DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a first Office Action on the merits.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled box(es) shown in the Figures 3 and 4 should be provided with descriptive text labels. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Regarding independent claim 1:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category (MPEP 21066.03). The claim recites a vehicle power distribution system comprising at least one step or act of identifying a self-discharge in a power cell group of a battery. Thus, the claim is a system, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: 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.
Limitations identified as judicial exceptions include: “monitoring a cell balancing metric for each power cell group in the at least two power cells (mental process); “generating a set of accumulated balance metric values, the set of accumulated balance metric values including an accumulated balancing metric value corresponding to each power cell group in the plurality of power cell groups (mathematical concept)”, “identifying a reference value (mental process); “identifying a difference between the reference value and the cell balancing metric value of each power cell with a cell balancing metric value lower than the reference value and comparing the difference to a threshold (mental process)”; and “identifying a power cell group including a self-discharging power cell in response to a power cell group having a cell balancing metric value below the reference value by at least the threshold (mental process)”
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a battery having a plurality of cell groups including at least two power cells, and wherein each power cell group includes a state of charge monitoring sensor” and “a controller connected to each state of charge monitoring sensor, the controller including a non-transitory memory and processor”. Batteries with cell groups and state of charge monitoring sensors are merely routine and conventional components of a vehicle power distribution system. The “controller” and “non-transitory memory and processor” are mere generic computer components recited as a high level of generality.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim (MPEP 2106.05). The additional elements merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The claim is not eligible.
Regarding independent claim 9:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category (MPEP 21066.03). The claim recites a vehicle. Thus, the claim is a product, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: 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.
Limitations identified as judicial exceptions include: “monitoring a cell balancing metric for each power cell group in the at least two power cells (mental process); “generating a set of accumulated balance metric values, the set of accumulated balance metric values including an accumulated balancing metric value corresponding to each power cell group in the plurality of power cell groups (mathematical concept)”, “identifying a reference value (mental process); “identifying a difference between the reference value and the cell balancing metric value of each power cell with a cell balancing metric value lower than the reference value and comparing the difference to a threshold (mental process)”; and “identifying a power cell group including a self-discharging power cell in response to a power cell group having a cell balancing metric value below the reference value by at least the threshold (mental process)”
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “at least one electronic drive motor”, “at least one battery having a plurality of cell divided into a plurality of power cell groups”, and “a controller including a non-transitory memory and processor”. Electric drive motors and batteries with cell groups are merely routine and conventional components of a vehicle. The “controller” and “non-transitory memory and processor” are mere generic computer components recited as a high level of generality.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim (MPEP 2106.05). The additional elements merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The claim is not eligible.
Regarding independent claim 14:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category (MPEP 21066.03). The claim recites at least one step or act of identifying a self-discharge in a power cell group of a battery. Thus, the claim is a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: 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.
Limitations identified as judicial exceptions include: “monitoring a cell balancing metric for each power cell group in a plurality of power cell groups and an generating a set of values corresponding to a total accumulated cell balancing metric” (metal process) and b) “comparing each value in the set of values below a reference value to the reference value and identifying a self-discharging power cell group in the set of power cell groups when at least one value in the set of values is below the reference value by at least a threshold amount” (mental process).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). There are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim (MPEP 2106.05). As noted above, there are no additional elements.
The claim is not eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-13, and 15-20 do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claims 2-7, 11-13, and 15-20 are directed to further mathematical concepts.
Claim 8 is directed to insignificant extra solution activities.
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.
(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(s) 9, 10, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by DANDEL et al, US 2021/0396817.
Re claim 9:
DANDEL teaches a vehicle (i.e., the battery system is installed in an electric vehicle [0020]) comprising:
At least one electric drive motor (i.e., the electric vehicle will have an electric drive motor [0020]);
A power distribution system electrically connecting a battery system to the at least one electric drive motor and including at least one battery having a plurality of power cells divided into a plurality of power cell groups and a controller including a non-transitory memory and processor [0020] [0053]-[0055], the non-transitory memory being configured to run a process causing the processor to detect a slow self-discharge in at least one power cell group by:
Monitoring a cell balancing metric for each power cell group in the plurality of power cells groups and generating a set of accumulated balance metric values, the set of accumulated balancing metric values including an accumulated balancing metric value corresponding to each power cell group in the plurality of power cell groups [0027]-[0029] [0032] [0033];
Identifying a reference value [0038] [0047];
Identifying a difference between the reference value and the cell balancing metric of each power cell with a cell balancing metric lower than the reference value and comparing the difference to a threshold [0038] [0047]; and
Identifying a power cell group including a self-discharging power cell in response to a cell in a power cell group having a balancing metric below the reference value by at least the threshold [0036] [0038] [0047].
Re claim 17:
DANDEL teaches a method for identifying a self-discharge in a power cell group of a battery comprising:
Monitoring a cell balancing metric for each power cell group in a plurality of power cell groups and generating a set of values corresponding to a total accumulated balancing metric of each power cell group in the plurality of power cell groups [0027]-[0029] [0033];
Comparing each value in the set of values below a reference value to the reference value and identifying a self-discharging power cell group in the set of power cell groups when at least one value in the set of values is below the reference value by at least a threshold amount [0036] [0038] [0047].
Re claims 10 and 18:
DANDEL teaches the vehicle of claim 9 and method of claim 17, where the cell balancing metric value is a balancing amp hours measurement [Figure 3].
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DANDEL et al, US 2021/0396817 in view of MURAO et al, US 2011/0127963.
Re claim 1:
DANDEL teaches a vehicle power distribution system comprising:
A battery having a plurality of power cell groups, each power cell group including at least two power cells [0054];
a controller including a non-transitory memory and processor [0053]-[0055], the non-transitory memory being configured to run a process causing the processor to detect a slow self-discharge in at least one power cell group by:
Monitoring a cell balancing metric for each power cell group in the plurality of power cells groups and generating a set of accumulated balance metric values, the set of accumulated balancing metric values including an accumulated balancing metric value corresponding to each power cell group in the plurality of power cell groups [0027]-[0029] [0032] [0033];
Identifying a reference value [0038] [0047];
Identifying a difference between the reference value and the cell balancing metric of each power cell with a cell balancing metric lower than the reference value and comparing the difference to a threshold [0038] [0047]; and
Identifying a power cell group including a self-discharging power cell in response to a cell in a power cell group having a balancing metric below the reference value by at least the threshold [0036] [0038] [0047].
DANDEL does not explicitly teach each power cell group includes a state of charge monitoring sensor, the controller connected to each state of charge monitoring sensor.
MURAO teaches a battery (battery module 100) having a plurality of power cell groups, each power cell group including at least two power cells, and wherein each power cell group includes a state of charge monitoring sensor (detecting units 20) [0014] [0015] [0052]-[0060] [Figure 1]. A controller (ECU 101) is connected to each state of charge monitoring sensor [Figure 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the vehicle power distribution system of DANDEL to include state of charge monitoring sensor for each power cell group. State of charge monitoring sensors are merely common components of battery management systems. Since DANDEL discusses monitoring state of charge for the plurality of battery cells/cell groups, it would be necessary for the system to include sensors for monitoring the state of charge.
Re claim 2:
DANDEL, in view of MURAO, teaches the vehicle power distribution system of claim 1, wherein the cell balancing metric value is a balancing amp hours measurement [Figure 3].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA A GUDORF whose telephone number is (571)270-7607. If the Examiner cannot be reached by telephone, she can be reached through the following e-mail address: laura.gudorf@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 6:00-4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Pham, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3689. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/LAURA A GUDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights