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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The following NON-FINAL Office Action is in response to application 18/467,997.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/15/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 09/15/2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 18 objected to because of the following informalities: "performing a .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A method of assessing a battery module, the method comprising:
performing a battery module functionality test on a plurality of battery cell arrays within the battery module to obtain battery test data for each of the plurality of battery cell arrays;
determining from the battery test data if a measured parameter for one of the plurality of battery cell arrays deviates from a predetermined threshold for the measured parameter;
performing a focused secondary battery test on each of the plurality of battery cell arrays that include the measured parameter that deviates from the predetermined threshold; and
qualifying the battery module based on at least one of the battery test data and the focused secondary battery test.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Similar limitations comprise the abstract idea of Non-transitory computer-readable storage medium Claim 16 which performs the method of claim 1 and comprises:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium embodying programmed instructions which, when executed by a processor, are operable for performing a method.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract idea of System Claim 19 which performs the method of claim 1 and comprises:
A system for assessing a battery module, the system comprising:
a plurality of battery cell arrays in the battery module;
a secondary battery test device configured to be directed at the battery module.
a controller in communication with the battery module and the secondary battery test device.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a method claim. Likewise, claim 16 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and claim 19 is a system claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
In the instant case, claim 1 is found to recite at least one judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea), that being a Mental Process and a Mathematical Concept. This can be seen in the claim limitations of “determining from the battery test data if a measured parameter for one of the plurality of battery cell arrays deviates from a predetermined threshold for the measured parameter”, and “qualifying the battery module based on at least one of the battery test data and the focused secondary battery test” which is the judicial exception of a mental process because these limitations are merely data observations, evaluations, and/or judgements in order to evaluate whether the measured parameter deviates from the predetermined threshold and to qualify the battery module based on that evaluation, and is capable of being performed mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, the aforementioned limitations recite mathematical calculations, e.g. see Spec. [0035]-[0041], which describe performing statistical analysis of the battery test data, including identifying deviation from a predetermined threshold using principal component analysis (PCA) and other mathematical processing to determine whether a measured parameter is an outlier among the plurality of battery cell arrays.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 16 and 19.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, the claimed method recites additional elements including “performing a battery module functionality test on a plurality of battery cell arrays within the battery module to obtain battery test data for each of the plurality of battery cell arrays”, and “performing a focused secondary battery test on each of the plurality of battery cell arrays that include the measured parameter that deviates from the predetermined threshold” however these elements are found to be data gathering and output steps, which are recited at a high level of generality, and thus merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,”.
Non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 16 recites the same additional elements as claim 1, and also recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium embodying programmed instructions which, when executed by a processor, are operable for performing a method” however the use of the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium merely recites generic computer implementation to execute the same abstract steps as claim 1 and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
System claim 19 recites the same as claim 1 and also recites “a plurality of battery cell arrays in the battery module”, “a secondary battery test device configured to be directed at the battery module”, and “a controller in communication with the battery module and the secondary battery test device” however the use of the battery module functionality test, and other measuring or detection systems is merely a generic data gathering and output steps, which is found to be insignificant extra solution activity. The tests simply obtain battery test data from the plurality of battery cell arrays and provide measured parameters for evaluation, without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h): “For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation.” System claim 19 also recites that “a controller in communication with the battery module” is used for “communication” which is merely general purpose computer hardware and/or software components used as a tool to “apply” the abstract idea in a technological environment.
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, are recited at such a high level of generality (e.g. using “controller” and “computer-readable storage medium” storing instructions executed by a “processor”) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, nothing in the claim applies the result of identifying the deviation or outlier parameter to effect any technical change to the battery module, the determination is merely used as an informational result without improving the operation of the module or altering the testing process.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely performs insignificant extra-solution activit(ies) (claims 1, 16 and 19). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claim 16 and 19, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-15, 17-18, and 20 merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Therefore, these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for claims 1, 16 and 19. Specifically:
With respect to dependent claims 2 and 3 specifically, these limitations recite structural details such as welding battery cells to a bus bar or arranging cells in parallel. However, these elements are merely recite manufacturing related structural features of the battery module and do not improve the functioning of the overall computer system, the testing device, or the abstract idea itself. The additional recited structure does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor does it amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
With respect to dependent claims 4, 5, and 15, specifically, the claims further recite performing additionally battery testing steps, such as hybrid pulse power characterization, applying charge or discharge pulses, sensing voltage, or temperature via thermal imaging. These limitations merely represent additional data gathering activity performed prior to the mathematically evaluation. Such recitations do not improve underlying technology but instead describe additional testing procedures that are performed to obtain further measurements prior to the mathematical evaluation and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(h).
With respect to dependent claims 6-13, 17, 18 and 20 specifically, the claims recite mathematical and statistical operations such as determining outliers, performing principal component analysis, implementing Kalman filtering, and comparing measured parameters to thresholds and other deviations. These limitations merely refine the mathematical concepts used in to process battery test data. These operations amount to computational techniques capable of being performed mentally and/or with a generic processor. Accordingly, the recited limitation constitute mathematical evaluation that fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
With respect to dependent claim 14 specifically, the claim further recites performing flash thermography by applying a flash of light to a target area and capturing at least one image using an imaging camera to assess welds associated with the battery cell array. These limitations merely recite additional inspection and measurements steps used to obtain further data for evaluation and do not improve the functioning of the computer, imagining system, or testing device. Rather, the steps are ancillary to the claimed data analysis and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and those discussed in relation to independent claims 1, 16 and 19, the dependent claims are insufficient to integrate the claimed abstract ideas into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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, 4-5, 11-13, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230236258 A1, Worry et al (hereinafter Worry) US 20220258286 A1, in view of US 20200287251 A1, Yonekura et al. (hereinafter Yonekura).
Regarding Claim 1, Worry disclose a method of assessing a battery module (Worry, [0021] a SOH estimation system, devices and methods are provided for accurately estimating the SOH of an energy storage device at one or more of the cell, module, stack, and bank levels), the method comprising:
performing a battery module functionality test on a plurality of battery cell arrays within the battery module to obtain battery test data (Worry, [0034] normalized capacity estimation module 120 is configured to receive a measured voltage, measured temperature, and/or measured current) for each of the plurality of battery cell arrays (Worry, [0047] FIG. 1B, a battery module 2, or simply “module” for short. A module 2 may comprise two or more cells connected in series or parallel arrangements or both series and parallel arrangements and grouped together);
determining from the battery test data if a measured parameter for one of the plurality of battery cell (Worry, [0035] the normalized capacity estimation module 120 is configured to generate a filtered normalized capacity estimate, NC.sub.n, for each cell of cells 1 through N, based on the received nominal capacity, Q.sub.nom, measured voltage, V.sub.m,n, measured current, I.sub.m, measured temperature, T.sub.m,n, nominal OCV curve, f.sub.ocv, and operational dynamic model, R.sub.0, R.sub.1, C.sub.1.) arrays deviates from a predetermined threshold for the measured parameter (Worry, [0090]-[0091] where Δ.sub.Thres and ∇.sub.Thres are configurable thresholds. The purpose of this filter or these gating thresholds are to ensure that the calculation is made only when there is sufficient information in the data to get an accurate estimate of capacity);
performing a focused secondary battery test on each of the plurality of battery cell arrays that include the measured parameter that deviates from the predetermined threshold (Worry, [0090]-[0091] where Δ.sub.Thres and ∇.sub.Thres are configurable thresholds. The purpose of this filter or these gating thresholds are to ensure that the calculation is made only when there is sufficient information in the data to get an accurate estimate of capacity); and
qualifying the battery module based on at least one of the battery test data (Worry, [0024] In an example embodiment, a state-of-health (SOH) estimation system is disclosed for determining an estimate of the SOH for an energy storage device that accounts for both power fade and capacity fade) and the focused secondary battery test.
Worry does not disclose performing a focused secondary battery test on each of the plurality of battery cell arrays; and
qualifying the battery module based on at least one of the battery test data and the focused secondary battery test.
However, Yonekura teaches performing a focused secondary battery test on each of the plurality of battery cell arrays (Yonekura, [0046] That is, when there is a cell group C′ in which the deviation DV1 of the first cell voltage V1 is larger than the threshold value DVth1 and the deviation DV2 of the second cell voltage V2 is smaller than or equal to the threshold value DVth2b, there is high possibility that any error has occurred or the state of the connection of a terminal or the like has changed due to vibration or the like, so that the retest is performed. In other words, the final diagnosis is suspended); and
qualifying the battery module based on at least one of the battery test data and the focused secondary battery test (Yonekura, [0049] his means that the deviation DV1 at the early stage of start of the charging is large and the deviation DV1 is reduced with the progress of charging, and there is high possibility that any error has occurred or the state of the connection of a terminal or the like has changed due to vibration or the like, so that the retest is performed. In other words, the final diagnosis is suspended).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Worry and Yonekura’s teaching because Worry discloses monitoring measured battery cell parameters and applying thresholds to calculations, while Yonekura teaches performing a focused secondary battery test when a measured cell parameter deviates from a predetermined threshold in order to confirm abnormal measurement results. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings in order to improve the reliability of battery health assessment by verifying abnormal measurement results prior to final qualification.
Regarding Claim 4, Worry in view of Yonkura disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the battery module functionality test includes performing a hybrid pulse power characterization test on each of the plurality of battery cell arrays in the battery module (Worry, [0070] hybrid pulse power characterization (HPPC) test…The voltage and current data from the HPPC experiment can be used in a non-linear regression approach to determine the coefficients of the model β.sub.0,p . . . β.sub.8,p for a specific cell n).
Regarding Claim 5, Worry in view of Yonkura disclose the method of claim 4, wherein the hybrid pulse power characterization test includes applying discharge and charge pulses on each of the plurality of battery cell arrays in the battery module (Worry, [0070] hybrid pulse power characterization (HPPC) test is conducted outside of normal operation and the output voltage, current and the temperature are recorded. The HPPC test can be conducted within a narrow voltage and OCV range or at several temperatures and OCV points).
Regarding Claim 11, Worry in view of Yonkura disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined threshold includes a predetermined range of values for the measured parameter (Worry, [0096] filtered capacity estimate is based on a minimum predicted OCV and a maximum predicted OCV that is filtered to prevent updates to the capacity estimate when (1) the difference between the maximum predicted OCV and the minimum predicted OCV is less than a threshold, when (2) a minimum predicted OCV curve gradient, V.sub.dOcv,min associated with the minimum predicted OCV is less than a gradient threshold, and when (3) a maximum predicted OCV curve gradient, V.sub.dOcv,max, associated with the maximum predicted OCV is less than a gradient threshold).
Regarding Claim 12, Worry in view of Yonkura disclose the method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the battery test data includes performing a direct current internal resistance test on each of the plurality of battery cell arrays (Worry, [0114] the power rating estimate, PR.sub.n, may be based on multiple current values, generating multiple SOH values. It also accurately accounts for the change in power across the OCV curve as voltage changes during discharge. It may also incorporate both ohmic and polarization internal resistance components for more accurate steady-state power estimation).
Regarding Claim 13, Worry in view of Yonkura disclose the method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the battery test data includes measuring a voltage across each of the plurality of battery cell arrays (Worry, [0046] a module can be any energy storage device comprising a group of two or more cells with connection points for one or more voltage measurement(s)).
Regarding Claim 16, Worry disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium embodying programmed instructions which, when executed by a processor, are operable for performing a method (Worry, [0021] a SOH estimation system, devices and methods are provided for accurately estimating the SOH of an energy storage device at one or more of the cell, module, stack, and bank levels) comprising:
performing a battery module functionality test on a plurality of battery cell arrays within a battery module to obtain battery test data (Worry, [0034] normalized capacity estimation module 120 is configured to receive a measured voltage, measured temperature, and/or measured current) for each of the plurality of battery cell arrays (Worry, [0047] FIG. 1B, a battery module 2, or simply “module” for short. A module 2 may comprise two or more cells connected in series or parallel arrangements or both series and parallel arrangements and grouped together);
determining from the battery test data if a measured parameter for one of the plurality of battery cell (Worry, [0049] FIG. 1D, the stack 3, comprises multiple modules 2 electrically connected in series. Thus, in an example embodiment, a stack 3 may comprise N modules, and the modules may be noted as module n, wherein n=1 to N. It will be understood that N may be any positive integer number. For N=1 the stack is a single module. For N>1, the stack is a number of modules, N) arrays deviates from a predetermined threshold for the measured parameter (Worry, [0090]-[0091] where Δ.sub.Thres and ∇.sub.Thres are configurable thresholds. The purpose of this filter or these gating thresholds are to ensure that the calculation is made only when there is sufficient information in the data to get an accurate estimate of capacity);
performing a focused secondary battery test on each of the plurality of battery cell arrays that include the measured parameter that deviates from the predetermined threshold (Worry, [0090]-[0091] where Δ.sub.Thres and ∇.sub.Thres are configurable thresholds. The purpose of this filter or these gating thresholds are to ensure that the calculation is made only when there is sufficient information in the data to get an accurate estimate of capacity); and
qualifying the battery module based on at least one of the battery test data (Worry, [0024] In an example embodiment, a state-of-health (SOH) estimation system is disclosed for determining an estimate of the SOH for an energy storage device that accounts for both power fade and capacity fade) and the focused secondary battery test.
Worry does not disclose performing a focused secondary battery test on each of the plurality of battery cell arrays; and
qualifying the battery module based on at least one of the battery test data and the focused secondary battery test.
However, Yonekura teaches performing a focused secondary battery test on each of the plurality of battery cell arrays (Yonekura, [0046] That is, when there is a cell group C′ in which the deviation DV1 of the first cell voltage V1 is larger than the threshold value DVth1 and the deviation DV2 of the second cell voltage V2 is smaller than or equal to the threshold value DVth2b, there is high possibility that any error has occurred or the state of the connection of a terminal or the like has changed due to vibration or the like, so that the retest is performed. In other words, the final diagnosis is suspended); and
qualifying the battery module based on at least one of the battery test data and the focused secondary battery test (Yonkura, [0049] his means that the deviation DV1 at the early stage of start of the charging is large and the deviation DV1 is reduced with the progress of charging, and there is high possibility that any error has occurred or the state of the connection of a terminal or the like has changed due to vibration or the like, so that the retest is performed. In other words, the final diagnosis is suspended).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the teachings of Worry and Yonekura for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 19, Worry disclose a system for assessing a battery module, the system (Worry, [0021] a SOH estimation system, devices and methods are provided for accurately estimating the SOH of an energy storage device at one or more of the cell, module, stack, and bank levels) comprising:
a plurality of battery cell arrays in the battery module (Worry, [0047] FIG. 1B, a battery module 2, or simply “module” for short. A module 2 may comprise two or more cells connected in series or parallel arrangements or both series and parallel arrangements and grouped together);
a secondary battery test device configured to be directed at the battery module;
a controller in communication with the battery module and the secondary battery test device (Worry, [0082] the signals or data discussed herein may be locally communicated between modules, all at the energy storage system (e.g., in the battery management system)), the controller is configured to:
perform a battery module functionality test on the plurality of battery cell arrays within the battery module to obtain battery test data (Worry, [0034] normalized capacity estimation module 120 is configured to receive a measured voltage, measured temperature, and/or measured current) for each of the plurality of battery cell arrays (Worry, [0047] FIG. 1B, a battery module 2, or simply “module” for short. A module 2 may comprise two or more cells connected in series or parallel arrangements or both series and parallel arrangements and grouped together);
determine from the battery test data if a measured parameter for one of the
plurality of battery cell arrays (Worry, [0049] FIG. 1D, the stack 3, comprises multiple modules 2 electrically connected in series. Thus, in an example embodiment, a stack 3 may comprise N modules, and the modules may be noted as module n, wherein n=1 to N. It will be understood that N may be any positive integer number. For N=1 the stack is a single module. For N>1, the stack is a number of modules, N) deviates from a predetermined threshold for the measured parameter (Worry, [0090]-[0091] where Δ.sub.Thres and ∇.sub.Thres are configurable thresholds. The purpose of this filter or these gating thresholds are to ensure that the calculation is made only when there is sufficient information in the data to get an accurate estimate of capacity);
performing a focused secondary battery test on each of the plurality of battery cell arrays that include the measured parameter that deviates from the predetermined threshold (Worry, [0090]-[0091] where Δ.sub.Thres and ∇.sub.Thres are configurable thresholds. The purpose of this filter or these gating thresholds are to ensure that the calculation is made only when there is sufficient information in the data to get an accurate estimate of capacity); and
qualifying the battery module based on at least one of the battery test data (Worry, [0024] In an example embodiment, a state-of-health (SOH) estimation system is disclosed for determining an estimate of the SOH for an energy storage device that accounts for both power fade and capacity fade) and the focused secondary battery test.
Worry does not disclose a secondary battery test device configured to be directed at the battery module;
performing a focused secondary battery test on each of the plurality of battery cell arrays; and
qualifying the battery module based on at least one of the battery test data and the focused secondary battery test.
However, Yonekura teaches a secondary battery test device configured to be directed at the battery module (Yonekura, [0028] this inspection device is adapted to perform a final inspection on a battery pack 1 for an electric vehicle which has been completed in an assembly line (not shown in the figure) and, more specifically, an inspection for a cell-to-cell connection anomaly inside a pack case of the battery pack);
performing a focused secondary battery test on each of the plurality of battery cell arrays (Yonekura, [0046] That is, when there is a cell group C′ in which the deviation DV1 of the first cell voltage V1 is larger than the threshold value DVth1 and the deviation DV2 of the second cell voltage V2 is smaller than or equal to the threshold value DVth2b, there is high possibility that any error has occurred or the state of the connection of a terminal or the like has changed due to vibration or the like, so that the retest is performed. In other words, the final diagnosis is suspended); and
qualifying the battery module based on at least one of the battery test data and the focused secondary battery test (Yonkura, [0049] his means that the deviation DV1 at the early stage of start of the charging is large and the deviation DV1 is reduced with the progress of charging, and there is high possibility that any error has occurred or the state of the connection of a terminal or the like has changed due to vibration or the like, so that the retest is performed. In other words, the final diagnosis is suspended).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the teachings of Worry and Yonekura for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2, 3, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230236258 A1, Worry et al (hereinafter Worry) US 20220258286 A1, in view of US 20200287251 A1, Yonekura et al. (hereinafter Yonekura), in further view of US 20220258286 A1, Donke et al. (hereinafter Donke).
Regarding Claim 2, Worry in view of Yonkura in further view of Donke teaches the method of claim 1, including forming each of the plurality of battery cell arrays by welding a set of the plurality of battery cells to at least one corresponding bus bar (Donke, [0047] the method for analyzing the weld seam is used in battery contacting to determine whether there is electrical contact between the welded workpieces. The workpieces may include a part, in particular a conductor or terminal, of a first battery cell (or battery or battery pack) and a part, in particular a conductor or terminal, of a second battery cell (or battery or battery pack). A missing electrical contact between the conductors of the battery cells may be determined or detected as a welding defect. The workpieces may also be or comprise cell connectors or bus bars).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Worry with Donke’s teaching because both Worry and Donke are directed to battery modules that include multiple cells arranged in arrays, and both address ensuring proper electrical connection and performance of those batteries. Worry teaches obtaining battery test data from the arrays, while Donke teaches welding the battery cells to a bus bar and verifying proper electrical contact at the weld. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating Donke’s conventional welding and verification process into Worry’s battery module would ensure reliable electrical connections prior to performing testing taught by Worry. Since Donke’s welding technique is a known and common approach for forming battery cell arrays, using it in combination with Worry represents a predictable integration that will help improve overall system in ensuring proper electrical connectivity using reliable methods such as welding.
Regarding Claim 3, Worry in view of Yonkura in further view of Donke teaches teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the plurality of battery cell arrays each include a plurality of battery cells welded to the at least one corresponding bus bar in parallel (Worry, [0047] FIG. 1B, a battery module 2, or simply “module” for short. A module 2 may comprise two or more cells connected in series or parallel arrangements or both series and parallel arrangements and grouped together).
Regarding Claim 14, Worry in view of Yonkura in further view of Donke teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the focused secondary battery test includes performing a flash thermography by applying a flash of light to a target area including one of the plurality of battery cell arrays with the measured parameter that deviates from the predetermined threshold (Donke, [0036] using lock-in thermography methods and/or pulse-phase methods in order to detect defects such as pores or interfaces in the weld seam) and capturing at least one image of the target area with an imaging camera to assess a plurality of welds in the target area (Donke, [0119] middle row (“optical microscope”) are microscopic images of sections of the respective weld seams and corresponding schematic diagrams of the sectional views are shown in the bottom row).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Worry with Donke’s teaching because both are directed to evaluating the condition and performance of battery cell assemblies, and Donke specifically teaches using flash thermography and image capture to identify defects such as pores, void, or irregulates in weld seams. Worry already performances testing on cells that deviate from the predetermined threshold and incorporating Donke’s thermographic inspection technique into Worry’s testing represents an enhancement for identifying defects. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying Donke’s method into Worry’s testing would improve the evaluation process.
Regarding Claim 15, Worry in view of Yonkura in further view of Donke teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the focused secondary battery test includes directing at least one of an optical sensor or an ultrasound at the target area (Donke, [0119] FIGS. 5A-5D each show in the top row (“camera”) a camera-recorded plan view of a weld seam that was formed during laser welding of workpieces 18a, 18b in lap joint, with the weld seam having an I-seam geometry).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Worry with Donke’s teaching because Donke teaches using various sensing techniques such as optical sensors, camera-based inspection to evaluate weld seams and identify irregulates. Incorporating Donke’s optical inspection into Worry’s testing represents a enhancement for further verifying physical issues of a targeted battery. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that adding Donke’s sensing methods to Worry’s process would provide addition diagnostic information about the weld quality and battery structure.
Claims 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230236258 A1, Worry et al (hereinafter Worry) in view of US 20200287251 A1, Yonekura et al. (hereinafter Yonekura), in further view of US 20230194624 A1, Hinterbrandner et al. (hereinafter Hinterbrandner)
Regarding Claim 6, 17, and 20, Worry in view of Yonkura in further view of Hinterbrander teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining if the measured parameter for one of the plurality of battery cell arrays deviates from the predetermined threshold includes performing a statistical analysis (Hinterbrandner, [0094] The manifestations of the parameters that trigger anomalies can be determined through the analysis of many real anomaly cases. These manifestations of parameters serve as a scale to obtain parameter limits for specific anomalies) to determine if the measured parameter for one of the plurality of battery cell arrays (Hinterbrandner, [0074] In this way the following advantages can be achieved: [0075] Savings in costs, since possible complaints can be reduced early on (directly after production) [0076] Method applicable to individual battery modules [0077] Localization of the affected module [0078] Categorization of the anomalies (indication of causes) [0079] 100% testing of all modules) is an outlier compared to the measured parameter for a remainder of the plurality of battery cell arrays (Hinterbrandner, [0080] The present disclosure relates to the following aspects: battery simulation, identification of outliers and extraction of features, classification algorithms, and anomaly detection, which are considered in more detail in the following).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Worry with Hinterbrandner’s teaching because both references address identifying abnormal or deviating battery cell behavior, and Hinterbrandner specifically teaches using statistical analysis to detect anomalies and outliers in battery parameters. Worry already identifies cells that deviate from a predetermined threshold, and incorporating Hintegbrandner’s anomaly detection techniques would be a predictable enhancement for improving the accuracy of that determination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying Hinterbrandners statistical methods within Worry’s testing process strengthens the evaluations without changing the overall operation.
Regarding Claim 7 and 18, Worry in view of Yonkura in further view of Hinterbrander teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the outlier is determined based on performing a statical analysis on the battery test data for each of the plurality of battery cell arrays (Hinterbrandner, [0081] Real anomaly types are simulated and generated in uniform distribution with the aid of a battery simulation model. A subsequent data pre-processing extracts the features (feature vectors) needed for the subsequent categorization and recognizes foreign or thus-far unknown anomalies (outliers)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Worry with Hinterbrandner’s teaching because Hinterbrandner’s teaching of generating anomaly types and extracting feature vectors for identifying unknown outliers directly complements Worry’s detection of deviating battery cell parameters. Worry already identifies cells that fall outside the predetermined threshold, and adding Hinterbrandner’s feature extraction and anomaly classification process would be a predictable way to refine and improve that determination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that combining these techniques strengthens the evaluations of abnormal behavior without altering the basic operation of Worry’s method.
Regarding Claim 8, Worry in view of Yonkura in further view Hinterbrander teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the statistical analysis includes performing a principal component analysis based on the measured parameter from the battery test data (Hinterbrandner, [0062] the processor 103 is configured to determine the first electrical characteristic on the basis of the first voltage curve section of the first voltage curve and the second electrical characteristic on the basis of the second voltage curve section of the first voltage curve by means of a principal component analysis).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Worry with Hinterbrandner’s teaching because Hinterbrandner’s use of principal component analysis (PCA) to evaluate electrical characteristics from battery test data directly complements Worry’s analysis of deviating measured parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating Hinterbrandner’s PCA technique into Worry’s evaluation process is a predictable way to extract process is a predictable way to extract additional insight from the same test data and improve identification of abnormal behavior without changing the overall operation of Worry’s method.
Regarding Claim 9, Worry in view of Yonkura in further view of Hinterbrander teaches the method of claim 8, including tracking the measured parameter from the battery module functionality test with a Kalman filter (Worry, [0071] monitoring mode, the dynamic model estimation module 145 or the resistance model estimation module 175 is configured, for example, to update the operational dynamic model or resistance model based on an on-line estimation approach such as extended Kalman filter (EKF) or recursive least squares (RLS)).
Regarding Claim 10, Worry in view of Yonkura in further view of Hinterbrander teaches the method of claim 9, including identifying a tracking trace of the measured parameter and performing the principal component analysis on the tracking trace of the measured parameter (Hinterbrandner, [0130] A time series is thus obtained for each module and segment. It is now attempted to reduce the data. This is accomplished with the aid of a principal component analysis. This method is suitable here since those points that have the greatest information content are identified for each segment. Redundant information is omitted in this way. It is determined that a single point per segment is sufficient to retain the desired characteristic according to the principal component analysis).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Worry with Hinterbrandner’s teaching because Hinterbrandner’s teaching of applying principal component analysis to tracking traces of battery parameters directly complements Worry’s evaluation of measured parameter deviations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using Hinterbrander’s PCA based reduction of time-series data within Worry’s process provides a predictable way to highlight the most informative portions of the measurement trace, improving the identification of abnormal behavior without altering the underlying operation of Worry’s method.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclose:
-US 20160016482 A1, describing a traction battery estimation system for an electric vehicle. The disclosure includes identifying system dynamics of a battery pack using measurement of voltage, internal resistance, and current, and operating a state estimator configured to determine battery limits and available power under present operating conditions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM NAGI SHOHATEE whose telephone number is (571)272-6612. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-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, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/IBRAHIM NAGI SHOHATEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857