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 .
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.
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The term “gradually” in claims 9 and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gradually” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is unclear how to determine whether the adjustment is performed “gradually”.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the Claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter?
Claims 1 recites a method. Thus, the claims are to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A: Prong One: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea?
Independent claim 1 recites:
A method for calculating a state of charge of a battery, comprising:
estimating a first state of charge of the battery by using a first state of charge estimation algorithm [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and a mental process because they can be performed by a human using pen and paper];
estimating a second state of charge of the battery by using a second state of charge estimation algorithm [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and a mental process because they can be performed by a human using pen and paper];
determining a first weight corresponding to the first state of charge and a second weight corresponding to the second state of charge based on state data of the battery [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and a mental process because they can be performed by a human using pen and paper]; and
calculating the state of charge of the battery based on the first state of charge and the first weight, and the second state of charge and the second weight [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and a mental process because they can be performed by a human using pen and paper].
Step 2A: Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application?
The claim does not recite any additional elements,
Thus, there are no additional elements to not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount to Significantly More Than the Abstract Idea?
The examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent Claims 2-16 are also not patent eligible. Claims 2-15 merely recite further details of the mathematical concepts and/or mental process, and/or gathering of data for use in in the abstract idea. Claim 16 merely recites application of the abstract idea to common, generically recited types of batteries.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garcia et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0143257, hereinafter “Garcia”).
Regarding Claim 1, Garcia teaches a method for calculating a state of charge of a battery (Fig. 7), comprising: estimating a first state of charge of the battery by using a first state of charge estimation algorithm (PF+NN 712); estimating a second state of charge of the battery by using a second state of charge estimation algorithm (ARMA 716); determining a first weight corresponding to the first state of charge and a second weight corresponding to the second state of charge based on state data of the battery (decision fusion 740, paragraph [0113]); and calculating the state of charge of the battery based on the first state of charge and the first weight, and the second state of charge and the second weight (decision fusion 740; outputs 195, SOC(k), paragraph [0113]).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4-7, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and Huang (CN-109870655-A).
Regarding Claim 2, Garcia teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Garcia does not specifically teach wherein the first state of charge estimation algorithm is an open circuit voltage algorithm, and the second state of charge estimation algorithm is an ampere hour integration algorithm. However, AAPA teaches, in paragraph [0040] of Applicant’s specification as filed, that the open circuit voltage algorithm is known to those skilled in the art. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the open circuit voltage algorithm in the system of Garcia, because the open circuit voltage algorithm is known to those skilled in the art (see AAPA, paragraph [0040]).
Garcia in view of AAPA does not specifically teach the second state of charge estimation algorithm is an ampere hour integration algorithm. However, Huang teaches on page 2, in the third paragraph of the Background section, that the ampere-hour integration method can be applied to both charging and discharging mode to calculate SOC for a battery. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include ampere hour integration as taught in Huang in the system of Garcia, because ampere-hour integration can be applied to charging and discharging mode and has a good universality (see Huang, page 2, second full paragraph), and is traditional (see Huang, page 4, last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 4, Garcia in view of AAPA and Huang teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 2. Garcia further teaches wherein the estimating a first state of charge of the battery by using a first state of charge estimation algorithm comprises: establishing a state of charge model of the battery based on historical charging and discharging data of the battery (paragraph [0051], training of models based on charge/discharge profiles); sensing current charging and discharging data of the battery (paragraph [0035], monitoring system collects data while in charging and discharging conditions); and estimating the first state of charge by using the state of charge model based on the current charging and discharging data (Fig. 7, trained models 712, 714, and 716 use inputs 102 from monitoring system, see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Garcia in view of AAPA and Huang teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 4. Garcia further teaches wherein the state of charge model is a charging and discharging curve fitted based on the historical charging and discharging data (paragraph [0091], curve fitting techniques) or a lookup table formed based on the historical charging and discharging data (no patentable weight due to “or”).
Regarding Claim 6, Garcia in view of AAPA and Huang teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 4. Garcia further teaches wherein the historical charging and discharging data and the current charging and discharging data comprise a current and/or a voltage of the battery (paragraph [0035]; paragraph [0051], Fig. 1, block 102, inputs include voltages and currents, see paragraph [0024]).
Regarding Claim 7, Garcia in view of AAPA and Huang teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 4. Garcia further teaches wherein the determining a first weight corresponding to the first state of charge and a second weight corresponding to the second state of charge based on state data of the battery comprises: determining a current state of the battery based on the historical charging and discharging data and the current charging and discharging data; and determining the first weight and the second weight based on the current state (paragraph [0113], weights for each SOC estimation value can depend on current SOC of the battery, which is equated to current state).
Regarding Claim 16, Garcia teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Garcia does not specifically teach wherein the battery is a lithium ion battery or a Sodium-ion battery. However, Huang teaches in the first paragraph on page 2 determining SoC of lithium ion batteries. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a lithium ion battery, such as is taught in Huang, in the system of Garcia, because a lithium ion battery has high energy, high battery voltage, wide working temperature range, and long storage life (see Huang, page 2, first paragraph of the Background section).
Claim(s) 3 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia in view of Tan (CN-111896875-A).
Regarding Claim 3, Garcia teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Garcia does not specifically teach wherein the first state of charge estimation algorithm is a battery equivalent circuit model-based algorithm based on at least one of an R-int equivalent circuit model of the battery, a first-order RC equivalent circuit model of the battery, and a second-order RC equivalent circuit model of the battery. However, Garcia does teach in Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0094] use of an electrical equivalent circuit model in determining SoC. Further, Tan teaches in the Abstract use of a first-order RC equivalent circuit model to determine an SoC. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the first-order RC equivalent circuit model of Tan in the system of Garcia, in order to improve the estimation performance of the SoC (see Tan, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 10, Garcia in view of Tan teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 3. Garcia further teaches wherein the estimating a first state of charge of the battery by using a first state of charge estimation algorithm comprises: establishing a state of charge model of the battery based on historical charging and discharging data of the battery (paragraph [0051], training of models based on charge/discharge profiles); sensing current charging and discharging data of the battery (paragraph [0035], monitoring system collects data while in charging and discharging conditions); and estimating the first state of charge by using the state of charge model based on the current charging and discharging data (Fig. 7, trained models 712, 714, and 716 use inputs 102 from monitoring system, see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Garcia in view of Tan teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 10. Garcia further teaches wherein the state of charge model is a charging and discharging curve fitted based on the historical charging and discharging data (paragraph [0091], curve fitting techniques) or a lookup table formed based on the historical charging and discharging data (no patentable weight due to “or”).
Regarding Claim 12, Garcia in view of Tan teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 10. Garcia further teaches wherein the historical charging and discharging data and the current charging and discharging data comprise a current and/or a voltage of the battery (paragraph [0035]; paragraph [0051], Fig. 1, block 102, inputs include voltages and currents, see paragraph [0024]).
Regarding Claim 13, Garcia in view of Tan teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 10. Garcia further teaches wherein the determining a first weight corresponding to the first state of charge and a second weight corresponding to the second state of charge based on state data of the battery comprises: determining a current state of the battery based on the historical charging and discharging data and the current charging and discharging data; and determining the first weight and the second weight based on the current state (paragraph [0113], weights for each SOC estimation value can depend on current SOC of the battery, which is equated to current state).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia in view of AAPA, Huang, and Takahashi (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0313905).
Regarding Claim 8, Garcia in view of AAPA and Huang teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 7. Garcia does not specifically teach wherein the determining a current state comprises: determining whether the battery enters a hysteresis state; and in a case that the battery enters the hysteresis state, determining a time period in which the battery operates in the hysteresis state. However, Takahashi teaches determining whether the battery enters a hysteresis state; and in a case that the battery enters the hysteresis state, determining a time period in which the battery operates in the hysteresis state (paragraph [0020], charge level ranges where significant hysteresis occurs are identified; Fig. 3, hysteresis and non-hysteresis regions, it is noted that recited time period may be equated to determining that the battery is currently in the hysteresis region). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the hysteresis identification of Takahashi in the system of Garcia, in order to improve the estimation accuracy of the state of charge (see Takahashi, paragraph [0007]).
Regarding Claim 9, Garcia in view of AAPA, Huang, and Takahashi teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 7. Garcia does not specifically teach wherein the determining the first weight and the second weight based on the current state comprises: in the case that the battery enters the hysteresis state, reducing the first weight and/or increasing the second weight; and gradually adjusting the first weight and/or increasing the second weight based on the time period in which the battery operates in the hysteresis state. However, Takahashi teaches wherein the determining the first weight and the second weight based on the current state comprises: in the case that the battery enters the hysteresis state, reducing the first weight and/or increasing the second weight; and gradually adjusting the first weight (no patentable weight due to “and/or”) and/or increasing the second weight based on the time period in which the battery operates in the hysteresis state (paragraph [0016], first state of charge and second state of charge are weighed and added to determine third state of charge; the addition ratio of first state of charge is larger than addition ratio of second state of charge when the state of charge is in the hysteresis region; addition ratio of first state of charge is equated to the claimed second weight, and addition ratio of the second state of charge is equated to the claimed first weight). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the hysteresis identification and weight adjustment of Takahashi in the system of Garcia, in order to improve the estimation accuracy of the state of charge (see Takahashi, paragraph [0007]).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia in view of Tan and Takahashi.
Regarding Claim 14, Garcia in view Tan teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 13. Garcia does not specifically teach wherein the determining a current state comprises: determining whether the battery enters a hysteresis state; and in a case that the battery enters the hysteresis state, determining a time period in which the battery operates in the hysteresis state. However, Takahashi teaches determining whether the battery enters a hysteresis state; and in a case that the battery enters the hysteresis state, determining a time period in which the battery operates in the hysteresis state (paragraph [0020], charge level ranges where significant hysteresis occurs are identified; Fig. 3, hysteresis and non-hysteresis regions, it is noted that recited time period may be equated to determining that the battery is currently in the hysteresis region). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the hysteresis identification of Takahashi in the system of Garcia, in order to improve the estimation accuracy of the state of charge (see Takahashi, paragraph [0007]).
Regarding Claim 15, Garcia in view of Tan and Takahashi teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 14. Garcia does not specifically teach wherein the determining the first weight and the second weight based on the current state comprises: in the case that the battery enters the hysteresis state, reducing the first weight and/or increasing the second weight; and gradually adjusting the first weight and/or increasing the second weight based on the time period in which the battery operates in the hysteresis state. However, Takahashi teaches wherein the determining the first weight and the second weight based on the current state comprises: in the case that the battery enters the hysteresis state, reducing the first weight and/or increasing the second weight; and gradually adjusting the first weight (no patentable weight due to “and/or”) and/or increasing the second weight based on the time period in which the battery operates in the hysteresis state (paragraph [0016], first state of charge and second state of charge are weighed and added to determine third state of charge; the addition ratio of first state of charge is larger than addition ratio of second state of charge when the state of charge is in the hysteresis region; addition ratio of first state of charge is equated to the claimed second weight, and addition ratio of the second state of charge is equated to the claimed first weight). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the hysteresis identification and weight adjustment of Takahashi in the system of Garcia, in order to improve the estimation accuracy of the state of charge (see Takahashi, paragraph [0007]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA L DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am to 3pm.
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 A 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.
/CYNTHIA L DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857