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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/29/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/11/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 42. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 4 line 1 recites “for different set of T-SOC pairs”.
The objection can be overcome by replacing “set” with “sets”.
Page 9 line 23 recites “such battery-generic reference model”.
The objection can be overcome by inserting “a” between “such” and “battery-generic”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2-8 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.
Claim 2 recites “determined further”. It is not clear what “determined further” refers to in the scope of calculating the second set of calendar aging values because Claim 1 already determines a second set of calendar aging values. It is not clear what “determined further” means for something already determined, therefore making the scope of this claim indefinite.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Swierczynski (“Suitability of the Nanophosphate LiFePO4/C Battery Chemistry for the Fully Electric Vehicle: Lifetime Perspective”).With respect to Claim 1, Swierczynski teaches
A computer-implemented method (See Section III Para[0001] “The simulations were run until the battery end-of life (arbitrary chosen 20% capacity fade) was reached and the capacity and power degradation of the battery were determined for the considered mission profile.”), comprising:
- obtaining a battery-generic reference model for calendar aging of a battery cell (See Section III Para[0001] “simple battery model”),
- measuring a first set of calendar aging values of a test cell of a rechargeable battery for a first set of Temperature-State of Charge, T-SOC, value pairs (See Section III A 1) Para[0001] “The marked points in Fig. 2 are the estimated calendar lifetime of the battery cells at measured conditions.”), and
- determining a second set of calendar aging values of the test cell of the rechargeable battery for a second set of T-SOC value pairs based on the first set of calendar aging values and the battery-generic reference model (See Section III A 1) Para[0001] “The rest of the points were interpolated/extrapolated after fitting the capacity degradation as function of storing temperature and SOC level.”).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2,3, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swierczynski (“Suitability of the Nanophosphate LiFePO4/C Battery Chemistry for the Fully Electric Vehicle: Lifetime Perspective”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Amano (US 20130096858 A1).
With respect to Claim 2, Swierczynski is silent to the language of
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
- measuring relative aging values for a third set of T-SOC value pairs, and
- determining a third set of calendar aging values of the test cell of the rechargeable battery for the third set of T-SOC value pairs based on the first set of calendar aging values and the relative aging values,
wherein the second set of the calendar aging values is determined further based on the third set of calendar aging values.
Nevertheless, Amano teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
- measuring relative aging values for a third set of T-SOC value pairs (See Para[0037] ac(T,S) in Math. 2), and
- determining a third set of calendar aging values (See Para[0037] z in Math. 2) of the test cell of the rechargeable battery for the third set of T-SOC value pairs based on the first set of calendar aging values (See Para[0037] ah(T,S) in Math. 2) and the relative aging values (See Para[0037] Math. 2),
wherein the second set of the calendar aging values (See Para[0035] y in Math. 1) is determined further based on the third set of calendar aging values (See Para[0035] Math. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Swierczynski by measuring relative aging values for a third set of T-SOC value pairs, and determining a third set of calendar aging values of the test cell of the rechargeable battery for the third set of T-SOC value pairs based on the first set of calendar aging values and the relative aging values, wherein the second set of the calendar aging values is determined further based on the third set of calendar aging values such as that of Amano.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Swierczynski, because Amano teaches an algorithm to eventually calculate the second set of calendar aging values in an analytical manner that allows for precise characterization of the calendar aging of a battery cell.
With respect to Claim 3, Swierczynski is silent to the language of
The computer-implemented method of claim 2,
wherein the third set of calendar aging values is determined by extrapolating from the first set of calendar aging values in accordance with differences in the relative aging values.
Nevertheless, Amano teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 2,
wherein the third set of calendar aging values is determined by extrapolating from the first set of calendar aging values in accordance with differences in the relative aging values (See Para[0037] Math. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Swierczynski wherein the third set of calendar aging values is determined by extrapolating from the first set of calendar aging values in accordance with differences in the relative aging values such as that of Amano.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Swierczynski, because Amano teaches an algorithm where the differences in the relative aging values can be found from the dependence of ac(T,S) on the temperature and SOC, which is continuously changed in the sum. This will allow for simple extraction of differences in the relative aging values, which can be used in conjunction with the first set of calendar aging values (see ah(T,S)) to eventually calculate the third set of calendar aging values in an analytical manner that allows for precise characterization of the calendar aging of a battery cell.
With respect to Claim 7, Swierczynski is silent to the language of
The computer-implemented method of claim 2,
wherein the third set of T-SOC value pairs comprises the first set of T-SOC value pairs.
Nevertheless, Amano teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 2,
wherein the third set of T-SOC value pairs comprises the first set of T-SOC value pairs (See Para[0037] Math. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Swierczynski wherein the third set of T-SOC value pairs comprises the first set of T-SOC value pairs such as that of Amano.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Swierczynski because Amano teaches an algorithm to efficiently encapsulate the first set of T-SOC value pairs within the third set of T-SOC value pairs, allowing for a more efficient calculation of the third set of T-SOC value pairs
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swierczynski (“Suitability of the Nanophosphate LiFePO4/C Battery Chemistry for the Fully Electric Vehicle: Lifetime Perspective”) and Amano (US 20130096858 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Naumann (“Analysis and modeling of calendar aging of a commercial LiFeP04/graphite cell”).
With respect to Claim 4, Swierczynski is silent to the language of
The computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising:
- determining the third set of T-SOC value pairs to lie across phase-transition regions of an active material of the test cell of the rechargeable battery.
Nevertheless, Naumann teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising:
- determining the third set of T-SOC value pairs to lie across phase-transition regions of an active material of the test cell of the rechargeable battery (See Conclusion Para[0006] “Because the SOC-influence on calendar aging of Qloss and Rinc does not follow the storage SOC in a simple functional dependance, the TPs should cover various SOC values (e.g. with multiple points of support, evenly spaced or aggregated at the SOC-values where phase changes of the graphite anode are expected).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Swierczynski by determining the third set of T-SOC value pairs to lie across phase-transition regions of an active material of the test cell of the rechargeable battery such as that of Naumann.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Swierczynski, because Naumann teaches an efficient way to accurately calculate the calendar aging of a test cell by regarding T-SOC points across phase transition regions.
Claim(s) 5, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swierczynski (“Suitability of the Nanophosphate LiFePO4/C Battery Chemistry for the Fully Electric Vehicle: Lifetime Perspective”) and Amano (US 20130096858 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lewerenz (“New method evaluating currents keeping the voltage constant for fast and highly resolved measurement of Arrhenius relation and capacity fade”).
With respect to Claim 5, Swierczynski is silent to the language of
The computer-implemented method of claim 2,
wherein the relative aging values comprise float current values.
Nevertheless, Lewerenz teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 2,
wherein the relative aging values comprise float current values (See Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Swierczynski wherein the relative aging values comprise float current values such as that of Lewerenz.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Swierczynski, because Lewerenz teaches that the relative aging values are float current values, which allows for easier calculation of calendar aging of battery cells.
With respect to Claim 6, Swierczynski is silent to the language of
The computer-implemented method of claim 5,
wherein the float current values are measured by holding the test cell at a predefined voltage level.
Nevertheless, Lewerenz teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 5,
wherein the float current values are measured by holding the test cell at a predefined voltage level (See Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Swierczynski wherein the float current values are measured by holding the test cell at a predefined voltage level such as that of Lewerenz.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Swierczynski because Lewerenz teaches a method to maintain the voltage level at a constant value, which will allow for accurate measurement of the float current values.
With respect to Claim 8, Swierczynski teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 2,
wherein the first set of and the third set of T -SOC value pairs are grid points of a regular T-SOC grid (See Figure 2, where the first set is the marked points and the third set are all the points in Figure 2).
Claim(s) 9, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swierczynski (“Suitability of the Nanophosphate LiFePO4/C Battery Chemistry for the Fully Electric Vehicle: Lifetime Perspective”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Simonis (US 20220252671 A1).
With respect to Claim 9, Swierczynski teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
wherein the second set of calendar aging values is determined by re-scaling (See Section III Para[001] “specific correction factors”) the reference set of calendar aging values based on the first set of calendar aging values and by interpolating between at least the first set of calendar aging values in accordance with the re-scaled calendar aging values of the reference set (See Section III A 1) Para[001] “The rest of the points were interpolated/extrapolated after fitting the capacity degradation as function of storing temperature and SOC level.”).
However, Swierczynski is silent to the language of
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
- based on the battery-generic reference model, obtaining a reference set of calendar aging values of the test cell of the rechargeable battery for a reference set of T-SOC value pairs.
Nevertheless, Simonis teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:- based on the battery-generic reference model, obtaining a reference set of calendar aging values of the test cell of the rechargeable battery for a reference set of T-SOC value pairs (See Para[0008] “Aging state values of the battery are subsequently determined at defined times and/or for defined events with the aid of a battery reference model.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Swierczynski wherein based on the battery-generic reference model, Swierczynski obtains a reference set of calendar aging values of the test cell of the rechargeable battery for a reference set of T-SOC value pairs such as that of Simonis.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Swierczynski, because Simonis teaches a step of gathering the reference set of calendar aging values which is critical for extrapolating the limited data set of the first set of calendar aging values to a larger set of T-SOC value pairs, allowing for further characterization of the aging of the battery cell.
With respect to Claim 10, Swierczynski teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 9,
wherein a scaling factor of the reference set of calendar aging values is determined based on the first set of calendar aging values (See Section III Para[0001] “All the battery correction factors are determined experimentally from the accelerated cycle and calendar lifetime tests, which were performed at different conditions and interpolated and extrapolated to other battery operational conditions.).
With respect to Claim 12, Swierczynski teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 9,
wherein the battery-generic reference model comprises a patch-wise linear bivariate dependency of the reference set of calendar aging values (See Figure 2 and Section III Para[0001] “All the battery correction factors are determined experimentally from the accelerated cycle and calendar lifetime tests, which were performed at different conditions and interpolated and extrapolated to other battery operational conditions.).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swierczynski (“Suitability of the Nanophosphate LiFePO4/C Battery Chemistry for the Fully Electric Vehicle: Lifetime Perspective”) and Simonis (US 20220252671 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Lin (US 20160054390 A1).
With respect to Claim 11, Swierczynski is silent to the language of
The computer-implemented method of claim 9,
wherein the battery-generic reference model comprises a look-up table comprising the reference set of calendar aging values for the reference set of T-SOC value pairs.
Nevertheless, Lin teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 9,
wherein the battery-generic reference model comprises a look-up table comprising the reference set of calendar aging values for the reference set of T-SOC value pairs (See Para[0026] “In one exemplary implementation, the nominal parameters module 328 is a lookup table stored at the memory 212 that relates the measured temperature T and transformed OCV based on estimated SOC to various nominal parameters for the equivalent circuit model of the battery system 124.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Swierczynski wherein the battery-generic reference model comprises a look-up table comprising the reference set of calendar aging values for the reference set of T-SOC value pairs such as that of Lin.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Swierczynski, because Lin teaches a look-up table that will allow for faster extraction of reference calendar aging values of a battery cell.
Claim(s) 13, 14, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swierczynski (“Suitability of the Nanophosphate LiFePO4/C Battery Chemistry for the Fully Electric Vehicle: Lifetime Perspective”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park (US 20160363632 A1).
With respect to Claim 13, Swierczynski is silent to the language of
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
- adjusting the battery-generic reference model based on the second set of calendar aging values.
Nevertheless, Park teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
- adjusting the battery-generic reference model based on the second set of calendar aging values. (See Para[0070] “The data-driven model is a model applicable to machine learning, and includes, for example, a model used to output a degree of degradation in a state of a battery (for example, a battery life or a malfunction) due to an arbitrary factor.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Swierczynski by adjusting the battery-generic reference model based on the second set of calendar aging values such as that of Park.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Swierczynski, because Park teaches a method to adjust the battery-generic reference model by training the model using machine learning, which will allow for tunable and dynamic adjustment of the model for accurate calendar aging calculations.
With respect to Claim 14, Swierczynski is silent to the language of
The computer-implemented method of claim 13,
- wherein the battery-generic reference model is adjusted using a machine learning algorithm.
Nevertheless, Park teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 13,
- wherein the battery-generic reference model is adjusted using a machine learning algorithm (See Para[0070] “The data-driven model is a model applicable to machine learning, and includes, for example, a model used to output a degree of degradation in a state of a battery (for example, a battery life or a malfunction) due to an arbitrary factor.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Swierczynski wherein the battery-generic reference model is adjusted using a machine learning algorithm such as that of Park.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Swierczynski, because Park teaches a method to adjust the battery-generic reference model by training the model using machine learning, which will allow for tunable and dynamic adjustment of the model for accurate calendar aging calculations.
With respect to Claim 17, Swierczynski is silent to the language of
A computing device (See Para[0119] “computing hardware, for example, by one or more processors or computers”) comprising:
at least one processor (See Para[0119] “computing hardware, for example, by one or more processors or computers”); and
at least one memory storing program code executable by the at least one processor to perform operations (See Para[0119] “a processor or computer includes, or is connected to, one or more memories storing instructions or software that are executed by the processor or computer”) comprising to:
obtain a battery-generic reference model for calendar aging of a battery cell (See Section III Para[0001] “simple battery model”),
measure a first set of calendar aging values of a test cell of a rechargeable battery for a first set of Temperature-State of Charge, T-SOC, value pairs (See Section III A 1) Para[0001] “The marked points in Fig. 2 are the estimated calendar lifetime of the battery cells at measured conditions.”), and
determine a second set of calendar aging values of the test cell of the rechargeable battery for a second set of T-SOC value pairs based on the first set of calendar aging values and the battery-generic reference model (See Section III A 1) Para[0001] “The rest of the points”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Swierczynski with a computing device comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing program code executable by the at least one processor to perform operations comprising to: obtain a battery-generic reference model for calendar aging of a battery cell, measure a first set of calendar aging values of a test cell of a rechargeable battery for a first set of Temperature-State of Charge, T-SOC, value pairs, and determine a second set of calendar aging values of the test cell of the rechargeable battery for a second set of T-SOC value pairs based on the first set of calendar aging values and the battery-generic reference model such as that of Park.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Swierczynski, because Park teaches a computing device, a processor, and a memory storing program code that can apply the method of calculating the aging of a battery cell, which will allow for efficient packaging of the method mentioned herein.
With respect to Claim 18, Swierczynski is silent to the language of
A computer program product comprising a non-transitory medium storing program code executable by at least one processor of a computing device to perform operations comprising to:
obtain a battery-generic reference model for calendar aging of a battery cell,
measure a first set of calendar aging values of a test cell of a rechargeable battery for a first set of Temperature–State of Charge, T-SOC, value pairs, and
determine a second set of calendar aging values of the test cell of the rechargeable battery for a second set of T-SOC value pairs based on the first set of calendar aging values and the battery-generic reference model.
Nevertheless, Park teaches
A computer program product comprising a non-transitory medium storing program code executable by at least one processor of a computing device to perform operations (See Para[0122] “The instructions or software to control a processor or computer to implement the hardware components and perform the methods as described above, and any associated data, data files, and data structures, are recorded, stored, or fixed in or on one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media.”) comprising to:
obtain a battery-generic reference model for calendar aging of a battery cell (See Section III Para[0001] “simple battery model”),
measure a first set of calendar aging values of a test cell of a rechargeable battery for a first set of Temperature–State of Charge, T-SOC, value pairs (See Section III A 1) Para[0001] “The marked points in Fig. 2 are the estimated calendar lifetime of the battery cells at measured conditions.”), and
determine a second set of calendar aging values of the test cell of the rechargeable battery for a second set of T-SOC value pairs based on the first set of calendar aging values and the battery-generic reference model (See Section III A 1) Para[0001] “The rest of the points”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Swierczynski with A computer program product comprising a non-transitory medium storing program code executable by at least one processor of a computing device to perform operations comprising to: obtain a battery-generic reference model for calendar aging of a battery cell, measure a first set of calendar aging values of a test cell of a rechargeable battery for a first set of Temperature–State of Charge, T-SOC, value pairs, and determine a second set of calendar aging values of the test cell of the rechargeable battery for a second set of T-SOC value pairs based on the first set of calendar aging values and the battery-generic reference model such as that of Park.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Swierczynski, because Park teaches an efficient way to package and execute the method mentioned herein by implementing a computer program product comprising a non-transitory medium storing program code.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swierczynski (“Suitability of the Nanophosphate LiFePO4/C Battery Chemistry for the Fully Electric Vehicle: Lifetime Perspective”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahata (US 20140117940 A1).
With respect to Claim 15, Swierczynski teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
- tracking T-SOC values of a field cell (See Swierczynski Abstract) of the rechargeable battery.
However, Swierczynski is silent to the language of
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
- estimating a capacity degradation of the field cell of the rechargeable battery using the second set of calendar aging values.
Nevertheless, Takahata teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
- estimating a capacity degradation of the field cell of the rechargeable battery using the second set of calendar aging values (See Takahata Para[0178] “Herein, as an evaluation test for evaluating the capacity retention ratio (in other words, the storage performance), the above-described evaluation test batteries 800 was set aside for 60 days in a temperature environment at 60° from the condition of 80% SOC, and the ratio of the retained battery capacity (capacity retention ratio (%)) was measured.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Swierczynski by estimating a capacity degradation of the field cell of the rechargeable battery using the second set of calendar aging values such as that of Takahata.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Swierczynski, because Takahata teaches a method to efficiently calculate the aging of a cell by estimating the capacity degradation using the second set of calendar aging values.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swierczynski (“Suitability of the Nanophosphate LiFePO4/C Battery Chemistry for the Fully Electric Vehicle: Lifetime Perspective”) and Takahata (US 20140117940 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Amano (US 20130096858 A1).
However, Swierczynski is silent to the language of
The computer-implemented method of claim 15, further comprising:
- when estimating the capacity degradation of the field cell of the rechargeable battery, scaling the second set of calendar aging values based on a calendar age of the rechargeable battery.
Nevertheless, Amano teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 15, further comprising:
- when estimating the capacity degradation of the field cell of the rechargeable battery, scaling the second set of calendar aging values based on a calendar age of the rechargeable battery (See Math. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Swierczynski wherein when estimating the capacity degradation of the field cell of the rechargeable battery, Swierczynski scales the second set of calendar aging values based on a calendar age of the rechargeable battery such as that of Amano.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Swierczynski, because Amano teaches how to scale the second set of calendar aging values based on a calendar age of the rechargeable battery, which allows for the accurate and efficient calculation of the capacity degradation of the field cell.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOSTOFA AHMED HISHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 a.m. - 4 p.m. ET, Friday 7:00 a.m. - 3 p.m. ET. Every other Friday off.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/MOSTOFA AHMED HISHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/YOSHIHISA ISHIZUKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863