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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species II in the reply filed on 5/28/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all species are sufficiently related that a thorough search for the subject matter of one would encompass a search for the subject matter of the remaining species. This is not found persuasive because Examiner respectfully disagrees and considers the species sufficiently distinct that the inventions require a different field of search, including at least different search strategies and search queries.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Note that, in the following rejections, the highlighting indicates differences from the exact claim language, or items involved in an obviousness argument.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (2016/0131719) in view of Laletin (6,411,098).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi et al. disclose a battery measurement device (1; see paragraph 29) that measures a state of a secondary battery (B; see paragraph 29), the battery measurement device comprising:
a signal control section (40 and 15; see paragraph 45) that causes an alternating-current signal (AC component of I2; see paragraph 45) to be outputted from the secondary battery or inputs an alternating-current signal to the secondary battery (inputs; see paragraph 56);
... ;
a response signal measurement section (11, 21, and 40; see paragraphs 35, 39, and 58) that measures a response signal (AC component of Vm; see paragraph 58) of the secondary battery responsive to the alternating-current signal; and
an arithmetic section (40; see paragraph 41) that calculates information regarding a complex impedance of the secondary battery (internal complex impedance; see paragraphs 61-63 and 65) on a basis of ... the alternating-current signal ... and the response signal measured by the response signal measurement section (see paragraphs 59-63), wherein
the arithmetic section calculates the information regarding the complex impedance (see paragraphs 58-63) after waiting for the measurement result of the alternating-current signal to reach a steady state (see paragraph 57) after start of the input/output of the alternating-current signal by the signal control section (see paragraph 56) ... ,
the arithmetic section is configured to determine that the measurement result reaches the steady state (see paragraph 57) at elapse of a predetermined preparation time (preset voltage stabilization time; see paragraph 57) after the start of the input/output of the alternating-current signal to the secondary battery by the signal control section (see paragraph 57) ... , and
there being a frequency (specified detection frequencies f1, f2, and f3; see paragraphs 42 and 56) of the alternating-current signal to be inputted/outputted during a period before the measurement result reaches the steady state after the start of the input/output of the alternating-current signal by the signal control section (see paragraphs 56-57).
Takahashi et al. do not disclose the highlighted limitations:
a signal control section that causes an alternating-current signal to be outputted from the secondary battery or inputs an alternating-current signal to the secondary battery;
a current measurement section that measures the alternating-current signal;
a response signal measurement section that measures a response signal of the secondary battery responsive to the alternating-current signal; and
an arithmetic section that calculates information regarding a complex impedance of the secondary battery on a basis of measurement results of the alternating-current signal measured by the current measurement section and the response signal measured by the response signal measurement section, wherein
the arithmetic section calculates the information regarding the complex impedance after waiting for the measurement result of the alternating-current signal to reach a steady state after start of the input/output of the alternating-current signal by the signal control section and outputs a calculation result,
the arithmetic section is configured to determine that the measurement result reaches the steady state at elapse of a predetermined preparation time after the start of the input/output of the alternating-current signal to the secondary battery by the signal control section and output the calculation result, and
the preparation time is set in accordance with a frequency of the alternating-current signal to be inputted/outputted during a period before the measurement result reaches the steady state after the start of the input/output of the alternating-current signal by the signal control section.
Laletin discloses a current measurement section that measures the alternating-current signal (combination of items 23, 25, 27, and 64; see figure 1C and column 9, lines 56-66).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Takahashi et al. to include a current measurement section that measures the alternating-current signal as the basis for the complex impedance calculations, similar to the invention of Laletin, to allow direct determination of the output of current driver 22, as suggested by Laletin (see column 9, lines 56-66).
Laletin discloses outputting calculation results (see figure 1C; and column 10, lines 1-14).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the combination such that the arithmetic section outputs the calculation result, similarly to the invention of Laletin, because such a modification would have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Laletin discloses setting a delayed start for use of sampled data according to a frequency of an excitation signal (discarding data corresponding to a first complete period of an excitation signal, which inherently makes the waiting period a function of the signal frequency; see column 15, lines 13-16).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the combination such that the preparation time is set in accordance with a frequency of the alternating-current signal to be inputted/outputted during a period before the measurement result reaches the steady state after the start of the input/output of the alternating-current signal by the signal control section, similarly to the invention of Laletin, in order to avoid artifacts in the data, as suggested by Laletin (see column 15, lines 13-16).
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (2016/0131719) in view of Laletin (6,411,098), further in view of Tsuchiya et al. (2011/0257914).
Regarding claim 7, see the foregoing rejection of claim 1, for all limitations except the following.
The combination of references relied upon in the rejection of claim 1 does not disclose the highlighted limitations:
A battery measurement device that measures a state of a secondary battery, the battery measurement device comprising:
...
the current measurement section is configured to measure the alternating-current signal via a shunt resistance,
a resistance temperature detection section that detects a resistance temperature of the shunt resistance is provided, and
the arithmetic section determines that the measurement result reaches the steady state when the resistance temperature reaches a predetermined resistance temperature after the start of the input/output of the alternating-current signal to the secondary battery by the signal control section or when an amount of change in the resistance temperature per unit of time becomes a predetermined amount of change in the resistance temperature or less, calculates the information regarding the complex impedance, and outputs the calculation result.
Laletin further discloses a current measurement section being configured to measure the alternating-current signal via a shunt resistance (23; see column 9, lines 56-66).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the combination such that the current measurement section is configured to measure the alternating-current signal via a shunt resistance, similarly to the invention of Laletin, because such a modification would have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Tsuchiya et al. disclose
a resistance temperature detection section (30; 65) that detects a resistance temperature of the shunt resistance is provided, and
temperature detection of a resistive member being used to estimate the time when circuit variables have reached steady state (see paragraphs 76-77).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the combination such that a resistance temperature detection section that detects a resistance temperature of the shunt resistance is provided, and the arithmetic section determines that the measurement result reaches the steady state when the resistance temperature reaches a predetermined resistance temperature after the start of the input/output of the alternating-current signal to the secondary battery by the signal control section ..., similarly to the invention of Tsuchiya et al., in order to determine when the stabilization state of the circuit element has happened, as suggested by Tsuchiya et al. (see paragraph 77).
Note that the alternative condition in the indented clause, “the arithmetic section determines ...” means only one of the two conditions needs to be met.
Regarding claim 8, see the foregoing rejection of claim 7, which includes limitations equivalent to those of claim 8 in its last three indented clauses.
Regarding claim 9, see the foregoing rejection of claim 1 for all limitations except the following.
The combination of references relied upon in the rejection of claim 1 does not disclose the highlighted limitations:
...
a battery temperature detection section, wherein
the arithmetic section calculates the information regarding the complex impedance after waiting for the measurement result of the alternating-current signal to reach a steady state after start of the input/output of the alternating-current signal by the signal control section and outputs a calculation result,
the battery temperature detection section detects a battery temperature of the secondary battery, and
the arithmetic section determines that the measurement result reaches the steady state when the battery temperature reaches a predetermined battery temperature after the start of the input/output of the alternating-current signal to the secondary battery by the signal control section or when an amount of change in the battery temperature per unit of time becomes a predetermined amount of change in the battery temperature or less, calculates the information regarding the complex impedance, and outputs the calculation result.
Tsuchiya et al. disclose
a battery temperature detection section (30; see paragraph 65), wherein
...
the battery temperature detection section detects a battery temperature of the secondary battery (see paragraphs 76-77), and
an arithmetic section determines that the measurement result reaches the steady state when the battery temperature reaches a predetermined battery temperature (see paragraphs 76-77) ... .
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the combination to include a battery temperature detection section, wherein the battery temperature detection section detects a battery temperature of the secondary battery, and the arithmetic section determines that the measurement result reaches the steady state when the battery temperature reaches a predetermined battery temperature after the start of the input/output of the alternating-current signal to the secondary battery by the signal control section, similarly to the invention of Tsuchiya, in order to determine when the state of the battery has stabilized, as suggested by Tsuchiya (see paragraphs 76-77).
Note that the alternative condition in the indented clause, “the arithmetic section determines ...” means only one of the two conditions needs to be met.
Regarding claim 10, see the foregoing rejection of claim 9, which includes limitations equivalent to those of claim 10 in the indented clause, “a battery temperature detection section...”, and the last two indented clauses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY T EVANS whose telephone number is (571)272-2369. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9 AM - 5:30 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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/GEOFFREY T EVANS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights