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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because.
In Figs. 2-5, the axes of the graphs lack measurement units, making comprehension of the subject matter difficult.
In Fig. 6, the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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.
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 1-7, 9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for determining a time up to which a charging state corresponding to an end point voltage of the battery cell is reached based on an analytical solution of a function such as disclosed in paragraph 18 of the specification that specifies a connection between the open-circuit voltage and the charging state of the battery cell, does not reasonably provide enablement for making such a determination based on an analytical solution of any function that specifies a connection between the open-circuit voltage and the charging state of the battery cell.
Claim 1 recites:
An electronic circuit for determining a charging state of a battery cell of a battery system, wherein the electronic circuit is configured for:
obtaining a plurality of measured values of an open-circuit voltage of the battery cell with corresponding time values for which the measured values of the open-circuit voltage have been detected;
determining a time up to which a charging state corresponding to an end point voltage of the battery cell is reached based on an analytical solution of a function that specifies a connection between the open-circuit voltage and the charging state of the battery cell; and
determining the charging state of the battery cell based on a reverse function of the time.
Regarding the limitation “determining a time up to which a charging state corresponding to an end point voltage of the battery cell is reached based on an analytical solution of a function that specifies a connection between the open-circuit voltage and the charging state of the battery cell”, this language has a scope that includes making the determination based on an analytical solution of any function that relates open-circuit voltage to a charging state of a battery cell. The specification teaches at paragraph 118:
PNG
media_image1.png
199
641
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which the examiner notes is a function representing a function specifying a connection between the open-circuit voltage and the charging state of a battery cell. The specification discloses at paragraphs 124-140 that an analytical solution to this function is obtained by solving the differential equation:
PNG
media_image2.png
74
419
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
with the solution obtained using a prior art mathematic proof disclosed by Shah. The examiner notes that while many functions of varying complexity for specifying a connection between the open-circuit voltage and the charging state of the battery cell are generally known in the art (e.g., Unnewehr model, combined model, combined+3 model, polynomial model, exponential model, generalized model, double exponential model, sigmoid model, etc.), the specification discloses an approach for obtaining a closed solution for the specific OCV-SOC model disclosed in paragraph 117. The specification does not appear to disclose how (or if) this approach is extendible to other types of known OCV-SOC models. The scope of claim 1 (making the determination based on an analytical solution of any function that relates open-circuit voltage to a charging state of a battery cell) is therefore considerably broader than the scope of the disclosure (making the determination based on an analytical solution of the specific OCV-SOC model disclosed in paragraph 117 that relates open-circuit voltage to a charging state of a battery cell).
The question of whether one skilled in the art could make and use the entire scope of the invention of claim 1 without undue experimentation is now considered in light of so-called Wands factors. See MPEP 2164.01(a). The nature of the invention is drawn to SOC estimation. Although levels of ordinary skill and predictability in the battery arts are considered to be generally high, the scope of claim 1 is considerably broader than the scope of the disclosure because the claim encompasses determining a time up to which a charging state corresponding to an end point voltage of the battery cell is reached based on an analytical solution of any function that specifies a connection between the open-circuit voltage and the charging state of the battery cell. At the time of the application was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of various OCV-SOC models (e.g., Unnewehr model, combined model, combined+3 model, polynomial model, exponential model, generalized model, double exponential model, sigmoid model, etc.) and their applicability to SOC estimation. One of ordinary skill in the art would also have knowledge regarding the applicability of differential equations in the context of model-based SOC estimation. Although the present specification provides direction and guidance as to how an analytical solution may be provided for a specific OCV-SOC model, the specification is not understood to provide any direction or guidance regarding obtaining analytic solution for other types of OCV-SOC models. Weighing the above-identified factors, particularly the breadth of the claim with respect to the disclosure and the amount of direction and guidance provided, the examiner concludes that one skilled in the art could only make the entire scope of the claimed invention by resorting to undue experimentation. Claim 1 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the scope of enablement provided to one skilled in the art by the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the claims. Because none of dependent claims 2-7, 9 and 11-16 appear to address this deficiency, these claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), scope of enablement, by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), scope of enablement, based on recitations analogous to those discussed above in connection with claim 1.
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 1-17 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.
Claim 1 recites:
An electronic circuit for determining a charging state of a battery cell of a battery system, wherein the electronic circuit is configured for:
obtaining a plurality of measured values of an open-circuit voltage of the battery cell with corresponding time values for which the measured values of the open-circuit voltage have been detected;
determining a time up to which a charging state corresponding to an end point voltage of the battery cell is reached based on an analytical solution of a function that specifies a connection between the open-circuit voltage and the charging state of the battery cell; and
determining the charging state of the battery cell based on a reverse function of the time.
The meaning of the recitation “determining a time up to which a charging state corresponding to an end point voltage of the battery cell is reached …” is not sufficiently clear. In particular, it is not clear whether the term “time” refers a particular time value, a period of time or a time-related function. In a case where the scope of the term “time” includes a particular time value or a period of time, the subsequent recitation of “determining the charging state of the battery cell based on a reverse function of the time” would not appear to make sense. The examiner notes that the specification discloses in one embodiment (see specification, paragraph 145) that “time” can regarded as a solution to an integral (e.g., t(θ), with θ representing charging state. The examiner notes that this embodiment appears to treat “time” as a time function dependent on charging state. If the claim language “determining a time up to which a charging state corresponding to an end point voltage of the battery cell is reached …” is intended to mean determining a time function dependent on charging state (such as t(θ) in paragraph 145 of the specification), the examiner suggests a clarificatory amendment to the claim to make this clear. Also see MPEP 2111.01.II ("Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." (citations omitted)). For purposes of the present examination, the recitation “determining a time up to which a charging state corresponding to an end point voltage of the battery cell is reached …” is interpreted to mean determining a time function dependent on charging state (such as t(θ) in paragraph 145 of the specification). Clarification of the claim language is nonetheless required.
The examiner notes that while claim 1 recites “obtaining a plurality of measured values of an open-circuit voltage of the battery cell with corresponding time values for which the measured values of the open-circuit voltage have been detected”, it is not entirely clear how (or if) these measurements are used in the subsequent processes of claim 1. For example, are the measured values used in order to obtain/derive the “a function that specifies a connection between the open-circuit voltage and the charging state of the battery cell”? Clarification is required so that the scope of the claim is clear.
The method of claim 17 recites language that is substantially analogous to the process implemented in claim 1 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1. Clarification is required so that the scope of the claim is clear.
Claims 2-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependence from claim 1, in addition to any further 112(b) grounds of rejection set forth below.
The term “lower range” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “lower range” 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. The examiner notes that claim 4 depends from claim 3 and recites “wherein the lower range of the charging state comprises charging states lower than 50 percent”, which implies that the “lower range” in claim 3 has a scope that includes charging states greater than 50 percent, but it remains unclear what values of charging state would be considered to fall within and without the “lower range”. Clarification is required so that the scope of the claim is clear.
In claim 10, the equation term UN is not defined, rendering the scope of the claim unclear. Clarification is required so that the scope of the claim is clear.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more. In particular, analyzing these claims under 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance:
Claim 1 recites:
An electronic circuit for determining a charging state of a battery cell of a battery system, wherein the electronic circuit is configured for:
obtaining a plurality of measured values of an open-circuit voltage of the battery cell with corresponding time values for which the measured values of the open-circuit voltage have been detected;
determining a time up to which a charging state corresponding to an end point voltage of the battery cell is reached based on an analytical solution of a function that specifies a connection between the open-circuit voltage and the charging state of the battery cell; and
determining the charging state of the battery cell based on a reverse function of the time.
Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to an electronic circuit for determining a charging state of a battery cell of a battery system and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter (machine).
Step 2A, prong 1:
At least the highlighted recitations of claim 1 set forth above relate to abstract ideas in the form of mental processes practically performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with pen/paper and/or mathematical concepts, e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations. In particular:
The language “obtaining a plurality of measured values of an open-circuit voltage of the battery cell with corresponding time values for which the measured values of the open-circuit voltage have been detected” has a scope that includes mental processes practically performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with pen/paper when given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.1
The language “determining a time up to which a charging state corresponding to an end point voltage of the battery cell is reached based on an analytical solution of a function that specifies a connection between the open-circuit voltage and the charging state of the battery cell” has a scope that includes mental processes practically performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with pen/paper when given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Additionally, or in the alternative, this language has a scope that includes mathematical calculation when given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
The language “determining the charging state of the battery cell based on a reverse function of the time” has a scope that includes mental processes practically performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with pen/paper when given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Additionally, or in the alternative, this language has a scope that includes mathematical calculation when given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
Step 2A, prong 2:
Claim 1 recites as an additional element “an electronic circuit” that is configured to perform the steps of the abstract idea. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “electronic circuit” in light of the disclosure includes a processor/computer programmed to implement the abstract idea. See, e.g., paragraph 159 of specification, “A computer program with a program code for executing the method 700 can furthermore be provided on an electronic circuit 100 or a battery management system, as described above with regard to FIG. 1.”; also see paragraphs 162-164. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(f). This appears to be the case in claim 1, as the electronic circuit, construed as a computer/processor, is merely used in its ordinary capacity as a tool for implementing the steps of the abstract idea. This additional element, considered alone or in combination with the abstract idea, therefore does not represent integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
The examiner notes that even if the “obtaining” step could be regarded as an “additional element”, this step would appear to represent no more than insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering in conjunction with an abstract idea. Considered alone or in combination with the abstract idea and “electronic circuit” element discussed above, this step would not represent integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
The additional element “an electronic circuit” that is configured to perform the steps of the abstract idea does not represent significantly more than the abstract idea (see discussion above in connection with Step 2A, prong 2). The examiner notes that even if the “obtaining” step could be regarded as an “additional element”, this step would appear to represent no more than insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering in conjunction with an abstract idea and, therefore, would not represent significantly more than the abstract idea either when considered alone or in combination with the abstract idea.
Claim 1 is therefore not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Each of dependent claims 2-15 appear to further elaborate on the abstract ideas identified above in connection with claim 1 and/or recite additional abstract ideas in the form of mental processes practically performed in the human mind and/or mathematical calculations. None of dependent claims 2-15 appear to recite any additional element(s) that would serve to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under Step 2A, prong 2 or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas under Step 2B. Dependent claims 2-15 are therefore not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 16 is directed to a battery management system and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter (machine). Claim 16 recites, in combination with the electronic circuit of claim 1, “a controller for detecting a plurality of measured values of an open-circuit voltage of a battery cell of a battery system with corresponding time values for which the measured values of the open-circuit voltage have been measured”. This language is regarded as setting forth a further additional element in combination with the abstract idea of claim 1. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(f). This appears to be the case in claim 15, as the controller, construed as a computer/processor, is merely used in its ordinary capacity as a tool for receiving/acquiring data to be used in connection with the abstract idea. This additional element, considered alone or in combination with the abstract idea and “electronic circuit” element discussed above, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, prong 2 or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself under Step 2B.
Claim 17 is directed to a method for determining a charging state of a battery cell of a battery system and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter (process). The recited steps of claim 17 correspond exactly to the abstract idea highlighted above in connection with claim 1. No additional elements are recited. Claim 17 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, prong 1, with no additional element(s) being recited that could serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, prong 2 or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself under Step 2B.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not presently relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 201/80131200 to Crawford et al. (Crawford) is presently considered the closest prior art to the invention of claim 1 and relates to battery system management and battery performance modeling. Crawford discloses determining a time up to which a charging state corresponding to an end point voltage of the battery cell is reached based on an analytical solution of a function (Crawford, e.g., paragraph 24, equation 1 corresponding to dSOC/dt is a function; also see paragraphs 35-36, with equations 5-6 corresponding to an analytical solution of the function of equation 1, with equation 7 corresponding to a time up to which a charging state corresponding to an end point voltage of the battery cell is reached based on an analytical solution of a function). Crawford further discloses determining the charging state of the battery cell based on a reverse (e.g., inverse) function of the time, which the examiner notes corresponds to solving equation 7 for SOC as a function of time (Crawford, e.g., paragraph 60, the performance models can reliably estimate how SOC will change with time based on the operating parameters and past behavior of the system).
Pillai, P.; Sundaresan, S.; Kumar, P.; Pattipati, K.R.; Balasingam, B. Open-Circuit Voltage Models for Battery Management Systems: A Review. Energies 2022, 15, 6803 presents a review of existing OCV–SOC models; see, e.g., pages 4-4, section 3.1, equations 3-8; note in particular equation 4, Nernst model, which appears to be equivalent to OCV-SOC function presented in paragraph 118 of present specification.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL R MILLER whose telephone number is (571) 270-1964. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, CATHERINE T RASTOVSKI can be reached on (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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 R MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863
1 To the extent that this language could be viewed as setting forth an “additional element” for purposes of the 101 analysis, it would not be sufficient to integrate of the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself; see Step 2A, prong 2 and Step 2B below.