DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The representative claim 1 recites:
An apparatus for detecting soft shorts of a battery cell, the apparatus comprising:
a sensor configured for measuring voltages of a plurality of battery cells; and
a controller operatively connected to the sensor and configured to determine a slope of a voltage of each battery cell, a deviation of the slope of the voltage for each battery cell, and
detect a battery cell, which has the soft shorts, of the plurality of battery cells, based on the determined slope and the determined deviation.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under 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 claims are considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under 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 limitation that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations in the claim are only: a sensor configured for measuring voltages of a plurality of battery cells; and a controller operatively connected to the sensor. The limitation “a sensor configured for measuring voltages of a plurality of battery cells” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering data using a generic sensor) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic sensor.
Further, the claim limitation “a controller operatively connected to the sensor”, is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer structures connected to the a generic sensor or device) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the additional limitations recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic sensor and connecting computer components with a generic sensor). Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, McCoy, US 2019/0326650 (hereinafter, McCoy), ([0035], Fig. 1), and Hardy US 2017/0214256 (hereinafter, Hardy), ([0032]-[0033], Fig. 1). Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8, and 12-18, add further details of the identified abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 9, 10, 19, and 20, recite addition element of “the controller is activated and/or deactivated”. However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as steps of starting and stopping operation of a generic computer components) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, McCoy, ([0040], [0035], Fig. 1), and Grassl et al. US 2023/0132671 (hereinafter, Grassl), ([0051], [0053]). Therefore, claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 11, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1.
Claim Objection
5. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 2 and 12 recite “…the battery cell having the soft sorts, based on the first slope….” should read “…the battery cell having the soft [[sorts]] shorts, based on the first slope….” Appropriate correction is required.
6. Claims 9 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 9 and 19 recite “…as a first time….” should read “…as [[a]] the first time….” Appropriate correction is required.
7. Claims 10 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 9 and 19 recite “…as a second time….” should read “…as [[a]] the second time….” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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)(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.
9. Claims 1-2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by McCoy, US 2019/0326650 (hereinafter, McCoy).
10. Regarding claim 1, McCoy discloses an apparatus for detecting soft shorts of a battery cell, the apparatus comprising:
a sensor configured for measuring voltages of a plurality of battery cells ([0029], [0078]); and
a controller operatively connected to the sensor and configured to determine a slope of a voltage of each battery cell, a deviation of the slope of the voltage for each battery cell (Abstract, [0078], Figs. 7A-7B), and
detect a battery cell, which has the soft shorts, of the plurality of battery cells, based on the determined slope and the determined deviation ([0078], Figs. 7A-7B).
11. Regarding claim 11, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1.
12. Regarding claim 2, McCoy discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as disclosed above.
McCoy further discloses wherein in the determining of the slope of the voltage of each battery cell, the controller is configured to: determine a first slope of the voltage for each battery cell for a first time and a first deviation of the first slope of the voltage for each battery cell ([0078], Fig. 7A);
determine a second slope of the voltage for each battery cell for a second time and a second deviation of the second slope of the voltage for each battery cell for the second time ([0078], Fig. 7B); and
detect the battery cell having the soft sorts, based on the first slope of the voltage for each battery cell and the first deviation, and the second slope of the voltage for each battery cell and the second deviation ([0078], Figs. 7A-7B).
13. Regarding claim 12, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 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 of this title, 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.
15. Claims 3-8 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCoy, in view of Grassl et al. US 2023/0132671 (hereinafter, Grassl).
16. Regarding claim 3, McCoy discloses the apparatus of claim 2, as disclosed above.
McCoy further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: determine, as the battery cell having the soft shorts, a battery cell satisfying a first condition that a difference between the first slope and the second slope exceeds a first value and the first deviation and the second deviation exceed a second value ([0038], [0041]) the process includes connecting a voltage measurement device between pairs of the second terminals and measuring the voltage difference or the rate of change of voltage difference between open-circuit terminals for a time measurement. An increase in voltage difference over time, optionally above a predetermined threshold, of a first cell relative to a second cell is indicative of a fault in the first cell.… [Further], [0078], Figs. 7A-7B: the cells from Manufacturer A showed higher slopes of differential voltages as a function of time in comparison to the slopes of differential voltages of the cell from Manufacturer B. Comparatively, the cells from Manufacturer A had slopes of differential voltages 1000 times greater than the differential slopes of the cells from Manufacturer B. The increase in slopes of differential voltage indicted the presence of soft shorts in some cells of Manufacturer A. The presence of soft shorts in cells from Manufacturer A, and absence of such shorts in the cells from Manufacturer B, was confirmed by tracking of cell voltage over a period of 10 months).
McCoy does not disclose:
a first threshold value and a second threshold value.
However, Grassl discloses:
a first threshold value and a second threshold value ([0051], [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of McCoy to use a first threshold value and a second threshold value as taught by Grassl. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to control operation of a battery cells efficiently (Grassl, [0055]).
17. Regarding claim 13, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 3.
18. Regarding claim 4, McCoy discloses the apparatus of claim 2, as disclosed above.
McCoy further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: determine, as the battery cell having the soft shorts, a battery cell satisfying a first condition that a difference between the first slope and the second slope exceeds a value and the first deviation and the second deviation exceed a second value by a preset number of times ([0038], [0041]) the process includes connecting a voltage measurement device between pairs of the second terminals and measuring the voltage difference or the rate of change of voltage difference between open-circuit terminals for a time measurement. An increase in voltage difference over time, optionally above a predetermined threshold, of a first cell relative to a second cell is indicative of a fault in the first cell.… [Further], [0078], Figs. 7A-7B: the cells from Manufacturer A showed higher slopes of differential voltages as a function of time in comparison to the slopes of differential voltages of the cell from Manufacturer B. Comparatively, the cells from Manufacturer A had slopes of differential voltages 1000 times greater than the differential slopes of the cells from Manufacturer B. The increase in slopes of differential voltage indicted the presence of soft shorts in some cells of Manufacturer A. The presence of soft shorts in cells from Manufacturer A, and absence of such shorts in the cells from Manufacturer B, was confirmed by tracking of cell voltage over a period of 10 months).
McCoy does not disclose:
a first threshold value and a second threshold value.
However, Grassl discloses:
a first threshold value and a second threshold value ([0051], [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of McCoy to use a first threshold value and a second threshold value as taught by Grassl. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to control operation of a battery cells efficiently (Grassl, [0055]).
19. Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 4.
20. Regarding claim 5, McCoy discloses the apparatus of claim 2, as disclosed above.
McCoy further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: determine, as the battery cell having the soft shorts, a battery cell satisfying a first condition that a difference between the first slope and the second slope exceeds a first value and the first deviation and the second deviation exceed a second value by a preset number of times ([0038], [0041]) the process includes connecting a voltage measurement device between pairs of the second terminals and measuring the voltage difference or the rate of change of voltage difference between open-circuit terminals for a time measurement. An increase in voltage difference over time, optionally above a predetermined threshold, of a first cell relative to a second cell is indicative of a fault in the first cell.… [Further], [0078], Figs. 7A-7B: the cells from Manufacturer A showed higher slopes of differential voltages as a function of time in comparison to the slopes of differential voltages of the cell from Manufacturer B. Comparatively, the cells from Manufacturer A had slopes of differential voltages 1000 times greater than the differential slopes of the cells from Manufacturer B. The increase in slopes of differential voltage indicted the presence of soft shorts in some cells of Manufacturer A. The presence of soft shorts in cells from Manufacturer A, and absence of such shorts in the cells from Manufacturer B, was confirmed by tracking of cell voltage over a period of 10 months. For example, the cell from Manufacturer A, test position F, discharged from 3.78 V to 1.3 V in ten months (corresponding to an estimated short resistance of approximately 25,000 ohms. By contrast, cell F from Manufacturer B lost less than 1 mV in twelve months).
McCoy does not disclose:
a first threshold value and a second threshold value.
However, Grassl discloses:
a first threshold value and a second threshold value ([0051], [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of McCoy to use a first threshold value and a second threshold value as taught by Grassl. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to control operation of a battery cells efficiently (Grassl, [0055]).
21. Regarding claim 15, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 5.
22. Regarding claim 6, McCoy discloses the apparatus of claim 2, as disclosed above.
McCoy further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: determine, as the battery cell having the soft shorts, a battery cell satisfying a second condition that the second slope is less than a third value and the second deviation exceeds a second value ([0038], [0041]-[0042]: the process includes connecting a voltage measurement device between pairs of the second terminals and measuring the voltage difference or the rate of change of voltage difference between open-circuit terminals for a time measurement. An increase in voltage difference over time, optionally above a predetermined threshold, of a first cell relative to a second cell is indicative of a fault in the first cell….A step of detecting the presence or absence of an internal fault, optionally al short or self-discharge, is performed by detecting the presence or absence of a differential voltage or rate of change of differential voltage between two electrochemical cells…When measuring a rate of change of differential voltage, a detection slope over the measurement time may be determined whereby the detection slope is optionally less than 0.1 μV/hr, optionally less than 0.05 μV/hr, optionally less than 0.04 μV/hr, ….[Further], [0078], Figs. 7A-7B: the cells from Manufacturer A showed higher slopes of differential voltages as a function of time in comparison to the slopes of differential voltages of the cell from Manufacturer B. Comparatively, the cells from Manufacturer A had slopes of differential voltages 1000 times greater than the differential slopes of the cells from Manufacturer B. The increase in slopes of differential voltage indicted the presence of soft shorts in some cells of Manufacturer A. The presence of soft shorts in cells from Manufacturer A, and absence of such shorts in the cells from Manufacturer B, was confirmed by tracking of cell voltage over a period of 10 months. For example, the cell from Manufacturer A, test position F, discharged from 3.78 V to 1.3 V in ten months (corresponding to an estimated short resistance of approximately 25,000 ohms. By contrast, cell F from Manufacturer B lost less than 1 mV in twelve months).
McCoy does not disclose:
a third threshold value and a second threshold value.
However, Grassl discloses:
a third threshold value and a second threshold value ([0051], [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of McCoy to use a third threshold value and a second threshold value as taught by Grassl. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to control operation of a battery cells efficiently (Grassl, [0055]).
23. Regarding claim 16, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 6.
24. Regarding claim 7, McCoy discloses the apparatus of claim 2, as disclosed above.
McCoy further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: determine, as the battery cell having the soft shorts, a battery cell satisfying a second condition that the second slope is less than a third value and the second deviation exceeds a second value by a preset number of times ([0038], [0041]-[0042]: the process includes connecting a voltage measurement device between pairs of the second terminals and measuring the voltage difference or the rate of change of voltage difference between open-circuit terminals for a time measurement. An increase in voltage difference over time, optionally above a predetermined threshold, of a first cell relative to a second cell is indicative of a fault in the first cell….A step of detecting the presence or absence of an internal fault, optionally al short or self-discharge, is performed by detecting the presence or absence of a differential voltage or rate of change of differential voltage between two electrochemical cells…When measuring a rate of change of differential voltage, a detection slope over the measurement time may be determined whereby the detection slope is optionally less than 0.1 μV/hr, optionally less than 0.05 μV/hr, optionally less than 0.04 μV/hr, ….[Further], [0078], Figs. 7A-7B: the cells from Manufacturer A showed higher slopes of differential voltages as a function of time in comparison to the slopes of differential voltages of the cell from Manufacturer B. Comparatively, the cells from Manufacturer A had slopes of differential voltages 1000 times greater than the differential slopes of the cells from Manufacturer B. The increase in slopes of differential voltage indicted the presence of soft shorts in some cells of Manufacturer A. The presence of soft shorts in cells from Manufacturer A, and absence of such shorts in the cells from Manufacturer B, was confirmed by tracking of cell voltage over a period of 10 months. For example, the cell from Manufacturer A, test position F, discharged from 3.78 V to 1.3 V in ten months (corresponding to an estimated short resistance of approximately 25,000 ohms. By contrast, cell F from Manufacturer B lost less than 1 mV in twelve months).
McCoy does not disclose:
a third threshold value and a second threshold value.
However, Grassl discloses:
a third threshold value and a second threshold value ([0051], [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of McCoy to use a third threshold value and a second threshold value as taught by Grassl. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to control operation of a battery cells efficiently (Grassl, [0055]).
25. Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 7.
26. Regarding claim 8, McCoy discloses the apparatus of claim 2, as disclosed above.
McCoy further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: determine, as the battery cell having the soft shorts, a battery cell satisfying a second condition that the second slope is less than a third value and the second deviation exceeds a second value by a preset number of times ([0038], [0041]-[0042]: the process includes connecting a voltage measurement device between pairs of the second terminals and measuring the voltage difference or the rate of change of voltage difference between open-circuit terminals for a time measurement. An increase in voltage difference over time, optionally above a predetermined threshold, of a first cell relative to a second cell is indicative of a fault in the first cell….A step of detecting the presence or absence of an internal fault, optionally al short or self-discharge, is performed by detecting the presence or absence of a differential voltage or rate of change of differential voltage between two electrochemical cells…When measuring a rate of change of differential voltage, a detection slope over the measurement time may be determined whereby the detection slope is optionally less than 0.1 μV/hr, optionally less than 0.05 μV/hr, optionally less than 0.04 μV/hr, ….[Further], [0078], Figs. 7A-7B: the cells from Manufacturer A showed higher slopes of differential voltages as a function of time in comparison to the slopes of differential voltages of the cell from Manufacturer B. Comparatively, the cells from Manufacturer A had slopes of differential voltages 1000 times greater than the differential slopes of the cells from Manufacturer B. The increase in slopes of differential voltage indicted the presence of soft shorts in some cells of Manufacturer A. The presence of soft shorts in cells from Manufacturer A, and absence of such shorts in the cells from Manufacturer B, was confirmed by tracking of cell voltage over a period of 10 months. For example, the cell from Manufacturer A, test position F, discharged from 3.78 V to 1.3 V in ten months (corresponding to an estimated short resistance of approximately 25,000 ohms. By contrast, cell F from Manufacturer B lost less than 1 mV in twelve months).
McCoy does not disclose:
consecutively satisfying a second condition, and a third threshold value and a second threshold value.
However, Grassl discloses:
consecutively satisfying a second condition, and a third threshold value and a second threshold value ([0049], [0051], [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of McCoy to use consecutively satisfying a second condition, and a third threshold value and a second threshold value as taught by Grassl. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to control operation of a battery cells efficiently (Grassl, [0055]).
27. Regarding claim 18, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 8.
28. Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCoy, in view of Hardy US 2017/0214256 (hereinafter, Hardy), in further view of Grassl.
29. Regarding claim 9, McCoy discloses the apparatus of claim 2, as disclosed above.
McCoy further discloses determine, as a first time, from a time point at which a voltage is measured with respect to each battery cell to a [different] time point ([0039]-[0042], Fig. 8).
McCoy does not disclose:
determine a time point at which a maximum voltage is measured with respect to each battery cell to a time point at which the controller is deactivated.
However, Hardy discloses:
determine a time point at which a maximum voltage is measured with respect to each battery cell to a time point ([0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of McCoy to use determine a time point at which a maximum voltage is measured with respect to each battery cell to a time point as taught by Hardy. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to manage charge and discharge of battery cells (Hardy, [0003]).
McCoy in view of Hardy does not disclose:
determine a time point at which the controller is deactivated.
However, Grassl discloses:
determine a time point at which the controller is deactivated ([0010], [0054], Figs. 3, 4: the active discharge circuit 14 is then again deactivated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of McCoy in view of Hardy to use determine a time point at which the controller is deactivated as thought by Grassl. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to control operation of a battery cells efficiently (Grassl, [0055]).
30. Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 9.
31. Regarding claim 10, McCoy discloses the apparatus of claim 2, as disclosed above.
McCoy further discloses determine, as a second time, from a time point at which a voltage is measured with respect to each battery cell to a [different] time point ([0039]-[0042], Fig. 8).
McCoy does not disclose:
determine a time point at which a maximum voltage is measured with respect to each battery cell to a time point at which the controller is activated after deactivated.
However, Hardy discloses:
determine a time point at which a maximum voltage is measured with respect to each battery cell to a time point ([0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of McCoy to use determine a time point at which a maximum voltage is measured with respect to each battery cell to a time point as taught by Hardy. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to manage charge and discharge of battery cells (Hardy, [0003]).
McCoy in view of Hardy does not disclose:
determine a time point at which the controller is activated after deactivated.
However, Grassl discloses:
determine a time point at which the controller is activated after deactivated ([0010], [0054], Figs. 3, 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of McCoy in view of Hardy to use determine a time point at which the controller is activated after deactivated as thought by Grassl. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to control operation of a battery cells efficiently (Grassl, [0055]).
32. Regarding claim 20, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 10.
Conclusion
33. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, and/or paragraphs, and/or pages in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
34. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYOB HAGOS whose telephone number is (571)272-3508. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Shelby Turner can be reached on 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 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.
/Eyob Hagos/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857