DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Priority is being given to 08/29/2023.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendments filed on 11/12/2025.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-13, 15-16, and 18-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 12, 15, 16, and 18 are amended.
Claims 3, 6, 14, and 17 are cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-13, 15-16, and 18-20 are currently rejected.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 101 rejections, the examiner is not persuaded. Applicant argues that a human cannot directly measure voltage or make a notification. However these are insignificant pre- and post- solution activity using generic computer parts to perform those steps. A human can make the determinations and calculations required when provided the data. Applicant also agues “payment and authentication functions” which are not claimed limitations. The only output from the process is a notification which as mentioned supra is simply an insignificant extra-solution activity. Applicant also argues the MPEP section corresponding to “methods of organizing human activity” however the 101 rejection is that of a mental process and is therefore not applicable. Additionally the applicant argues an enhancement to known battery management methods but does not disclose what that enhancement is. As currently claimed, the mental process is only accompanied by generic computer parts and insignificant extra-solution activity so the examiner maintains that the claims do not recite a practical application and is maintaining the 101 rejection. To overcome the 101 rejection the examiner suggest amending the claims to recite some control step of the vehicle or battery in response to the notification or detection steps.
Applicant’s argues the mapping of Rueger to “determining, as the second voltage, a minimum voltage among the voltages of the battery cell measured before an ignition-on signal of the vehicle is detected”. Time t3 of Rueger occurs right before operating phase 40 which would inherently require that the vehicle is turned on. Additionally, as previously explained in the motivation to combine and elaborated in the rejection below, Rueger teaches the ability to measure the SOC and charge capacity based on the measurements of two open circuit voltage values. Although Rueger performs this as a vehicle is charging, the three possible states that result in a SOC change of a vehicle battery is either charging, discharging during use, or discharging from phantom drain while idle. Since Liu teaches detecting a short circuit event while phantom drain is occurring, applying the teachings of Rueger to the process of Liu results in the claimed invention. Therefore applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-13, 15-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-13, 15-16, and 18-20 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
The examiner has identified independent system/method/product Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent Claim 12.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
An apparatus for managing a battery, the apparatus comprising:
a voltage sensor configured to measure a voltage of a battery cell mounted on a vehicle; and
a processor configured to determine a short circuit risk of the battery cell;
wherein the processor is configured to:
determine a self-discharge current of the battery cell during a self-discharge period in which a voltage drop of the battery cell occurs;
determine an average voltage of the battery cell during the self-discharge period;
determine a total self-discharge resistance of the battery cell based on the self-discharge current and the average voltage;
determine a short circuit resistance of the battery cell based on the total self-discharge resistance; and
notify a short circuit risk based on a fact that the short circuit resistance is less than a threshold resistance, and
wherein the processor is further configured to:
obtain a first SOC corresponding to a first voltage of the battery cell measured at a start time of the self-discharge period;
obtain a second SOC corresponding to a second voltage of the battery cell measured at an end time of the self-discharge period;
obtain a difference between the first SOC and the second SOC as the self-discharge capacity; and
determine, as the second voltage, a minimum voltage among voltages of the battery cell measured before an ignition-on signal of the vehicle is detected.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as mental processes. determinations recites concepts performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a concept performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of: processors and sensors in Claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements of sending a notification are insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea without a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims x, y, and z are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application.)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are just using generic computer hardware to perform determinations a human can make if presented the same data. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1 and 12 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more.)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 12 and thus correspond to Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-13, 15-16, and 18-20 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 12-13, 15-16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et. al. (US 2019/0305384), herein Liu in view of Rueger et. al. (US 2016/0245872), herein Rueger.
Regarding claim 1:
Liu teaches:
An apparatus for managing a battery (A battery micro-short circuit detection method and apparatus [abstract]), the apparatus comprising:
a voltage sensor (an obtaining module 51 [0187]) configured to measure a voltage of a battery cell (a target terminal voltage value of the target battery [0031]) mounted on a vehicle (The terminal device may also be a portable, pocket-sized, handheld, computer built-in, in-vehicle mobile apparatus, or the like [0106]); and
a processor (fig. 3, processor 200) configured to determine a short circuit risk of the battery cell (a battery micro-short circuit detection method and apparatus [0002]);
wherein the processor (fig. 3, processor 200) is configured to:
determine a self-discharge current of the battery cell (detecting a value of a charge/discharge current [0116]) during a self-discharge period (the preset current threshold may be set based on a self-discharge current value of a battery in a normal operating state [0137]) in which a voltage drop of the battery cell occurs (an average voltage value of the target battery within the duration corresponding to ΔT1 [0139]);
determine an average voltage of the battery cell during the self-discharge period (an average voltage value of the target battery within the duration corresponding to ΔT1 [0139]);
determine a total self-discharge resistance of the battery cell (calculate a micro-short circuit resistance of the target battery based on the leakage current value and the average voltage value… R.sub.ISC=V.sub.avg/I.sub.Leak [0139]) based on the self-discharge current (based on the leakage current value [0139]) and the average voltage (the average voltage value [0139]);
determine a short circuit resistance of the battery cell based on the total self-discharge resistance (if a value of the micro-short circuit resistance obtained by the calculation module through calculation is less than a preset resistance threshold, determine that the target battery is micro-short-circuited. [0210]); and
notify a short circuit risk (When a battery micro-short circuit is determined based on a value ΔZi, battery inconsistency is easy to be determined as a micro-short circuit, and an internal resistance change caused by a fault of a contact resistor or the like is easy to be erroneously reported as a micro-short circuit [0004]; examiner notes that if the goal if the invention is to improve detection and reduce erroneous reports that the present art inherently reports the short circuit based on the detection.) based on a fact that the short circuit resistance is less than a threshold resistance (if a value of the micro-short circuit resistance obtained by the calculation module through calculation is less than a preset resistance threshold, determine that the target battery is micro-short-circuited. [0210]).
Liu does not explicitly teach, however Rueger teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to:
obtain a first SOC corresponding to a first voltage of the battery cell measured at a start time of the self-discharge period (determining states of charge SOC.sub.1, SOC.sub.2 at the beginning and end of the measurement time period on the basis of the measured open circuit voltage U.sub.OCV1, U.sub.OCV2 [0005]);
obtain a second SOC corresponding to a second voltage of the battery cell measured at an end time of the self-discharge period (determining states of charge SOC.sub.1, SOC.sub.2 at the beginning and end of the measurement time period on the basis of the measured open circuit voltage U.sub.OCV1, U.sub.OCV2 [0005]);
obtain a difference between the first SOC and the second SOC as the self-discharge capacity (determining an estimated value of the capacity Q.sub.est on the basis of the total battery cell current I.sub.tot and a difference between the states of charge SOC.sub.1, SOC.sub.2 [0005]); and
determine, as the second voltage, a minimum voltage among voltages of the battery cell (A second measurement of the open circuit voltage takes place at the end of the second recuperation phase 42, that is to say at the point in time t.sub.3 [0060]; examiner notes that Rueger teaches the ability to calculate a SOC and capacity of a battery based on the open circuit voltages taken at two points of time. The battery capacity can fluctuate based on either charging, discharging though use of the vehicle, or discharging though phantom drain. Since there are a finite amount of ways to alter the state of change of the battery, it would be obvious to apply the teachings of Rueger to the process of Liu to perform the SOC calculations at the beginning and end of a self-discharging event.) measured before an ignition-on signal of the vehicle is detected (The second recuperation phase 42 is followed again by an operating phase 40, in which once again both current drawing processes and recuperation phases occur. [0059]; time period t3 occurs before an operating period 40 which would inherently require that the vehicle to be turned on resulting in the measurement to be performed before an ignition-on signal.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu to include the teachings as taught by Rueger with a reasonable expectation of success. Combining the teachings of Liu with Rueger would be obvious as combining prior art elements according to known methods to achieve a predictable result. Liu teaches the ability to determine a short circuit situation based on the amount of charge being lost but does not explicitly teach that the charge difference is calculated according to correlating voltage values with a charge level of the battery. Using the voltage of a battery as a means of determining SOC is a well-known method as evidenced in Rueger. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Liu with Rueger to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2:
Liu in view of Rueger teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Liu further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine a self-discharge capacity proportional to the voltage drop (calculate a target remaining battery capacity of the target battery based on the target terminal voltage value [0197]); and
determine the self-discharge current by dividing the self-discharge capacity by the self-discharge period (calculating a target difference between the second battery capacity difference and the first battery capacity difference, and determining a ratio of the target difference to ΔT1 as a leakage current value of the target battery [0021]).
Regarding claim 4:
Liu in view of Rueger teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Rueger further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to determine a maximum voltage of the battery cell as the first voltage (A first measurement of the open circuit voltage takes place at the end of the first recuperation phase 42 at the point in time t.sub.2 [0060]) within a first preset stabilization period (the beginning and the end of the measurement time period in each case adjoin a relaxation time period of the battery cell. [0021]) after operation of the vehicle is terminated (A first measurement of the open circuit voltage takes place at the end of the first recuperation phase 42 at the point in time t.sub.2 [0060]).
Regarding claim 5:
Liu in view of Rueger teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Rueger further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to determine a minimum voltage of the battery cell as the first voltage (A second measurement of the open circuit voltage takes place at the end of the second recuperation phase 42, that is to say at the point in time t.sub.3 [0060]) within a second preset stabilization period (the beginning and the end of the measurement time period in each case adjoin a relaxation time period of the battery cell. [0021]) after charging of the battery cell is terminated (A second measurement of the open circuit voltage takes place at the end of the second recuperation phase 42, that is to say at the point in time t.sub.3 [0060]).
Regarding claim 7:
Liu in view of Rueger teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Liu further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to determine the average voltage by averaging the first voltage and the second voltage (calculating an average voltage value of the target battery within the duration [0028]).
Regarding claim 8:
Liu in view of Rueger teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Rueger further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to skip a procedure of determining the short circuit resistance based on a determination that the self-discharge period is less than a preset threshold period (The U.sub.OCV error ΔU.sub.OCV is composed of a measurement accuracy ΔU.sub.m and a deviation ΔU.sub.OCV relaxation, which Results from the Preloading of the Cell if the Cell does not have Enough Time to recover from a current loading [0044]).
Regarding claim 12:
Liu teaches:
A method of managing a battery (A battery micro-short circuit detection method and apparatus [abstract]), the method comprising:
determining, by a processor, a self-discharge current of a battery cell (detecting a value of a charge/discharge current [0116]) during a self-discharge period (the preset current threshold may be set based on a self-discharge current value of a battery in a normal operating state [0137]) in which a voltage drop of the battery cell occurs (an average voltage value of the target battery within the duration corresponding to ΔT1 [0139]);
determining, by the processor, an average voltage of the battery cell during the self-discharge period (an average voltage value of the target battery within the duration corresponding to ΔT1 [0139]);
determining, by the processor, a total self-discharge resistance of the battery cell (calculate a micro-short circuit resistance of the target battery based on the leakage current value and the average voltage value… R.sub.ISC=V.sub.avg/I.sub.Leak [0139]) based on the self-discharge current (based on the leakage current value [0139]) and the average voltage (the average voltage value [0139]); and
determining, by the processor, a short circuit resistance of the battery cell based on the total self-discharge resistance (if a value of the micro-short circuit resistance obtained by the calculation module through calculation is less than a preset resistance threshold, determine that the target battery is micro-short-circuited. [0210]); and
notifying, by the processor, a short circuit risk (When a battery micro-short circuit is determined based on a value ΔZi, battery inconsistency is easy to be determined as a micro-short circuit, and an internal resistance change caused by a fault of a contact resistor or the like is easy to be erroneously reported as a micro-short circuit [0004]; examiner notes that if the goal if the invention is to improve detection and reduce erroneous reports that the present art inherently reports the short circuit based on the detection.) based on a fact that the short circuit resistance is less than a threshold resistance (if a value of the micro-short circuit resistance obtained by the calculation module through calculation is less than a preset resistance threshold, determine that the target battery is micro-short-circuited. [0210]), and
Liu does not explicitly teach, however Rueger teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to:
obtain a first SOC corresponding to a first voltage of the battery cell measured at a start time of the self-discharge period (determining states of charge SOC.sub.1, SOC.sub.2 at the beginning and end of the measurement time period on the basis of the measured open circuit voltage U.sub.OCV1, U.sub.OCV2 [0005]);
obtain a second SOC corresponding to a second voltage of the battery cell measured at an end time of the self-discharge period (determining states of charge SOC.sub.1, SOC.sub.2 at the beginning and end of the measurement time period on the basis of the measured open circuit voltage U.sub.OCV1, U.sub.OCV2 [0005]);
obtain a difference between the first SOC and the second SOC as the self-discharge capacity (determining an estimated value of the capacity Q.sub.est on the basis of the total battery cell current I.sub.tot and a difference between the states of charge SOC.sub.1, SOC.sub.2 [0005]); and
determine, as the second voltage, a minimum voltage among voltages of the battery cell (A second measurement of the open circuit voltage takes place at the end of the second recuperation phase 42, that is to say at the point in time t.sub.3 [0060]; examiner notes that Rueger teaches the ability to calculate a SOC and capacity of a battery based on the open circuit voltages taken at two points of time. The battery capacity can fluctuate based on either charging, discharging though use of the vehicle, or discharging though phantom drain. Since there are a finite amount of ways to alter the state of change of the battery, it would be obvious to apply the teachings of Rueger to the process of Liu to perform the SOC calculations at the beginning and end of a self-discharging event.) measured before an ignition-on signal of the vehicle is detected (The second recuperation phase 42 is followed again by an operating phase 40, in which once again both current drawing processes and recuperation phases occur. [0059]; time period t3 occurs before an operating period 40 which would inherently require that the vehicle to be turned on resulting in the measurement to be performed before an ignition-on signal.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu to include the teachings as taught by Rueger with a reasonable expectation of success. Combining the teachings of Liu with Rueger would be obvious as combining prior art elements according to known methods to achieve a predictable result. Liu teaches the ability to determine a short circuit situation based on the amount of charge being lost but does not explicitly teach that the charge difference is calculated according to correlating voltage values with a charge level of the battery. Using the voltage of a battery as a means of determining SOC is a well-known method as evidenced in Rueger. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Liu with Rueger to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13:
Liu in view of Rueger teaches all the limitations of claim 12, upon which this claim is dependent.
Liu further teaches:
determining a self-discharge capacity proportional to the voltage drop (calculate a target remaining battery capacity of the target battery based on the target terminal voltage value [0197]); and
determining the self-discharge current by dividing the self-discharge capacity by the self-discharge period (calculating a target difference between the second battery capacity difference and the first battery capacity difference, and determining a ratio of the target difference to ΔT1 as a leakage current value of the target battery [0021]).
Regarding claim 15:
Liu in view of Rueger teaches all the limitations of claim 12, upon which this claim is dependent.
Rueger further teaches:
determining a maximum voltage of the battery cell as the first voltage (A first measurement of the open circuit voltage takes place at the end of the first recuperation phase 42 at the point in time t.sub.2 [0060]) within a first preset stabilization period (the beginning and the end of the measurement time period in each case adjoin a relaxation time period of the battery cell. [0021]) after operation of the vehicle is terminated (A first measurement of the open circuit voltage takes place at the end of the first recuperation phase 42 at the point in time t.sub.2 [0060]).
Regarding claim 16:
Liu in view of Rueger teaches all the limitations of claim 12, upon which this claim is dependent.
Rueger further teaches:
determining a minimum voltage of the battery cell as the first voltage (A second measurement of the open circuit voltage takes place at the end of the second recuperation phase 42, that is to say at the point in time t.sub.3 [0060]) within a second preset stabilization period (the beginning and the end of the measurement time period in each case adjoin a relaxation time period of the battery cell. [0021]) after charging of the battery cell is terminated (A second measurement of the open circuit voltage takes place at the end of the second recuperation phase 42, that is to say at the point in time t.sub.3 [0060]).
Regarding claim 18:
Liu in view of Rueger teaches all the limitations of claim 12, upon which this claim is dependent.
Liu further teaches:
obtaining the average voltage by averaging the first voltage and the second voltage (calculating an average voltage value of the target battery within the duration [0028]).
Regarding claim 19:
Liu in view of Rueger teaches all the limitations of claim 12, upon which this claim is dependent.
Rueger further teaches:
comparing the self-discharge period with a preset threshold period (if the Cell does not have Enough Time to recover from a current loading [0044])
skipping a procedure of determining the short circuit resistance based on a determination that the self-discharge period is less than a preset threshold period (The U.sub.OCV error ΔU.sub.OCV is composed of a measurement accuracy ΔU.sub.m and a deviation ΔU.sub.OCV relaxation, which Results from the Preloading of the Cell if the Cell does not have Enough Time to recover from a current loading [0044]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et. al. (US 2019/0305384), herein Liu in view of Rueger et. al. (US 2016/0245872), herein Rueger in further view of Shigematsu et. al. (US 2021/0288382), herein Shigematsu and Li et. al. (US 9,774,197), herein Li.
Regarding claim 9:
Liu in view of Rueger teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Liu further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to determine the short circuit resistance (Battery micro-short circuits mainly include a micro-short circuit caused by an external factor, a micro-short circuit caused by an internal structure change of a battery, and the like. The micro-short circuit caused by an internal structure change of a battery has a long evolution process [0003]) based on the total self-discharge resistance (calculate a micro-short circuit resistance of the target battery based on the leakage current value and the average voltage value… R.sub.ISC=V.sub.avg/I.sub.Leak [0139]),
Liu in view of Rueger does not explicitly teach, however Shigematsu teaches:
a separator resistance of the battery cell (Since the fibrillated heat-resistance fibers (II) include relatively thick stem fibers remaining besides the fibrillated fine fibers, the compression resistance of the substrate improves and the short-circuit resistance of the separator becomes high [0073]),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu in view of Rueger to include the teachings as taught by Shigematsu with a reasonable expectation of success. Shigematsu teaches that “the substrate (3) of the present invention, when the content of the fibrillated heat-resistant fibers (I) is more than 50 mass % and the fibrillated heat-resistant fibers (I) are used in combination with fibrid, the substrate can be made thin, there is no obstacle to the cuttability of the separator, and the diameters of pores become small, whereby the coating solution hardly goes through to the rear side and the retainability of the electrolytic solution improves with the result that the resistance of the separator hardly becomes worse and adhesion to the inorganic particle layer hardly deteriorates. The fibrid has a thin leaf-like fibrous form and greatly shrinks when moisture existent in the crystal structure is dried off and removed, thereby strengthening a network formed by the fibrillated heat-resistant fibers (I) and the synthetic resin short fibers. Therefore, even when the substrate has low weight, the strength characteristic of the substrate can be maintained and a leakage current can be prevented, thereby improving the short-circuit resistance of the separator [Shigematsu, 0079]”
Liu in view of Rueger and Shigematsu does not explicitly teach, however Li teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to determine the short circuit resistance (a battery internal short-circuit detection method [col 1, line 48]) based on the total self-discharge resistance (The internal short-circuit resistance 23 represents an internal short-circuit equivalent resistance of the battery cell. Ideally and for a non-leaking battery cell, the internal short-circuit resistance 23 approaches infinity. However, as internal short-circuit develops in the battery cell, the internal short-circuit resistance 23 becomes smaller in value. The internal short-circuit resistance 23 thus represents the state of internal short-circuit for the battery cell [col 4, lines 12-19]), a separator resistance of the battery cell, and a resistance of a balancing switch for balancing the battery cell (As will be described in more detail below, by adding the battery cell charge balancing resistor 24 of known value into the battery cell charge balancing circuit 20 and in series with the battery cell charge balancing switch, the internal short-circuit resistance 23 and thus the state of internal short-circuit of the battery cell may be conveniently monitored as it deteriorates (decreases in value) due to development of internal short-circuit [col 4, lines 56-63]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu in view of Rueger and Shigematsu to include the teachings as taught by Li with a reasonable expectation of success. Li teaches that “a battery internal short-circuit detection method based on battery cell charge balancing for solving the foregoing problem. [Li, col 1, lines 48-50]”
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et. al. (US 2019/0305384), herein Liu in view of Rueger et. al. (US 2016/0245872), herein Rueger in further view of Zhu et. al. (2025/0158113), herein Zhu.
Regarding claim 10:
Liu in view of Rueger teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Liu in view of Rueger does not explicitly teach, however Zhu teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to set a size of the threshold resistance to be larger as the self-discharge period is longer (a high risk of short circuit when tested at higher temperature [0014]; examiner notes that an increased discharge time leads to a higher temperature which as taught by Zhu increases short circuit risks and would necessitate a higher threshold resistance.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu in view of Rueger to include the teachings as taught by Zhu with a reasonable expectation of success. Zhu teaches that “most reported bipolar-stacked ASLBs are based on solid polymer electrolytes or composite polymer electrolytes, in which the low ionic conductivity of SEs limits their performances for practical applications. Meanwhile, the polymer-based electrolytes can melt and flow when the ASLBs run at a high temperature, resulting in an ionic short. Given the high ionic conductivity (>1 mS cm.sup.−1) and high thermal stability, sulfide SEs are one of the best candidates to fabricate bipolar-stacked ASLBs. However, sulfide SE-based bipolar-stacked ASLBs are rarely reported. The main challenge is fabricating compatible electrodes and SE layers with good film formability and mechanical strength to avoid the short circuit in cell fabrication [Zhu, 0005]”.
Regarding claim 20:
Liu in view of Rueger teaches all the limitations of claim 12, upon which this claim is dependent.
Liu in view of Rueger does not explicitly teach, however Zhu teaches:
setting a size of the threshold resistance to be larger as the self-discharge period is longer (a high risk of short circuit when tested at higher temperature [0014]; examiner notes that an increased discharge time leads to a higher temperature which as taught by Zhu increases short circuit risks and would necessitate a higher threshold resistance.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu in view of Rueger to include the teachings as taught by Zhu with a reasonable expectation of success. Zhu teaches that “most reported bipolar-stacked ASLBs are based on solid polymer electrolytes or composite polymer electrolytes, in which the low ionic conductivity of SEs limits their performances for practical applications. Meanwhile, the polymer-based electrolytes can melt and flow when the ASLBs run at a high temperature, resulting in an ionic short. Given the high ionic conductivity (>1 mS cm.sup.−1) and high thermal stability, sulfide SEs are one of the best candidates to fabricate bipolar-stacked ASLBs. However, sulfide SE-based bipolar-stacked ASLBs are rarely reported. The main challenge is fabricating compatible electrodes and SE layers with good film formability and mechanical strength to avoid the short circuit in cell fabrication [Zhu, 0005]”.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et. al. (US 2019/0305384), herein Liu in view of Rueger et. al. (US 2016/0245872), herein Rueger in further view of Park et. al. (US 2025/0023127), herein Park.
Regarding claim 11:
Liu in view of Rueger teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Liu further teaches:
determine a change in the short circuit resistance based on a determination that the short circuit resistance is less than the threshold resistance (if a value of the micro-short circuit resistance obtained by the calculation module through calculation is less than a preset resistance threshold, determine that the target battery is micro-short-circuited. [0210]); and
notify the short circuit risk (When a battery micro-short circuit is determined based on a value ΔZi, battery inconsistency is easy to be determined as a micro-short circuit, and an internal resistance change caused by a fault of a contact resistor or the like is easy to be erroneously reported as a micro-short circuit [0004]; examiner notes that if the goal if the invention is to improve detection and reduce erroneous reports that the present art inherently reports the short circuit based on the detection.)
Liu in view of Rueger does not explicitly teach, however Park teaches:
notify the short circuit risk based on a determination that the short circuit resistance gradually decreases (which is due to the short circuit resistance decreasing as the internal short circuit progresses [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu in view of Rueger to include the teachings as taught by Park with a reasonable expectation of success. Park teaches that “the short circuit resistance decreasing as the internal short circuit progresses [Park, 0032]” which would make it obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to determine and alert for a short circuit condition if the short circuit is getting worse.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamasaki (US 2022/0301362) discloses A battery diagnostic system includes a diagnostic server that diagnoses a battery mounted on a vehicle using battery information including usage information of the battery while the battery is mounted on the vehicle, and a diagnostic terminal that acquires the battery information from the vehicle, transmits the battery information to the diagnostic server, and receives a diagnoses result of the battery from the diagnostic server. When the diagnostic terminal transmits the battery information to the diagnostic server, the diagnostic terminal transmits information on whether a predetermined condition is satisfied together with the battery information to the diagnostic server. The diagnostic server accumulates the battery information when the predetermined condition is satisfied, and deletes the battery information after diagnosing the battery when the predetermined condition is not satisfied.
Balasubramanian (US 2024/0133971) discloses A method of estimating a short circuit resistance in a battery using open cell voltage (OCV) includes: determining a rest period OCV for a rest period of the battery; determining a no-short OCV of a no-short condition based on a predetermined parameter, a first state-of-health (SoH) parameter, and a first temperature of the battery; determining that an internal short is present in the battery based on the no-short OCV and the rest period OCV, and based thereon extending the rest period of the battery; determining an extended OCV of the battery for the extended rest period based on the predetermined parameter, a second SoH parameter, and a second temperature of the battery; and estimating the short circuit resistance based on the no-short OCV, the predetermined parameter, and the extended OCV.
Yang (US 2022/0016996) discloses A battery pack internal short circuit detection method applicable to an electric vehicle includes checking a voltage change of a target battery based on voltages of a reference battery in two charging processes, and determining whether the target battery has an internal short circuit based on the voltage change of the target battery; or checking a voltage change of a reference battery based on voltages of a target battery in two charging processes, and determining whether the target battery has an internal short circuit based on the voltage change of the reference battery.
Sazhin (US 2017/0153290) discloses Systems and methods for determining self-discharge currents in an energy storage cell and detecting internal shorts are disclosed. A system includes a DC voltage source configured to provide a constant test voltage selected to be less than an open-circuit voltage of an energy storage cell to the energy storage cell. The system also includes a current measuring device operably coupled between the DC voltage source and the energy storage cell, and control circuitry operably coupled to the current measuring device. A method includes applying the constant test voltage, and measuring the test current flowing between the DC voltage source and the energy storage cell until after the test current switches from a negative current to a positive current. The method also includes determining a self-discharge current of the energy storage cell by analyzing the measured test current with computational models that capture physical processes tied to the test methods.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott R Jagolinzer whose telephone number is (571)272-4180. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8AM - 4PM 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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571)272-4190. 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.
Scott R. Jagolinzer
Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/S.R.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665