DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Prosecutorial Standing
2. This communication is in response to the Application filed on 11.13.2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application. Claims 1-20 will be subject to further examination and evaluation in due course, and will be presented for examination, as detailed below.
Oath/Declaration
3. The Applicant’s oath/declaration has been reviewed by the Examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the Applicant' s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) dated 11.13.2023 is acknowledged by the Examiner. The cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C (2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed, signed and dated by the Examiner is attached to the instant Office action.
Priority / Filing Date
5. Applicant's claim for priority of the Foreign Application of 10-2023-0092616 filed on 07.17.2023 is acknowledged. The Examiner takes the CIP date of 07.17.2023 into consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
The examiner has identified independent system/method/product Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent Claim 11.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
obtain a first voltage during a stabilization time;
obtain a minimum voltage measured from a time point when the stabilization time ends; and
detect a temperature;
determine a first discharge amount;
determine a second discharge amount;
determine a first self-discharge amount and a second self-discharge amount; and
determine whether a short circuit has occurred.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as mental processes, determinations recite concepts performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a concept performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claim recites an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of: processors and sensors in Claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements of determining whether a short circuit has occurred are insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea without a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims x, y, and z are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are just using generic computer hardware to perform determinations a human can make if presented the same data. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1 and 11 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS).
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 11 and thus correspond to Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Additionally, the dependent claims do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible, and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS).
To address this rejection, the examiner suggests reviewing the recent Federal Circuit Court decisions and USPTO guidelines related to U.S.C. 101 for guidance on what is considered statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang, Pub. No.: US 2023/0009288 in view of Sung et al., Pub. No.: US 2024/0133972, and further in view of Liu et al., Pub. No.: US 2019/0305384.
As per claim 1, Kang discloses an apparatus for monitoring a battery of a vehicle [see at least ¶0076 (e.g., monitor the voltage of the battery module 21)], which includes one or more sensors [see at least ¶0043 (e.g., plurality of sensors (not shown) disposed on the battery)] and a processor [as illustrated in Fig. 1 (e.g., processor 11), and presented below]:
PNG
media_image1.png
489
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the apparatus comprising: wherein the one or more sensors are configured to: obtain a voltage during a stabilization time of the battery [see at least the abstract (e.g., The controller measures a relaxation voltage corresponding to a decrement of a voltage of the battery during a predetermined time period directly after the charging of the battery is completed. The controller estimates the state of health (SoH) of the battery in accordance with the relaxation voltage)];
obtain a minimum voltage measured from a time point when the stabilization time ends to a time point when parking of the vehicle ends as a voltage of the battery [see at least the abstract (e.g., The controller measures a relaxation voltage corresponding to a decrement of a voltage of the battery during a predetermined time period directly after the charging of the battery is completed. The controller estimates the state of health (SoH) of the battery in accordance with the relaxation voltage)]; and
detect a temperature of the battery from a time point when the first voltage is obtained to a time point when the second voltage is obtained [see at least ¶0013 (e.g., an actually-measured temperature of the battery and a state of charge of the battery from a constant current charging time table in which a reference constant current charging time is set in advance to correspond to a temperature of the battery and the state of charge of the battery, and when a difference between the reference constant current time and a time in which the constant current charging mode is activated is out of a predetermined range)], wherein the processor operatively connected to the one or more sensors is configured to: determine a first discharge amount based on the first voltage and the second voltage [see at least ¶0063 (e.g., when the constant current charging time measured in actual charging of the battery is greater or smaller by a predetermined amount than the previously-stored constant current charging time searched in the constant current charging time table 131)];
determine a second discharge amount consumed in balancing the battery and operating the one or more sensors [see at least ¶0073 (e.g., discharged a very small number of times and an end-of-life (EOL) battery sample)].
Kang discloses all elements per claimed invention as explained above. Kang does not explicitly disclose a first voltage and a second voltage. However, Sung discloses a first voltage and a second voltage [see at least ¶0011 (e.g., a first voltage deviation indicating a difference between a voltage behavior ….. a second voltage deviation of the battery cell, wherein the second voltage deviation corresponds to the latest value of the first voltage deviation applied to)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Sung in order to provide a battery monitor to detect a voltage of each of a plurality of battery cells included in a battery module; and a control circuit to determine a latest value of a first voltage deviation indicating a difference between a voltage behavior of each battery cell and an average voltage behavior of the plurality of battery cells over a relaxation period from a start time of a resting event [see Sung: abstract].
The combination of Kang and Sung does not explicitly disclose determine a first self-discharge amount and a second self-discharge amount based on the first discharge amount, the second discharge amount, and the temperature; and determine whether a short circuit has occurred in the battery based on the first self-discharge amount and the second self-discharge amount. However, Liu discloses determine a first self-discharge amount and a second self-discharge amount based on the first discharge amount, the second discharge amount [see at least Liu ¶0137 (e.g., current threshold may be set based on a self-discharge current value of a battery in a normal operating state. The self-discharge current value of the battery is related to an inherent feature of the battery, and the preset current threshold may be greater than the self-discharge current value of the battery)]; and determine whether a short circuit has occurred in the battery based on the first self-discharge amount and the second self-discharge amount [see at least ¶003 (e.g., Battery micro-short circuits mainly include a micro-short circuit caused by an external factor, a micro-short circuit caused by an internal structure change of a battery, and the like. The micro-short circuit caused by an internal structure change of a battery has a long evolution process. A phenomenon of the battery micro-short circuit is insignificant at an early stage, and diagnosis of the battery micro-short circuit is easily confused with a problem such as battery bolt looseness, causing high difficulty in identifying the battery micro-short circuit. A micro-short circuit phenomenon of a single battery in a battery pack including a plurality of single batteries occurs occasionally, increasing difficulty in identifying a micro-short-circuited single battery from the battery pack. However, at a later stage, the battery micro-short circuit may cause a severe safety problem such as battery thermal runaway, and battery micro-short circuit detection is one of battery safety issues that urgently need to be resolved)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Liu in order to provide a battery micro-short circuit detection method and apparatus, to improve accuracy of battery micro-short circuit detection, enhance applicability of battery micro-short circuit detection, and reduce a probability of erroneous battery fault determining [see Liu: ¶0005].
As per claim 2, Kang discloses wherein the one or more sensors is further configured to obtain, as the first voltage, a maximum voltage among voltages obtained during the stabilization time of the battery after driving of the vehicle is finished [see the rejection of claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 2 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 2. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 3, Kang discloses wherein the one or more sensors is further configured to obtain, as the first voltage, a minimum voltage among voltages obtained during the stabilization time of the battery after charging of the vehicle is finished [see the rejection of claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 3 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 3. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 4, Kang discloses wherein the processor is further configured to determine the first discharge amount based on the first voltage and the second voltage in response that a time required from the time point when the first voltage is obtained to the time point when the second voltage is obtained exceeds a threshold time [see the rejection of claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 4 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 4. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 5, Kang discloses wherein the processor is further configured to determine an amount of change in a state of charge (SOC) value of the battery with respect to a difference between the first voltage and the second voltage based on a pre-stored lookup table and determine the first discharge amount [see the rejection of claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 5 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 5. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 6, Kang discloses wherein the processor is further configured to determine a difference between the first discharge amount and the second discharge amount as a self-discharge amount [see the rejection of claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 6 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 6. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 7, Kang discloses wherein the processor is further configured to set, as the first self-discharge amount, the self-discharge amount in response that a minimum temperature of temperatures of the battery from the time point when the first voltage is obtained to the time point when the second voltage is obtained is equal to or greater than a first predetermined temperature [see the rejection of claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 7 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 7. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 8, Kang discloses wherein the processor is further configured to set, as the second self-discharge amount, the self-discharge amount in response that a maximum temperature of the temperatures of the battery from the time point when the first voltage is obtained to the time point when the second voltage is obtained is equal to or lower than a second predetermined temperature lower than the first predetermined temperature [see the rejection of claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 8 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 8. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 9, Kang discloses wherein the processor is further configured to output a message informing that a preliminary diagnosis of the battery is required in response that a case where a ratio of the second self-discharge amount to the first self-discharge amount is greater than a short circuit non-occurrence threshold and is less than a short circuit occurrence threshold has occurred continuously and repeatedly a predetermined number of times [see the rejection of claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 9 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 9. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 10, Kang discloses wherein the processor is further configured to output a message informing that an emergency diagnosis of the battery is required in response that the ratio of the second self-discharge amount to the first self-discharge amount is greater than the short-circuit occurrence threshold [see the rejection of claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 10 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 10. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
10. Claims 11-20, which are parallel to claims 1-10 in terms of scope and limitations, share similar characteristics as previously discussed and examined. Consequently, they are rejected based on the same logical and underlying reasoning, and justification that apply to claims 1-10. The similarity between these claims necessitates the same grounds for rejection, as explained in detail above [note the discussion of claims 1-10 above].
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The PTO-1449 forms have been reviewed and considered.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Garcia Ade whose telephone number is (571)272-5586. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at 517-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
13. 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.
/Garcia Ade/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
GARCIA ADE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/GA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627