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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 11/28/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“relaxed voltage estimator” (claims 1-2, 15-16)
“the discharge pulses are provided every about 10s-30s” – The drawings only depict a single discharge pulse (item 612 in Fig. 6B), rather than a plurality of discharge pulses, let alone the timing of the plurality of discharge pulses.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they are incomplete. 37 CFR 1.83(a) and 37 CFR 183(c) read as follows:
(a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings.
(c) Where the drawings in a nonprovisional application do not comply with the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the examiner shall require such additional illustration within a time period of not less than two months from the date of the sending of a notice thereof. Such corrections are subject to the requirements of § 1.81(d).
Figures 1-5 and 7-8 are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels. Although the boxes in the figures are numbered which allows a correlation to each box as one reads the specification, the numbers by themselves do not allow one to quickly ascertain the concept of the invention. Drawings that feature rectangular boxes need to include text labels with corresponding nomenclature from the specification to label each rectangular box. This is necessary to the understanding of the invention. For example, Fig. 7 needs to include text labels for reference characters “10”, “12”, “18”, “20”, and “22”, each of which is presently drawn as a rectangular box. The “22” box should be labeled as “charger 22” and so forth, or redrawn in different shapes.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) and/or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is too short to adequately describe the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 15 each recite “intra group”, which should be revised to the single word form “intragroup”, as is used in claim 9.
Claim 16, lines 4-5 recite “a relaxed voltage estimator”, which should be revised to “[[a]] the relaxed voltage estimator” because this feature is introduced prior in claim 15.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The term “relaxed voltage estimator” is interpreted with its broadest reasonable interpretation. The Specification does not define sufficient structure for the “relaxed voltage estimator”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (i.e., by reciting “relaxed voltage estimator”), but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function (“relaxed voltage estimator”) that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The Claims 1 and 15-16 limitation “relaxed voltage estimator” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of structure to perform the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1, lines 9-10 and claim 15, lines 18-19 recite “a charge pulse followed by a discharge pulse for a predetermined time duration for each pulse”. This language is indefinite as to which pulse is being referred to by “each pulse”. For examination purposes, it is interpreted that only one of the “charge pulse” or “discharge pulse” is required to have a “predetermined time duration”.
Claim 1, lines 10-11 and claim 15, lines 19-20 recite “the energy of the discharge pulse” and “the energy for the charge pulse”. There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim language for each of these claim terms.
Claim 1, lines 11-12 recite “the last pulse of the charging is a discharge pulse”. There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim language for the term “the last pulse”. This limitation is further indefinite as to whether “the charging” is referring to “charging … until a charge rate … drops below a threshold level” or “charging the one group with at least one sequence” (interpretation for examination). This limitation is further indefinite as to whether an additional discharge pulse is being introduced in addition to that introduced prior as part of the “at least one sequence”.
Claim 1, lines 14-15 recite “a voltage increase caused by the charging step”. This limitation is indefinite as to whether “the charging step” is referring to “charging … until a charge rate … drops below a threshold level” or “charging the one group with at least one sequence” (interpretation for examination).
Claim 1, line 16 recites “steps (b), and (c)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim language for these claim terms. It is suggested that the prior claim language be revised to introduce these steps. For example, line 9 may be revised to start with “executing a step (b), wherein the step (b) comprises …”.
Claim 1, line 18 recites “repeating the steps (a)-(d)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim language for these claim terms. It is suggested that the prior claim language be revised to introduce these steps.
Claims 2-14 and 18-20 each recite “the method”. There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim language for this term. Instead, claim 1 recites “computer-implemented method”. Consistent terms need to be used for each claim feature.
Claim 3 recites “the charge rate threshold level is that any one electrical energy storage packs drop to about 50% or less than the charge rate of at least one of the other electrical energy storage packs”, which has multiple indefiniteness issues.
Firstly, there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim language for the term “the charge rate threshold level”.
Further, “any one electrical energy storage packs” is indefinite as to the plurality. The language “any one” is singular, while the language “packs” is plural. For examination, this is interpreted to be the singular form.
Further, this claim describes a conditional situation, without explicitly defining what “the charge rate threshold level” is. The term “level” is commonly understood to be a singular value. The phrase “about 50% or less” is not a singular value/level. Further, the conditional situation “that any one electrical energy storage packs drop to about 50% or less than the charge rate of at least one of the other electrical energy storage packs” is also not a singular value/level.
Further, “any one electrical energy storage packs” is compared with “the charge rate of at least one of the other electrical energy storage packs”. This language is unclear as to how a structural feature (“any one electrical energy storage packs”) can be compared with a value (“the charge rate of at least one of the other electrical energy storage packs”). Instead, it is expected there needs to be a value associated with the structural feature. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted to be a comparison of multiple charge rate values.
Claims 3 and 6-9 use the term “about” to modify numerical range limitations. The term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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. For the purposes of examination, the term “about” is broadly interpreted to not necessarily require the limited parameter to be within the range modified by “about”.
Claim 6 is indefinite as to the plurality of the “discharge pulse(s)”. The independent claim 1 introduces only a single discharge pulse. However, claim 6 refers to “discharge pulses” in the plurality. If claim 6 is intended to limit the timing of multiple discharge pulses, then claim 1 needs to introduce multiple discharge pulses.
Claim 6 recites “the discharge pulses are provided every about 10s-30s”. This limitation is indefinite as to whether it is specifying a time between each discharge pulse or, alternatively, whether it is specifying that a plurality of discharge pulses must be provided within a range of about 10s-30s (interpretation for examination).
Claim 9 recites “the predetermined margin is that the intragroup spread is equal to or less than about 5% in charge rate”.
This claim describes a conditional situation without explicitly defining what “the predetermined margin” is. The term “margin” is commonly understood to be a singular value. The phrase “equal to or less than about 5%” is not a singular value/margin. Further, the conditional situation “that the intragroup spread is equal to or less than about 5% in charge rate” is also not a singular value/margin.
This claim is further indefinite for contradicting claim 1. Claim 1, line 7 recites “an intra group spread less than a predetermined margin”. However, claim 9 contradicts by adding an “equal to” condition. The broadest interpretation of claim 9’s language is considered for interpretation.
Claim 15, lines 4-5 recite “a set of sensors configured to measure a voltage of the electrical energy storage packs individually or in groups of electrical energy storage packs”. This language is indefinite as to whether the set of sensors is configured to collectively measure a single voltage or, alternatively, whether each sensor is intended to measure a respective voltage, thus resulting in a plurality of voltages being measured. For examination purposes, it is interpreted that a minimum of one voltage is required to be measured by the set of sensors.
Claim 15, lines 20-21 recite “the last pulse of the charging is a discharge pulse”. There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim language for the term “the last pulse”. This limitation is further indefinite as to whether “the charging” is referring to “charge … until a charge rate … drops below a threshold level” or “charge … the one group with a charge pulse followed by discharge pulse” (interpretation for examination). This limitation is further indefinite as to whether an additional discharge pulse is being introduced in addition to that introduced prior.
Claim 15, line 24 recites “a voltage increase caused by the charging”. This limitation is indefinite as to whether “the charging” is referring to “charge … until a charge rate … drops below a threshold level” or “charge … the one group with a charge pulse followed by discharge pulse” (interpretation for examination).
Claim 15, line 25 recites “steps (b) and (c)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim language for these claim terms. It is suggested that the prior claim language be revised to introduce these steps. For example, line 18 may be revised to start with “execute a step (b), wherein in the step (b), the system …”.
Claim 15, line 27 recites “repeating the steps (a)-(d)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim language for these claim terms. It is suggested that the prior claim language be revised to introduce these steps.
Claim 16, lines 4-5 recite “using the set of sensors, the traction voltage component, a relaxed voltage estimator”. Due to the lack of “and” or “or”, this list is indefinite.
One may interpret this list as “using the set of sensors, the traction voltage component, and [[a]] the relaxed voltage estimator”.
Alternatively, one may interpret this list as “using the set of sensors, the traction voltage component, or [[a]] the relaxed voltage estimator”. This broader interpretation is considered for examination purposes
Claims 18-19 each recite “the processor device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim language for this term.
Claim 18 recites “said program”. There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim language for this term.
Claim 20 recites “the steps of the method according to claim 1”. This language is indefinite as to which method actions of claim 1 are required for claim 20. No specific steps are introduced in claim 1.
Claim 17 is further rejected for their dependency on other rejected claims.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 12, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherstyuk (US 2021/0399554 A1; hereinafter “Sher”) in view of Ariyoshi et al. (US 2020/0303928 A1; hereinafter “Ari”), Kim et al. (US 2017/0214253 A1), Saito et al. (US 2022/0352746 A1), Berkowitz et al. (US 2012/00266 A1; hereinafter “Berk”), and Kunimitsu et al. (US 2021/0320505 A1; hereinafter “Kuni”).
Regarding Claim 1, Sher discloses a computer-implemented method (“method 700”; Fig. 7; implemented via a computer per ¶ [20, 99-105]) for charging an electrical energy storage system (“battery system 100”; Fig. 1) comprising more than one electrical energy storage pack (“battery cells 102-1..N”; may also be embodied as “202-1..N”, “208-1..N”, “210-1..N”, “216-1..N”, “218-1..N”, “302-1..N”, “310-1..N”, “402”; Figs. 1, 2A-2C, 3A-3B, 4) connected to a traction voltage bus (positive terminal of system, such as positive terminal connected between “402” and “charging source 412” in Fig. 4; ¶ [40]: “charging source 112 may be a charging device for electric vehicles (e.g., charging station or an electric vehicle (EV) charger)”) of a vehicle (“battery system 100”is part of a vehicle per ¶ [4, 37, 40]).
Sher further discloses the method comprising: charging (Fig. 7, step 702: “employing first charging protocol to charge battery pack”; ¶ [48]: “CC-CV charging protocol”) the electrical energy storage system via constant-current, constant-voltage (CCCV) charging until fully charged.
Sher further discloses this CCCV charging of the electrical energy system is followed by a cell equalization/balancing process utilizing pulse charging.
However, Sher further does not disclose “grouping the electrical energy storage packs according to their charge rates, where the charge rates in each group has an intra group spread less than a predetermined margin, (a) disconnecting all but one group of electrical energy storage packs from charging; (b) charging the one group with at least one sequence of a charge pulse followed by a discharge pulse for a predetermined time duration for each pulse, the energy of the discharge pulse is lower than the energy for the charge pulse, wherein the last pulse of the charging is a discharge pulse, (c) after a resting period, estimating with a relaxed voltage estimator, an at least partly relaxed discharge open circuit voltage of the one group from a voltage increase caused by the charging step, (d) repeating steps (b), and (c) until the estimated relaxed discharge open circuit voltage of the one group reaches to or exceeds a predetermined operational voltage limit, and (e) repeating the steps (a)-(d) for all groups of electrical energy storage packs until each electrical energy storage pack have an estimated relaxed discharge open circuit voltage equal to or exceeding the predetermined operational voltage limit”.
Though Sher discloses the method beginning with charging the electrical energy storage system via CCCV until fully charged, Sher does not define the fully charged condition. Specifically, Sher does not disclose this first charging step is performed “until a charge rate of any one of the electrical energy storage packs drops below a threshold level”.
Ari teaches the method comprising: charging the electrical energy storage system (system including “battery cell 125”; Fig. 1) until a charge rate (“ICHG” / “IBAT”; Fig. 1) of any one electrical energy storage pack (125) drops below a threshold level (“0.1 C”; Fig. 1; ¶ [4]: “During CV charging, ICHG decays exponentially due to the equivalent series resistance RESR in battery cell 125, and the equivalent capacitance CBAT. After ICHG is reduced to its target, the charging cycle is terminated.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
917
1584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ari further teaches to stop the CCCV charging when a charge rate of any one electrical energy storage pack drops below a threshold level as a clear definition for when to stop continuous-voltage (CV) charging, thus preventing damaging the electrical storage pack by over-charging (¶ [80]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Sher to stop the CCCV charging when a charge rate of any one electrical energy storage pack drops below a threshold level, as taught by Ari, to prevent damaging the electrical storage pack by over-charging. Though Ari’s teachings are with respect to a single electrical energy storage pack, it was already set forth by Sher that the method is applied to more than one electrical storage pack. Thus, the fully charged condition for a single pack (taught by Ari) is applied to be any of the plurality of electrical storage packs set forth prior by Sher.
Kim teaches grouping (assigned to “charging group 1-4”; Fig. 3C; ¶ [54]: “two or more battery modules are set as one charging group … as needed, two or more battery cells may be set as one charging group”) the electrical energy storage packs (“plurality of battery modules” within a “battery pack”; drawn as “module 1-4” in Figs. 2, 3A-3B; ¶ [49]: “a plurality of battery modules connected in serial and/or in parallel”) according to their charge rates (per ¶ [115], the charging groups have “different pulse current magnitudes”; ).
Kim further teaches the charge rates (“pulse current”) in each group has an intra group spread less than a predetermined margin (each group’s charge rate is spread to within a margin being less than or equal to the “maximum pulse current according to each SOC”; ¶ [53]: “charging factor setter 110 sets a magnitude of a pulse current within a range that does not exceed a maximum pulse current according to the SOC shown in FIG. 4 using SOC information of the battery pack that is to be charged”; ¶ [55]: “set a pulse charging factor within a range that does not exceed a maximum pulse current according to each SOC using SOC information of each of the charging group”; ¶ [70]: “charging controller 130 also differently applies the pulse currents according to the battery cells and/or the battery modules in the charging group when the voltage deviation between the battery cells and/or the battery modules in the specified charging group exceeds the preset critical value”).
Kim further teaches to individually charge each group in a sequential matter to complete balancing of the packs in each group, as well as complete charging of the full system, though does not provide the details of the sequential, pulsed charging of the claimed (a)-(e).
Kim further teaches grouping the electrical energy storage systems by charge rates to improve the lifetime of the electrical energy storage system and to more quickly charge and balance an energy storage system (¶ [5, 98]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by the combo of Sher & Ari to group the electrical energy storage packs by charge rates, as taught by Kim, to improve charging speed and/or to improve the lifetime of the electrical storage system by reducing the degradation effects of fast charging.
Saito teaches (see annotated Fig. 4, included infra) a step (a), which comprises disconnecting all but one group (consider the one group of “BP4” & “BP5”, for which steps a-d are executed from time “t12” to time “t13”) of electrical energy storage packs (“battery packs BP1-BP5”, within battery modules “21-25”; Fig. 1) from charging (Figs. 3-4 show that when one group is charging, the other groups’ switches are in the off state, thus disconnecting the other groups; from time “t12” to time “t13”, switches “SWc4” and “SWc5” are on while switches “SWc1”, “SWc2”, “SWc3”, and “SWc6” are off).
Saito further teaches a step (b), which comprises charging the one group (BP4, BP5) with at least one sequence of a charge pulse (on-state period of each PWM cycle; for “BP4” & “BP5”, the PWM signal is on-state at a duty ratio of 67%).
Saito further teaches a step (c), which comprises, after a resting period (off period of each PWM cycle; for “BP4” & “BP5”, the PWM signal is off-state at a ratio of 33%), estimating with a relaxed voltage estimator (“controller 30”; Fig. 1; by measuring the voltage continuously through the PWM cycle, “30” predicts whether the relaxed OCV will be around “Vu” based on the present voltage rising from “Vs” to “Vmax”), an at least partly relaxed discharge open circuit voltage (estimated OCV of “BP4” and “BP5” when relaxed after stopping the PWM application, as compared to “Vu”) of the one group (BP4, BP5) from a voltage increase (voltage increase from each PWM cycle’s on-state period; continuously observed as voltage rises from “Vs” to “Vmax”) caused by the charging step (charge pulses applied during PWM).
Saito further teaches a step (d), which comprises repeating steps (b), and (c) (repeatedly applies sequence of charge pulses and resting periods by PWM’ing the associated charging switches) until the estimated relaxed discharge open circuit voltage (estimated OCV of “BP4” and “BP5” when relaxed after stopping the PWM application) of the one group (BP4, BP5) is sufficient (steps b-c are repeated until the group’s voltage reaches “Vmax”, from which the estimated relaxed discharge open circuit voltage is “slightly lower than the upper limit voltage Vu”, per ¶ [45]).
Saito further teaches a step (e), which comprises repeating the steps (a)-(d) for all groups (Fig. 4 shows that steps a-d are repeated for each group; steps a-d are applied to the group of only “BP6” from time “t13” to time “t14”) of electrical energy storage packs (BP1-BP6) until each electrical energy storage pack (BP1-BP6) have an estimated relaxed discharge open circuit voltage (estimated OCV when relaxed after stopping the PWM application) that is sufficient (¶ [45]: “the final charge capacities of all the battery packs are substantially equalized at a battery voltage slightly lower than the upper limit voltage Vu”).
PNG
media_image2.png
920
1000
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Saito further teaches charging steps (a)-(e) applied sequentially to each of the groups of electrical energy storage packs to enable the charge capacities of each group to be equalized, even when there is a difference in the number of batteries in the group to be charged simultaneously (¶ [53, 70]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by the combo of Sher, Ari, & Kim to incorporate the charging steps (a)-(e) applied sequentially to each of the groups of electrical energy storage packs, as taught by Saito, to enable the charge capacities of each group to be equalized, even when there is a difference in the number of batteries in the group to be charged simultaneously.
Berk further teaches (see annotated Fig. 9C, included infra) a step (b), which comprises charging the one group (may be applied to a group of cells per ¶ [308]) with at least one sequence (“charge packet”; various examples of pulse sequences shown in Figs. 2A-2D; 3A-3N, 5A-5B, 6A-6B, 9A-9C, 11, 14A, 15A-15C) of a charge pulse (shown with amplitude “Ipeak”; Fig. 9C) followed by a discharge pulse (shown with amplitude “Idischarge”; Fig. 9C) for a predetermined time duration for each pulse (“Tcharge” = predet. time duration for charge pulse; “Tdischarge” = predet. time duration for discharge pulse; Fig. 9C).
Berk further teaches the energy of the discharge pulse is lower than the energy for the charge pulse (Fig. 28B depicts an embodiment of a sequence where the amplitude and duration of the discharge pulse is smaller than that of the charge pulse; thus, the discharge pulse has lower energy than the charge pulse).
Berk further teaches the last pulse of the charging is a discharge pulse (each sequence comprises a charge pulse followed by a discharge pulse; Fig. 3F included infra).
PNG
media_image3.png
674
1453
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
889
1130
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Berk further teaches a step (c), which comprises, after a resting period (“relaxation time12”, which is period from “T1” to “T2”; Fig. 9C; also referred to as the “partial relaxation time”), estimating with a relaxed voltage estimator (combo of “monitoring circuitry 14” and “control circuitry 16”; Figs. 1A-1D; ¶ [94]: “14 measures … terminal voltage, open circuit voltage (OCV)”; ¶ 198]: “Based on an impedance of the battery/cell, a measured voltage at the terminals of the battery (i.e., terminal voltage) and the amount of current/charge input into the battery/cell, the control circuitry may estimate, determine or calculate the OCV of the battery/cell”), an at least partly relaxed discharge open circuit voltage (“Calculate OCV”; Figs. 25A-25D; the “OCV” term used by Berk is interpreted to be a fully relaxed value; in contrast, the “terminal voltage” measurements are varying degrees of being partly relaxed’ ¶ [17-18]) of the one group from a voltage increase caused by the charging step (Fig. 9C shows voltage increase from “V1” to “V2” due to application of the charge pulse; the “V2” is an example of a “terminal voltage” measured as an input to estimate the relaxed OCV via the computational processes shown in Figs. 25A-25D).
Berk further teaches this process of pulse sequences and calculations improves accuracy of relaxed OCV / SOC calculations by accommodating for differences in state of health (¶ [184, 197, 209, 216]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by the combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, & Saito to incorporate a repetitive sequence of a charge pulse, a discharge pulse, a resting period, and an estimation of relaxed OCV, as taught by Berk, to improve the accuracy of the estimations of relaxed OCV by accommodating for differences in state of health of the electrical energy storage packs.
Kuni teaches repeating charging of the one group (any of “cells E1 to E5”) until the estimated relaxed discharge open circuit voltage of the one group (any of “cells E1 to E5”) reaches to or exceeds a predetermined operational voltage limit (¶ [65]: “50 charges cells with OCV/SOC values lower than the target OCV/SOC value in order until their OCV/SOC values reach the target OCV/SOC value”).
Kuni further teaches repeating charging of all groups of electrical energy storage packs until each electrical energy storage pack (all of “cells E1 to E5”) have an estimated relaxed discharge open circuit voltage equal to or exceeding the predetermined operational voltage limit (¶ [65]: “50 charges cells with OCV/SOC values lower than the target OCV/SOC value in order until their OCV/SOC values reach the target OCV/SOC value”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by the combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, & Berk to end steps (d) and (e) when the estimated relaxed discharge open circuit voltage of the one group and of each group reaches or exceeds a predetermined operational voltage limit, as taught by Kuni, to clearly define the completion criteria for charging, thus improving repeatability of the computer-implementation.
Regarding Claim 4, the combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, & Kuni teaches the method according to claim 1.
The combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, & Kuni teaches the charge rate threshold level is an absolute charge rate level (from Ari Fig. 4, included supra: the “CV” stage is completed when “IBAT” falls below the absolute charge rate level of 0.1 C).
Regarding Claim 5, the combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, & Kuni teaches the method according to claim 4.
The combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, & Kuni teaches the absolute charge rate level is about 0.1 C (from Ari Fig. 4, included supra: the “CV” stage is completed when “IBAT” falls below the absolute charge rate level of 0.1 C).
Regarding Claim 7, the combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, & Kuni teaches the method according to claim 1.
The combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, & Kuni teaches the resting period (incorporated from Berk: “relaxation time12” / “partial relaxation time”) is about 5 s or less (per Berk ¶ [213], the periods of each pulse are less than 100 ms, thus by viewing Fig. 9C, included supra, one sees that the “relaxation time12” must also be significantly less than 5 seconds).
Regarding Claim 12, the combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, & Kuni teaches the method according to claim 1.
The combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, & Kuni teaches (see annotated Bek Fig. 9C, included supra in the claim 1 section) the relaxed discharge open circuit voltage is measured (Berk’s Fig. 9C shows the relaxed disch. OCV “V4” is measured at time “T2”) in a discharging phase of an open circuit voltage hysteresis (Berk’s Fig. 9C shows OCV hysteresis occurring from end of discharge pulse at time “T1” to start of next pulse sequence, during the which the measurement occurs at time “T2”).
Regarding Claim 18, the combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, & Kuni teaches the method of claim 1.
The combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, & Kuni teaches a computer program product (Sher ¶ [102-104]: “computer program product”) comprising program code (Sher ¶ [99, 103]: “source code”) for performing, when executed by the processor device (Sher ¶ [20, 99-104]: “processor”), the method of claim 1 (method of claim 1 taught by combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, & Kuni) when said program is run on a computer (Sher: implemented via a computer per ¶ [20, 99-105]).
Regarding Claim 19, the combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, & Kuni teaches the method of claim 1.
The combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, & Kuni teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Sher ¶ [20, 99, 103]: “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”) comprising instructions (Sher ¶ [103]: “software instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium”), which when executed by the processor device (Sher ¶ [20, 99-104]: “processor”), cause the processor device (Sher ¶ [20]: “the instructions, in response to execution by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform or control performance of operations”) to perform the method of claim 1 (method of claim 1 taught by combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, & Kuni).
Regarding Claim 20, the combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, & Kuni teaches the method according to claim 1.
The combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, & Kuni teaches a control unit (Sher: “controller 104”; Fig. 1) for controlling a charging an electrical energy storage system (Sher: “battery system 100”; Fig. 1) comprising more than one electrical energy storage packs (Sher: “battery cells 102-1..N”; may also be embodied as “202-1..N”, “208-1..N”, “210-1..N”, “216-1..N”, “218-1..N”, “302-1..N”, “310-1..N”, “402”; Figs. 1, 3A-3B) connected to a traction voltage bus (Sher: positive terminal of system, such as positive terminal connected between “402” and “charging source 412” in Fig. 4; ¶ [40]: “charging source 112 may be a charging device for electric vehicles (e.g., charging station or an electric vehicle (EV) charger)”) of a vehicle (Sher’s “battery system 100” is part of a vehicle per ¶ [4, 37, 40]).
The combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, & Kuni teaches the control unit (Sher: “controller 104”, modified per teachings of Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, & Kuni) being configured to perform the steps of the method according to claim 1 (method of claim 1 taught by combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, & Kuni).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherstyuk (US 2021/0399554 A1; hereinafter “Sher”) in view of Ariyoshi et al. (US 2020/0303928 A1; hereinafter “Ari”), Kim et al. (US 2017/0214253 A1), Saito et al. (US 2022/0352746 A1), Berkowitz et al. (US 2012/00266 A1; hereinafter “Berk”), Kunimitsu et al. (US 2021/0320505 A1; hereinafter “Kuni”), and Ohkawa et al. (US 2023/0039183 A1; hereinafter “Ohk”).
Regarding Claim 2, the combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, & Kuni teaches the method according to claim 1.
The combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, & Kuni teaches once the estimated relaxed discharge open circuit voltage (incorporated teachings from Berk to “Calculate OCV”, which is an estimation for the fully relaxed OCV value; also estimated by Kuni for comparison with the “target OCV/SOC value”) of the one group (Kuni: any of “cells E1 to E5”) reaches to or exceeds the predetermined operational voltage limit (from Kuni: “target OCV/SOC value”): performing a retuning operation of the estimated relaxed parameter calculations based on measured data (Berk¶ [129]).
Sher does not disclose the retuning operation comprises “determining a final relaxed discharge open circuit voltage of each electrical energy storage pack of the one group, if the final relaxed discharge open circuit voltage under- or overshoot the predetermined operational voltage limit with more than a set margin, retuning the relaxed voltage estimator for each electrical energy storage pack of the one group, and repeating the retuning for each electrical energy storage pack in all groups in step (e)”.
Ohk teaches determining a final relaxed discharge open circuit voltage (equivalent OCV to the “SOC” value computed from the electric current via integration; ¶ [5]: “SOC based on an electric current integration (hereinafter referred to as SOCi)”; ¶ [58]: “computes and outputs the SOC based on an integrated value of the electric current (hereinafter referred to as SOCi)”; Fig. 4 shows there exists a direct translation from SOC values to OCV values; thus, by determining a final SOC value, Ohk is in effect also determining a final OCV) of each electrical energy storage pack (each “single battery 111”; Figs. 1-2) of the one group (either of “single battery groups 112a, 112b”; Fig. 1).
Ohk further teaches, if the final relaxed discharge open circuit voltage (equivalent OCV to the “SOC” value computed from the electric current via integration) under- or overshoot the estimated OCV (analogous to the claimed “predetermined operational voltage limit” per note 2-1, included infra; “SOCv”; as discussed supra, Ohk teaches a direct translation between SOC and OCV values; thus, by estimating “SOCv”, Ohk is in effect also estimating OCV) with more than a set margin (¶ [69]: “error equal to or more than a specified value”; ¶ [83]: “judge whether or not the SOCv error (the absolute value of the difference between the SOC and the SOCv) is equal to or more than the specified value”), retuning (Abstract: “correction unit corrects the internal resistance value of the battery with a resistance correction amount according to the difference and the electric current value”) the relaxed voltage estimator (“SOC operation unit 151”; Figs. 3, 5; by estimating SOC, also estimates OCV per Fig. 4’s disclosed relationship) for each electrical energy storage pack (111) of the one group (112a or 112b).
NOTE 2-1: It was set forth by the prior combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, & Kuni that each group is charged until its estimated relaxed discharge open circuit voltage reaches the predetermined operation voltage limit. Thus, after the charging and balancing steps set forth supra, it is known that the estimated relaxed discharge open circuit voltage has already reached the predetermined operation voltage limit and then stopped charging. Thus, for the purposes of retuning after the charging and balancing steps, the estimated OCV taught by Ohk is analogous to the predetermined operational voltage limit set forth supra.
Ohk further teaches repeating the retuning (the retuning for each group is performed by the respective “single battery control unit 121a, 121b”; thus, this retuning is repeated for all packs in all groups) for each electrical energy storage pack (111) in all groups (112a, 112b).
Ohk further teaches retuning of the relaxed voltage estimator for each electrical energy storage pack if the final relaxed discharge OCV has an error more than a set margin to adjust the estimation method to be more accurate by accounting for degradation of the electrical energy storage packs (¶ [2-5]), as well as improve reliability of the electrical energy storage system (¶ [10]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by the combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, & Kuni to incorporate the retuning of the relaxed voltage estimator for each electrical energy storage pack if the final relaxed discharge OCV has an error more than a set margin, as taught by Ohk, to improve accuracy of the OCV estimations by accounting for degradation of the electrical energy storage packs and/or to improve reliability of the electrical energy storage system. Though Ohk’s teachings for the retuning of all groups is not described to occur “in step (e)”, it is already set forth that the retuning for the one group occurs “once the estimated relaxed discharge open circuit voltage of the one group reaches to or exceeds the predetermined operational voltage limit”. It is also already set forth that the evaluation of the other groups’ estimated OCVs versus the predetermined operational voltage limit occurs via sequential repetition of steps (a)-(d) in step (e). Thus, the incorporation of Ohk’s retuning process for the other groups would also necessarily occur in step (e).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherstyuk (US 2021/0399554 A1; hereinafter “Sher”) in view of Ariyoshi et al. (US 2020/0303928 A1; hereinafter “Ari”), Kim et al. (US 2017/0214253 A1), Saito et al. (US 2022/0352746 A1), Berkowitz et al. (US 2012/00266 A1; hereinafter “Berk”), Kunimitsu et al. (US 2021/0320505 A1; hereinafter “Kuni”), and Kaneko et al. (JP 2018050400 A).
Regarding Claim 3, the combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, & Kuni teaches the method according to claim 1.
The combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, & Kuni teaches the charge rate threshold level (Ari: from Ari Fig. 4, included supra: the “CV” stage is completed when “IBAT” falls below 0.1 C), which is an absolute charge rate threshold.
Though the combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, & Kuni teaches an absolute charge rate threshold level, Sher does not disclose a relative charge rate threshold level wherein “the charge rate threshold level is that any one electrical energy storage packs drop to about 50% or less than the charge rate of at least one of the other electrical energy storage packs”.
Kaneko teaches the charge rate threshold level (Abstract: “a charging stop condition … a difference in charging currents between a plurality of battery packs”) is that any one electrical energy storage packs (either of “battery rows 21, 22”; Fig. 6) drop to about 50% or less (Kaneko indicates the relative charge rate threshold level may be any level in a range less than 100% of the charge rate of another pack based on the calculation “current difference ΔI = |I1 – I2| between the battery packs”, calculated in step 122; ¶ [25-27]; ; thus, “about 50% or less” is within this range; also see note 3-1, included infra, which explains the chosen 50% threshold value does not appear to be a critical value) than the charge rate of at least one of the other electrical energy storage packs (comparison of “I1” versus “I2” corresponds to the charge rates/currents between two different electrical energy storage packs).
Kaneko further teaches this relative charge rate threshold level to prevent battery degradation associated with circulating current and/or precipitation (¶ [4-5, 7, 14-15]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method’s charge rate threshold disclosed by the combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, & Kuni to be a relative charge rate threshold level, as taught by Kaneko, to prevent battery degradation associated with circulating current and/or precipitation.
NOTE 3-1: In cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims (“about 50% or less”), applicant must show that the chosen values are critical. As such, the claimed values (“about 50% or less”) appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Claims 6, 8, 10-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherstyuk (US 2021/0399554 A1; hereinafter “Sher”) in view of Ariyoshi et al. (US 2020/0303928 A1; hereinafter “Ari”), Kim et al. (US 2017/0214253 A1), Saito et al. (US 2022/0352746 A1), Berkowitz et al. (US 2012/00266 A1; hereinafter “Berk”), Kunimitsu et al. (US 2021/0320505 A1; hereinafter “Kuni”), and Hempel (US 2014/0327406 A1; hereinafter “Hem”).
Regarding Claims 6, 8, 10-11, and 13, the combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, & Kuni teaches the method according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Sher does not disclose “the discharge pulses are provided every about 10s-30s”.
Regarding claim 8, Sher does not disclose “each discharge pulse is applied with about 0.1 C to 1C for less than a time duration in the range of 1s to 2s”.
Regarding claim 10, Sher does not disclose “a charge energy of the charge pulse contains at least 5 times more energy than the discharge energy of the discharge pulse”.
Regarding claim 11, Sher does not disclose “a charge energy of the charge pulse contains at least 10 times more energy than the discharge energy of the discharge pulse”.
Regarding claim 13, Sher does not disclose “the charge pulse is immediately followed by the discharge pulse”.
Hem teaches the discharge pulses (32) are provided every about 10s-30s (Fig. 3 shows that more than one discharge pulse “32” is provided in a period of 10s-30s; see the interpretation noted in the 112(b) rejection supra).
Hem teaches each discharge pulse is applied with about 0.1 C to 1C (Fig. 3 shows the discharge pulses “32” have an amplitude of “0.3 A”; per ¶ [60], the battery capacity is “2.3 Ah”; discharge rate = (0.3 A) / (2.3 Ah) = 0.13 C) for less than a time duration in the range of 1s to 2s (Fig. 3 shows each discharge pulse “32” is applied for “0.5 s”, which is less than any time duration in the range of 1-2 seconds).
Hem further teaches a charge energy (using the pulse parameters of Fig. 3, Qcharge = (5 A) x (1 s) = 5 Coulombs) of the charge pulse (31) contains at least 5 times more energy (Qcharge / Qdischarge = 5 C / 0.15 C = 33.3) than the discharge energy (using the pulse parameters of Fig. 3, Qdischarge = (0.3 A) x (0.5 s) = 0.15 Coulombs) of the discharge pulse (32).
Hem further teaches a charge energy (5 Coulombs) of the charge pulse (31) contains at least 10 times more energy (Qcharge / Qdischarge = 33.3) than the discharge energy (0.15 Coulombs) of the discharge pulse (32).
Hem further teaches the charge pulse (31) is immediately followed (Fig. 3 shows no delay from “31” to “32”) by the discharge pulse (32).
Hem further teaches these pulse shape characteristics to charge the electrical energy storage packs faster (¶ [11, 13]) and to reduce degradation (¶ [74]).
PNG
media_image5.png
732
1663
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pulse sequence disclosed by the combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, & Kuni to incorporate the pulse shape characteristics taught by Hem, to charge the electrical energy storage packs faster and/or to reduce degradation.
Regarding Claim 14, the combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, Kuni, & Hem teaches the method according to claim 13.
The combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, Kuni, & Hem teaches charging the electrical energy storage system (Sher: “100”) until a charge rate (Ari: “ICHG” / “IBAT”) of any one of the electrical energy storage packs (Sher: “102 1..N”) drops below a threshold level (Ari: absolute charge rate level of “0.1 C”) comprises charging using constant current constant voltage charging (Ari Fig. 1 shows a constant current “CC” stage followed by a “CV” stage, ending when the one pack’s charge rate falls to “0.1 C”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherstyuk (US 2021/0399554 A1; hereinafter “Sher”) in view of Ariyoshi et al. (US 2020/0303928 A1; hereinafter “Ari”), Kim et al. (US 2017/0214253 A1), Saito et al. (US 2022/0352746 A1), Berkowitz et al. (US 2012/00266 A1; hereinafter “Berk”), Kunimitsu et al. (US 2021/0320505 A1; hereinafter “Kuni”), and Deng et al. (CN 112636417 A).
Regarding Claim 9, the combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, & Kuni teaches the method according to claim 1.
The combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, & Kuni teaches the predetermined margin is that the intragroup spread is a charge rate (incorporated per Kim’s teachings: each group’s charge rate is spread to within a margin being less than or equal to the “maximum pulse current according to each SOC”; see Kim’s ¶ [53, 55, 70]).
Though the combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, & Kuni teaches the predetermined margin is that the intragroup spread is a charge rate, Sher does not disclose that this predetermined margin is an intragroup spread of “equal to or less than about 5%”.
Deng teaches the predetermined margin is that the intragroup spread is equal to or less than about 5% in charge rate (¶ [n0025] describes an intragroup spread of charge current within each group as a variable “P” percentage, which ranges “0-100”; thus, the claimed 5% is within the range taught).
Deng further teaches using this intragroup spread to increase the equalization speed (¶ [n0026-n0027]), simplify the charging circuit, improve efficiency, and reduce costs (¶ [n002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the predetermined margin of the intragroup spread of charge rates disclosed by the combo of Sher, Ari, Kim, Saito, Berk, & Kuni to be such that the intragroup spread is less than or equal to 5%, as taught by Deng, to increase the equalization speed, simplify the charging circuit, improve efficiency, and/or reduce costs.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherstyuk (US 2021/0399554 A1; hereinafter “Sher”) in view of Ariyoshi et al. (US 2020/0303928 A1; hereinafter “Ari”), Saito et al. (US 2022/0352746 A1), Kim et al. (US 2017/0214253 A1), Berkowitz et al. (US 2012/00266 A1; hereinafter “Berk”), and Kunimitsu et al. (US 2021/0320505 A1; hereinafter “Kuni”).
Regarding Claim 15, Sher discloses a system (“battery system 100”, may also be embodied as “300”, “400”; Figs. 1, 3A-3B, 4) configured to charge an electrical energy storage system (“battery pack 102”; may also be embodied as “202”, “206”, “214”, “302”, “310”, “402”; Figs. ) comprising more than one electrical energy storage pack (“battery cells 102-1..N”; may also be embodied as “202-1..N”, “208-1..N”, “210-1..N”, “216-1..N”, “218-1..N”, “302-1..N”, “310-1..N”, “402”; Figs. 1, 2A-2C, 3A-3B, 4) connected to a traction voltage bus (positive terminal of system, such as positive terminal connected between “402” and “charging source 412” in Fig. 4; ¶ [40]: “charging source 112 may be a charging device for electric vehicles (e.g., charging station or an electric vehicle (EV) charger)”) of a vehicle (“battery system 100”is part of a vehicle per ¶ [4, 37, 40]).
Sher further discloses the system (100 / 300 / 400) comprising: a set of sensors (combo of “pairs of measurement channels 304-1..N” and “measurement module 306”; Fig. 3A) configured to measure a voltage of the electrical energy storage packs (302-1..N) individually (¶ [62]: “306 … may obtain measurement such as voltage, current, temperature, SoC etc., for each of the battery cells 302-1, 302-2, 302-N by using the measurement channels 304-1, 304-2, 304-N”) or in groups of electrical energy storage packs (Fig. 4 shows that “406” can measure across full group “402”).
Sher further discloses a charger (“charging source 112 / 412”; Figs. 1, 4) configured to electrically charge the electrical energy storage packs (102-1..N).
Sher further discloses the system (100 / 300 / 400) is configured to: charge, using the charger (112 / 412), the electrical energy storage system (102 / 202 / 206 / 214 / 302 / 310 / 402).
Sher does not disclose “a switching arrangement configured to control which of the electrical energy storage packs are connected to the traction voltage bus; a traction voltage component connected to the traction voltage bus and being controllable to discharge the electrical energy storage packs”.
Though Sher discloses that the system is configured to charge, using the charger, the electrical energy storage system via CCCV until fully charged, Sher does not define the fully charged condition. Specifically, Sher further does not disclose this first charging step is performed “until a charge rate of any one of the electrical energy storage packs measured by the sensors drops below a threshold level”.
Sher further does not disclose “(a) disconnect, using the switching arrangement, all but one group of electrical energy storage packs from the traction voltage bus, where the charge rates in the group have an intra group spread less than a predetermined margin, (b) charge, using the charger, the one group with a charge pulse followed by a discharge pulse for a predetermined time duration for each pulse, the energy of the discharge pulse is lower than the energy for the charge pulse, wherein the last pulse of the charging is a discharge pulse, (c) after a resting period, estimate, using the set of sensors, the traction voltage component and a relaxed voltage estimator, an at least partly relaxed discharge open circuit voltage of the one group from a voltage increase caused by the charging, (d) repeating steps (b) and (c) until the estimated relaxed open circuit voltage of the one group reaches to or exceeds a predetermined operational voltage limit, and (e) repeating the steps (a)-(d) for all groups of electrical energy storage packs until each electrical energy storage pack have a relaxed open circuit voltage equal to or exceeding the predetermined operational voltage limit”.
Ari teaches (see annotated Fig. 1, included supra in the claim 1 section) the system (combo of “Battery” and “CC-CV charger 200”; Fig. 2) is configured to: charge, using the charger (“CC-CV charger 200”; Fig. 2), the electrical energy storage system (system including “battery cell 125”; Figs. 1-2) until a charge rate (“ICHG” / “IBAT”; Fig. 1) of any one electrical energy storage pack (125) measured by the sensor (“Charging Current Detector”; Fig. 2) drops below a threshold level (“0.1 C”; Fig. 1; ¶ [4]: “During CV charging, ICHG decays exponentially due to the equivalent series resistance RESR in battery cell 125, and the equivalent capacitance CBAT. After ICHG is reduced to its target, the charging cycle is terminated.”).
Ari further teaches to stop the CCCV charging when a charge rate of any one electrical energy storage pack drops below a threshold level as a clear definition for when to stop continuous-voltage (CV) charging, thus preventing damaging the electrical storage pack by over-charging (¶ [80]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Sher to stop the CCCV charging when a charge rate of any one electrical energy storage pack drops below a threshold level, as taught by Ari, to prevent damaging the electrical storage pack by over-charging. Though Ari’s teachings are with respect to a single electrical energy storage pack and sensor, it was already set forth by Sher that the method is applied to more than one electrical storage pack and associated sensors. Thus, the fully charged condition for a single pack (taught by Ari) is applied to be any of the plurality of electrical storage packs and sensors set forth prior by Sher.
Saito teaches a switching arrangement (combo of “charger 10”, “charge switches SWc1-SWc5”, and “charge diodes Dc1-Dc5”; Fig. 1) configured to control which of the electrical energy storage packs (“battery packs BP1-BP5”, within battery modules “21-25”; Fig. 1) are connected to the traction voltage bus (voltage bus connected to terminal “Tin/Tout”; Fig. 1)
Saito further teaches a traction voltage component (combo of “discharge switches SWd1-SWd5” and “discharge diodes Dd1-Dd5”; Fig. 1) connected to the traction voltage bus (Tin/Tout) and being controllable to discharge (¶ [22]: “BP1 can be discharged to a load device (not illustrated) connected to the input/output terminal Tin/Tout via the first discharge switch SWd1, the first discharge diode Dd1, and the discharge line Ld”) the electrical energy storage packs (BP1-BP5).
Saito further teaches (see annotated Fig. 4, included supra) the system (Fig. 1) is configured to execute a step (a), wherein the system disconnect, using the switching arrangement (10, SWc1-SWc5, Dc1-Dc5), all but one group (consider the one group of “BP4” & “BP5”, for which steps a-d are executed from time “t12” to time “t13”) of electrical energy storage packs (BP1-BP5) from the traction voltage bus (Figs. 3-4 show that when one group is charging, the other groups’ switches are in the off state, thus disconnecting the other groups from “Tin/Tout”; from time “t12” to time “t13”, switches “SWc4” and “SWc5” are on while switches “SWc1”, “SWc2”, “SWc3”, and “SWc6” are off).
Saito further teaches the system (Fig. 1) is configured to execute a step (b), wherein the system charge the one group (BP4, BP5), using the charger (10), with a charge pulse (on-state period of each PWM cycle; for “BP4” & “BP5”, the PWM signal is on-state at duty 67%).
Saito further teaches the system (Fig. 1) is configured to execute a step (c), wherein the system, after a resting period (off period of each PWM cycle; for “BP4” & “BP5”, the PWM signal is off-state at a ratio of 33%), estimate, using the set of sensors (“shunt resistors R1-R5”; Fig. 1; ¶ [23]: “charge current is measured using a current flowing through the shunt resistor”), the traction voltage component (SWd1-SWd5, Dd1-Dd5) and a relaxed voltage estimator (“controller 30”; Fig. 1; by measuring the voltage continuously through the PWM cycle, “30” predicts whether the relaxed OCV will be around “Vu” based on the present voltage rising from “Vs” to “Vmax”), an at least partly relaxed discharge open circuit voltage (estimated OCV of “BP4” and “BP5” when relaxed after stopping the PWM application, as compared to “Vu”) of the one group (BP4, BP5) from a voltage increase (voltage increase from each PWM cycle’s on-state period; continuously observed as voltage rises from “Vs” to “Vmax”) caused by the charging (charge pulses applied during PWM).
Saito further teaches the system (Fig. 1) is configured to execute a step (d), wherein the system repeating steps (b), and (c) (repeatedly applies sequence of charge pulses and resting periods by PWM’ing the associated charging switches) until the estimated relaxed discharge open circuit voltage (estimated OCV of “BP4” and “BP5” when relaxed after stopping the PWM application) of the one group (BP4, BP5) is sufficient (steps b-c are repeated until the group’s voltage reaches “Vmax”, from which the estimated relaxed discharge open circuit voltage is “slightly lower than the upper limit voltage Vu”, per ¶ [45]).
Saito further teaches the system (Fig. 1) is configured to execute a step (e), wherein the system repeating the steps (a)-(d) for all groups (Fig. 4 shows that steps a-d are repeated for each group; steps a-d are applied to the group of only “BP6” from time “t13” to time “t14”) of electrical energy storage packs (BP1-BP6) until each electrical energy storage pack (BP1-BP6) have a relaxed open circuit voltage (estimated OCV when relaxed after stopping the PWM application) that is sufficient (¶ [45]: “the final charge capacities of all the battery packs are substantially equalized at a battery voltage slightly lower than the upper limit voltage Vu”).
Saito further teaches charging steps (a)-(e) applied sequentially to each of the groups of electrical energy storage packs to enable the charge capacities of each group to be equalized, even when there is a difference in the number of batteries in the group to be charged simultaneously (¶ [53, 70]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by the combo of Sher & Ari to sequentially apply the charging steps (a)-(e) to each of the groups of electrical energy storage packs, as taught by Saito, to enable the charge capacities of each group to be equalized, even when there is a difference in the number of batteries in the group to be charged simultaneously.
Kim teaches the charge rates (assigned to “charging group 1-4”; Fig. 3C; ¶ [54]: “two or more battery modules are set as one charging group … as needed, two or more battery cells may be set as one charging group”) in the group (assigned to “charging group 1-4”; Fig. 3C; ¶ [54]: “two or more battery modules are set as one charging group … as needed, two or more battery cells may be set as one charging group”) have an intra group spread less than a predetermined margin (each group’s charge rate is spread to within a margin being less than or equal to the “maximum pulse current according to each SOC”; ¶ [53]: “charging factor setter 110 sets a magnitude of a pulse current within a range that does not exceed a maximum pulse current according to the SOC shown in FIG. 4 using SOC information of the battery pack that is to be charged”; ¶ [55]: “set a pulse charging factor within a range that does not exceed a maximum pulse current according to each SOC using SOC information of each of the charging group”; ¶ [70]: “charging controller 130 also differently applies the pulse currents according to the battery cells and/or the battery modules in the charging group when the voltage deviation between the battery cells and/or the battery modules in the specified charging group exceeds the preset critical value”).
Kim further teaches grouping the electrical energy storage systems by charge rates to improve the lifetime of the electrical energy storage system and to more quickly charge and balance an energy storage system (¶ [5, 98]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the step (a) disclosed by the combo of Sher, Ari, & Saito to group the electrical energy storage packs by charge rates, as taught by Kim, to improve charging speed and/or to improve the lifetime of the electrical storage system by reducing the degradation effects of fast charging.
Berk further teaches (see annotated Fig. 9C, included supra) the system (Figs. 1A-1D) is configured to execute a step (b), wherein the system charge (“charge packet”; various examples of pulse sequences shown in Figs. 2A-2D; 3A-3N, 5A-5B, 6A-6B, 9A-9C, 11, 14A, 15A-15C), using the charger (“charging circuitry 12”; Figs. 1A-1D), the one group (may be applied to a group of cells per ¶ [308]) with a charge pulse (shown with amplitude “Ipeak”; Fig. 9C) followed by a discharge pulse (shown with amplitude “Idischarge”; Fig. 9C) for a predetermined time duration for each pulse (“Tcharge” = predet. time duration for charge pulse; “Tdischarge” = predet. time duration for discharge pulse; Fig. 9C).
Berk further teaches the energy of the discharge pulse is lower than the energy for the charge pulse (Fig. 28B depicts an embodiment of a sequence where the amplitude and duration of the discharge pulse is smaller than that of the charge pulse; thus, the discharge pulse has lower energy than the charge pulse).
Berk further teaches the last pulse of the charging is a discharge pulse (each sequence comprises a charge pulse followed by a discharge pulse; Fig. 3F included supra).
Berk further teaches the system (Figs. 1A-1D) is configured to execute a step (c), wherein the system, after a resting period (“relaxation time12”, which is period from “T1” to “T2”; Fig. 9C; also referred to as the “partial relaxation time”), estimate, using the set of sensors (“monitoring circuitry 14”; Figs. 1A-1E), the traction voltage component (“12”; Figs. 1A-1E; ¶ [91]: “12 may also apply … discharging signals”) and a relaxed voltage estimator (combo of “monitoring circuitry 14” and “control circuitry 16”; Figs. 1A-1D; ¶ [94]: “14 measures … terminal voltage, open circuit voltage (OCV)”; ¶ 198]: “Based on an impedance of the battery/cell, a measured voltage at the terminals of the battery (i.e., terminal voltage) and the amount of current/charge input into the battery/cell, the control circuitry may estimate, determine or calculate the OCV of the battery/cell”), an at least partly relaxed discharge open circuit voltage (“Calculate OCV”; Figs. 25A-25D; the “OCV” term used by Berk is interpreted to be a fully relaxed value; in contrast, the “terminal voltage” measurements are varying degrees of being partly relaxed’ ¶ [17-18]) of the one group from a voltage increase caused by the charging (Fig. 9C shows voltage increase from “V1” to “V2” due to application of the charge pulse; the “V2” is an example of a “terminal voltage” measured as an input to estimate the relaxed OCV via the computational processes shown in Figs. 25A-25D).
Berk further teaches the pulse sequences and calculations improves accuracy of relaxed OCV / SOC calculations by adjusting for differences in state of health (¶ [184, 197, 209, 216]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system’s steps (b)-(c) disclosed by the combo of Sher, Ari, Saito, & Kim to incorporate to incorporate a repetitive sequence of a charge pulse, a discharge pulse, a resting period, and an estimation of relaxed OCV, as taught by Berk, to improve the accuracy of the estimations of relaxed OCV by accommodating for differences in state of health of the electrical energy storage packs.
Kuni teaches repeating charging of the one group (any of “cells E1 to E5”) until the estimated relaxed discharge open circuit voltage of the one group (any of “cells E1 to E5”) reaches to or exceeds a predetermined operational voltage limit (¶ [65]: “50 charges cells with OCV/SOC values lower than the target OCV/SOC value in order until their OCV/SOC values reach the target OCV/SOC value”).
Kuni further teaches repeating charging of all groups of electrical energy storage packs until each electrical energy storage pack (all of “cells E1 to E5”) have an estimated relaxed discharge open circuit voltage equal to or exceeding the predetermined operational voltage limit (¶ [65]: “50 charges cells with OCV/SOC values lower than the target OCV/SOC value in order until their OCV/SOC values reach the target OCV/SOC value”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system’s steps (d)-(e) disclosed by the combo of Sher, Ari, Saito, Kim, & Berk to end steps (d) and (e) when the estimated relaxed discharge open circuit voltage of the one group and of each group reaches or exceeds a predetermined operational voltage limit, as taught by Kuni, to clearly define the completion criteria for charging, thus improving repeatability of the computer-implementation.
Regarding Claim 17, the combo of Sher, Ari, Saito, Kim, Berk, & Kuni teaches the system according to claim 15.
The combo of Sher, Ari, Saito, Kim, Berk, & Kuni teaches a vehicle (Sher: (“battery system 100”is part of a vehicle per ¶ [4, 37, 40]) comprising the system (Sher’s “100” / “300” / “400”; modified per teachings of Ari, Saito, Kim, Berk, & Kuni) according to claim 15.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherstyuk (US 2021/0399554 A1; hereinafter “Sher”) in view of Ariyoshi et al. (US 2020/0303928 A1; hereinafter “Ari”), Saito et al. (US 2022/0352746 A1), Kim et al. (US 2017/0214253 A1), Berkowitz et al. (US 2012/00266 A1; hereinafter “Berk”), Kunimitsu et al. (US 2021/0320505 A1; hereinafter “Kuni”), and Ohkawa et al. (US 2023/0039183 A1; hereinafter “Ohk”).
Regarding Claim 16, the combo of Sher, Ari, Saito, Kim, Berk, & Kuni teaches the system according to claim 15.
The combo of Sher, Ari, Saito, Kim, Berk, & Kuni teaches the system (Sher’s Fig. 1, modified per teachings of Ari, Saito, Kim, Berk, & Kuni) is further configured to: once the estimated relaxed discharge open circuit voltage (incorporated teachings from Berk to “Calculate OCV”, which is an estimation for the fully relaxed OCV value; also estimated by Kuni for comparison with the “target OCV/SOC value”) of the one group (Kuni: any of “cells E1 to E5”) reaches to or exceeds the predetermined operational voltage limit (from Kuni: “target OCV/SOC value”), perform a retuning operation of the estimated relaxed parameter calculations based on measured data (Berk¶ [129]).
Sher does not disclose the retuning operation comprises “determine, using the set of sensors, the traction voltage component, a relaxed voltage estimator, a final relaxed discharge open circuit voltage of each electrical energy storage pack of the one group, and if the final relaxed discharge open circuit voltage under- or overshoot the predetermined operational voltage limit with more than a set margin, retune the relaxed voltage estimator for each electrical energy storage pack of the one group, and repeating the retuning for each electrical energy storage pack in all groups”.
Ohk teaches the system (Fig. 1) is further configured to determine, using the set of sensors (“voltage detection unit 122”, “temperature detection unit 125”; Fig. 2), the traction voltage component (“inverter 400”, “motor 410”; Fig. 1), or a relaxed voltage estimator (“SOC operation unit 151”; Figs. 3, 5; by estimating SOC, also estimates OCV per Fig. 4’s disclosed relationship), a final relaxed discharge open circuit voltage (equivalent OCV to the “SOC” value computed from the electric current via integration; ¶ [5]: “SOC based on an electric current integration (hereinafter referred to as SOCi)”; ¶ [58]: “computes and outputs the SOC based on an integrated value of the electric current (hereinafter referred to as SOCi)”; Fig. 4 shows there exists a direct translation from SOC values to OCV values; thus, by determining a final SOC value, Ohk is in effect also determining a final OCV) of each electrical energy storage pack (each “single battery 111”; Figs. 1-2) of the one group (either of “single battery groups 112a, 112b”; Fig. 1).
Ohk further teaches if the final relaxed discharge open circuit voltage (equivalent OCV to the “SOC” value computed from the electric current via integration) under- or overshoot the estimated OCV (analogous to the claimed “predetermined operational voltage limit” per note 2-1, included supra; “SOCv”; as discussed supra, Ohk teaches a direct translation between SOC and OCV values; thus, by estimating “SOCv”, Ohk is in effect also estimating OCV) with more than a set margin (¶ [69]: “error equal to or more than a specified value”; ¶ [83]: “judge whether or not the SOCv error (the absolute value of the difference between the SOC and the SOCv) is equal to or more than the specified value”), retune (Abstract: “correction unit corrects the internal resistance value of the battery with a resistance correction amount according to the difference and the electric current value”) the relaxed voltage estimator (151) for each electrical energy storage pack (111) of the one group (112a or 112b).
Ohk further teaches repeating the retuning (the retuning for each group is performed by the respective “single battery control unit 121a, 121b”; thus, this retuning is repeated for all packs in all groups) for each electrical energy storage pack (111) in all groups (112a, 112b).
Ohk further teaches retuning of the relaxed voltage estimator for each electrical energy storage pack if the final relaxed discharge OCV has an error more than a set margin to adjust the estimation method to be more accurate by accounting for degradation of the electrical energy storage packs (¶ [2-5]), and improve reliability of the electrical energy storage system (¶ [10]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by the combo of Sher, Ari, Saito, Kim, Berk, & Kuni to retune the relaxed voltage estimator for each electrical energy storage pack if the final relaxed discharge OCV has an error more than a set margin, as taught by Ohk, to improve accuracy of the OCV estimations by accounting for degradation of the electrical energy storage packs and/or to improve reliability of the electrical energy storage system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel P McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM Eastern.
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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/DANIEL P MCFARLAND/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights