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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/20/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
Claim 1-8 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1-8 of copending Application No. 18256147 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites determination unit that determines electric power.... the claim language is missing an. It can be corrected as determination unit that determines an electric power … Please make corrections in claims 7 and 8 as indicated.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a creation unit, a storage unit, a detection unit, a determination unit in claims 1-6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Although, the specification does not explicitly recite the structure of a creation unit, a storage unit, a detection unit, a determination unit, examiner views a person skilled in the art would understand the recited unit as a processor or equivalent.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 recites “a detection target period partially overlapping the read target period”. It is unclear from the claim language as what condition to be called a “partially overlapping”. For the purpose of examination, examiner considers the partially overlapping as “same period” recited in claim 5 (i.e., a detection target period that is a same period as the read target period).
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, claim 1 recites:
An abnormality detection device comprising:
a creation unit that creates learning data from measurement data of an energy storage device;
a storage unit that stores a model learned to output a score corresponding to whether or not abnormal measurement data is included in the measurement data when the measurement data is input using the created learning data;
a detection unit that detects an abnormality or a sign of abnormality of the energy storage device based on a score output by inputting the measurement data to the model; and a determination unit that determines electric power distribution using an electric power adjustment function of the energy storage device based on the abnormality or the sign of abnormality.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above.
Under the step 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is determined whether the claims are drawn to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in the statutory category of (machine).
Under the step 2A, prong one, it is considered whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that cover mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental process – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, a step of creates learning data from measurement data of an energy storage device (is considered to be a mathematical step);
to output a score corresponding to whether or not abnormal measurement data is included in the measurement data when the measurement data is input using the created learning data (is considered to be a mathematical step);
detects an abnormality or a sign of abnormality of the energy storage device based on a score output by inputting the measurement data to the model (is considered to be a mental process); and
determines electric power distribution using an electric power adjustment function of the energy storage device based on the abnormality or the sign of abnormality (is considered to be a mental process);
These mathematical and mental steps represent that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of the independent claims 7
Next, under the step 2A, prong two, it is considered whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, it is evaluated whether the claim recites meaningful additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
In claim 1, the additional elements/steps are: creation unit, storage unit, detection unit and determination unit. The above additional elements/steps (units) are recited in generality and represent extra solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional element in the preamble of “An abnormality detection device…” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. There are not any meaningful additional elements in claim 1 that can be considered to integrate the recited abstract ideas into practical application.
In claim 7, the additional elements/steps recite the similar additional elements/steps as of claim 1. The additional elements/steps (program/software – method) are recited in generality and represent extra- solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional element in the preamble of “An abnormality detection method…” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. There are not any meaningful additional elements in claim 7 that can be considered to integrate the recited abstract ideas into practical application.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the step 2B.
Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way.
The independent claims 1 and 7, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, the claims 2-6 comprise the analogous subject matter and also comprise additional features/steps which are the part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims 1 (additionally comprising mathematical relationship/mental process steps) and, therefore, the dependent claims are not eligible without additional elements that reflect a practical application and qualified for significantly more for substantially similar reason as discussed with regards to claim 1 and 7.
Claim 8 recites A computer program that causes a computer to execute processes of: creating learning data from measurement data of an energy storage device; learning a model to output a score corresponding to whether or not abnormal measurement data is included in the measurement data when the measurement data is input using the created learning data; storing the learned model; detecting an abnormality or a sign of abnormality of the energy storage device based on a score output by inputting the measurement data to the model; and determining electric power distribution using an electric power adjustment function of the energy storage device based on the abnormality or the sign of abnormality.
The claim limitations with the non-statutory subject matter and abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above.
Under the step 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is determined whether the claims are drawn to a statutory or non-statutory category. In the above claim, the highlighted portion (A computer program…) constitutes a non-statutory subject matter under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
The claim does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that cover “products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations”. Refer to MPEP 2106.03.
Since, the claim 8 fails the patent eligibility under patent eligibility step 2A, prong one, further analysis under step 2A, prong two is ineligible. The recited abstract ideas also do not appear to be integrated into a practical application for the same reasons as discussed in claim 1 above.
Therefore, the independent claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Examiner suggests the applicant to recite the claim 8 as:
A non-transitory computer readable medium, storing a program that when executed by a computer, causes said computer to perform…
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) 1-4, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naha et al. US 20190120908 A1 herein after “Naha” in view of Park et al US 20170126027 A1 herein after “Park”
Regarding claim 1, Naha teaches an abnormality detection device (para [0033] 0033] FIG. 1 illustrates a block diagram of an apparatus for identifying an anomaly in at least one of a re-chargeable battery 101) comprising:
a creation unit that creates learning data from measurement data of an energy storage device (para [0070] The training data may include initial cycle of the parametric measurement data received by the apparatus 100 from the re-chargeable battery 101 of the equipment and at least one component. The features or the plurality of the characteristic data may be extracted based on the received parametric measurement data. The parametric measurement data can be voltage data, current data and temperature data.
para [0091] …creating by the processing unit 102, a training model associated with the learned data corresponding to the segregated plurality of characteristic data.);
Above examiner views the processing unit (i.e., creation unit) creates a learning data from characteristic data (i.e., parametric measurements-voltage, current and temperature of battery). Using the learned data, a model is created.
a storage unit that stores a model learned (para [0012] a memory coupled to the processor, wherein the memory stores computer-readable instructions, which when executed by the processor).
Herein examiner views the model learned or created is stored in the memory (i.e., storage unit) to output a score corresponding to whether or not abnormal measurement data is included in the measurement data when the measurement data is input using the created learning data (para [0043] In an embodiment, the apparatus 100 is further configured to detect a fault in at least one of, the re-chargeable battery 101 of the equipment, the components connected to the re-chargeable battery 101, and equipment, based on determining an abnormality in the received parametric measurement data.
para [0056] In an embodiment, the severity level outputting module 210 is configured to output a severity level of the anomaly in the at least one of the re-chargeable battery 101 of the equipment and at least one component connected to the re-chargeable battery 101, based on analyzed plurality of the threshold values of the determined plurality of the characteristic data. Or, the severity level outputting module 210 is configured to output a severity level of the anomaly in the at least one of the re-chargeable battery 101 of the equipment and at least one component connected to the re-chargeable battery 101, based on results of comparing the plurality of the threshold values with the plurality of characteristic data. The severity level of anomaly comprises, for example, at least one of, a negligent level, a medium level, a critical level, and so on.);
Herein examiner views a severity level(s) indicate (i.e., output a score) anomaly or abnormal data included in the battery characteristic or parametric measurement data when the measurement data is input using the created learning data.
Naha does not clearly show or teach a detection unit that detects an abnormality or a sign of abnormality of the energy storage device based on a score output by inputting the measurement data to the model and
a determination unit that determines electric power distribution using an electric power adjustment function of the energy storage device based on the abnormality or the sign of abnormality.
Park teaches a detection unit that detects an abnormality or a sign of abnormality of the energy storage device based on a score output by inputting the measurement data to the model ([0084] Referring to FIG. 3, a battery management apparatus acquires or extracts feature data 330 by projecting unbalance data 310 to a feature space. Here, the battery management apparatus projects the unbalance data 310 to the feature space using a feature extraction model 320.
[0085] The feature extraction model 320 is a model defined in advance, as discussed above. For example, normal physical quantities dynamically varying based on charging and/or discharging of a plurality of normal batteries, for example, voltages, currents, and/or temperatures of the plurality of normal batteries,
Para [0086] As illustrated in FIG. 3, a dimension of the unbalance data may be d, a dimension of the feature extraction model 320 may be d×p, resulting in a dimension of the feature data 330 being p. The unbalance data 310 having a high dimension is thus converted into the feature data 330 having a low dimension. The battery management apparatus uses the feature data 330 to detect an abnormal state of the battery pack including the plurality of batteries.);
Above paragraphs and Fig. 3, examiner views the processor or battery management apparatus (i.e., detection unit) detects an abnormal state of the battery based on the output feature data 330 (i.e., see in Fig. 3 reduced dimension- score) by inputting the measurement data (i.e., voltage, current, temperature) to the model 320.
a determination unit that determines electric power distribution using an electric power adjustment function of the energy storage device based on the abnormality or the sign of abnormality (para [0081], [0099], [0104],
para [0106] Thus, a dynamical change in voltage data would occur due to a change in a battery's internal resistance and a change in current based on required power. In response to the change in current, voltage data of the plurality of battery cells may similarly change.
para [0111] Further to the discussion of above with regard to operation 250 of FIG. 2, in operation 860, the battery management determines… cell balancing in operation 880. Also, when the battery safety is determined to not meet, e.g., is less than or equal to, the second threshold, the battery management apparatus generates a control signal to output a feedback in operation 890. Here, in one or more embodiments, when the battery safety is determined to not meet the second threshold the battery management apparatus may also perform the cell balancing.).
[0125] Accordingly, in one or more embodiments, the processor 1020 is configured to implement any one, combination, or all of the battery management methods described herein with reference to FIGS. 1 through 9.
From above paragraphs examiner views processor (i.e., a determination unit) that determines a battery management system (i.e., electric power distribution) using a control signal or cell balancing – change in voltage, current (i.e., electric power adjustment function) of the battery (i.e., energy storage device) based on the battery safety not meeting the thresholds (i.e., abnormality or the sign of abnormality).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Park in Naha for the purpose of determining an abnormality in a battery by using a model and determine an electric power adjustment function using the abnormality information of the battery so that the battery failure can be accurately determined and the battery system can be prevented from damages.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Naha and Park teach an abnormality detection device, Park teaches wherein the determination unit determines the electric power distribution using the electric power adjustment function of the energy storage device based on the abnormality or the sign of abnormality obtained from the detection unit and the measurement data (([0081][0099], [0104], [0106] Thus, a dynamical change in voltage data would occur due to a change in a battery's internal resistance and a change in current based on required power. In response to the change in current, voltage data of the plurality of battery cells may similarly change.
para [0111] Further to the discussion of above with regard to operation 250 of FIG. 2, in operation 860, the battery management determines… cell balancing in operation 880. Also, when the battery safety is determined to not meet, e.g., is less than or equal to, the second threshold, the battery management apparatus generates a control signal to output a feedback in operation 890. Here, in one or more embodiments, when the battery safety is determined to not meet the second threshold the battery management apparatus may also perform the cell balancing.).
[0125] Accordingly, in one or more embodiments, the processor 1020 is configured to implement any one, combination, or all of the battery management methods described herein with reference to FIGS. 1 through 9.
From above paragraphs examiner views processor (i.e., a determination unit) that determines a battery management system (i.e., electric power distribution) using a control signal or cell balancing – change in voltage, current (i.e., electric power adjustment function) of the battery (i.e., energy storage device) based on the battery safety not meeting the thresholds (i.e., abnormality or the sign of abnormality) obtained from the detection unit (i.e., detection of an abnormality of a battery using the measurement data, please see above in paragraph [0084]-[0086])
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Park in Naha for the purpose of determining an abnormality in a battery by using a model and determine an electric power adjustment function using the abnormality information and measurement data of the battery so that the battery failure can be accurately determined and the battery system can be prevented from damages.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Naha and Park teach the abnormality detection device according to claim 2, Park teaches wherein the energy storage device includes a bank in which a plurality of modules including a plurality of energy storage cells are connected in series (Fig. 8 para [0128] The battery 1180 includes a plurality of battery modules 1181 through 1183. Para [0106] Similarly, a plurality of battery cells connected in series in one battery module have the same current value).
Examiner views battery 1180 as a bank which includes modules 1181-1183 with multiple cells connected in series.
and the determination unit determines the electric power distribution using the electric power adjustment function of the energy storage device based on the abnormality or the sign of abnormality obtained from the detection unit and a state of the bank obtained from the measurement data ([0081] [0099], [0104], [0106] Thus, a dynamical change in voltage data would occur due to a change in a battery's internal resistance and a change in current based on required power. In response to the change in current, voltage data of the plurality of battery cells may similarly change.
para [0111] Further to the discussion of above with regard to operation 250 of FIG. 2, in operation 860, the battery management determines… cell balancing in operation 880. Also, when the battery safety is determined to not meet, e.g., is less than or equal to, the second threshold, the battery management apparatus generates a control signal to output a feedback in operation 890. Here, in one or more embodiments, when the battery safety is determined to not meet the second threshold the battery management apparatus may also perform the cell balancing.).
[0125] Accordingly, in one or more embodiments, the processor 1020 is configured to implement any one, combination, or all of the battery management methods described herein with reference to FIGS. 1 through 9.
From above paragraphs examiner views processor (i.e., a determination unit) that determines a battery management system (i.e., electric power distribution) using a control signal or cell balancing – change in voltage, current (i.e., electric power adjustment function) of the battery (i.e., energy storage device) based on the battery safety not meeting the thresholds (i.e., abnormality or the sign of abnormality) obtained from the detection unit (i.e., detection of an abnormality of a battery using the measurement data, please see above in paragraph [0084]-[0086]). Examiner views the measurement data from battery cells provide a state of a battery bank.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Park in Naha for the purpose of determining an abnormality in a battery by using a model and determine an electric power adjustment function using the abnormality information and state of the battery bank so that the battery failure can be accurately determined and the battery system can be prevented from damages.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Naha and Park teach the abnormality detection device according to claim 2, Park teaches wherein in the energy storage device, a bank in which a plurality of modules including a plurality of energy storage cells are connected in series (see above claim 3) (Park does not clearly show a plurality of banks connected in parallel to form a domain).
However, examiner view a person skilled in the art would add or connect extra battery banks connected in a well-known (for example please see US 20130053909 A1 Fig. 1-6) parallel configuration (i.e., to form a domain) to increase a total capacity of a battery system and arrive at the present invention. and
the determination unit determines the electric power distribution using the electric power adjustment function of the energy storage device based on the abnormality or the sign of abnormality obtained from the detection unit and a state of bank obtained from the measurement data ([0081] [0099], [0104], [0106] Thus, a dynamical change in voltage data would occur due to a change in a battery's internal resistance and a change in current based on required power. In response to the change in current, voltage data of the plurality of battery cells may similarly change.
para [0111] Further to the discussion of above with regard to operation 250 of FIG. 2, in operation 860, the battery management determines… cell balancing in operation 880. Also, when the battery safety is determined to not meet, e.g., is less than or equal to, the second threshold, the battery management apparatus generates a control signal to output a feedback in operation 890. Here, in one or more embodiments, when the battery safety is determined to not meet the second threshold the battery management apparatus may also perform the cell balancing.).
[0125] Accordingly, in one or more embodiments, the processor 1020 is configured to implement any one, combination, or all of the battery management methods described herein with reference to FIGS. 1 through 9.
From above paragraphs examiner views processor (i.e., a determination unit) that determines a battery management system (i.e., electric power distribution) using a control signal or cell balancing – change in voltage, current (i.e., electric power adjustment function) of the battery (i.e., energy storage device) based on the battery safety not meeting the thresholds (i.e., abnormality or the sign of abnormality) obtained from the detection unit (i.e., detection of an abnormality of a battery using the measurement data, please see above in paragraph [0084]-[0086]). Examiner views the measurement data from battery cells provide a state of a battery bank.
Examiner views the parks technique or idea would be applicable to the battery system having plurality of battery banks, where each bank is connected in parallel configuration.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Park in Naha for the purpose of determining an abnormality in a battery by using a model and determine an electric power adjustment function using the abnormality information and state of each battery bank so that the battery failure can be accurately determined and the battery system can be prevented from damages.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected as claim 1 having same claim limitations.
Claim(s) 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Naha and Park in view of Shibuya (US 20150169393 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Naha and Park teach the abnormality detection device according to claim 1, Park teaches detects an abnormality or a sign of abnormality of the energy storage device in the detection target period based on a score output from the model (para [0082] when the battery management apparatus determines whether the battery is in an abnormal state at preset time intervals and determines whether the battery is in the abnormal state under a situation in which the physical quantities vary dynamically,
[0084] Referring to FIG. 3, a battery management apparatus acquires or extracts feature data 330 by projecting unbalance data 310 to a feature space. Here, the battery management apparatus projects the unbalance data 310 to the feature space using a feature extraction model 320.
[0085] The feature extraction model 320 is a model defined in advance, as discussed above. For example, normal physical quantities dynamically varying based on charging and/or discharging of a plurality of normal batteries, for example, voltages, currents, and/or temperatures of the plurality of normal batteries,
Para [0086] As illustrated in FIG. 3, a dimension of the unbalance data may be d, a dimension of the feature extraction model 320 may be d×p, resulting in a dimension of the feature data 330 being p. The unbalance data 310 having a high dimension is thus converted into the feature data 330 having a low dimension. The battery management apparatus uses the feature data 330 to detect an abnormal state of the battery pack including the plurality of batteries.);
Above paragraphs and Fig. 3, examiner views the processor or battery management apparatus (i.e., detection unit) detects an abnormal state of the battery in the detection preset time interval (i.e., target period) based on the output feature data 330 (i.e., see in Fig. 3 reduced dimension- score) by inputting the measurement data (i.e., voltage, current, temperature) to the model 320.
The combination of Naha and Park does not clearly teach the creation unit creates the learning data from measurement data read for a read target period among measurement data measured in time series from the energy storage device and
the detection unit inputs, to a model learned by the learning data, measurement data in a detection target period that is a same period as the read target period.
Shibuya teaches the creation unit creates the learning data from measurement data read for a read target period among measurement data measured in time series from the energy storage device (Fig. 2 and 3 para [0017] A system embodying this technique makes possible early detection of anomaly in …deterioration or aging of mounted batteries,
Para [0013] the invention provides a method of detecting anomaly in a facility or apparatus by using multi-dimensional time series sensor signals outputted from sensors fitted to the facility or apparatus during operation.
para [0046] ... sensor signals 102 in the period designated by the sensor signal storing unit 103 as a learning period are inputted (S301).
From above figures and paragraph examiner views the learning data is generated from the measurements data read from sensors for a read target period (i.e., in fig. 2 see day/hours), among measurements data are obtained in time series from equipment (i.e., battery). Examiner considers the creation be performed by a processor (i.e., creation unit).
the detection unit inputs, to a model learned by the learning data (claim 4… at the step of detecting anomaly, anomaly model is generated by using the learned data)),
Examiner considers the detection be performed by a processor (i.e., detection unit).
measurement data in a detection target period that is a same period as the read target period ([0085] In an anomaly measurement display window 906, the processing number of the anomaly measurement, threshold and determination result in the designated learning period and testing period are displayed. Further, the periods used for learning are marked with circles above. In a sensor signal display window 907, the output level of a designated sensor in a designated period is displayed.),
From Fig. 9A and 9B examiner views the 906 as the abnormal measurement data in a detection target period (09/01 to 09/03) is a same period as the 907-sensor signal (i.e., read target) period 09/01 to 09/03.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Shibuya in Naha for the purpose of creating learning data from measurements data in time series from a battery and determining an abnormality in a battery by using a model in the detection target period same as the read target period so that the battery failure can be accurately determined in real time and the battery system can be prevented from damages.
Claim 6 is rejected as claim 5 having same limitations (examiner considers the partially over lapping period in claim 6 as the same period in claim 5)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tajima et al US 20210224599 A1 discusses anomaly/abnormality detection in battery system.
Takahashi et al US 20200355749 A1 discusses abnormality detection in battery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARAD TIMILSINA whose telephone number is (571)272-7104. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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 Rastovski can be reached at 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.
/SHARAD TIMILSINA/Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863