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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant argues that the amended claims are no longer directed to an abstract idea because the claims now recite monitoring and controlling operation of a battery pack and include the limitation of restricting performance of the battery pack based on determining the battery pack is abnormal. Applicant further notes that the prior limitation directed to outputting a signal to a target device has been removed. These arguments are not persuasive.
The amendment replacing outputting a signal with restricting performance of the battery pack does not change the fundamental nature of the claimed invention. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, both the removed limitation and the newly added limitation represent post-analysis actions that occur after the core determination has been made. The claims remain centered on comparing a median of cumulative balancing times, determining whether a battery pack is abnormal based on that comparison, and identifying abnormal battery cells based on threshold-based evaluations. These operations constitute mathematical analysis, data evaluation, and classification, which fall within the categories of mathematical concepts and mental processes.
The newly added limitation of restricting performance of the battery pack is recited at a high level of generality and is purely result-oriented. The claims do not specify how the restriction is implemented, what parameter of performance is restricted, or what technical mechanism is used to effect such restriction. As such, this limitation merely represents a generic control response to the abstract determination and does not meaningfully limit the claimed invention. The removal of the output signal limitation similarly does not alter the analysis, as both outputting a signal and restricting performance constitute insignificant extra-solution activity following the abstract data evaluation.
Applicant further argues that the claims provide a practical application by addressing under-voltage detection as described in the specification. This argument is not persuasive. Although the specification discusses under-voltage conditions and battery safety concerns, the claims do not recite any specific technical improvement to battery sensing, balancing circuitry, or hardware operation. The claims rely on statistical processing of cumulative balancing time, including median calculation and threshold comparisons, to reach a determination. The subsequent restriction of performance is not tied to any specific technical implementation or improvement in battery operation. Accordingly, the claims operate at a level of abstraction involving data analysis and decision-making rather than providing a concrete technological improvement.
The additional elements, including one or more processors, memory, and control actions, are generic and perform their ordinary functions. The specification does not describe any improvement to the functioning of these components. Therefore, the claims merely use conventional components to implement abstract data analysis and decision-making.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As evidenced by Zhang et al. U.S. 2011/0140650 A1, battery management systems conventionally include controllers that monitor battery conditions, determine imbalance, and control battery operation accordingly. Zhang discloses controlling balancing units and adjusting battery operation in response to detected imbalance conditions. Such control inherently includes restricting or modifying operation of a battery pack when abnormal conditions are detected. Accordingly, the newly added limitation of restricting performance represents a well-understood, routine, and conventional control action in battery management systems.
The ordered combination of steps, including calculating balancing times, comparing medians to thresholds, identifying cells, and restricting performance, amounts to no more than applying abstract data analysis using generic computing components to control a battery system in a conventional manner. There is no improvement to the functioning of the battery pack, sensors, or control circuitry.
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), Applicant argues that Hong et al. does not disclose comparing a median of a cumulative balancing time of each of a plurality of battery cells and instead only describes balancing at a battery pack level. Applicant further argues that Hong et al. does not disclose restricting performance of the battery pack based on determining the battery pack is abnormal. These arguments are not persuasive.
Hong discloses a battery management apparatus that evaluates balancing conditions based on electrical characteristics of battery assemblies, including voltages, resistances, and calculated balancing currents and times. Hong further discloses calculating balancing time using circuit data and comparing calculated values to reference values to determine control actions, as well as evaluating multiple operational states and selecting among them based on comparison results.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed cumulative balancing time of each battery cell reads on Hong’s calculation of balancing-related values derived from battery elements and balancing circuits. Hong discloses multiple battery packs and corresponding cell assemblies, and performs comparative evaluation across these elements. The use of multiple calculated balancing values and their comparison to reference values inherently involves evaluation across a plurality of battery elements. The recited median represents a particular statistical selection of a central value among multiple calculated values, which is a known mathematical operation applied to such data and does not impart a structural distinction.
The previous anticipation rejection has been withdrawn and replaced with a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. Hong et al. continues to disclose the underlying data evaluation, comparison, and determination steps recited in the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation. The newly added limitation of restricting performance of the battery pack based on determining the battery pack is abnormal, which was not explicitly disclosed by Hong et al., is now addressed by the combination with Takada as set forth in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Accordingly, the arguments directed to Hong et al. alone do not overcome the current rejection, as the claimed subject matter is rendered obvious by the combination of Hong et al. with Takada
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, without significantly more.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites a battery management apparatus comprising one or more processors configured to compare a median of a cumulative balancing time of each of a plurality of battery cells included in a battery pack to a first reference time, determine whether the battery pack is abnormal based on the comparison, identify at least one abnormal battery cell based on cumulative balancing time relative to a second reference time, and restrict performance of the battery pack based on determining the battery pack is abnormal.
The limitations reciting comparing a median, determining whether the battery pack is abnormal, identifying an abnormal battery cell, and calculating cumulative balancing time involve mathematical relationships and mental processes. These limitations collectively form the abstract idea. The additional limitation directed to restricting performance of the battery pack represents a result-oriented control action based on the outcome of the abstract analysis and does not alter the fundamental character of the claim. The remaining elements, including processors, memory, and signal-related operations, are generic computing components.
Step 1 Statutory Category
Under Step 1, the claims fall within a statutory category. Claim 1 is directed to a machine, claim 6 is directed to a process, claim 12 is directed to a manufacture in the form of a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and claim 19 is directed to a machine dependent from claim 1. Accordingly, all claims satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A Prong One Judicial Exception
Under Step 2A Prong One, the claims recite abstract ideas under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. The limitations directed to comparing a median of cumulative balancing times, determining whether the battery pack is abnormal, calculating reference times, and identifying abnormal battery cells based on statistical thresholds collectively amount to mathematical concepts and mental processes, including data analysis, comparison, and classification. These operations can be performed mentally or by routine data processing without requiring specialized hardware. Accordingly, claims 1–20 recite abstract ideas falling within the mathematical relationships and mental process groupings.
Step 2A Prong Two Practical Application
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements of the claims, including one or more processors, memory, and restricting performance of the battery pack, are generic components performing their conventional functions. The specification describes these components as standard units that execute stored instructions to compare values, determine conditions, and perform control actions.
The newly added limitation of restricting performance of the battery pack based on determining the battery pack is abnormal does not provide a technological improvement. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation merely represents a control action that follows from the abstract determination. The claims do not recite how performance is restricted, nor do they specify any particular hardware, control circuitry, or battery management technique that is improved. The limitation is therefore a result-oriented functional statement and constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity.
There is no improvement to computer functionality, battery balancing circuitry, sensing mechanisms, or system-level electrical operation. The claims merely apply mathematical analysis of balancing time data using conventional computing components and then perform a generic control response. Accordingly, the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further analysis under Step 2B is required.
Step 2B Significantly More
The claims do not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements including processors, memory, balancing time calculation, statistical evaluation, and restricting performance are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of battery management systems.
As evidenced by Zhang et al. U.S. 2011/0140650 A1, battery management systems include controllers and balancing circuits configured to monitor battery conditions, detect imbalance, and control operation of battery cells and modules. Zhang discloses controlling balancing units to adjust voltages of battery cells and controlling battery modules when imbalance occurs. Such systems inherently perform comparisons, evaluate conditions, and adjust operation in response.
The instant claims merely replace known voltage-based or current-based evaluation with cumulative balancing time and apply statistical operations such as median, standard deviation, and threshold comparisons to identify abnormal cells. The additional step of restricting performance represents a predictable control response once an abnormal condition is detected. These features represent a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
The ordered combination of steps including calculating balancing times, comparing medians to thresholds, identifying abnormal cells, and restricting performance amounts to no more than automating a mental judgment using a generic processor. The claims do not improve the functioning of processors, memory, or battery circuitry. Instead, they evaluate data collected from conventional systems and apply routine control logic.
Accordingly, the claims lack an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Independent Claims 6 and 12
Claim 6 recites a method of monitoring and controlling operation of a battery pack and includes limitations corresponding to those of claim 1. Claim 12 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause processors to perform operations corresponding to those of claim 1. The limitations including comparing a median of cumulative balancing times, determining whether the battery pack is abnormal, identifying abnormal battery cells, and restricting performance collectively amount to mathematical concepts and mental processes.
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, these steps describe acts of observation, evaluation, and judgment that can be performed mentally or using generic computing components. The recitation of processors or a computer-readable medium merely implements the abstract idea on a computer without improving the functioning of the computer or another technology. The additional limitation of restricting performance is a generic control action and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, claims 6 and 12 do not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1.
Dependent Claims
Claim 2 recites calculating the cumulative balancing time of each of the plurality of battery cells. This is a mathematical operation performed on numerical data and does not improve battery operation or computing functionality. The limitation remains within the mathematical concept grouping.
Claim 3 recites storing the cumulative balancing time in a memory by accumulating a balancing time of each battery cell. This is routine data storage of computed values using generic memory and constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 4 recites calculating a first balancing time, a second balancing time, and a first reference time using capacity deviation, state of charge deviation, and balancing capacity. These are explicit mathematical relationships and computations and remain abstract.
Claim 5 recites listing battery cells based on cumulative balancing time, extracting cells within a threshold rank, calculating a standard deviation, and calculating a second reference time based on that standard deviation. These are statistical and data-processing operations that remain within the mathematical concept grouping.
Claim 7 recites recording cumulative balancing time in memory by accumulating balancing time of each cell. This is routine data logging and does not add a technological improvement.
Claim 8 recites calculating balancing times and a reference time using capacity deviation and state of charge deviation. These are mathematical computations and remain abstract.
Claim 9 recites determining whether the median exceeds the first reference time. This is a mathematical comparison that could be performed mentally.
Claim 10 recites listing cells, extracting those within a threshold rank, calculating a standard deviation, and calculating a second reference time. These are statistical operations and remain abstract.
Claim 11 recites diagnosing a battery cell as abnormal when its cumulative balancing time is less than the second reference time. This is a logical evaluation based on a threshold comparison and remains a mental process.
Claim 13 recites calculating cumulative balancing time using instructions stored on a medium. This repeats the mathematical computation in a different claim format and remains abstract.
Claim 14 recites calculating balancing times and a reference time based on deviations and capacity. These are mathematical relationships and remain abstract.
Claim 15 recites determining that the median exceeds the first reference time. This is a mathematical comparison and remains abstract.
Claim 16 recites listing cells, extracting those within a threshold rank, calculating a standard deviation, and calculating a second reference time. These are statistical data processing operations and remain abstract.
Claim 17 recites diagnosing a battery cell as abnormal when its cumulative balancing time is less than the second reference time. This is a threshold-based evaluation and remains a mental process.
Claim 18 recites recording cumulative balancing time in memory. This is conventional data storage and does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea.
Claim 19 recites outputting a signal to a target device identifying at least one abnormal battery cell. This is a routine output operation of processed data and constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity using conventional components.
Claim 19 recites outputting a signal to a target device wherein the signal identifies the at least one abnormal battery cell. This is also a routine output operation of processed data and constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity using conventional components.
Accordingly, claims 2–5, 7–11, and 13–20 do not add meaningful limitations that transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application and remain ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 12-13 & 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (U.S. 2020/0389034 A1, previously cited) in view of Takada (U.S 2013/0110431 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hong et al. disclose a battery management apparatus for monitoring and controlling operation of a battery pack, the battery management apparatus (100, see Fig. 2; [0043]) comprising: one or more processors configured to: (130, see [0055], [0089]) compare a median of a cumulative balancing time of each of a plurality of battery cells included in a battery pack to a first reference time (processor 130′ calculates balancing time using Ohm’s law and compares to a reference balancing time, see [0079]–[0085], [0103]); determine, based on the comparison, whether the battery pack is abnormal, wherein the battery pack is abnormal when the median of the cumulative balancing time of each of the plurality of battery cells exceeds the first reference time (processor 130′ determines balancing necessity based on whether balancing time exceeds reference balancing time, see [0083]–[0085]); and based on determining the battery pack is abnormal, identify at least one abnormal battery cell of the plurality of battery cells based on determining the cumulative balancing time of the at least one abnormal battery cell is less than a second reference time (processor 130′ selects balancing switch for cell with shorter balancing time compared to reference, see [0084]–[0086]).
Hong et al. do not explicitly disclose restricting performance of the battery pack based on determining the battery pack is abnormal.
Takada discloses restricting performance of the battery pack based on determining the battery pack is abnormal (charge controller 26 determines whether the secondary battery is fully charged or whether charging should be stopped based on battery voltage, temperature, and charging control determinations, see [0036]–[0038]; when at least one of room temperature and battery temperature deviates from a preset range, the charge controller stops the charging operation from a security point of view, see [0037]; the charging operation is controlled to prevent overcharge and secure minimum battery capacity, see [0012], [0051], [0055]; Takada further discloses that the charge current controlling device controls and adjusts charge current supplied to the secondary battery based on charge on/off signals from the charge controller (see [0027], [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify Hong et al. by incorporating restricting performance of the battery pack based on determining the battery pack is abnormal as taught by Takada, as doing so would provide improved safety and prevent damage to the battery pack because Takada emphasize in paragraphs [0012], [0037], and [0055] that controlling or stopping battery operation under abnormal conditions prevents overcharge and secures a requisite minimum battery capacity, thus improving reliability and protection in battery management systems.
Regarding claim 2, Hong et al. & Takada disclose the battery management apparatus of claim 1, wherein Hong et al. further disclose the one or more processors are further configured to calculate the cumulative balancing time of each of the plurality of battery cells (processor 130′ calculates balancing time from voltage and resistance data using Ohm’s law, see [0083], [0103]).
PNG
media_image1.png
742
1462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Hong et al. & Takada disclose the battery management apparatus of claim 1, wherein Hong et al. further disclose the battery management apparatus further comprises a memory, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to store the cumulative balancing time in the memory by accumulating a balancing time of each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells (processor 130′ includes built-in memory for storing balancing data and programs, see [0089]).
Regarding claim 6, Hong et al. disclose a method of monitoring and controlling operation of a battery pack comprising: retrieving, from a memory, a cumulative balancing time of each battery cell of a plurality of battery cells included in a battery pack (processor 130′ retrieves balancing data, see [0079]–[0083]); determining a median of the cumulative balancing time of each of the plurality of battery cells (processor 130′ calculates balancing times, see [0083]); determining whether the battery pack is abnormal by comparing the median with a first reference time (processor 130′ determines whether balancing is required by comparing to reference, see [0083]–[0085]); based on determining the median exceeds the first reference time, comparing the cumulative balancing time of each of the plurality of battery cells with a second reference time (processor 130′ compares cell balancing times, see [0084]–[0086]); identifying, based on the comparison to the second reference time, at least one abnormal battery cell of the plurality of battery cells (processor 130′ identifies cell needing balancing, see [0084]–[0086]).
Hong et al. do not explicitly disclose restricting performance of the battery pack based on determining the battery pack is abnormal.
Takada discloses restricting performance of the battery pack based on determining the battery pack is abnormal (charge controller 26 determines whether the secondary battery is fully charged or whether charging should be stopped based on battery voltage, temperature, and charging control determinations, see [0036]–[0038]; when at least one of room temperature and battery temperature deviates from a preset range, the charge controller stops the charging operation from a security point of view, see [0037]; the charging operation is controlled to prevent overcharge and secure minimum battery capacity, see [0012], [0051], [0055]). Takada further discloses that the charge current controlling device controls and adjusts charge current supplied to the secondary battery based on charge on/off signals from the charge controller (see [0027], [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify Hong et al. by incorporating restricting performance of the battery pack based on determining the battery pack is abnormal as taught by Takada, as doing so would provide improved safety and prevent damage to the battery pack because Takada emphasize in paragraphs [0012], [0037], and [0055] that controlling or stopping battery operation under abnormal conditions prevents overcharge and secures a requisite minimum battery capacity, thus improving reliability and protection in battery management systems.
Regarding claim 7, Hong et al. & Takada disclose the operating method of claim 6, wherein Hong et al. further disclose determining the median of the cumulative balancing time comprises recording the cumulative balancing time in the memory by accumulating a balancing time of each of the plurality of battery cells (processor 130′ records calculated balancing time in memory, see [0089], [0103]).
Regarding claim 12, Hong et al. disclose a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (130, 130′, see Fig. 2; [0089]), cause the one or more processors to compare a median of a cumulative balancing time of each of a plurality of battery cells included in a battery pack to a first reference time (see [0083]); determine, based on the comparison, whether the battery pack is abnormal, wherein the battery pack is abnormal when the median of the cumulative balancing time of each of the plurality of battery cells exceeds the first reference time (see [0083]–[0085]); identify, based on determining the battery pack is abnormal, at least one abnormal battery cell of the plurality of battery cells based on determining the cumulative balancing time of the at least one abnormal battery cell is less than a second reference time (see [0084]–[0086]).
Hong et al. do not explicitly disclose restricting performance of the battery pack based on determining the battery pack is abnormal.
Takada discloses restricting performance of the battery pack based on determining the battery pack is abnormal (charge controller 26 determines whether the secondary battery is fully charged or whether charging should be stopped based on battery voltage, temperature, and charging control determinations, see [0036]–[0038]; when at least one of room temperature and battery temperature deviates from a preset range, the charge controller stops the charging operation from a security point of view, see [0037]; the charging operation is controlled to prevent overcharge and secure minimum battery capacity, see [0012], [0051], [0055]). Takada further discloses that the charge current controlling device controls and adjusts charge current supplied to the secondary battery based on charge on/off signals from the charge controller (see [0027], [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify Hong et al. by incorporating restricting performance of the battery pack based on determining the battery pack is abnormal as taught by Takada, as doing so would provide improved safety and prevent damage to the battery pack because Takada emphasize in paragraphs [0012], [0037], and [0055] that controlling or stopping battery operation under abnormal conditions prevents overcharge and secures a requisite minimum battery capacity, thus improving reliability and protection in battery management systems.
Regarding claim 13, Hong et al. & Takada disclose the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 12, wherein Hong et al. further disclose the instructions further cause the one or more processors to calculate the cumulative balancing time of each of the plurality of battery cells (processor 130′ calculates balancing times, see [0083], [0103]).
Regarding claim 17, Hong et al. & Takada disclose the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 12, wherein Hong et al. further disclose identifying the at least one abnormal battery cell further causes the one or more processors to diagnose, when a cumulative balancing time of a first battery cell of the plurality of battery cells is less than the second reference time, a first battery cell as an abnormal battery cell (processor 130′ determines the cell having shorter balancing time as abnormal, see [0084]–[0086]).
Regarding claim 18, Hong et al. & Takada disclose the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 12, wherein Hong et al. further disclose the instructions further cause the one or more processors to record the cumulative balancing time in the memory by accumulating a balancing time of each of the plurality of battery cells (processor 130′ records calculated balancing data in memory, see [0089], [0103]).
Regarding claim 20, Hong et al. & Takada disclose the operating method of claim 6, wherein Hong et al. further disclose outputting a signal to a target device wherein the signal identifies the at least one abnormal battery cell (notification unit 140, see [0090]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 8-11 & 14-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In terms of claim 4, the prior art of record does not teach alone or in combination of “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: calculate a first balancing time by dividing a capacity deviation of the plurality of battery cells by a balancing capacity of the plurality of battery cells; calculate a second balancing time by multiplying a number of days of use of the battery pack by a value obtained by dividing a state of charge (SoC) deviation of the plurality of battery cells by the balancing capacity of the plurality of battery cells; and calculate a first reference time by multiplying a first threshold value to a reference balancing time obtained by summing the first balancing time and the second balancing time” in combination with all other elements in claim 1.
In terms of claim 5, the prior art of record does not teach alone or in combination of “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: list the plurality of battery cells based on a cumulative balancing time and extract a plurality of battery cells having respective cumulative balancing times within a threshold rank; calculate a standard deviation of a cumulative balancing time of each of the plurality of battery cells having respective cumulative balancing times within the threshold rank; and calculate the second reference time by subtracting, from the median, a value obtained by multiplying a second threshold value to the standard deviation” in combination with all other elements in claim 1.
In terms of claim 8, the prior art of record does not teach alone or in combination of “wherein determining whether the battery pack is abnormal comprises: calculating a first balancing time by dividing a capacity deviation of the plurality of battery cells by a balancing capacity of the plurality of battery cells; calculating a second balancing time by multiplying a number of days of use of the battery pack to a value obtained by dividing a state of charge (SoC) deviation of the plurality of battery cells by the balancing capacity of the plurality of battery cells; and calculating the first reference time by multiplying a first threshold value to a reference balancing time obtained by summing the first balancing time and the second balancing time” in combination with all other elements in claim 6.
In terms of claim 14, the prior art of record does not teach alone or in combination of “wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to: calculate a first balancing time by dividing a capacity deviation of the plurality of battery cells by a balancing capacity of the plurality of battery cells; calculate a second balancing time by multiplying a number of days of use of the battery pack by a value obtained by dividing a state of charge (SoC) deviation of the plurality of battery cells by the balancing capacity of the plurality of battery cells; and calculate a first reference time by multiplying a first threshold value to a reference balancing time obtained by summing the first balancing time and the second balancing time” in combination with all other elements in claim 12.
Upon review of the prior art of record, including Hong et al. and Takada, the specific limitations recited in these claims are not taught or suggested. In particular, claim 4 recites calculating a first balancing time by dividing a capacity deviation of the plurality of battery cells by a balancing capacity of the plurality of battery cells, calculating a second balancing time by multiplying a number of days of use of the battery pack by a value obtained by dividing a state of charge deviation of the plurality of battery cells by the balancing capacity of the plurality of battery cells, and calculating a first reference time by multiplying a first threshold value to a reference balancing time obtained by summing the first balancing time and the second balancing time.
Hong et al. disclose calculating balancing current and balancing time using circuit parameters such as resistance, voltage, and Ohm’s law, and determining balancing control based on those values (see [0066]–[0074], [0079]–[0083]). However, Hong et al. do not disclose or suggest the specific formulation of balancing time based on capacity deviation, balancing capacity, number of days of use, and state of charge deviation as recited. The claimed formulation defines a particular mathematical model tied to degradation characteristics of battery cells over time, rather than instantaneous electrical parameters used in Hong et al.
Takada discloses controlling charging operations and restricting operation to prevent overcharge and ensure minimum capacity (see [0012], [0037], [0055]). However, Takada likewise does not disclose or suggest calculating balancing time or reference time using capacity deviation, balancing capacity, state of charge deviation, and time-of-use factors as required by the claims.
Claims 5, 8, and 14 further recite statistical processing including ranking battery cells based on cumulative balancing time, calculating a standard deviation, and deriving a second reference time using a threshold value and the standard deviation. The prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the use of such statistical measures, including median-based ranking and standard deviation, applied to cumulative balancing time for identifying abnormal battery cells.
Accordingly, the combination of features recited in claims 4, 5, 8, and 14, particularly the specific calculation of balancing time and reference time using capacity-based and time-of-use parameters, as well as the application of statistical analysis to cumulative balancing time, is not taught or suggested by the prior art of record. These limitations define a distinct approach to evaluating battery cell abnormality that is not rendered obvious by the cited references.
Claims 9-11 & 15-16 variously depending from claims 8 & 14 are allowable for the same above reasons.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance."
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. 2012/0094161 A1 to Zheng et al. disclose in Fig. 1 a method for charging a secondary battery (21), for determining, by a detection of -.DELTA.V which is observed when a battery voltage is decreased by .DELTA.V from a peak voltage, that the secondary battery (21) is fully charged, an invalid time for invalidating a detection of the peak voltage and the detection of -.DELTA.V is set; the invalid time is calculated by dividing a current integrated quantity of a rapid charge current caused to flow in the secondary battery (21) by an average charge current quantity at a time of the rapid charge; and determining that the secondary battery (21) is fully charged, by the detection of -.DELTA.V which is observed when the battery voltage of the secondary battery is decreased by .DELTA.V from the peak voltage after a lapse of the invalid time from a start of the charging of the secondary battery (21).
U.S. 2012/0049787 A1 to Kuroiwa et al. disclose a vehicle carries a battery package as its power source. Plural battery modules in the battery package respectively have a memory device for memorizing identification information that proves authenticity of each of the battery modules. A battery control unit in the vehicle has an authentication unit. The authentication unit determines whether or not each of the battery modules is a genuine product. When the battery module is determined as a non-genuine product, a control unit performs a restricted charging. The restricted charging restricts a charge amount of the battery, for effectively improving usability of the battery and for restricting use of a non-compliant battery.
U.S. 2012/0049621 A1 to Shinoda et al. disclose a vehicle carries a battery package as its power source. Each of plural battery modules in the battery package has a memory device for memorizing identification information that proves authenticity of each of the battery modules. A battery control unit in the vehicle has an authentication unit. The authentication unit determines whether or not each of the battery modules is compliant to specification. When the battery module is determined as non-compliant, a control unit drives the vehicle by using a power source other than the non-compliant battery. As the power source other than the non-compliant battery, an internal combustion engine, a supplemental battery, or a compliant battery can be used, thereby preventing damage of the vehicle due to use of the non-compliant battery without deteriorating user convenience of a user of the vehicle.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TRUNG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1966. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon- Friday 8AM - 4:00PM Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Phan can be reached on 571-272-7924. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Examiner: /Trung Q. Nguyen/- Art 2858
April 24, 2026
/GIOVANNI ASTACIO-OQUENDO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858 4/25/2026
Prosecution Insights