the degradation rate R); and
an acceleration factor calculation process including, based on the capacity degradation
rate, calculating an acceleration factor of the secondary battery for evaluating the accelerated idle life of the secondary battery (FIG. 1: DEGRADATION ESTIMATION OF BATTERY reads on the claimed acceleration factor for evaluating the life of the battery (BATTERY LIFE)).
Miyaki however is silent on the computation of a direct current internal resistance change rate, and the calculation of the acceleration factor is also based on the direct current internal resistance change rate by using an equation that is equal to the direct current internal resistance rate divided by the capacity degradation rate.
Shiraishi et al. discloses a method for determining a battery deterioration to determine the life end of the battery, wherein the life-end of the battery is determined based on the inversely proportional and proportional relationship to the internal resistance and the capacity retention (paragraphs [0090]-[0091]). In other words, the life-end determination can be based on the ratio of the internal resistance and the capacity retention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miyaki’s method of evaluating the battery life to be based on both the capacity retention/degradation rate and the internal resistance as disclosed by Shiraishi et al. to gain the accuracy in the determination of the battery life (paragraph [0011]).
Regarding to claims 2-3, 8-9, 14-15: wherein, after the secondary battery is idled while a state of charge is about 100% at a first temperature, the reference performance test is performed at a second temperature less than the first temperature for every measurement period, wherein the first temperature is about 50°C to about 80°C, the second temperature is about 20°C to about 30°C, and the measurement period is about 10 days to about 40 days (Miyaki: Table 1 and paragraph [0009]).
Regarding to claims 4, 10: wherein the reference performance test is performed by charging the secondary battery in a constant current-constant voltage manner and discharging the secondary battery in a constant current manner (Miyaki: paragraph [0089]).
Regarding to claims 5-6, 11-12, 16-19: wherein the set range of the state of health of the secondary battery is about 80% to about 90%, wherein the acceleration factor is about 4 to about 7, and wherein the constant current charging is about 0.2 C to about 0.4 C or the constant current charging is about 0.01 C to about 0.5 C. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the SOH, the acceleration factor, and the current charging in the range as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2151.
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, DOUGLAS RODRIGUEZ, can be reached on 571-431-0716. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAM S NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights