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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 2/20/2026 are being considered by the examiner. The examiner notes that hundreds of references are listed in the IDSs. Although a concise explanation of the relevance of the information is not required for English language information, applicants are encouraged to provide a concise explanation of why the English-language information is being submitted and how it is understood to be relevant. Concise explanations (especially those which point out the relevant pages and lines) are helpful to the Office, particularly where documents are lengthy and complex and applicant is aware of a section that is highly relevant to patentability or where a large number of documents are submitted (as in the present case) and applicant is aware that one or more are highly relevant to patentability. Consideration by the examiner of the information submitted in an IDS means nothing more than considering the documents in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. The initials of the examiner placed adjacent to the citations on the PTO/SB/08 or its equivalent mean that the information has been considered by the examiner to the extent noted above.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, “are” should be inserted immediately before “assembled”.
The preamble of claim 16 should be directed to an apparatus rather than a method.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 6-7, 13 and 20-21 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 6 recites wherein a plurality of battery cells within said threshold range of said spectrum characteristics [are] assembled into one or a plurality of battery modules, and claim 21 recites wherein said apparatus further operates to assemble said plurality of battery modules within one of said plurality of battery module groups into one or more battery packs. However, the only recited structure (e.g., a processor/computer readable medium, see claim 3) appears to be insufficient to perform the recited “assembled”/“assemble” functionality, with the broadest reasonable interpretation of “assemble” requiring physically assembly of the battery packs. As such, the boundaries of the functional language are unclear because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the processor. Thus one of ordinary skill would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g). Claims 7 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependence from claim 6.
In claim 13, the language wherein said break between said stimulus signals each comprise less than 30 seconds is unclear. In particular, there appears to be only one “break”, but the language recites that the break “each comprise less than 30 seconds”. Clarification is required so that the scope of the claim is clear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 3-6, 8, 11-12, 14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by applicant-cited US 2019/0170829 to Srinivasan et al. (Srinivasan).
Regarding claim 3, Srinivasan discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a processor communicatively coupled to a non-transitory computer readable media containing a program code executed under control of said processor (Srinivasan, e.g., Fig. 1 and paragraphs 23-52, processor 124, memory 126), whereby said apparatus operates to:
excite each of a plurality of devices using an excitation signal including a root mean squared current or a root mean squared voltage having a plurality of frequencies in a frequency range (Srinivasan, e.g., Fig. 1 and paragraphs 20 and 23-52, particularly paragraphs 20, 34, 47, battery cell evaluation apparatus may be configured to apply a multi-frequency perturbation current and perform associated per-frequency, per-cell measurements to perform cell grouping or matching; control circuitry 120 may be configured to control the operation of the current source 130 and the output of the current source 130; the control circuitry 120 may control the current source 130 to output a current at different frequencies (i.e., an alternating current); the current source 130 may be configured to output one of selected set of frequencies for use during a battery cell evaluation process; current source 130 may be controlled by the processing circuitry 122 to output, for example, a current with a frequency between approximately 200 Hz and 1 kHz; further, the current source 130 may also be controlled by the processing circuitry 122 to output, for example, a current with a frequency of approximately 70 Hz or in a range between approximately 40 Hz and 100 Hz; additionally, the current source 130 may also be controlled by the processing circuitry 122 to output, for example, a current with a frequency of approximately 10 Hz or is in a range between approximately 5 Hz and 15 Hz; it is at least implicit in Srinivasan’s arrangement that the current supplied by the current source 120 may be an RMS current because Srinivasan utilizes RMS converter 163 in Fig. 1 to convert the signal received from the measurement multiplexer 150, in the form of an alternating current signal, into a corresponding direct current signal for provision to the control circuitry 120);
record a response time record of each of said plurality of devices excited using said excitation signal (Srinivasan, e.g., Fig. 1 and paragraphs 23-52, particularly paragraphs 38-40 and 48-49, control circuitry 120 may control select lines 151 of the measurement multiplexer 150 to connect the measurement circuitry 160 to the selected battery cell and facilitate performing measurements of the selected battery cell; the control circuitry 120 may control the operation of both the current multiplexer 140 and the measurement multiplexer 150 in a coordinated manner such that the current source 130 and the measurement circuitry 160 are connected to the same selected battery cell at the same time to apply a perturbation current at a given frequency from the current source 130 to that battery cell and also perform measurements on that battery cell by the measurement circuitry 160; while the measurement circuitry 160 is shown as being a separate component from the control circuitry 120, according to some example embodiments, the measurement circuitry 160 may, at least in part, be embodied within the control circuitry 120 and the control circuitry 120 may be configured to perform the operations of the measurement circuitry 160; the control circuitry 120 may be further configured to receive measurements from the measurement circuitry 160 corresponding to each of the frequencies within the set of frequencies; the set of frequencies may include a first frequency that correlates to an electrolytic resistance of the first selected battery cell, a second frequency that correlates to an anode impedance or temperature of the first selected battery cell, and a third frequency that correlates to a cathode impedance or temperature of the first selected battery cell; control circuitry 120 may also be configured to store the measurements for the battery cells in a memory device (e.g., memory 126));
process said plurality of frequencies associated with a response time record of each said plurality of devices (Srinivasan, e.g., Fig. 1 and paragraphs 23-52, particularly paragraphs 40, 43 and 48-50, measurements may be taken at certain times when a perturbation current for each frequency within a set of frequencies is provided to the battery cell being measured; due to correlations with the frequencies, the measurements obtained by the measurement circuitry 160 can be used to characterize various attributes for each individual cell including respective states of the anode, the cathode, and the electrolyte; the anode impedance, the anode temperature, the cathode impedance, the cathode temperature, and the electrolytic resistance may be determined based on the measurements (e.g., impedance measurements) taken by the measurement circuitry 160; control circuitry 120 may be configured to control the various components to implement multi-frequency, impedance-based battery cell evaluation; control circuitry 120 may be further configured to receive measurements from the measurement circuitry 160 corresponding to each of the frequencies within the set of frequencies; the set of frequencies may include a first frequency that correlates to an electrolytic resistance of the first selected battery cell, a second frequency that correlates to an anode impedance or temperature of the first selected battery cell, and a third frequency that correlates to a cathode impedance or temperature of the first selected battery cell; measurement circuitry 160 may provide the measurements to the control circuitry 120 for storage and analysis);
generate an impedance spectrum associated with said response time record of each of said plurality of devices (see Srinivasan as applied above, measurements for each of plurality of battery cells 181-183 are performed for each of the frequencies within the set of frequencies; impedance measurements for each of the plurality of battery cells 181-183 therefore constitute an impedance spectrum);
compare impedance spectrum characteristics in each said impedance spectrum between said plurality of devices (Srinivasan, e.g., paragraph 52); and
group said plurality devices into a plurality of device groups, said plurality of devices within each of said plurality of device groups having said spectrum characteristics included within a threshold range of said spectrum characteristics (Srinivasan, e.g., paragraph 52).
Regarding claims 4-5, Srinivasan discloses wherein each of said plurality of devices comprise an energy storage device (claim 4) and wherein said energy storage device comprises a battery cell (claim 5) (Srinivasan, e.g., Fig. 1 and paragraphs 23-52, battery cells 181, 182, and 183).
Regarding claim 6, Srinivasan discloses wherein a plurality of battery cells within said threshold range of said spectrum characteristics assembled into one or a plurality of battery modules (Srinivasan, e.g., paragraph 52).
Regarding claim 8, Srinivasan discloses wherein said plurality of frequencies include 2 to 18 frequencies (Srinivasan, e.g., paragraph 48).
Regarding claim 11, Srinivasan discloses wherein said apparatus further operates to: excite each of a plurality of devices with a first stimulus signal; and excite each of a plurality of devices with a second stimulus signal, said first and second stimulus signals including said plurality of frequencies within said frequency range (see Srinivasan as applied to claim 3, e.g., paragraph 34, control circuitry 120 may be configured to control the operation of the current source 130 and the output of the current source 130; the control circuitry 120 may control the current source 130 to output a current at different frequencies (i.e., an alternating current); the current source 130 may be configured to output one of selected set of frequencies for use during a battery cell evaluation process; current source 130 may be controlled by the processing circuitry 122 to output, for example, a current with a frequency between approximately 200 Hz and 1 kHz; further, the current source 130 may also be controlled by the processing circuitry 122 to output, for example, a current with a frequency of approximately 70 Hz or in a range between approximately 40 Hz and 100 Hz; additionally, the current source 130 may also be controlled by the processing circuitry 122 to output, for example, a current with a frequency of approximately 10 Hz or is in a range between approximately 5 Hz and 15 Hz; also see, e.g., paragraph 49, control circuitry 120 may control the current source 130 to provide a first perturbation current at a first frequency and the control circuitry 120 may control the measurement circuitry 160 to perform a first measurement of the battery cell 181 with the first perturbation current applied; measurement circuitry 160 may provide the measurement to the control circuitry 120 for storage and analysis; control circuitry 120 may then control the current source 130 to provide a second perturbation current at a second frequency and the control circuitry 120 may control the measurement circuitry 160 to perform a second measurement of the battery cell 181 with the second perturbation current applied; measurement circuitry 160 may provide the second measurement to the control circuitry 120 for storage and analysis; control circuitry 120 may then control the current source 130 to provide a third perturbation current at a third frequency and the control circuitry 120 may control the measurement circuitry 160 to perform a third measurement of the battery cell 181 with the third perturbation current applied; measurement circuitry 160 may provide the third measurement to the control circuitry 120 for storage and analysis; this process may continue in this manner until measurements have been performed on battery cell 181 for currents at all frequencies in the frequency set).
Regarding claim 12, Srinivasan discloses wherein said apparatus further operates to generate a break between said first and second stimulus signals (Srinivasan, e.g., paragraph 47, a first frequency in the set of frequencies may be applied to each of the battery cells for measurement before the control circuitry 120 adjusts the current source 130 to provide a second frequency from the set).
Regarding claim 14, Srinivasan discloses wherein said apparatus further operates to rest each of said plurality of devices for a period of time between said first stimulus signal and said second stimulus signal (Srinivasan, e.g., paragraph 47, a first frequency in the set of frequencies may be applied to each of the battery cells for measurement before the control circuitry 120 adjusts the current source 130 to provide a second frequency from the set).
Claim 17 recites wherein said plurality of devices within each of said plurality of device groups having an impedance spectrum shift occurring within an impedance spectrum shift range, claim 18 recites wherein said impedance spectrum shift range comprises a pre-selected spectrum shift range and claim 19 recites wherein said impedance spectrum shift range includes pre-selected spectrum characteristics. When the structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties of functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.01. Claims 17-19 set forth properties/functions that result from functionality of the apparatus as set forth in claim 11, which is substantially identical to that disclosed by Srinivasan as discussed above in connection with claim 11. The properties/functions of claims 17-19 are therefore presumed to be inherent in Srinivasan as applied to claim 11.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7, 13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasan.
Regarding claim 7, Srinivasan is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing wherein said apparatus further operates to: compare said spectrum characteristics in each said impedance spectrum between said plurality of battery modules; and group said battery modules into a plurality of battery module groups, said battery modules within each of said plurality of cell module groups having said spectrum characteristics included within said threshold range of said spectrum characteristics. At the outset, the examiner takes Official notice of the fact that grouping a plurality of battery modules (with each battery module including a collection of battery cells) into a plurality of battery module groups/packs (with each battery module group/pack including a collection of battery modules) was well known and conventional before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Further, for the same reasons that Srinivasan discloses the desirability of suitably matchings battery cells of a battery (Srinivasan, e.g., paragraph 3), one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the same considerations are relevant to constructing a battery module group/pack from a collection of battery modules. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the battery cells within a battery module group/pack should have matched attributes for the same reason that battery cells within a battery module should have matched attributes. Such reasoning falls well within the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ in light of the specific teachings of Srinivasan and the general knowledge in the art relating to the construction of battery packs from individual batteries. It 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 to modify Srinivasan such that apparatus further operates to: compare said spectrum characteristics in each said impedance spectrum between said plurality of battery modules; and group said battery modules into a plurality of battery module groups, said battery modules within each of said plurality of cell module groups having said spectrum characteristics included within said threshold range of said spectrum characteristics. In this way, during the construction of battery packs from individual batteries, it can be ensured that the battery cells of the batteries comprising a battery pack have suitably matched attributes in order to avoid known problems resulting from mismatched battery cells.
Regarding claim 13, Srinivasan is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing wherein said break between said stimulus signals each comprise less than 30 seconds. As discussed above in connection with claim 12, Srinivasan nonetheless discloses, e.g., paragraph 47, that a first frequency in the set of frequencies may be applied to each of the battery cells for measurement before the control circuitry 120 adjusts the current source 130 to provide a second frequency from the set. According to this methodology, the first frequency is applied to the first battery cell, and then to the next battery cell and so forth until all battery cells have been evaluated at the first frequency. Then, the same process is repeated for the second frequency. Accordingly, for the case of a plurality of battery cells such as shown in Fig. 1, each battery cell will experience a break having a duration approximately equal to the time required to test the other battery cells. Srinivasan discloses that cell voltage, electrolytic resistance and anode impedance measurements may be performed in about 2 seconds, or in about 12 seconds if cathode impedance or temperature measurements are included (Srinivasan, e.g., paragraph 42). In the case of two battery cells to be tested, for example, Srinivasan therefore at least suggests a break between said stimulus signals of less than 30 seconds, recognizing that any number of cells may be tested using Srinivasan’s arrangement of Fig 1.
Regarding claims 15-16, Srinivasan is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing wherein said period of time comprises 30 seconds or less (claim 15) and wherein said period of time comprises 10 seconds or less (claim 16). As discussed above in connection with claim 14, Srinivasan nonetheless discloses, e.g., paragraph 47, that a first frequency in the set of frequencies may be applied to each of the battery cells for measurement before the control circuitry 120 adjusts the current source 130 to provide a second frequency from the set. According to this methodology, the first frequency is applied to the first battery cell, and then to the next battery cell and so forth until all battery cells have been evaluated at the first frequency. Then, the same process is repeated for the second frequency. Accordingly, for the case of a plurality of battery cells such as shown in Fig. 1, each battery cell will experience a break having a duration approximately equal to the time required to test the other battery cells. Srinivasan discloses that cell voltage, electrolytic resistance and anode impedance measurements may be performed in about 2 seconds, or in about 12 seconds if cathode impedance or temperature measurements are included (Srinivasan, e.g., paragraph 42). In the case of two battery cells to be tested, for example, Srinivasan therefore at least suggests a rest between stimulus signals of about 2 seconds or 12 seconds depending on the type of measurements, recognizing that any number of cells may be tested using Srinivasan’s arrangement of Fig 1.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasan in view of applicant-cited Carkhuff et al., "Impedance-Based Battery Management System for Safety Monitoring of Lithium-Ion Batteries," in IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 65, no. 8, pp. 6497-6504, Aug. 2018 (Carkhuff).
Regarding claims 9-10, Srinivasan is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing wherein said frequency range comprises about 0.0125 Hz to about 1,600 Hz (claim 9) and wherein said frequency range starting at about 0.2 Hz, 0.4 Hz or 0.8 Hz to about 1,600 Hz (claim 10). In related art, Carkhuff discloses that a frequency range of 0.082 Hz to 1.6 kHz is suitable for analyzing impedance behavior of a battery cell (Carkhuff, e.g., page 6501, Fig. 6a), with Carkhuff’s frequency range appearing to meet the claimed frequency ranges of about 0.0125 Hz to about 1,600 Hz and about 0.2 Hz, 0.4 Hz or 0.8 Hz to about 1,600 Hz at least in view of the term “about” (see specification, page 41, lines 1-3, “The term “about” generally refers to a range of numeric values that one of skill in the art would consider equivalent to the recited numeric value or having the same function or result”). It 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 to modify Srinivasan such that the frequency range comprises about 0.0125 Hz to about 1,600 Hz (claim 9) and the frequency range starting at about 0.2 Hz, 0.4 Hz or 0.8 Hz to about 1,600 Hz (claim 10) because Carkhuff discloses a frequency range having about these endpoints is suitable for analyzing impedance behavior of a battery cell.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action by virtue of its dependence from claim 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2003/0041445 to Jang et al. relates to a method for selecting unit cells to make an optimal battery pack improves the performance of the battery pack with primary or secondary batteries connected to one another in series, in parallel, or in a combination of them. The method for selecting unit cells to make the optimal battery pack includes measuring the impedance spectrum of the individual unit cells in a predetermined frequency region, fitting the impedance spectrum to an equivalent circuit model composed of parameters including resistance and capacitance components, calculating total resistances from the fitted parameters, and making the battery pack with unit cells of a similar total resistance.
Wang Haiying, Dong Kai, Li Gechen and Wu Feng, "Research on the consistency of the power battery based on multi-points impedance spectrum," International Forum on Strategic Technology 2010, Ulsan, Korea (South), 2010, pp. 1-4 relates to electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) method for performing cell battery sorting.
Xiaoyu Li, Tiansi Wang, Lei Pei, Chunbo Zhu and Bingliang Xu, "A comparative study of sorting methods for Lithium-ion batteries," 2014 IEEE Conference and Expo Transportation Electrification Asia-Pacific (ITEC Asia-Pacific), Beijing, 2014, pp. 1-6 relates to a comparative study of five sorting methods for Lithium-ion batteries.
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 9AM-5PM 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, Lee Rodak can be reached at (571) 270-5628. 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