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 .
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, 3, 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“A battery monitoring method, which is performed by a battery monitoring device, comprising: measuring a first voltage drop across both ends of a first shunt resistor of a bus bar electrically connected to a battery and a second voltage drop across both ends of a second shunt resistor, which is in parallel or serial connection with the first shunt resistor; calculating a first current and a second current flowing, respectively, through the first shunt resistor and the second shunt resistor using a first voltage drop value and a second voltage drop value; and determining a state of the battery using a difference between a first current value and a second current value.”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 12.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the above claims that recites a judicial exception are integrated into a practical application.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: A battery monitoring method, which is performed by a battery monitoring device, comprising: measuring a first voltage drop across both ends of a first shunt resistor of a bus bar electrically connected to a battery and a second voltage drop across both ends of a second shunt resistor, which is in parallel or serial connection with the first shunt resistor;
In Claim 12: A battery monitoring device comprising: a voltage measurement unit configured to measure a first voltage drop across both ends of a first shunt resistor of a bus bar electrically connected to a battery and a second voltage drop across both ends of a second shunt resistor, which is in parallel or serial connection with the first shunt resistor; a current calculation unit; a temperature measurement unit; a control unit.
The additional elements in the preambles are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
The additional elements in the claims that generically recite measuring voltage drops across parallelly or serially connected shunt resistors represent insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance such steps are “performed in order to gather data for the mental analysis step, and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2, 3, 5-11 and 13-20 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (additionally comprising abstract idea steps) and, therefore, these claims are not eligible without meaningful additional elements that reflect a practical application and/or additional elements that qualify for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
For example, additional elements in Claim 3 (measuring temperature), Claim 18 (two independent analog-to-digital converters), Claim 19 (transmits a warning message to an upper system), Claim 19 (an isolated voltage converter to be used in high-voltage applications) and Claim 20 (isolated voltage converter) are all recited in generality and not meaningful to indicate a practical application and/or qualify for significantly more.
Claim 4 is found eligible because they recite meaningful limitations that indicate a practical applications (Claim 4- the temperature sensor comprises an internal temperature sensor configured to measure a first temperature value of the bus bar and an external temperature sensor configured to measure a second temperature value of a printed circuit board (PCB) where the bus bar is installed).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaedong Park et al. (US 20190004094), hereinafter ‘Park’ in view of Michael Wolf et al. (KR 20210093767), hereinafter ‘Wolf’.
With regards to Claim 1, Park discloses
A battery monitoring method which is performed by a battery monitoring device (The BMS 20 estimates a state of the battery 10, and manages the battery 10 by using information on the estimated state [0038]), comprising:
measuring a first voltage drop across both ends of a first shunt resistor of a bus bar electrically connected to a battery and a second voltage drop across both ends of a second shunt resistor (two or more bus bars including one shunt resistor are integrated into one bus bar module, and voltages applied to both ends of the plurality of shunt resistors included in the integrated bus bar are measured to calculate a voltage of a battery module [0002]; one or more busbars which connect module terminals of two battery modules included in a battery pack to each other; two or more shunt resistors, which are positioned in the busbar, and isolate the busbar into two or more regions; and one or more measuring units, which measure voltage values applied to the two or more shunt resistors [0012]; Figs. 2-4), which is in parallel or serial connection with the first shunt resistor, implied, as a only possible connection types between two connected resistors, emphasis added); calculating a first current and a second current flowing, respectively, through the first shunt resistor and the second shunt resistor using a first voltage drop value and a second voltage drop value (Referring to FIG. 2, in order to measure a current of a battery module, the current measurement apparatus calculates a current value of a battery 10 module through a measuring unit 130 based on voltage values applied to both ends of a shunt resistor 120 when a current flows in the shunt resistor 120 [0046]; also, in [0064]).
Park also discloses determining a state of the battery using a first current value and a second current value (a current of the battery module is calculated through the shunt resistor based on the measured voltage value to diagnose a state of the secondary battery module [0007]; also [0038, 0039]).
However, Park is silent on determining a state of the battery using a difference between a first current value and a second current value.
Wolf discloses a second shunt resistor which is in parallel or serial connection with the first shunt resistor (the redundancy in measurement value detection … the second shunt resistor is connected in series with the first shunt resistor, and each independent voltage measurement is performed for the determination of the current strength on the two shunt resistors of the thus formed double shunt, p.3) and disclose determining abnormality by comparing the two measurements (comparing the two measurements, it can be determined whether these measurements are valid or defective, p.3, i.e. “to determine a state of the battery using a difference between a first current value and a second current value in two shunt resistors” in parallel or serial connection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park in view of Wolf to use two shunt resistors, for example, in redundancy applications (Wolf, above) to determine a state of the battery using a difference between a first current value and a second current value in the two shunt resistors (Wolf) because this difference, when all the affecting parameters are same, suggests abnormality, under the assumption that voltage drops corresponding to each sensor are the same as well as their resistance that should result in equal current under such circuit’s normal condition following Ohm’s Law (current measurement in the battery is essential to monitor certain operating parameters such as state of charge (SOC / State of Charge) or state of performance (SOH / State of health), Wolf, p.2).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Wolf, in further view of Guenter SCHWARZBERGER et al. (US 20210263079), hereinafter ‘Schwarzberger’, in further view of Abomailek Rubio Carlos et al. (EP 4047378) hereinafter ‘Carlos’.
Park in view of Schwarzberger discloses the claimed invention as discussed in Claim 1 but silent on the calculating of the first current and the second current comprises: converting the first voltage drop value and the second voltage drop value into digital values; calculating the first current value and the second current value by applying calibration data for the first shunt resistor and calibration data for the second shunt resistor to the first voltage drop value and the second voltage drop value, respectively; and amplifying the first current value and the second current value.
Schwarzberger discloses converting sensor data (the first voltage drop value and the second voltage drop value) into digital values (the sensor circuit may include an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) that converts the analog signal from the one or more sensor elements to a digital signal [0033]) and amplifying both sensor values [0048].
Carlos discloses applying calibration data (In order to overcome the problems associated with the temperature drift, the electronic control unit can be used for thermal drift compensation and calibration of the shunt resistor, p.2), i.e. “applying calibration data for the first shunt resistor and calibration data for the second shunt resistor to the first voltage drop value and the second voltage drop value, respectively”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park in view of Wolf, Schwarzberger, and Carlos to calculate the first current and the second current by applying calibration data for the first shunt resistor and calibration data for the second shunt resistor to the first voltage drop value and the second voltage drop value, respectively; and amplifying the first current value and the second current value in order to correct the more than possible deviations of the sensing due to temperature of the current sensor and composition of the shunt resistor material (Carlos, p.2) while amplifying the signal to improve signal-to-noise ratio and digitizing the signal (Schwarzberger) to manage computerized processing of data as known in the art.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Wolf, in further view of KAZUHIRO Kubota (JP 2019015538) hereinafter ‘Kubota’.
With regards to Claim 3 and 4, Park in view of Wolf discloses the claimed invention as discussed in Claim 1.
Park discloses measuring temperature [0006].
However, Park does not specifically disclose measuring a temperature due to current using a temperature sensor (claim 3), wherein the temperature sensor comprises an internal temperature sensor configured to measure a first temperature value of the bus bar and an external temperature sensor configured to measure a second temperature value of a printed circuit board (PCB) where the bus bar is installed, and the measuring of the temperature comprises applying a weight to each of the first temperature value and the second temperature value (Claim 4).
Kubota discloses measuring a temperature due to current using a temperature sensor (The temperature sensor 32 detects the temperature in the vicinity of the shunt resistor portion51 of the bus bar 50 and notifies the control microcomputer 40 of the detection result, p.3) and discloses that the temperature sensor comprises an internal temperature sensor configured to measure a first temperature value of the bus bar and an external temperature sensor configured to measure a second temperature value of a printed circuit board (PCB) where the bus bar is installed (provide a shunt resistance type current sensor capable of correcting a detection result by a temperature detection part to remove a detection error of a temperature detection part due to heat generated by an electronic component mounted on a circuit board, a correct method of the shunt resistance type current sensor, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park in view of Wolf, and Kubota, to measure a temperature due to current using a temperature sensor as known in the art (Kubota) while accounting for heat generated by the board to obtain correct temperature data due to current by applying weights to internal temperature sensor (associated with the bus bar) and the external temperature sensor associated with the board where the bas var is installed to recognize/detect heat due to current by establishing proper data weights (“corrections”, Kubota) as known in the art to remove a detection error of a temperature detection part due to heat generated by an electronic component mounted on a circuit board, Kubota, Abstract.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Wolf, and Kubota, in further view of U OTHERLEHINA (CN 106053915), hereinafter ‘Otherlehina’.
With regards to Claim 7, Park in view of Wolf, and Kubota discloses the claimed invention as discussed in Claim 3.
However, Park does not specifically disclose performing synchronization and temperature compensation for the first and second current values that change rapidly according to changes in temperature.
Otherlehina discloses performing synchronization and temperature compensation for the current value (compensate the temperature drift by linear or quadratic model, p.4; Executing temperature drift compensation, wherein, to modify the reference resistance based on temperature, p.13; Here, the accuracy of determining the primary current can be very high. current source 5, voltage measurement device 6 and a processor 7 may be via control signaling 9 and synchronization in the time domain, p. 11) and discloses a temperature change (the actual measured temperature change of the primary conductor, p.4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park in view of Wolf, Kubota, and Otherlehina to perform synchronization (in time domain, Otherlehina) and temperature compensation for the data values (“first and second current values”) that change (rapidly) corresponding to rapid changes in temperature due to rapid changes in load/current (it is possible between the execution of calibration stage and the actual measured temperature change of the primary conductor (temperature drift), Otherlehina, p.4).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Wolf, in further view of SAKABE HIROSHI (JP 2019110712), hereinafter ‘Hirochi’.
With regards to Claim 10, Park in view of Wolf discloses the claimed invention as discussed in Claim 1.
However, Park does not specifically disclose determining a temperature prediction variable according to magnitudes of the first and second current values and current application time.
Hirochi discloses determining a temperature prediction variable according to magnitudes of current values and current application time (the time of determination execution, p.4; The temperature prediction unit 301 calculates the predicted value of the temperature rise amount of the capacitive battery group 101 when there is no heat absorption reaction from the current … The time value of the predetermined period is set in advance in the heat absorption determination unit 105, and is used as the value of time in Expression (4), p.7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park in view of Schwarzberger, and Hirochi to determine a temperature prediction variable according to magnitudes of the first and second current values as well as current application time to evaluate temperature effects at a particular time corresponding to load (current) changes.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Wolf, Hirochi, and Schwarzberger.
With regards to Claim 11, Park in view of Wolf discloses the claimed invention as discussed in Claim 1.
However, Park does not specifically disclose performing temperature compensation for the first current value and the second current value using a temperature prediction variable value calculated based on the temperature prediction variable.
Schwarzberger discloses performing temperature compensation for the first current value and the second current value (Further embodiments may include a temperature sensor used for temperature compensation of the sensor signals [0056]).
Hirochi discloses using a temperature prediction used in estimating current (The optimum current calculation unit 203 in the optimum current estimation unit 106 shown in FIG. 2 inputs the value of unit reaction heat from the reaction heat database 202 according to the SOC of the capacitive battery group 101 group at the time of execution of calculation, p.4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park in view of Wolf, Hirochi and Schwarzberger to perform temperature compensation for the first current value and the second current value (Schwarzberger) using a temperature prediction variable value calculated based on the temperature prediction variable as known in the art (Hirochi, above).
Examiner Note with regards to Prior Art Of Record
Claims 5, 6, 8, 9, and 12-20 are distinguished over the prior art made of record based on the reasons below.
In regards to Claim 5, the claim differs from the closest prior art, Park, Wolf, Schwarzberger, Carlos, Kubota, OTHERLEHINA and Hirochi, either singularly or in combination, because it fails to anticipate or render obvious performing linearity compensation for the first current value and the second current value using linearity data that includes a temperature value, inflection point information of the first current value and the second current value, amplification values of the first current value and the second current value, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
In regards to Claim 8, the claim differs from the closest prior art, Park, Wolf, Schwarzberger, Carlos, Kubota, OTHERLEHINA and Hirochi, either singularly or in combination, because it fails to anticipate or render obvious performing of the synchronization and temperature compensation comprises determining a temperature prediction variable according to the magnitudes of the first and second current values and the current application time; calculating a temperature prediction variable value based on the temperature prediction variable, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
In regards to Claim 9, the claim differs from the closest prior art, Park, Wolf, Schwarzberger, Carlos, Kubota, OTHERLEHINA and Hirochi, either singularly or in combination, because it fails to anticipate or render obvious compensating for linearity for each current segment based on an inflection point according to an amplification factor of the first current and the second current via a linearity compensation unit, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
In regards to Claim 12, the claim differs from the closest prior art, Park, Wolf, Schwarzberger, Carlos, Kubota, OTHERLEHINA and Hirochi, either singularly or in combination, because it fails to anticipate or render obvious determining a state of the battery using a difference between a first current value and a second current value, calculated through linearity compensation due to device characteristics, synchronization, and temperature compensation for the first and second current values, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 6, 10, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,455,320. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it appears that dependent claims 7, 8, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,455,320 are narrower than the instant claims 1, 6, 10, 12, 13, and 14. Therefore, the former claims disclose the features of the latter claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857