DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application filed on February 20, 2024.
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/20/2024, 07/03/2024 and 03/17/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0050]: Language “Some terms used herein are defined as follows.” should read “Some terms used herein are defined as follows[[.]]:” in order to correct for minor informalities.
[0059]: Language “FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a battery system 10 of according to an embodiment of the present disclosure …” should read “FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a battery system 10 [[of]] according to an embodiment of the present disclosure …” in order to correct for minor informalities.
[0062]: Language “… the short-circuit current applied to each of the batter racks 100 is 10 kA …” should read “... the short-circuit current applied to each of the battery racks 100 is 10 kA …” in order to correct for minor informalities.
[0072]: Language “For example, individual DC/DC convertors, rather than the BPUs 110, may be applied to certain or all of battery racks 100 may be equipped with an individual DC/DC converter rather than the BPU 110, and batteries in module or pack units, rather than in battery rack units, may be applied to the battery system 20” should read “For example, individual DC/DC convertors, rather than the BPUs 110, may be applied to certain or all of battery racks 100, or each battery rack 100 may be equipped with an individual DC/DC converter rather than the BPU 110, and batteries in module or pack units, rather than in battery rack units, may be applied to the battery system 20” in order to correct for minor informalities.
[0085]: Language “For example, when a short circuit is generated at Pl, the battery system management device 400 may calculate the shortcircuit current applied to each of the protection elements, and when a short circuit is generated at P2, the battery system management device 400 may calculate the shortcircuit current applied to each of the protection elements when a short circuit is generated at P2” should read “For example, when a short circuit is generated at Pl, the battery system management device 400 may calculate the shortcircuit current applied to each of the protection elements, and when a short circuit is generated at P2, the battery system management device 400 may calculate the shortcircuit current applied to each of the protection elements
[0111]: Language “The-link may include therein at least one protection element …” should read “The DC-link may include therein at least one protection element …” in order to correct for minor informalities (e.g., clarify which link includes the protection element).
[0119]: Paragraph should end with a period.
[0143]: Language “Due to the connection structures of the battery systems, the length of the connection elements 130, 230 includes the symmetric parallel connection structure (FIG. 16A) is shorter than that in the asymmetric parallel connection structure (FIG. 16B) and thus has relatively a lower inductance and resistance” should read “Due to the connection structures of the battery systems, the length of the connection elements 130, 230 including the symmetric parallel connection structure (FIG. 16B) is shorter than that in the asymmetric parallel connection structure (FIG. 16A) and thus has relatively a lower inductance and resistance” in order to correct for minor informalities (e.g., clarify which link includes the protection element).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “a memory coupled to the processor and configured to store at least one command to be executed through the at least one processor” should read “a memory coupled to the at least one processor and configured to store at least one command to be executed through the at least one processor” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Claim language “a command to calculate a short-circuit current generated in the battery system by using the equivalent model while reflecting a time constant characteristic of the connection element …” should read “a command to calculate a short-circuit current generated in the battery system by using the equivalent model while reflecting a time constant characteristic of [[the]]a connection element …” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Claim language “a command to compare the calculated short-circuit current with a limiting current of the protection element” should read “a command to compare the at least one protection element” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The battery system management device of claim 1, wherein the at least one protection element is disposed at one or more locations among an input/output terminal of a battery, a connection point of batteries, and a connection point of battery groups” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The battery system management device of claim 1, wherein the command to define the equivalent model is based on: a first equivalent model for the plurality of batteries; a second equivalent model for the at least one protection element; and a third equivalent model for [[a]]the connection element that electrically connects the plurality of batteries to an external device” in order to clarify the recited subject matter and provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The battery system management device of claim 3, wherein the third equivalent model is defined as [[an]]a resistor-inductor (RL) equivalent circuit having a resistance value corresponding to a length of the connection element” in order to clarify the recited subject matter and provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The battery system management device of claim 1, wherein the command to calculate the short-circuit current includes: [[a]]the command to calculate [[a]]the short-circuit current applied to each of a plurality of protection elements by reflecting [[a]]the time constant characteristic of the connection element according to the predefined connection structure when the short circuit is generated at one or more locations” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The battery system management device of claim 5, wherein the at least one or more locations where the short circuit is generated include: a first location defined as a location inside a battery; a second location defined as a location between [[a]]the battery and a connection point of batteries; a third location defined as a location between the connection point of the batteries and a connection point of battery groups; and a fourth location defined as a location between the connection point of the battery groups and a power conversion system” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The battery system management device of claim 5, wherein the command to compare includes: a command to identify whether the short-circuit current exceeds [[a]]the limiting current defined based on a short-circuit capacity of each of the plurality of protection elements” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The battery system management device of claim 1, wherein the command to determine the number of batteries includes: a command to determine a maximum number of batteries that prevents [[a]]the short-circuit current applied to each of a plurality of protection elements from exceeding the limiting current of each of the plurality of protection elements” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The battery system management device of claim 8, wherein the command to calculate the short-circuit current includes: a command to calculate, for each case where [[a]]the short circuit is generated at a plurality of locations, the short-circuit current applied to each of the plurality of protection elements by reflecting the time constant characteristic of the connection element according to the predetermined connection structure, and wherein the command to determine the number of batteries includes: a command to determine, for all .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The battery system management device of claim 9, wherein the command to determine the maximum number of batteries includes: a command to redefine [[an]]the equivalent model by changing the number of batteries included in the battery system according to the result of comparison of the short-circuit current and the limiting current; and a command to recalculate [[a]]the short-circuit current based on the redefined equivalent model” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “defining an equivalent model for a battery system configured to have a predefined connection structure including a plurality of batteries and at least one protection element” should read “defining an equivalent model for [[a]]the battery system configured to have a predefined connection structure including a plurality of batteries and at least one protection element” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Claim language “calculating a short-circuit current generated in the battery system by using the equivalent model while reflecting a time constant characteristic of the connection element …” should read “calculating a short-circuit current generated in the battery system by using the equivalent model while reflecting a time constant characteristic of [[the]]a connection element …” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Claim language “comparing the calculated short-circuit current with a limiting current of the protection element” should read “comparing the at least one protection element” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The method of claim 11, wherein [[the]] defining the equivalent model includes defining the equivalent model for the battery system based on: a first equivalent model for the plurality of batteries; a second equivalent model for the at least one protection element; and a third equivalent model for [[a]]the connection element that electrically connects the plurality of batteries to an external device” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The method of claim 13, wherein the third equivalent model is defined as [[an]]a resistor-inductor (RL) equivalent circuit having a resistance value corresponding to a length of the connection element” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The method of claim 11, wherein [[the]] calculating the short-circuit current includes: calculating [[a]]the short-circuit current applied to each of a plurality of protection elements by reflecting [[a]]the time constant characteristic of the connection element according to the predefined connection structure when the short circuit is generated at one or more locations” in order to clarify the recited subject matter and provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The method of claim 15, wherein the one or more locations where the short circuit is generated include at least one of: a first location defined as a location inside a battery; a second location defined as a location between [[a]]the battery and [[the]]a connection point of batteries; a third location defined as a location between the connection point of the batteries and a connection point of battery groups; and a fourth location defined between the connection point of the battery groups and a power conversion system” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The method of claim 15, wherein the comparing includes: identifying whether the short-circuit current exceeds [[a]]the limiting current defined based on a short-circuit capacity of each of the plurality of protection elements” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The method of claim 11, wherein [[the]] determining the number of batteries includes: determining a maximum number of batteries that prevents [[a]]the short-circuit current applied to each of a plurality of protection elements from exceeding the limiting current of each of the plurality of protection elements” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The method of claim 18, wherein [[the]] calculating the short-circuit current includes: calculating, for each case where [[a]]the short circuit is generated at a plurality of locations, the short-circuit current applied to each of the plurality of protection elements by reflecting the time constant characteristic of the connection element according to the predetermined connection structure, and wherein [[the]] determining the number of batteries includes: determining, for all .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The method of claim 19, wherein [[the]] determining the maximum number of batteries includes: redefining [[an]]the equivalent model by changing the number of batteries included in the battery system according to the result of comparison of the short-circuit current and the limiting current; and recalculating [[a]]the short-circuit current based on the redefined equivalent model” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the examiner submits that under Step 1 of the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for evaluating claims for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test (see italic text for abstract idea):
the limitation “a command to define an equivalent model for the battery system configured to have a predefined connection structure including a plurality of batteries and at least one protection element” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to model a system (see specification at [0076]-[0078], [0080]-[0081], [0100]-[0109], [0114] and Figs. 5 and 7). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated), the particular technological environment or field of use, and the generic computer implementation (i.e., a command), the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing mental evaluations and/or applying mathematical concepts to model a system.
the limitation “a command to calculate a short-circuit current generated in the battery system by using the equivalent model while reflecting a time constant characteristic of the connection element according to the predefined connection structure when a short circuit is generated at a location in the battery system” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to manipulate data and obtain additional information (i.e., a short-circuit current; see specification at [0109], [0115]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated), the particular technological environment or field of use, and the generic computer implementation (i.e., a command), the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing mental evaluations and/or applying mathematical concepts to transform data and obtain a result.
the limitation “a command to compare the calculated short-circuit current with a limiting current of the protection element” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to compare data (see specification at [0023], [0086]-[0087], [0097], [0121], [0126], [0130]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated), the particular technological environment or field of use, and the generic computer implementation (i.e., a command), the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing mental evaluations and/or applying mathematical concepts to compare data.
the limitation “a command to determine a number of batteries provided in the battery system based on a result of comparison” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to obtain a result based on the data comparison (see specification at [0088], [0098]-[0099], [0122]-[0123], [0127]-[0128]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated), the particular technological environment or field of use, and the generic computer implementation (i.e., a command), the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing mental evaluations and/or applying mathematical concepts to determine a result based on data comparison.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception under Step 2A - Prong One of the test.
Furthermore, under Step 2A - Prong Two of the test, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when considering the claim as a whole. In particular, the additional elements recited in the claim:
“A battery system management device comprising: at least one processor capable of communicating with a battery system; and a memory coupled to the processor and configured to store at least one command to be executed through the at least one processor” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), while adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see specification at [0008]; see also MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considering the claim as a whole. The claim is directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A of the test.
Additionally, under Step 2B of the test, the claim, when considered as a whole, does not include additional elements that, when considered individually and in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements:
generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see specification at [0006]), which as indicated in the MPEP: “As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application” (see MPEP 2106.05(h)); and
append generic computer components (see specification at [0008]) used to facilitate the application of the abstract idea (i.e., mere computer implementation), which as indicated in the MPEP: “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 provide significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim, when considered as a whole, does not provide significantly more under Step 2B of the test.
Based on the analysis, the claim is not patent eligible.
Similarly, independent claim 11 is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more as explained above with regards to claim 1.
With regards to the dependent claims they are also directed to the non-statutory subject matter because:
they just extend the abstract idea of the independent claims by additional limitations (Claims 3-5, 7-10, 13-15 and 17-20), that under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, cover performance of the limitations using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts, and
the additional elements recited in the dependent claims, when considered individually and in combination, refer to extra-solution activities, generic computer components/implementation and/or field of use (Claims 2, 6, 12 and 16), which as indicated in the Office’s guidance does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A – Prong Two) and/or does not provide significantly more (Step 2B) when considering the claimed invention as a whole.
Subject Matter Not Rejected Over Prior Art
Claims 1-20 are distinguished over the prior art of record for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1.
Hoshino (US 20150180011 A1) discloses/teaches:
A battery system management device (Fig. 7; [0051]: a power storage device including one or more module batteries, and connected to a power system via an AC-DC converter (PCS) is shown) comprising:
at least one processor capable of communicating with a battery system (Fig. 7, item 1120 – “power storage device”; [0051]: the power storage device is connected via a power conversion system (PCS), which is understood to include processor capabilities); and
a memory coupled to the processor and configured to store at least one command to be executed through the at least one processor ([0051]: the power storage device is connected via a power conversion system (PCS), which is understood to include processor and memory capabilities to perform conversion and safety algorithms), wherein the at least one command includes:
a command to define an equivalent model for the battery system configured to have a predefined connection structure including a plurality of batteries and at least one protection element (Figs. 8-10; [0052]-[0066], [0078]: a circuit diagram of a module battery including different cells, connections and fuses (protection element) is presented (see also [0040]-[0048])); and
a command to determine a number of batteries provided in the battery system based on a result of comparison ([0091]-[0092]: based on a relationship between the number of series-connected cells and the follow-current power, a number of cells can be determined).
Hoshino (US 20150180011 A1) also discloses/teaches:
“Each of the first fuse 1084 and the second fuse 1085 is blown when a current higher than a fusing current flows. The fusing current is determined to prevent combustion of a short-circuited cell, which is caused by electric power converted into heat by the short-circuited cell, in the event of a failure of one of the two or more strings 1060” ([0067]-[0068]: when a current higher than the fusing current flows, the fuses are blown).
Lim (KR 20220083927 A, IDS reference, see translation) discloses:
“The battery compatibility check method of the present invention comprises the steps of: performing a mechanical internal short circuit test in a manner of inducing an internal short circuit in one battery cell with respect to battery modules connected in parallel; determining the maximum allowable parallel number of battery cells according to the result of the mechanical internal short circuit test, and storing the test result; performing an indirect internal short-circuit test on a battery module in operation having the same specification as the battery module on which the mechanical internal short-circuit test has been performed; comparing the stored mechanical internal short-circuit test results with the indirect internal short-circuit test results; and determining suitability of the battery module in operation” (Abstract: determination of battery module suitability is achieved by performing a mechanical internal short circuit test to induce a short circuit in a battery cells to determine the maximum allowable parallel number of battery cells, and by performing an indirect internal short circuit test with the obtained specification).
Asakura (US 20100188054 A1, IDS reference) discloses:
“An internal short-circuit detecting device for detecting an internal short circuit of a battery being subjected to constant current charge using a constant current amount (I) has: a voltage detection unit for detecting a terminal voltage of the battery; a terminal voltage acquisition unit for acquiring a terminal voltage (V1), as predetermined by the voltage detection unit, at a starting point of a first period (ΔW1) and a terminal voltage (V2) at an ending point; a voltage increase amount calculation unit for calculating an actual increase amount (ΔV3) of the terminal voltage of the first period (ΔW1) from the terminal voltages (V1 and V2); a voltage increase amount prediction unit for calculating a predicted increase amount (ΔV4) of the terminal voltage for the period when charging is performed using the current amount (I) for the first period (ΔW1); and an internal short-circuit determination unit for determining that the internal short circuit is generated when the actual increase amount (ΔV3) is equal to or lower than the sum of the predicted increase amount (ΔV4) and a predetermined coefficient (α)” (Abstract: a device for detecting a battery internal short-circuit based on changes on terminal voltages is disclosed).
The closest prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest:
“a command to calculate a short-circuit current generated in the battery system by using the equivalent model while reflecting a time constant characteristic of the connection element according to the predefined connection structure when a short circuit is generated at a location in the battery system; and
a command to compare the calculated short-circuit current with a limiting current of the protection element”
in combination with all other limitations within the claim, as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Regarding claim 11.
Hoshino (US 20150180011 A1) discloses/teaches:
A method of managing a battery system (Fig. 7, item 1120 – “power storage device”) by a battery system management device (Fig. 7; [0051]: a power storage device including one or more module batteries, and connected to a power system via an AC-DC converter (PCS) is shown), the method comprising:
defining an equivalent model for a battery system configured to have a predefined connection structure including a plurality of batteries and at least one protection element (Figs. 8-10; [0052]-[0066], [0078]: a circuit diagram of a module battery including different cells, connections and fuses (protection element) is presented (see also [0040]-[0048])); and
determining a number of batteries provided in the battery system based on a result of comparison ([0091]-[0092]: based on a relationship between the number of series-connected cells and the follow-current power, a number of cells can be determined).
Hoshino (US 20150180011 A1) also discloses/teaches:
“Each of the first fuse 1084 and the second fuse 1085 is blown when a current higher than a fusing current flows. The fusing current is determined to prevent combustion of a short-circuited cell, which is caused by electric power converted into heat by the short-circuited cell, in the event of a failure of one of the two or more strings 1060” ([0067]-[0068]: when a current higher than the fusing current flows, the fuses are blown).
Lim (KR 20220083927 A, IDS reference, see translation) discloses:
“The battery compatibility check method of the present invention comprises the steps of: performing a mechanical internal short circuit test in a manner of inducing an internal short circuit in one battery cell with respect to battery modules connected in parallel; determining the maximum allowable parallel number of battery cells according to the result of the mechanical internal short circuit test, and storing the test result; performing an indirect internal short-circuit test on a battery module in operation having the same specification as the battery module on which the mechanical internal short-circuit test has been performed; comparing the stored mechanical internal short-circuit test results with the indirect internal short-circuit test results; and determining suitability of the battery module in operation” (Abstract: determination of battery module suitability is achieved by performing a mechanical internal short circuit test to induce a short circuit in a battery cells to determine the maximum allowable parallel number of battery cells, and by performing an indirect internal short circuit test with the obtained specification).
Asakura (US 20100188054 A1, IDS reference) discloses:
“An internal short-circuit detecting device for detecting an internal short circuit of a battery being subjected to constant current charge using a constant current amount (I) has: a voltage detection unit for detecting a terminal voltage of the battery; a terminal voltage acquisition unit for acquiring a terminal voltage (V1), as predetermined by the voltage detection unit, at a starting point of a first period (ΔW1) and a terminal voltage (V2) at an ending point; a voltage increase amount calculation unit for calculating an actual increase amount (ΔV3) of the terminal voltage of the first period (ΔW1) from the terminal voltages (V1 and V2); a voltage increase amount prediction unit for calculating a predicted increase amount (ΔV4) of the terminal voltage for the period when charging is performed using the current amount (I) for the first period (ΔW1); and an internal short-circuit determination unit for determining that the internal short circuit is generated when the actual increase amount (ΔV3) is equal to or lower than the sum of the predicted increase amount (ΔV4) and a predetermined coefficient (α)” (Abstract: a device for detecting a battery internal short-circuit based on changes on terminal voltages is disclosed).
The closest prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest:
“calculating a short-circuit current generated in the battery system by using the equivalent model while reflecting a time constant characteristic of the connection element according to the predefined connection structure when the short circuit is generated at a certain location in the battery system; and
comparing the calculated short-circuit current with a limiting current of the protection element”
in combination with all other limitations within the claim, as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Regarding claims 2-10 and 12-20.
They are also distinguished over the prior art of record due to their dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kulkarni, Manish & Agrawal, Vishwani. (2010). A Tutorial on Battery Simulation-Matching Power Source to Electronic System.
Reference discloses simulation of battery performance by using electrical circuit model in order to improve battery lifetime.
LIU B et al., US 20230236253 A1, METHOD FOR DETECTING INTERNAL SHORT CIRCUIT OF BATTERY, ELECTRONIC APPARATUS, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
Reference discloses detection of internal short circuit of a battery based on discharge currents and discharge voltage drops.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINA CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)272-9969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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, ANDREW SCHECHTER can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights