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
2. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlin et al (2008/0024137), hereinafter Carlin in view of Asakura et al (8,334,699), hereinafter Asakura.
With respect to claims 1, 10, and 19, Carlin discloses a battery detection method, comprising: determining a first loading parameter of a first pulse current (paragraph 0031 teaches setting the magnitude of discharge pulse 32 based on the type of battery being tested); loading the first pulse current on a battery under test (paragraph 0020, teaches controller 22, which causes a discharge pulse to be applied to battery 15, and paragraph 0023 describes discharge pulse 32) based on the first loading parameter to obtain a first changing rate of voltage of the battery under test (paragraphs 0033-0034, 0040, and 0043 disclose obtaining a parameter relating to the reduction/change in battery voltage during the pulse; paragraph 0040 specifically states the parameter may measure the “change in voltage” over an interval.
Carlin’s teachings above fail to specifically teach determining whether an internal short circuit occurs in the battery under test based on the first changing rate.
With respect to claims 1, 10, and 19, Asakura teaches in column 5, line 53 – column 6, line 12 and lines 31-49 determining whether an internal short circuit occurs in the battery under test based on the first changing rate.
In view of Asakura’s teachings, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the battery evaluation method of Carlin to determine whether an internal short circuit has occurred based on the voltage-response parameter obtained from the applied pulse-current as is taught by Asakura. Asakura teaches that changes in battery volage, including a voltage drop and subsequent recovery, are indicative of an internal short circuit and may be used to determine the occurrence of the internal short circuit. One would be motivated to use the voltage-response information obtained in order to provide additional diagnostic information regarding the condition of the battery.
5. Claims 2, 11, and 120 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlin in combination with Asakura and in further view of Chang et al (2016/0272080), hereinafter Chang.
Carlin’s teachings in combination with Asakura are discussed above. The combination however fails to specifically teach the method further including determining a first scenario where the battery under test is located; and determining the first loading parameter of the first pulse current based on the first scenario, wherein: the first scenario is associated with at least one of: a state of charge of the battery under test, a charging/discharging rate of the battery under test, or temperature of the battery under test.
With respect to claims 2, 11, and 20, Chang teaches and determining the first loading parameter of the first pulse current based on the first scenario (paragraph 0038), wherein: the first scenario is associated with at least one of: a state of charge of the battery under test (paragraph 0043), a charging/discharging rate of the battery under test (paragraphs 0043-0044), or temperature (paragraph 0043) of the battery under test.
In view of Chang’s teachings, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine in Carlin/Asakura battery detection method, a loading parameter of the pulse current based on a scenario associated with an operating condition of the battery as is taught by Chang. One would be motivated to determine the parameter in order to tailer the applied pulse to the condition of the battery and thereby improve the effectiveness and accuracy of battery evaluation and diagnostic operations under varying battery states.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 3-9 and 12-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form, including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s reason for allowance: Although Olmstead et al teaches a light source mechanism of a barcode scanner, the above identified prior art of record, taken alone, or in combination with any other prior art, fails to teach or fairly suggest the specific features of claims 6-16 of the present claimed invention. Specifically, prior art fails to teach the claimed method and electronic device wherein the one or more processors are further configured to perform determining the first loading parameter of the first pulse current based on the first scenario includes determining a current intensity and a current loading time of the first pulse current, or determining the current intensity and cut-off voltage of the battery under test, according to the first scenario; and loading the first pulse current on the battery under test based on the first loading parameter to obtain the first changing rate of voltage of the battery under test includes: obtaining the first changing rate of voltage of the battery under test according to the current intensity and the current loading time of the first pulse current; or obtaining the first changing rate of voltage of the battery under test according to the current intensity and the cut-off voltage of the battery under test. Prior art further fails to teach the claimed method and electronic device wherein the one or more processors are further configured to perform determining whether the internal short circuit occurs in the battery under test based on the first changing rate includes: determining a target scenario corresponding to the first scenario; and comparing the first changing rate with a first target changing rate corresponding to the target scenario to determine whether the internal short circuit occurs in the battery under test, wherein the target scenario is a preset scenario in a standard database. Additionally, prior art fails to teach the claimed method and electronic device wherein the first scenario is related to the state of charge of the battery under test, the method further including: in the charging state, determining to load the current when it is determined that the state of charge of the battery under test is larger than a first threshold; and in the discharging state, determining to load the current when it is determined that the state of charge of the battery under test is smaller than a second threshold, wherein the first threshold is larger than the second threshold and wherein the first scenario is related to the temperature of the battery under test, the method further including: when it is determined that the internal short circuit occurs in the battery under test, determining the corresponding short-circuit resistance based on the first changing rate; obtaining a resistance threshold at the temperature corresponding to the first scenario; and when the short-circuit resistance is smaller than the resistance threshold, prohibiting the charging or discharging of the battery under test. The above limitations are not disclosed in prior art and moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to come to the claimed invention.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: See attached PTO form 892, Refence Cited.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Allyson N. Trail whose telephone number is (571) 272-2406. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 7:30AM to 4:00PM Monday thru Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael G. Lee, can be reached on (571) 272-2398. The fax phone number for this Group is (571) 273-8300.
Communications via Internet e-mail regarding this application, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used by the applicant and should be addressed to [allyson.trail@uspto.gov].
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ALLYSON N TRAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
June 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights