DETAILED ACTION
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 2 and 11-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: a) In claim 2 line 9, please change "of at least one other group (1) of the battery (4) and an average value" to
--of at least one other group of the battery and an average value--.
b) In claim 11 line 15, please change "determine a proportion of defective battery cells in the group from the measured deviation" to --determine a proportion of defective battery cells in the group from the calculated deviation--.
c) In claim 12 lines 14-15, please change "determine a proportion of defective battery cells in the group from the measured deviation" to --determine a proportion of defective battery cells in the group from the calculated deviation--.
d) In claim 12, please restore or insert a period at the end of the claim.
e) In claim 13 lines 14-15, please change "determine a proportion of defective battery cells in the group from the measured deviation" to --determine a proportion of defective battery cells in the group from the calculated deviation--.
f) In claim 14 lines 13-14, please change "determine a proportion of defective battery cells in the group from the measured deviation" to --determine a proportion of defective battery cells in the group from the calculated deviation--.
g) In claim 15 lines 14-15, please change "determine a proportion of defective battery cells in the group from the measured deviation" to --determine a proportion of defective battery cells in the group from the calculated deviation--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 1-20 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.
In view of the new 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019), the Examiner has considered the claims and has determined that under step 1, claims 1 and 16 are to a process, claims 2-10 and 17-20 are to another process, claim 11 is to a machine, claim 12 is directed to a nonstatutory category of invention (see further rejection in section 5 below), claim 13 is to an article of manufacture, claim 14 is to another machine, and claim 15 is to another machine. Next under the new step 2A prong 1 analysis, the claims are considered to determine if they recite an abstract idea (judicial exception) under the following groupings: (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, or (c) mental processes. The independent claims contain at least the following bolded limitations (see representative independent claims) that fall into the grouping of mathematical concepts and/or mental processes:
1: A method for determining a proportion of defective battery cells in a group of battery cells connected electrically in parallel in a battery, wherein a voltage state of a terminal voltage of the group is determined in relation to at least one of: a charging process and a relaxation of the battery under an environmental condition and a deviation and additionally a rate of change of the deviation of the determined voltage state of the terminal voltage from the voltage state of the terminal voltage of a same group from at least one of: a previous charging process and a previous relaxation under a same environmental condition is calculated, wherein the proportion of defective battery cells in the group is determined from the calculated deviation and additionally from the rate of change of the deviation.
2: A method for determining a proportion of defective battery cells in a group of battery cells connected electrically in parallel in a battery, wherein a voltage state of a terminal voltage of the group is determined in relation to at least one of: a charging process and a relaxation of the battery under an environmental condition and a deviation and additionally a rate of change of the deviation of the determined voltage state of the terminal voltage from at least one of: a voltage state of the terminal voltage of at least one other group (1) of the battery (4) and an average value of the voltage state of the respective terminal voltage of at least two groups of the battery is calculated, wherein the proportion of defective battery cells in the group is determined from the calculated deviation and additionally from the rate of change of the deviation.
11: A battery controller configured to determine a proportion of defective battery cells in a group of battery cells connected electrically in parallel in a battery, wherein a processor unit is configured, by way of a measuring apparatus, to determine a voltage state of a terminal voltage of the group in relation to at least one of: a charging process and a relaxation of the battery under an environmental condition and to calculate a deviation and additionally a rate of change of the deviation of the voltage state, determined by way of the measuring apparatus, of the terminal voltage from a voltage state, stored in a memory, of the terminal voltage of a same group from at least one of: a previous charging process, a previous relaxation under a same environmental condition, and a voltage state, stored in a memory, of at least one of: the terminal voltage of at least one other group of the battery and an average value of the voltage state of the respective terminal voltage of at least two groups of the battery, wherein the processor unit is configured to determine a proportion of defective battery cells in the group from the measured deviation and additionally from the rate of change of the deviation.
12: A computer program comprising instructions that are configured to be executed by a battery controller configured to determine a proportion of defective battery cells in a group of battery cells connected electrically in parallel in a battery, wherein a processor unit is configured, by way of a measuring apparatus, to determine a voltage state of a terminal voltage of the group in relation to at least one of: a charging process and a relaxation of the battery under an environmental condition and to calculate a deviation and additionally a rate of change of the deviation of the voltage state, determined by way of the measuring apparatus, of the terminal voltage from a voltage state, stored in a memory, of the terminal voltage of a same group from at least one of: a previous charging process, a previous relaxation under a same environmental condition, and a voltage state, stored in a memory, of at least one of: the terminal voltage of at least one other group of the battery and an average value of the voltage state of the respective terminal voltage of at least two groups of the battery, wherein the processor unit is configured to determine a proportion of defective battery cells in the group from the measured deviation and additionally from the rate of change of the deviation.
13: A computer-readable storage medium on which a computer program is stored comprising steps for a battery controller configured to determine a proportion of defective battery cells in a group of battery cells connected electrically in parallel in a battery, wherein a processor unit is configured, by way of a measuring apparatus, to determine a voltage state of a terminal voltage of the group in relation to at least one of: a charging process and a relaxation of the battery under an environmental condition and to calculate a deviation and additionally a rate of change of the deviation of the voltage state, determined by way of the measuring apparatus, of the terminal voltage from a voltage state, stored in a memory, of the terminal voltage of a same group from at least one of: a previous charging process, a previous relaxation under a same environmental condition, and a voltage state, stored in a memory, of at least one of: the terminal voltage of at least one other group of the battery and an average value of the voltage state of the respective terminal voltage of at least two groups of the battery, wherein the processor unit is configured to determine a proportion of defective battery cells in the group from the measured deviation and additionally from the rate of change of the deviation.
14: A battery for a motor vehicle, comprising a battery controller configured to determine a proportion of defective battery cells in a group of battery cells connected electrically in parallel in a battery, wherein a processor unit is configured, by way of a measuring apparatus, to determine a voltage state of a terminal voltage of the group in relation to at least one of: a charging process and a relaxation of the battery under an environmental condition and to calculate a deviation and additionally a rate of change of the deviation of the voltage state, determined by way of the measuring apparatus, of the terminal voltage from a voltage state, stored in a memory, of the terminal voltage of a same group from at least one of: a previous charging process, a previous relaxation under a same environmental condition, and a voltage state, stored in a memory, of at least one of: the terminal voltage of at least one other group of the battery and an average value of the voltage state of the respective terminal voltage of at least two groups of the battery, wherein the processor unit is configured to determine a proportion of defective battery cells in the group from the measured deviation and additionally from the rate of change of the deviation.
15: A Motor vehicle comprising at least one of: a battery for a motor vehicle and a the battery controller configured to determine a proportion of defective battery cells in a group of battery cells connected electrically in parallel in a battery, wherein a processor unit is configured, by way of a measuring apparatus, to determine a voltage state of a terminal voltage of the group in relation to at least one of: a charging process and a relaxation of the battery under an environmental condition and to calculate a deviation and additionally a rate of change of the deviation of the voltage state, determined by way of the measuring apparatus, of the terminal voltage from a voltage state, stored in a memory, of the terminal voltage of a same group from at least one of: a previous charging process, a previous relaxation under a same environmental condition, and a voltage state, stored in a memory, of at least one of: the terminal voltage of at least one other group of the battery and an average value of the voltage state of the respective terminal voltage of at least two groups of the battery, wherein the processor unit is configured to determine a proportion of defective battery cells in the group from the measured deviation and additionally from the rate of change of the deviation.
It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula."(see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I.). The limitations of "a method for determining a proportion of defective battery cells in a group of battery cells" amounts to a description in words of mathematically determining a numerical proportion of defective battery cells out of a group total of battery cells. The limitations of "wherein a voltage state of a terminal voltage of the group is determined in relation to at least one of: a charging process and a relaxation of the battery under an environmental condition" amount to a description in words of mathematically solving for a voltage state based on numerical data from a charging process and a relaxation of the battery under an environmental condition setting, or a mental process to observe/evaluate a voltage state condition of a battery based on charging or relaxation data. The limitations of "a deviation and additionally a rate of change of the deviation of the determined voltage state of the terminal voltage from the voltage state of the terminal voltage of a same group from at least one of: a previous charging process and a previous relaxation under a same environmental condition is calculated," or " a deviation and additionally a rate of change of the deviation of the determined voltage state of the terminal voltage from at least one of: a voltage state of the terminal voltage of at least one other group of the battery and an average value of the voltage state of the respective terminal voltage of at least two groups of the battery is calculated," or "to calculate a deviation and additionally a rate of change of the deviation of the voltage state…of the terminal voltage from a voltage state…of the terminal voltage of a same group from at least one of: a previous charging process, a previous relaxation under a same environmental condition, and a voltage state…of at least one of: the terminal voltage of at least one other group of the battery and an average value of the voltage state of the respective terminal voltage of at least two groups of the battery," amount to a description in words of mathematically calculating values for a deviation and rate of change of the deviation based on a selected set of inputs. The limitations of "wherein the proportion of defective battery cells in the group is determined from the calculated deviation and additionally from the rate of change of the deviation" amounts to a description in words of solving for the proportion of defective battery cells based on the numerical values of the calculated deviation and rate of change of the deviation.
Next in step 2A prong 2, the independent claims are analyzed to determine whether there are additional elements or combination of elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, in order to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These limitations have been identified and underlined above, and are not indicative of integration into a practical application because: (1) the recitations of "battery cells connected electrically in parallel in a battery," "a battery for a motor vehicle," or "a motor vehicle comprising at least one of: a battery for a motor vehicle," amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use of battery cells in parallel in a motor vehicle (see MPEP 2106.095(h)); (2) the recitations for " A battery controller configured…", "wherein a processor unit is configured, by way of a measuring apparatus..," " determined by way of the measuring apparatus," "stored in a memory," "wherein the processor unit is configured…," "a computer program comprising instructions that are configured to be executed by a battery controller configured…," and "a computer-readable storage medium on which a computer program is stored comprising steps for a battery controller configured…", amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Next in step 2B, the independent claims are considered to determine if they recite additional elements (also underlined) that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. The recitations of "battery cells connected electrically in parallel in a battery," "a battery for a motor vehicle," or "a motor vehicle comprising at least one of: a battery for a motor vehicle," do not add significantly more because such limitations amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use of battery cells in parallel in a motor vehicle (see MPEP 2106.095(h)), without describing any further applied improvement to the operation of the battery or vehicle. The recitations for " A battery controller configured…", "wherein a processor unit is configured, by way of a measuring apparatus..," " determined by way of the measuring apparatus," "stored in a memory," "wherein the processor unit is configured…," "a computer program comprising instructions that are configured to be executed by a battery controller configured…," and "a computer-readable storage medium on which a computer program is stored comprising steps for a battery controller configured…", do not add significantly more because such limitations amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The use of generic computer equipment is considered insignificant additional elements. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.07(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection (see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94). Selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform (e.g., buffering content, storing and retrieving data from memory) from within a range of well- known, routine, conventional functions performed by the hardware is not significantly more, (see Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(MPEP 2106.05(a)II last paragraph).
Dependent claims 3-6, 8-10, and 16-20 contain additional limitations that fall under the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts and/or mental processes to describe data characteristics/definitions for processing the data and further data comparisons/calculations. Dependent claim 7 describes some limitations that would have amounted to an integration into a practical application if it were limited to only carrying out electrical isolation by way of a switching arrangement, limiting charging current, or limiting discharging current. However, since claim 7 could also be limited to only "a warning message is output," where such a limitation would not be an integration into a practical application but rather amounts to insignificant post-solution outputting of a result (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
4. An invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. Applications of such concepts "to a new and useful end" remain eligible for patent protection (see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67)). However, "a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea" (see Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics Corp. _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q. 2d1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). There needs to be additional elements or combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception or render the claim as a whole to be significantly more than the exception itself in order to demonstrate “integration into a practical application” or an “inventive concept.” For instance, particular physical sensor arrangements for actively obtaining any measurement data, or further physical applications using the calculated numerical proportion of defective battery cells to drive a transformation, change in physical operation, or repair/maintenance of a technology or technical process could provide integration into a practical application to demonstrate an improvement to the technology or technical field.
5. Claim 12 is directed towards a computer program comprising instructions, but a computer program per se is not directed towards a statutory category because a program is merely instructional data. However, a "non-transitory computer readable medium" falls under the statutory category of an article of manufacture, and thus the claim preamble can be rewritten to recite "A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer program instructions….".
6. Regarding the terms "computer-readable storage medium" in claim 13, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer-readable storage medium, as the claim presented, covers both forms of non-transitory storage media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer-readable storage media, particularly when the specification is silent (see MPEP 2111.01). Because the broadest reasonable interpretation covers a signal per se, a rejection under 35 USC 101 is appropriate as covering non-statutory subject matter. See 1351 OG 212, Feb 23 2010.
The Examiner suggests that the Applicant replaces “computer-readable storage medium” in claim 13 with "non-transitory computer readable storage medium."
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
a) Claim 1 lines 3-11 recites the limitation "wherein a voltage state of a terminal voltage of the group is determined in relation to at least one of: a charging process and a relaxation of the battery under an environmental condition and a deviation and additionally a rate of change of the deviation of the determined voltage state of the terminal voltage from the voltage state of the terminal voltage of a same group from at least one of: a previous charging process and a previous relaxation under a same environmental environmental condition is calculated…". The wording of the claim is unclear and ambiguous regarding the determining of the voltage state of a terminal voltage. Is the voltage state of the terminal voltage based on at least one of a charging process, a relaxation of the battery, a deviation, and additionally a rate of change of the deviation? If so, it would not make sense how a voltage state can be determined based on a deviation of the determined voltage state itself. Or is the voltage state of the terminal voltage based on at least one of a charging process or a relaxation of the battery only? For the purposes of examination, the Examiner is taking the latter interpretation. Additional clarification/correction is requested.
b) Claim 2 lines 3-11 recites the limitation "wherein a voltage state of a terminal voltage of the group is determined in relation to at least one of: a charging process and a relaxation of the battery under an environmental condition and a deviation and additionally a rate of change of the deviation of the determined voltage state of the terminal voltage from at least one of: a voltage state of the terminal voltage of at least one other group (1) of the battery (4) and an average value of the voltage state of the respective terminal voltage of at least two groups of the battery is calculated …". The wording of the claim is unclear and ambiguous regarding the determining of the voltage state of a terminal voltage. Is the voltage state of the terminal voltage based on at least one of a charging process, a relaxation of the battery, a deviation, and additionally a rate of change of the deviation? If so, it would not make sense how a voltage state can be determined based on a deviation of the determined voltage state itself. Or is the voltage state of the terminal voltage based on at least one of a charging process or a relaxation of the battery only? For the purposes of examination, the Examiner is taking the latter interpretation. Additional clarification/correction is requested.c) Claim 11 lines 7-14 recites "to calculate a deviation and additionally a rate of change of the deviation of the voltage state, determined by way of the measuring apparatus, of the terminal voltage from a voltage state, stored in a memory, of the terminal voltage of a same group from at least one of: a previous charging process, a previous relaxation under a same environmental condition, and a voltage state, stored in a memory, of at least one of: the terminal voltage of at least one other group of the battery and an average value of the voltage state of the respective terminal voltage of at least two groups of the battery…". The claim appears to define two contrasting definitions for the calculation of the deviation (and by extension, the rate of change of the deviation). It is not clear if the deviation is defined as equal to: 1) the (terminal voltage) - (voltage state of the terminal voltage of a same group from at least one of a previous charging process and previous relaxation under a same environmental condition) - (voltage state of a terminal voltage of at least one other group of the battery and an average value of the voltage state of the respective terminal voltage of at least two groups of the battery) or 2) the (terminal voltage) - (voltage state of the terminal voltage of a same group from at least one of a previous charging process and previous relaxation under a same environmental condition), or the (terminal voltage) - (voltage state of a terminal voltage of at least one other group of the battery and an average value of the voltage state of the respective terminal voltage of at least two groups of the battery). In other words, it is not clear if there is one overall deviation calculated from voltage states of a terminal voltage of the same group and a terminal voltage of one other group, or if there are one of two deviations calculated of the terminal voltage relative to voltage state of the same group or to the other group. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner is taking the latter interpretation. Additional clarification/correction is requested.d) Claim 12 lines 7-13 recites "to calculate a deviation and additionally a rate of change of the deviation of the voltage state, determined by way of the measuring apparatus, of the terminal voltage from a voltage state, stored in a memory, of the terminal voltage of a same group from at least one of: a previous charging process, a previous relaxation under a same environmental condition, and a voltage state, stored in a memory, of at least one of: the terminal voltage of at least one other group of the battery and an average value of the voltage state of the respective terminal voltage of at least two groups of the battery…". The claim appears to define two contrasting definitions for the calculation of the deviation (and by extension, the rate of change of the deviation). It is not clear if the deviation is defined as equal to: 1) the (terminal voltage) - (voltage state of the terminal voltage of a same group from at least one of a previous charging process and previous relaxation under a same environmental condition) - (voltage state of a terminal voltage of at least one other group of the battery and an average value of the voltage state of the respective terminal voltage of at least two groups of the battery) or 2) the (terminal voltage) - (voltage state of the terminal voltage of a same group from at least one of a previous charging process and previous relaxation under a same environmental condition), or the (terminal voltage) - (voltage state of a terminal voltage of at least one other group of the battery and an average value of the voltage state of the respective terminal voltage of at least two groups of the battery). In other words, it is not clear if there is one overall deviation calculated from voltage states of a terminal voltage of the same group and a terminal voltage of one other group, or if there are one of two deviations calculated of the terminal voltage relative to voltage state of the same group or to the other group. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner is taking the latter interpretation. Additional clarification/correction is requested.
e) Claim 13 lines 7-13 recites "to calculate a deviation and additionally a rate of change of the deviation of the voltage state, determined by way of the measuring apparatus, of the terminal voltage from a voltage state, stored in a memory, of the terminal voltage of a same group from at least one of: a previous charging process, a previous relaxation under a same environmental condition, and a voltage state, stored in a memory, of at least one of: the terminal voltage of at least one other group of the battery and an average value of the voltage state of the respective terminal voltage of at least two groups of the battery…". The claim appears to define two contrasting definitions for the calculation of the deviation (and by extension, the rate of change of the deviation). It is not clear if the deviation is defined as equal to: 1) the (terminal voltage) - (voltage state of the terminal voltage of a same group from at least one of a previous charging process and previous relaxation under a same environmental condition) - (voltage state of a terminal voltage of at least one other group of the battery and an average value of the voltage state of the respective terminal voltage of at least two groups of the battery) or 2) the (terminal voltage) - (voltage state of the terminal voltage of a same group from at least one of a previous charging process and previous relaxation under a same environmental condition), or the (terminal voltage) - (voltage state of a terminal voltage of at least one other group of the battery and an average value of the voltage state of the respective terminal voltage of at least two groups of the battery). In other words, it is not clear if there is one overall deviation calculated from voltage states of a terminal voltage of the same group and a terminal voltage of one other group, or if there are one of two deviations calculated of the terminal voltage relative to voltage state of the same group or to the other group. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner is taking the latter interpretation. Additional clarification/correction is requested.
f) Claim 14 lines 6-13 recites "to calculate a deviation and additionally a rate of change of the deviation of the voltage state, determined by way of the measuring apparatus, of the terminal voltage from a voltage state, stored in a memory, of the terminal voltage of a same group from at least one of: a previous charging process, a previous relaxation under a same environmental condition, and a voltage state, stored in a memory, of at least one of: the terminal voltage of at least one other group of the battery and an average value of the voltage state of the respective terminal voltage of at least two groups of the battery…". The claim appears to define two contrasting definitions for the calculation of the deviation (and by extension, the rate of change of the deviation). It is not clear if the deviation is defined as equal to: 1) the (terminal voltage) - (voltage state of the terminal voltage of a same group from at least one of a previous charging process and previous relaxation under a same environmental condition) - (voltage state of a terminal voltage of at least one other group of the battery and an average value of the voltage state of the respective terminal voltage of at least two groups of the battery) or 2) the (terminal voltage) - (voltage state of the terminal voltage of a same group from at least one of a previous charging process and previous relaxation under a same environmental condition), or the (terminal voltage) - (voltage state of a terminal voltage of at least one other group of the battery and an average value of the voltage state of the respective terminal voltage of at least two groups of the battery). In other words, it is not clear if there is one overall deviation calculated from voltage states of a terminal voltage of the same group and a terminal voltage of one other group, or if there are one of two deviations calculated of the terminal voltage relative to voltage state of the same group or to the other group. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner is taking the latter interpretation. Additional clarification/correction is requested.
g) Claim 15 lines 7-13 recites "to calculate a deviation and additionally a rate of change of the deviation of the voltage state, determined by way of the measuring apparatus, of the terminal voltage from a voltage state, stored in a memory, of the terminal voltage of a same group from at least one of: a previous charging process, a previous relaxation under a same environmental condition, and a voltage state, stored in a memory, of at least one of: the terminal voltage of at least one other group of the battery and an average value of the voltage state of the respective terminal voltage of at least two groups of the battery…". The claim appears to define two contrasting definitions for the calculation of the deviation (and by extension, the rate of change of the deviation). It is not clear if the deviation is defined as equal to: 1) the (terminal voltage) - (voltage state of the terminal voltage of a same group from at least one of a previous charging process and previous relaxation under a same environmental condition) - (voltage state of a terminal voltage of at least one other group of the battery and an average value of the voltage state of the respective terminal voltage of at least two groups of the battery) or 2) the (terminal voltage) - (voltage state of the terminal voltage of a same group from at least one of a previous charging process and previous relaxation under a same environmental condition), or the (terminal voltage) - (voltage state of a terminal voltage of at least one other group of the battery and an average value of the voltage state of the respective terminal voltage of at least two groups of the battery). In other words, it is not clear if there is one overall deviation calculated from voltage states of a terminal voltage of the same group and a terminal voltage of one other group, or if there are one of two deviations calculated of the terminal voltage relative to voltage state of the same group or to the other group. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner is taking the latter interpretation. Additional clarification/correction is requested.
8. Dependent claim 16 depends from claim 1 and is rejected for at least the same reasons as given for claim 16. Dependent claims 3-10 and 17-20 depend from claim 2 and are rejected for at least the same reasons as given for claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
10. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claim 1, the closest prior art, Lee et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2022/0179008, hereinafter "Lee") at least teaches a method for determining a proportion of defective battery cells in a group of battery cells connected electrically in parallel in a battery (Lee Figs. 2 and 7 and paragraph [0011] teach a method for diagnosing a connection state of a battery pack that includes a plurality of battery banks (groups) where each battery bank includes a plurality of battery cells connected in parallel to one another, and Lee paragraph [0143] teaches individually diagnosing each cell's connections to determine a proportion of defective battery cells within a battery bank group), wherein a voltage state of a terminal voltage of the group is determined in relation to at least one of: a charging process and a relaxation of the battery (Lee paragraph [0012] teaches measuring a voltage of each battery bank group at a first time point during the charging process, and at voltage value of each battery bank measured at a second time point during the discharging (relaxation) process) under an environmental condition (Lee paragraph [0101] teaches where each battery bank is measured in consideration of a temperature of the battery bank or surroundings thereof in order to adjust a reference value) and a deviation (Lee paragraph [0014] teaches determining a difference (deviation) in the voltage value at the first time point relative to a voltage value at the first time point of a different battery bank). However, claim 1 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Lee et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2022/0179008) fails to anticipate or render obvious a method for determining a proportion of defective battery cells in a group of battery cells and additionally a rate of change of the deviation of the determined voltage state of the terminal voltage from the voltage state of the terminal voltage of a same group from at least one of: a previous charging process and a previous relaxation under a same environmental condition is calculated, wherein the proportion of defective battery cells in the group is determined from the calculated deviation and additionally from the rate of change of the deviation, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
In regards to claim 2, Lee teaches a method for determining a proportion of defective battery cells in a group of battery cells connected electrically in parallel in a battery (Lee Figs. 2 and 7 and paragraph [0011] teach a method for diagnosing a connection state of a battery pack that includes a plurality of battery banks (groups) where each battery bank includes a plurality of battery cells connected in parallel to one another, and Lee paragraph [0143] teaches individually diagnosing each cell's connection to determine a proportion of defective battery cells within a battery bank group), wherein a voltage state of a terminal voltage of the group is determined in relation to at least one of: a charging process and a relaxation of the battery (Lee paragraph [0012] teaches measuring a voltage of each battery bank group at a first time point during the charging process, and at voltage value of each battery bank measured at a second time point during the discharging (relaxation) process) under an environmental condition (Lee paragraph [0101] teaches where each battery bank is measured in consideration of a temperature of the battery bank or surroundings thereof in order to adjust a reference value) and a deviation of the determined voltage state of the terminal voltage from at least one of: a voltage state of the terminal voltage of at least one other group (1) of the battery (4) (Lee paragraph [0014] teaches determining a voltage difference (deviation) of a voltage value at the first time point of the first selected battery bank and a voltage value at the first time point of a different (other) battery bank of the plurality of battery banks) and an average value of the voltage state of the respective terminal voltage of at least two groups of the battery is calculated (Lee paragraph [0086] teaches determining a difference (deviation) between the voltage at a specific battery bank and an average voltage value of other (at least two) battery banks). However, claim 2 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Lee et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2022/0179008) fails to anticipate or render obvious a method for determining a proportion of defective battery cells in a group of battery cells and additionally a rate of change of the deviation of the determined voltage state of the terminal voltage from at least one of: a voltage state of the terminal voltage of at least one other group (1) of the battery (4) and an average value of the voltage state of the respective terminal voltage of at least two groups of the battery is calculated, wherein the proportion of defective battery cells in the group is determined from the calculated deviation and additionally from the rate of change of the deviation, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Similarly, claim 11 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Lee et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2022/0179008) fails to anticipate or render obvious a battery controller configured to determine a proportion of defective battery cells in a group of battery cells and to calculate additionally a rate of change of the deviation of the voltage state, determined by way of the measuring apparatus, of the terminal voltage from a voltage state, stored in a memory, of the terminal voltage of a same group from at least one of: a previous charging process, a previous relaxation under a same environmental condition, and a voltage state, stored in a memory, of at least one of: the terminal voltage of at least one other group of the battery and an average value of the voltage state of the respective terminal voltage of at least two groups of the battery, wherein the processor unit is configured to determine a proportion of defective battery cells in the group from the measured deviation and additionally from the rate of change of the deviation, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Similarly, claim 12 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Lee et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2022/0179008) fails to anticipate or render obvious a computer program comprising instructions that are configured to be executed by a battery controller configured to determine a proportion of defective battery cells in a group of battery cells and to calculate additionally a rate of change of the deviation of the voltage state, determined by way of the measuring apparatus, of the terminal voltage from a voltage state, stored in a memory, of the terminal voltage of a same group from at least one of: a previous charging process, a previous relaxation under a same environmental condition, and a voltage state, stored in a memory, of at least one of: the terminal voltage of at least one other group of the battery and an average value of the voltage state of the respective terminal voltage of at least two groups of the battery, wherein the processor unit is configured to determine a proportion of defective battery cells in the group from the measured deviation and additionally from the rate of change of the deviation, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Similarly, claim 13 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Lee et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2022/0179008) fails to anticipate or render obvious a computer-readable storage medium on which a computer program is stored comprising steps for a battery controller configured to determine a proportion of defective battery cells in a group of battery cells and to calculate additionally a rate of change of the deviation of the voltage state, determined by way of the measuring apparatus, of the terminal voltage from a voltage state, stored in a memory, of the terminal voltage of a same group from at least one of: a previous charging process, a previous relaxation under a same environmental condition, and a voltage state, stored in a memory, of at least one of: the terminal voltage of at least one other group of the battery and an average value of the voltage state of the respective terminal voltage of at least two groups of the battery, wherein the processor unit is configured to determine a proportion of defective battery cells in the group from the measured deviation and additionally from the rate of change of the deviation, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Similarly, claim 14 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Lee et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2022/0179008) fails to anticipate or render obvious a battery for a motor vehicle, comprising a battery controller configured to determine a proportion of defective battery cells in a group of battery cells and to calculate additionally a rate of change of the deviation of the voltage state, determined by way of the measuring apparatus, of the terminal voltage from a voltage state, stored in a memory, of the terminal voltage of a same group from at least one of: a previous charging process, a previous relaxation under a same environmental condition, and a voltage state, stored in a memory, of at least one of: the terminal voltage of at least one other group of the battery and an average value of the voltage state of the respective terminal voltage of at least two groups of the battery, wherein the processor unit is configured to determine a proportion of defective battery cells in the group from the measured deviation and additionally from the rate of change of the deviation, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Similarly, claim 15 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Lee et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2022/0179008) fails to anticipate or render obvious a motor vehicle comprising at least one of: a battery for a motor vehicle and a the battery controller configured to determine a proportion of defective battery cells in a group of battery cells and to calculate additionally a rate of change of the deviation of the voltage state, determined by way of the measuring apparatus, of the terminal voltage from a voltage state, stored in a memory, of the terminal voltage of a same group from at least one of: a previous charging process, a previous relaxation under a same environmental condition, and a voltage state, stored in a memory, of at least one of: the terminal voltage of at least one other group of the battery and an average value of the voltage state of the respective terminal voltage of at least two groups of the battery, wherein the processor unit is configured to determine a proportion of defective battery cells in the group from the measured deviation and additionally from the rate of change of the deviation, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
11. Dependent claim 16 depends from claim 1 and contains allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as given for claim 1. Dependent claims 3-10 and 17-20 depend from claim 2 and contain allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as given for claim 2.
Pertinent Art
12. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A. Delobel et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0363478) discloses a Method for Detecting a Faulty Cell in an Electric Battery.
B. Lee (US Pat. Pub. 2022/0137145) discloses Apparatus and Method for Detecting Low-Voltage Defective Battery Cell.
C. Chae et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2023/0236259) discloses Battery System Diagnosing Apparatus and Method.
D. Chae et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2023/0358819) discloses Battery System Diagnosing Apparatus and Method.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1598. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F, 9:30 am to 6 pm.
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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/PAUL D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 3/11/2026