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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of the amendment filed on 10/23/2025 in which claims 1 and 19 were amended, claims 14 and 26 canceled, and claims 31-32 were added. Therefore claims 1-13, 15-25, and 26-32 are pending for examination below.
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.
Claims 1-3, 9-10, 15-17, 19-20, 24-25, and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthey et al. [US 2021/0336299] in view of Song et al. [US 11,231,465] and Roy [US 12,062,767].
With respect to claims 1-2 and 19-20 , Matthey discloses a method for managing a battery pack [Fig. 1] comprising a plurality of cells [101 is an assembled battery have a “plurality of” cells in serial and/or parallel, par. 0026], the method comprising: configuring at least one state-of-charge (SOC) model [battery model unit 601]; assessing state-of-charge (SOC) of the plurality of cells [par. 0040; finds the SOC by using modeling of the assembled battery 101]; controlling, based on the assessing of state-of-charge (SOC), the plurality of cells [502 receives SOC input which effects the output, i.e. how the battery are charged/discharged]; wherein assessing the state-of-charge (SOC) comprises calculating or estimating the state-of-charge (SOC) using the at least one state-of-charge (SOC) model [par. 0040-0041]; wherein the controlling is configured to equilibrate the state-of-charge (SOC) of the plurality of cells or to modify a state-of-charge (SOC) of an individual cell or a group of cells so that the plurality of cells as a whole has a balanced state-of-charge (SOC) [par. 0028; i.e. balancing of each battery cell; par. 0033-0038; i.e. current limiting]. However, Matthey fails to explicitly disclose the cells being lithium-ion cells, wherein the at least one state-of-charge (SOC) model is configured to account for one or more unique characteristics associated with a cell type of one or more cells of the plurality of lithium-ion cells, and maintain a cell within a predefined range as claimed.
Song relates to a method for controlling a battery and teaches use of a lithium-ion battery wherein the anode comprises a silicon-dominant cell comprising a silicon-dominant anode with silicon >50% of active material of the anode [abstract], wherein assessing/calculating a SOC comprises using a model that accounts for unique characteristics of a cell type [col. 5 lines 1-40; using profile information/models; unique type characteristics being for a Si/Li cell (i.e. “a lithium-based cathode material and a silicon-based anode cell); see also fig. 4 for unique slope calculation operation].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant claims to have modified Matthey’s battery management method to include lithium-ion batteries and for using unique characteristics associated with the cell type for the benefit of lithium-ions superior charge density/high storage capacity while enabling modeling of the Li-ion battery information using a method that provides more accurate data to allow for good life characteristics in repetition of the charge/discharge cycle as stated by Song [background and technical solution].
Furthermore, Roy relates to managing a battery pack in a vehicle and teaches controlling one or more cells to maintain the cell within a predefined range of a tracked value at any given point in a life of the battery pack [col. 9 lines 20-60; i.e. the temperature is tracked and maintained to be within a temperature range which is based on the vehicle operation and battery charging/discharging operations].
With respect to claim 3, Matthey further discloses configuring at least one state-of-charge (SOC) model based on a physics-based model associated with at least one lithium-ion cell, and wherein the physics-based model comprises information relating to modeling of one or more physical phenomena as factors that affect the SOC [par. 0039-0041].
With respect to claims 9 and 24, Matthey further discloses configuring at least one state-of-charge (SOC) model using data related to or acquired during formation of at least one cell or fabrication of one or more components of at least one lithium-ion cell [par. 0039-0041; i.e. as a model of the battery when assembled].
With respect to claims 10 and 25, Matthey further discloses configuring at least one state-of-charge (SOC) model using data related to or acquired during operation of at least one cell [par. 0039-0041; i.e. current and/or temperature].
With respect to claims 15 and 27, Matthey further discloses wherein the controlling comprises setting or modifying one or more operating parameters of an individual lithium-ion cell or group of lithium-ion cells within the plurality of lithium-ion cells [par. 0033-0038; i.e. current limiting]
With respect to claims 16 and 28, Matthey further discloses wherein the one or more operating parameters comprise current applied to at least one lithium-ion cell, and wherein the controlling comprising setting or adjusting the current based on calculated SOC value associated with the at least one lithium-ion cell and/or to balance the SOC values of the one or more lithium-ion cells [par. 0033-0038; i.e. current limiting which is forwarded further down the process perform the control.]
With respect to claims 17 and 29, Matthey further disclose wherein the assessing of the state-of-charge (SOC) comprises determining state-of-charge (SOC) prediction for at least one lithium-ion cell; and wherein the controlling comprising determining at least one action based on the SOC prediction [par. 0033-0038; i.e. current limiting and par. 0028; i.e. balancing].
Claims 4-8, 11-13, 18, 21-23, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthey et al. [US 2021/0336299], Song et al. [US 11,231,465], and Roy [US 12,062,767] as applied above, and further in view of Sarwat et al. [US 10,969,436].
With respect to claims 4-8, 11-13, 18, 21-23, and 30, Matthey discloses using modeling but fails to disclose specifically the various kinds of modeling known in the art (i.e. ML,MLP,MAE, etc.). However, all the claimed variations of modeling are well-known and established in the art (i.e. applicant is not the first person to invent machine-learning modeling, training data, MAE, RMSE, and the like) and therefore are obvious variations to the person with ordinary skill to apply to the data to the model. For example, Sarwat teaches a method for forecasting battery SOC using various kinds of modeling with machine-learning and training and algorithms/MLP [abstract, col. 2 and 5-6], also MAE and RMSE [col. 8], and optimizers like Adam [col. 10].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant claims to further modify Matthey’s modeling to include machine-learning and training type of modeling as taught by Sarwat for the SOC calculations for the benefit of improving the accuracy the forecasting of the SOC as suggested by Sarwat.
Claims 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthey et al. [US 2021/0336299], Song et al. [US 11,231,465], and Roy [US 12,062,767] as applied above, and further in view of Lee et al [US 2022/0221516].
With respect to claims 31-32, Matthey fails to explicitly disclose obtaining SOC measurements of the cells in addition to the model that is used in the calculating/estimating.
Lee relates to a battery management method that estimates internal states of the battery and teaches obtaining SOC measurements of a lithium battery and calculating/estimating the SOC using a SOC model and the obtained measurements [abstract, Figs 8-9].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant claims to have modified Matthey’s battery management method as detailed above to obtain measurements that are used in the calculating/estimating of the SOC model for the benefit of improving the accuracy of the modeling results as stated by Lee.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 10/23/2025 with respect to claim(s) 1 and 19 have been considered but are moot because a new ground of rejection has been applied in view of Roy and Applicant has not yet had a chance to respond.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL R PELTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/NATHANIEL R PELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859