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 .
DETAILED ACTION
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-13 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Arne BALLANTINE et al. (US 20190317152), hereinafter ‘Ballantine’.
With regards to Claim 1, Ballantine discloses
A battery testing apparatus comprising:
a first connecting unit comprising a plurality of first terminals respectively connected to a positive electrode of a plurality of battery cells; a second connecting unit comprising a plurality of second terminals respectively connected to a negative electrode of the plurality of battery cells; wherein the battery testing apparatus is configured to charge or discharge the plurality of battery cells through the first connecting unit and the second connecting unit (Fig.1; [0035, 0040]);
and
a battery management apparatus (System 100, Fig.1; Figs. 7 and 12; central controller 138, Fig.1) configured to obtain state information [0029, 0030, 0071, 0079, 0149] in at least any one of a charging state, a discharging state, and an idle state of each of the plurality of battery cells ([0029, 0030, 0040, 0121]), wherein the first connecting unit (140a, 142a, 144a, and 146a and corresponding power electronics 110, 112, 114, 116) and the second connecting unit (140b, 142b, 144b, and 146b, and corresponding power electronics 110, 112, 114, 116) are directly connected to the battery management apparatus (The power electronics 110, 112, 114, and 116 may be DC to DC converters. The power electronics 110, 112, 114, and 116 may be each include controllers 130, 132, 134, and 136, respectively, each connected, wired or wirelessly, to a central controller 138 [0036]).
With regards to Claim 2, Ballantine discloses the first connecting unit comprises a plurality of first terminals respectively connected to positive electrodes of the plurality of battery cells, and the second connecting unit comprises a plurality of second terminals respectively connected to negative electrodes of the plurality of battery cells (Fig.1).
With regards to Claim 3, Ballantine discloses the first terminal and the second terminal are electrically connected to be charged or discharged (Fig.1; [0035, 0037]).
With regards to Claim 4, Ballantine discloses the state information comprises at least one of a voltage, a temperature, electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) data, and a self-discharging current ([0040, 0041], Abstract).
With regards to Claim 5, Ballantine discloses the battery management apparatus is further configured to transmit the measured state information of each of the plurality of battery cells to a server ([0120, 0123, 0133]).
With regards to Claim 6, Ballantine discloses wherein the server is configured to control an amount of charge of the plurality of battery cells ([0040, 0054]).
With regards to Claim 7, Ballantine discloses generate a machine learning model that determines whether each of the plurality of battery cells are is defective, based on the measured state information of the plurality of battery cells ([0030, 0149]).
With regards to Claim 8, Ballantine discloses the server receives the state information of each of the plurality of battery cells and determines whether each of the plurality of battery cells is defective ([0003, 0052, 0053, 0076, 0121, 0150, 0160, 0164]; Fig.1).
With regards to Claim 9, Ballantine discloses the claim limitations as discussed with regards to Claim 1. In addition, Ballantine discloses a battery testing system (Figs.1 and 2).
With regards to Claim 10, Ballantine discloses the claim limitations as discussed with regards to Claims 9 and 4.
With regards to Claim 11, Ballantine discloses the claim limitations as discussed with regards to Claims 9 and 5.
With regards to Claim 12, Ballantine discloses the claim limitations as discussed with regards to Claims 9 and 6.
With regards to Claim 13, Ballantine discloses the claim limitations as discussed with regards to Claims 9 and 8.
With regards to Claim 18, Ballantine discloses the claim limitations as discussed with regards to Claims 9 and 2.
With regards to Claim 19, Ballantine discloses the claim limitations as discussed with regards to Claims 9 and 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballantine in view of Joachim Fetzer et al. (US 20120189879), hereinafter ‘Fetzer’.
With regards to Claim 14, Ballantine discloses the claimed invention as discussed in regards to Claim 11.
However, Ballantine is silent on a pressure generator configured to apply pressure to the plurality of battery cells.
Fetzer discloses a pressure generator configured to apply pressure to the plurality of battery cells (FIG. 5: shows a battery having a plurality of cells and piezoelectric pressure generating means arranged at one end [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ballentine in view of Fetzer to use a pressure generator configured to apply pressure to the plurality of battery cells that premature battery wear or a premature battery aging process can be prevented (Fetzer [0011].
With regards to Claim 15, Ballantine in view of Fetzer discloses the claimed invention as discussed in regards to Claim 14.
Ballantine is also silent on the pressure generator is positioned in a space between the plurality of battery cells accommodated in the tray.
Fetzer additionally discloses the pressure generator is positioned in a space within a battery with the plurality of battery cells accommodated in the tray (Figs. 5 and 6, pressure application elements 18, pressure generating means 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ballentine in view of Fetzer to position the pressure generator in a space between the plurality of battery cells accommodated in the tray to more effectively apply pressure to several cells as compared to applying pressure to one top plane as shown in Figs. 5 and 6, Fetzer).
With regards to Claim 16, Ballantine in view of Fetzer discloses the claimed invention as discussed in regards to Claim 14, where Fetzer discloses that the pressure generator is connected to a pneumatic feeder or a hydraulic feeder (Another possibility is to use a mechanical-hydraulic pressure generating device, which has a piston-cylinder unit and a pump, for example. It is furthermore possible to use a mechanical-pneumatic pressure generating device [0019]).
With regards to Claim 17, Ballantine in view of Fetzer discloses the claimed invention as discussed in regards to Claim 16.
Ballantine discloses using a server-based control as discussed in Claim 6 and using wired/wireless connection to a server [0076].
However, Ballantine is silent on the pneumatic feeder or the hydraulic feeder is connected to the server through a wireless or wired network.
Fetzer discloses a control unit, which performs open-loop or closed-loop control of the setting of the respective pressure value required as a function of the state of battery charge and/or of the battery volume [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ballentine in view of Fetzer to connect pneumatic feeder or the hydraulic feeder to the server through a wireless or wired network to enable a remote control of pressure settings based on collected state of charge information from the server (a control unit which offsets the theoretical, calculated pressure values against the pressure values that are to be set owing to the change in volume and/or the change in the state of charge, Fetzer [0027]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with regards to Ballantine.
The Applicant argues (pp.5-6): As provided in the present application, the disclosed systems and methods are directed to a unified testing apparatus in which a centralized monitoring unit (140) is directly and physically wired to the first and second connecting units (110, 120), thereby forming a single, integrated hardware interface for data collection. The connecting units (110, 120) function as the primary hardware gateway to the centralized monitoring unit (140) for acquiring cell state information. In particular, with regard to the plurality of first terminals for the first connecting unit and the plurality of second terminals for second connecting unit, claim 1 recites that the "the first connecting unit and the second connecting unit are directly connected to the battery management apparatus."
In contrast, Ballantine (see, e.g., Fig. 1) discloses a distributed architecture comprising independent power electronics modules (110, 112, 114, 116), in which monitoring functions are performed locally at each module rather than through a dedicated, centralized monitoring unit. Ballantine references a central processor or cloud-based system, however the actual electrical sensing and data acquisition occur at the individual module level. Accordingly, Ballantine fails to teach or suggest a centralized monitoring component that directly interfaces with cell-contacting hardware as claimed.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim now requires that a first and second connecting units comprise a plurality of first terminals respectively connected to a positive/negative electrodes of a plurality of battery cells and that the first connecting unit and the second connecting unit are directly connected to the battery management.
However, the above connecting units in addition to first/second terminals and corresponding connection lines 140a, 140b, etc. are also inclusive of power electronic units 110, 112, etc. The claim requires that these units comprise the terminals but does not exclude other elements in the units (MPEP 2111.03.I: “The transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps”.). The Examiner mapped the units as a combination of terminals and corresponding converters which are directly connected, wirelessly or wired, with a battery management apparatus 138, as explained in the office action.
The Examiner also notes that the claim does not specify “a centralized monitoring component that directly interfaces with cell-contacting hardware” as argued.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine 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 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.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights