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 .
Response to Arguments
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the prior art combination of CN115575714A to Yang et al. (Yang) and 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) are not persuasive. In particular, applicant argues at page 6 regarding Carkhuff:
“Similarly, although Carkhuff discusses evaluating impedance deviation to assess whether cells remain "matched," Carkhuff fails to disclose which impedance components are analyzed, how multiple impedance parameters should be jointly evaluated, or how such impedance data could be used to localize fault positions within a battery pack.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Carkhuff, considered in light of Yang’s teachings in Fig. 1 pertaining to the parameters of ohmic impedance Rs and charge transfer impedance Rct on an EIS curve, would immediately suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that battery cells exhibiting values of ohmic impedance Rs and charge transfer impedance Rct that are close in value and do not different from each other beyond a threshold amount are “matched” cells, and that cells that do not exhibit values of ohmic impedance Rs and charge transfer impedance Rct that differ beyond a threshold amount are not “matched” cells. Moreover, Carkhuff specifically discloses that an impedance approach to identify cell mismatch may entail comparing impedance spectra of the battery cells and judging a degree of cell matching based on a threshold amount of deviation between the spectra. At least in view of these teachings, the examiner maintains that Carkhuff, when considered in light of the teachings of Yang, renders claims 1 and 7 obvious. The examiner notes that applicant’s analysis of Yang and Carkhuff focuses on the individual teachings of these references (see, e.g., page 6, second paragraph, first three sentences). However, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See, e.g., MPEP 2145.IV.
Applicant argues at page 7 that the proposed combination of Yang and Carkhuff is based on impermissible hindsight. In response to applicant’s remark that Yang does not utilize impedance results for diagnostic decision-making or fault localization, the examiner notes that at least Carkhuff explicitly discloses using impedance results for diagnostic decision-making or fault localization. In response to applicant remark that Carkhuff does not teach how impedance components should be selectively analyzed or how abnormal connection points can be spatially identified, the examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Carkhuff explicitly discloses that an impedance approach to identify cell mismatch may entail comparing impedance spectra of the battery cells and judging a degree of cell matching based on a threshold amount of deviation between the spectra. Further, the examiner notes that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. The examiner maintains that because the prior art combination of Yang and Carkhuff only considers knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and not knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, the combination is proper.
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.
Claim 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN115575714A to Yang et al. (Yang) in view of 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 claim 1, Yang discloses a method for detecting the consistency of a battery pack, wherein the battery pack comprises a plurality of cells or a plurality of parallel battery modules, connection points are arranged among the plurality of cells or the plurality of parallel battery modules (Yang, e.g. Fig. 5 and paragraphs 62-63, note in Fig. 5 battery pack in form of plurality of series-connected battery cells having connection points therebetween), and the method is based on an electrochemical workstation with auxiliary voltage measurements (Yang, e.g. Fig. 5 and paragraphs 62-63, note in Fig. 5 dashed box containing host computer and associated hardware for inputting a current into each battery cell and measuring the voltage response of each battery cell), and comprises the following steps:
detecting alternating current (AC) impedance spectra of the plurality of cells or the plurality of parallel battery modules simultaneously through the auxiliary voltage measurements on the basis that the electrochemical workstation applies AC signals with different frequencies and specific amplitudes to the battery pack (Yang, e.g. Fig. 5 and paragraphs 62-63, loop current signal and the response voltage signal of the lithium battery are collected synchronously through the signal collector; in view of the large number of lithium-ion batteries in the energy storage power station, multi-channel synchronous acquisition is adopted to collect the loop current signal and response voltage signal of each lithium battery separately, as shown in Figure 5; also see paragraphs 13-14, in step S2 convert the multi-frequency mixed non-standard sinusoidal excitation signal into a current signal, and act on the lithium battery, and in step S3 collecting the voltage response signal and the loop current signal of the lithium battery; also see paragraph 25, in step S3, the acquisition of the voltage response signal and loop current signal of the energy storage battery is multi-channel synchronous acquisition, that is, the voltage response signal and loop current signal of each energy storage battery are collected separately; the examiner notes that each current applied to a corresponding one of the batteries will necessarily comprise a specific amplitude); and
corresponding ohmic impedances and charge transfer impedances in the AC impedance spectra of the plurality of cells or the plurality of parallel battery modules impedance modulus of the voltage response signal and the loop current signal respectively, and then calculate the real part and the imaginary part, and in step S6 drawing a Nyquist diagram according to the real part and the imaginary part; the examiner notes that the Nyquist diagram of each battery cell will necessarily have characteristic values as shown in the EIS diagram of Fig. 1, such as ohmic impedance Rs and charge transfer impedance Rct).
Although Yang discloses obtaining corresponding ohmic impedances and charge transfer impedances in the AC impedance spectra of the plurality of cells, Yang is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing comparing the ohmic impedances and charge transfer impedances to determine the consistency of the battery pack. Further, Yang is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing then
determining that the consistency of the battery pack is normal when the ohmic impedances and the charge transfer impedances in all AC impedance spectra of the plurality of cells or the plurality of parallel battery modules all satisfy a preset condition, wherein the preset condition is that a difference in the charge transfer impedances is smaller than a first threshold and a difference in the ohmic impedances is smaller than a second threshold under the same AC signal; or
determining that the consistency of the battery pack is abnormal when the ohmic impedances and the charge transfer impedances in any AC impedance spectrum and other AC impedance spectra of the plurality of cells or the plurality of parallel battery modules do not satisfy a preset condition, wherein the preset condition is that a difference in the charge transfer impedances is smaller than a first threshold and a difference in the ohmic impedances is smaller than a second threshold under the same AC signal.
At the outset, the examiner notes that the “determining that the consistency of the battery pack” steps are expressed as contingent limitations in view of the recitation “when the ohmic impedances and the charge transfer impedances in all AC impedance spectra of the plurality of cells or the plurality of parallel battery modules all satisfy a preset condition” and the recitation “when the ohmic impedances and the charge transfer impedances in any AC impedance spectrum and other AC impedance spectra of the plurality of cells or the plurality of parallel battery modules do not satisfy a preset condition”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim therefore only requires one of these steps to be performed. See, e.g., MPEP 2111.04.II.
In closely related art, Carkhuff discloses that most battery safety and qualification standards require that a battery should be built using only matched cells, yet little attention is paid to ensure that all cells remain matched throughout the battery lifecycle (Carkhuff, e.g., page 6497, section I entitled Introduction). One of ordinary skill would understand that “matched” or “matching” cells in the context of Carkhuff’s disclosure means cells having electrical/electrochemical characteristics that are consistent with each other. Carkhuff discloses that an impedance approach to identify cell mismatch may entail comparing impedance spectra of the battery cells and judging a degree of cell matching based on a threshold amount of deviation between the spectra (e.g., ±0.5%) (Carkhuff, e.g., pages 6500-6501 and Fig. 6, section IV entitled Impedance Approach To Identify Cell Mismatch). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand from Figs. 6a-6d of Carkhuff that values of ohmic impedance Rs and charge transfer impedance Rct are clear indicators of whether a particular cell of the battery is matched or mismatched with other cells of the battery. In this regard, the examiner first notes that Fig. 1 of Yang discloses the parameters of ohmic impedance Rs and charge transfer impedance Rct on an EIS curve:
PNG
media_image1.png
481
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yang, Fig. 1
Figs. 6a-d of Carkhuff, duplicated below, shows impedance behavior of cells in different Li-ion batteries
PNG
media_image2.png
860
850
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figs. 6a-b of Carkhuff each show EIS curves for matched cells. One of ordinary skill in the art would immediately understand from Fig. 1 of Yang and Figs. 6a-b of Carkhuff that the matched cells exhibit values of ohmic impedance Rs and charge transfer impedance Rct that are close in value and do not different from each other beyond a threshold amount. Fig. 6d of Carkhuff shows EIS curves for six cells, will five of the cells being matched to each other, and one of the cells being unmatched to the five other cells. As with Figs. 6a-b, one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately understand from Fig. 1 of Yang and Figs. 6d of Carkhuff that the matched cells exhibit values of ohmic impedance Rs and charge transfer impedance Rct that are close in value and do not different from each other beyond a threshold amount, whereas the ohmic impedance Rs and charge transfer impedance Rct of an unmatched cell differ significantly from the corresponding values of the matched cells. At least in view of Carkhuff’s teaching that an impedance approach to identify cell mismatch may entail comparing impedance spectra of the battery cells and judging a degree of cell matching based on a threshold amount of deviation between the spectra, and in view of the ohmic impedance Rs and charge transfer impedance Rct disclosed by Yang which are similarly present in the impedance spectra of Carkhuff’s examples of Figs. 6a-d and clearly provide reference points for judging the degree of match between impedance spectra of battery cells, 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 Yang to include comparing the ohmic impedances and charge transfer impedances to determine the consistency of the battery pack, and then determining that the consistency of the battery pack is normal when the ohmic impedances and the charge transfer impedances in all AC impedance spectra of the plurality of cells or the plurality of parallel battery modules all satisfy a preset condition, wherein the preset condition is that a difference in the charge transfer impedances is smaller than a first threshold and a difference in the ohmic impedances is smaller than a second threshold under the same AC signal. In this way, in the manner disclosed by Carkhuff, it can be ensured that all cells of a battery remain suitable matched throughout the battery lifecycle.
Although not necessary for the rejection of claim 1 in view of the contingent limitations discussed above, the examiner notes that combination of Yang in view of Carkhuff further discloses, by direct implication, the claim 1 recitation:
determining that the consistency of the battery pack is abnormal when the ohmic impedances and the charge transfer impedances in any AC impedance spectrum and other AC impedance spectra of the plurality of cells or the plurality of parallel battery modules do not satisfy a preset condition, wherein the preset condition is that a difference in the charge transfer impedances is smaller than a first threshold and a difference in the ohmic impedances is smaller than a second threshold under the same AC signal.
Claim 7 recites a device for detecting the consistency of a battery pack, wherein the battery pack comprises a plurality of cells or a plurality of parallel battery modules, connection points are arranged among the plurality of cells or the plurality of parallel battery modules, and the device is based on an electrochemical workstation with auxiliary voltage measurements, and comprises a processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute the following program modules stored in a memory:
a detection unit, configured to simultaneously detect AC impedance spectra of the plurality of cells or the plurality of parallel battery modules through the auxiliary voltage measurements on the basis that the electrochemical workstation applies AC signals with different frequencies and specific amplitudes to the battery pack; and
a processing unit, configured to compare corresponding ohmic impedances and charge transfer impedances in the AC impedance spectra of the plurality of cells or the plurality of parallel battery modules to determine the consistency of the battery pack;
wherein the processing unit is configured to:
determine that the consistency of the battery pack is normal when the ohmic impedances and the charge transfer impedances in all AC impedance spectra of the plurality of cells or the plurality of parallel battery modules all satisfy a preset condition, wherein the preset condition is that a difference in the charge transfer impedances is smaller than a first threshold, and a difference in the ohmic impedances is smaller than a second threshold under the same AC signal;
or
determine that the consistency of the battery pack is abnormal when the ohmic impedances and the charge transfer impedances in any AC impedance spectrum and other AC impedance spectra of the plurality of cells or the plurality of parallel battery modules do not satisfy a preset condition, wherein the preset condition is that a difference in the charge transfer impedances is smaller than a first threshold and a difference in the ohmic impedances is smaller than a second threshold under the same AC signal,
and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Yang in view of Carkhuff for reasons analogous to those discussed above in connection with claim 1, noting that Yang’s signal output and acquisition is computer-implemented (Yang, e.g., Fig. 5 and paragraphs 62-63), and further noting that Carkhuff’s cell matching determination is implemented in a processor-based BMS (see, e.g., page 6501, Fig. 7, section V entitled Impedance-Based BMS).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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 2858
Prosecution Insights