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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 8-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, at line 11, “prsence” should be replaced by --presence --.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: claim 8 recites “a vehicle battery diagnostic method performed by a processor…comprising: monitoring…determining…determining, based on a determination result, whether a presence of a voltage deviation in abnormal cell voltage or normal cell voltage” which is a process.
Step 2, Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea as follows:
Claim 1 recites the steps of “monitoring…determining…determining…determining, based on a determination result, whether a presence of a voltage deviation in abnormal cell voltage or normal cell voltage” mathematical concepts and/or mental processes, that may be carried out in human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper in simple situations. The claim does not recite a particular equation or algorithm for making the recited combining and performing steps, this just means that the abstract idea is being recited broadly enough to monopolize all possible equations or algorithms that might be used (Please also see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), (B), (C), and (D).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the steps is that those steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, valuation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
The step “determining, based on a determination result, whether a presence of a voltage deviation in abnormal cell voltage or normal cell voltage” encompasses an insignificant extra solution.
The steps recited in the method clam are performed by a processor and the “voltages” are measured by a voltage sensor. However, the recited processor and sensor are not particular devices. They are instead tools used to perform the abstract idea.
Claim 8 when viewed in combination or in ordered combination does not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter (see MPEP 2106.05(e)). Per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a), the claim as a whole does not provide an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Step 2B: the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, for reasons that are analogous to the discussion of additional elements at Prong 2.
Claim 1 recites an apparatus and claim 15 recites a vehicle system which do not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via a computer and processor. In other words, the apparatus and the system claims are no different from the method claim 9 in substance; the method claim recites the abstract idea while the apparatus and system claims recite generic computer components configured to implement the same abstract idea. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 15 recite a processor, sensor, diagnostic apparatus, battery which are not particular devices. They are merely tools used to perform the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-6 add limitations which are merely data gathering and mathematical calculation, insignificant extra solution merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claim 7 adds a limitation which is data merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claims 9-12 add limitations which are merely data gathering and mathematical calculation, insignificant extra solution merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claims 13 and 14 add limitations which are data gathering merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
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.
(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 1, 2, 8-10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) being anticipated by Kwak et al. (USPAP. 20230384392)(hereinafter “Kwak”).
Regarding claim 8, and similar claims 1 and 15, Kwak discloses a vehicle battery diagnostic method performed by a processor based on a plurality of cell voltages measured by a voltage sensor, the battery diagnostic method comprising:
monitoring the plurality of cell voltages (Pars. 23, 66: collect cell data from sensors connected to a plurality of battery cells included in battery. Par. 24: sensor connected to the battery 110 measure cell voltage, cell current, temperature or the like from a plurality of battery cells);
determining whether a cell voltage deviation satisfies a voltage deviation diagnosis start condition (Par. 24: he battery management system 120 may receive data measured by the sensor at predetermined time intervals, and may acquire a difference between the data measured by the sensor according to the time interval, as cell data. Therefore, the cell data may include a difference in cell voltage, a difference in cell current, a difference in temperature, or a combination thereof, measured by the sensor at predetermined time intervals; Also see Pars. 67-70);
determining, based on the cell voltage deviation satisfying the voltage deviation diagnosis start condition, whether a cell voltage is within a normal voltage range (Par. 25: determine if abnormal using the abnormal fault model; also see Pars. 47, 67-80, and 97-99);
and determining, based on a determination result, whether a presence of a voltage deviation in abnormal cell voltage or normal cell voltage (Pars. 25, 69, 70, and 97-99: determine if abnormal using the abnormal fault model).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Kwak discloses the processor is configured to, based on the cell voltage deviation being equal to or greater than a preset reference voltage deviation, determine whether the cell voltage is within the normal voltage range (determine if abnormal using the abnormal fault model: Pars. 25, 69, 70, 97-99).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Kwak discloses wherein the processor is configured to, based on (i) a minimum cell voltage exceeding a lower limit threshold voltage or (ii) a maximum cell voltage being less than an upper limit threshold voltage, determine that the cell voltage is within the normal voltage range (see Pars. 98 and 99 for predetermined reference range).
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.
Claims 4, 5, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak and Kim et al. (KR 20210048810 A) (hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claims 4, 5, 11, and 12, Kwak discloses wherein the processor is configured to, based on (i) the cell voltage does not satisfying the normal voltage range (Pars. 25, 69, 70, 97) and (ii) based on a determination that the cell voltage deviation satisfying the voltage deviation diagnosis start condition is maintained at or greater than deviation (see Pars. 97-99 and 101-103); but not “at or greater than a preset first reference time (claims 4 and 11)”/ “at or greater than a preset first reference time (claims 5 and 12). Kwak discloses determine occurrence of the voltage deviation within the battery (Pars. 97-99, 101-103: a degree of deterioration of battery cell can be determined when a difference between a correlation coefficient obtained between the battery cell and other battery cells).
Kim teaches based on a determination that the cell voltage deviation satisfying the voltage deviation diagnosis start condition is maintained at or greater than deviation at a first and second preset first reference time” (Kim: Abstract; Pages 3, 4, and 8, votlage deviation in different cycles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filling the Application to modify Kwak's invention using Kim's invention to arrive at the claimed invention specified in claims 4, 5, 11, and 12 to diagnosing a degree of deterioration of a battery capable of accurately and quickly diagnosing the degree of deterioration of a plurality of battery cells. (Kim: Abstract and page 2, Technical field, Page 5, first full Paragraph).
Claims 4, 5, 11, and 12 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak and Sung et al. (hereinafter “Sung”)( WO-2023063625-A1).
Regarding claims 4, 5, 11, and 12, Kwak discloses wherein the processor is configured to, based on (i) the cell voltage does not satisfying the normal voltage range (Pars. 25, 69, 70, 97) and (ii) based on a determination that the cell voltage deviation satisfying the voltage deviation diagnosis start condition is maintained at or greater than deviation (see Pars. 97-99 and 101-103); but not “at or greater than a preset first reference time (claims 4 and 11)”/ “at or greater than a preset first reference time (claims 5 and 12). Kwak discloses determine occurrence of the voltage deviation within the battery (Pars. 97-99, 101-103: a degree of deterioration of battery cell can be determined when a difference between a correlation coefficient obtained between the battery cell and other battery cells).
Sung teaches based on a determination that the cell voltage deviation satisfying the voltage deviation diagnosis start condition is maintained at or greater than deviation at a first and second preset first reference time” (Sung: Abstract; Page 6 time-dependent change in voltage of the battery cell monitoring. The voltage behavior of the battery cell B .sub.j represents the average of the voltages of the battery cell B .sub.j sequentially detected a predetermined number of times over the relaxation time Δt from time point t .sub.A to time point t .sub.B . The relaxation time Δt may be a predetermined multiple of the time interval for detecting the voltage of the battery cell B .sub.j . For example, the relaxation time Δt is 60 seconds, and the voltage of the battery cell B .sub.j may be sequentially detected a total of 600 times at intervals of 0.1 seconds. Accordingly, the voltage behavior of each of the plurality of battery cells B .sub.1 to B .sub.N with respect to the idle period from the time point t .sub.A to the time point t .sub.B may be determined. Equation 1 below is an example of a function used to calculate the voltage behavior of the battery cell B .sub.j among the plurality of battery cells B .sub.1 to B .sub.N).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filling the Application to modify Kwak's invention using Sung's invention to arrive at the claimed invention specified in claims 4, 5, 11, and 12 to take appropriate protective measures to prevent dangerous issues such as explosion or ignition of a battery cell due to a minute short circuit (Page 3: Advantageous Effects).
Claims 6, 7, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak and Guillan et al. (WO 2021219649) (hereinafter “Guillan”).
Regarding claim 6 and similar claim 13, Kwak discloses everything as applied above. However, Kwak does not explicitly disclose “wherein the processor is configured to, based on the voltage deviation occuring in the abnormal cell voltage and the normal cell voltage, limit output power of the battery according to various power limits”.
Guillan teaches “wherein the processor is configured to, based on the voltage deviation occuring in the abnormal cell voltage and the normal cell voltage, limit output power of the battery according to various power limits” (Abstract, Page 3: limiting power setpoint or power transferring or outputting from the battery and Page 6, first full Paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filling the Application to modify Kwak's invention using Guillan's invention to arrive at the claimed invention specified in claims 5 and 14 to reduce costs. energy and / or generate revenue at customer sites, for example by reductions in raw material loads or by balancing services in the network (page 5, second full Paragraph).
Regarding claim 7 and similar claim 14, Kwak and Guillan disclose everything as applied above. In addition, Guillan teaches wherein a power limit for the voltage deviation occurring in the normal cell voltage is greater than a power limit for the voltage deviation occurring in the abnormal cell voltage (Abstract, Page 3: limiting power setpoint or power transferring or outputting from the battery and Page 6, first full Paragraph).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jeon et al. (CN 117897627 A) (Date Published: 04-16-2024 which is after the effective filing date of the instant Applicant) discloses s a method and device for diagnosing battery monomer, the method comprises: applying an activation waveform having a predetermined frequency to the battery cell during activation by a device for diagnosing the battery cell; performing an electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) measurement in the charging section of the activation process; based on the EIS measurement, calculating the slope of the reactance of the battery cell in the voltage section of the predetermined range; and diagnosing the battery cell based on the slope (Abstract; Pages 3-5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-2718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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 M 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.
/PHUONG HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 June 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights