This Office action is in response to application filed on 04/09/2024.
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 .
Abstract Objection
The Abstract of the disclosure filed on 4/09/2024 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The abstract must be as concise as the disclosure permits. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title or in the claims body. See MPEP § 608.01(b) and 37 C.F.R. 1.438. The purpose of the abstract is to enable the Office and the public generally to determine quickly from a cursory inspection the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. See MPEP § 608.01(b) and 37 C.F.R. 1.72.
Appropriate correction is required.
Note: The abstract should be labeled with “CURRENT AMENDMENT” if it’s amended.
References Listed in Specification
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper. (See specification ¶ 22). Therefore, unless the references have been listed on an information disclosure statement or have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5, 7, 10, and 12-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 language “wherein a voltage is measured” lacks antecedent basis. Should it read “wherein the at least one of voltage” as recited in claim 1 line 6?
Claim 5 is objected for the same reason as in claim 4.
Claim 7 language “wherein electrolyte consumption” should read “wherein the electrolyte consumption”.
Claim 10 language “a battery cell” should read “the battery cell”.
Claims 12-15 language “the sensor” should read “the sensor system”.
Claim 12 language “the voltage is measured” lacks antecedent basis. Should it read “the at least one of voltage” as recited in claim 11 line 5?
Claim 14 language “an electrolyte consumption” should read “the electrolyte consumption”.
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 as the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon,
or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 20, 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 claim for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claims are methods and apparatus which are the statutory categories of invention.
Regarding claim 1, continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test, the limitations (see Italic font below) of:
The limitation “charging the battery cell; measuring concurrently a state of charge of the battery cell, and at least one of voltage and electrolyte consumption while charging the battery cell; recording a set of data for the battery cell, each member of the set of data comprising the state of charge of the battery cell, and at least one of voltage and electrolyte consumption; comparing the set of data for the battery cell to a historical database of measurements from other battery cells characteristic of a type associated with the battery cell; and predicting a probability of thermal run-away of the battery cell based on comparison of set of data for the battery cell to the historical database of measurements from other battery cells characteristic of the type associated with the battery cell” that falls into the grouping of mental processes. Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception under Step 2A - Prong One of the test.
Regarding claim 20, continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test, the limitations (see Italic font below) of:
The limitation “charging the battery cell; measuring concurrently at least one of voltage and electrolyte consumption, and a state of charge while charging the battery cell; recording a set of data for the battery cell, each member of the set of data comprising at least one of voltage and electrolyte consumption, and the state of charge of the battery cell; comparing the set of data for the battery cell to a historical database of measurements from other battery cells characteristic of a type associated with the battery cell; predicting a probability of thermal run-away of the battery cell based on comparison of set of data for the battery cell to the historical database of measurements from other battery cells characteristic of the type associated with the battery cell; removing the battery cell from a battery in response to the probability being greater than a predetermined threshold; and replacing the battery cell with another battery cell” that falls into the grouping of mental processes.
Therefore, the claims recite 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. In particular, the additional elements recited in the claims (see above limitations in non-Italic font under Prong-One are pasted below):
Regarding claim 1, “A method of thermal run-away monitoring of a battery cell, comprising: charging the battery cell; measuring concurrently a state of charge of the battery cell, and at least one of voltage and electrolyte consumption while charging the battery cell; recording a set of data for the battery cell, each member of the set of data comprising the state of charge of the battery cell, and at least one of voltage and electrolyte consumption,” where measuring state of charge, voltage, and electrolyte consumption are mere data gathering for the battery cell and are insignificantly extra-solution activities and the charging battery cell which is storing energy is insignificantly extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Recording a set of data is recited at a high-level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 20: “A method of thermal run-away monitoring of a battery cell, comprising: charging the battery cell; measuring concurrently at least one of voltage and electrolyte consumption, and a state of charge while charging the battery cell; recording a set of data for the battery cell, each member of the set of data comprising at least one of voltage and electrolyte consumption, and the state of charge of battery cell,” where measuring state of charge, voltage, and electrolyte consumption are mere data gathering for the battery cell and are insignificantly extra-solution activities and the charging battery cell which is storing energy is insignificantly extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Recording a set of data is recited at a high-level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Accordingly, the above additional limitations in claims 1 and 20, 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, claims 1 and 20 do 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:
recite extra-solution activity (i.e., mere data gathering), adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), i.e., a method of thermal run-away monitoring of a battery cell.
The claims, when considered as a whole, do not provide significantly more
under Step 2B of the test. Based on the analysis, the claims are 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.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20, that are also directed to the non-statutory subject matter because:
they just extend the abstract idea of the independent claims by additional limitations that under the broadest interpretation in light of the specification, cover performance of the limitations using mathematical concepts, and
the additional elements recited in the dependent claims, when considered individually and in combination, refers to extra-solution activity and at a high level of generality, i.e., measuring (claims 4-5, 7-8, and 12-18), and used machine learning to facilitate the application of the abstract idea (claims 2-3, 6, 9-10, 17, and 19), 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation under AIA of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action.
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 11, 14, and 20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 2018/0062210 of Kim in view of US 2019/0033397 of Karner et al., hereinafter Karner.
As per Claim 1, Kim teaches a method of thermal run-away monitoring of a battery cell, comprising:
charging the battery cell ( charging current [0038], [0042], [0044] );
measuring concurrently a state of charge of the battery cell and at least one of voltage and electrolyte consumption while charging the battery cell ( Fig 5, S100: obtain SOC, voltage, [0037]-[0039], [0075]. Fig 4 shows leak detection considered “electrolyte consumption”, Fig 5 shows S110: detect cell failure considered “electrolyte consumption” [0076] ); and
recording a set of data for the battery cell, each member of the set of data comprising the state of charge of the battery cell, and at least one of voltage ( Fig 5, S100: obtain SOC, voltage, considered “members of the set of data” ) and electrolyte consumption ( Fig 4 shows leak detection considered “electrolyte consumption” stored);
Kim does not explicitly teach comparing the set of data for the battery cell to a historical database of measurements from other battery cells characteristic of a type associated with the battery cell; and predicting a probability of thermal run-away of the battery cell based on comparison of set of data for the battery cell to the historical database of measurements from other battery cells characteristic of the type associated with the battery cell.
Karner teaches comparing the set of data for the battery cell to a historical database of measurements from other battery cells characteristic of a type associated with the battery cell ( compare the last measured data to the most recent measured data, see [0044], [0065], [0080] ); and
predicting a probability of thermal run-away of the battery cell based on comparison of set of data for the battery cell to the historical database of measurements from other battery cells characteristic of the type associated with the battery cell (battery management system “BMS” 100 made predictions about comparisons of the future condition of the battery, see [0080] ).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teaching of Kim to compare the data with the previous data and to identify failing batteries as taught by Karner that would provide alerts or notices for maintaining and securing such batteries (Karner, [0067]).
As per Claim 2, Kim in view of Karner teaches the method of claim 1, Kim teaches comprising in response to the probability being greater than a predetermined threshold (the probability “cell failure, yes” in Fig 4 is compared), but Kim does not teach removing the battery cell from a battery in response to the probability. Karner teaches removing the battery cell from a battery in response to the probability ( a battery 100/200 comprises one battery cell, replacing a battery, see [0052], i.e., identify failing “probability” for maintaining, see [0066], or deplete battery and replaced, see [0025] ). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teaching of Kim to identify battery failing and to replace the battery as taught by Karner that would facilitate securing such batteries (Karner, [0067]).
As per Claim 3, Kim in view of Karner teaches the method of claim 2, Karner further comprising replacing the battery cell with another battery cell ( it is noted replacing a battery meaning replacing or installing with another battery). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teaching of Kim to replace the battery as taught by Karner that would facilitate securing such batteries (Karner, [0067]).
As per Claim 7, Kim in view of Karner teaches the method of claim 1, Kim teaches wherein electrolyte consumption is measured, and wherein the electrolyte consumption is measured a plurality of times ( the electrolyte consumption “leak detection” measured at multiple times as shown in Fig 4, i.e., battery leak determined in different cases, the first/second concentrations S140, see Fig 3, [0067], [0071] ).
As per Claim 8, Kim in view of Karner teaches the method of claim 7, Kim teaches wherein the electrolyte consumption is measured at least 3 times ( “leak detection” measured at least three times, i.e., cases 2, 4, 6, 8 as shown in Fig 4).
Claim 11 is rejected for the same rationale as in claim 1.
As per Claim 14, Kim in view of Karner teaches the apparatus of claim 11, Kim teaches wherein the sensor is configured to measure an electrolyte consumption (Fig 4 shows leak detection “electrolyte consumption”, Fig 5 S110: detect cell failure “electrolyte consumption”), wherein the electrolyte consumption is measured at a plurality of states of charge ( Fig 5, S100-S110 ).
Claim 20 is rejected for the same rationale as in claims 1-3.
Claims 4-5 and 12-13 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kim in view of Karner and further Becker et al., hereinafter Becker, US 2017/0033572.
As per Claim 4, Kim in view of Karner teaches the method of claim 1, the combination does not teach wherein a voltage is measured between an anode of the battery cell and a cathode of the battery cell, and wherein the voltage is measured a plurality of times. Becker teaches a voltage is measured between an anode of the battery cell and a cathode of the battery cell, and wherein the voltage is measured a plurality of times ( measured voltage using sensing circuit “voltmeter”, Fig 1 shows negative terminal 310 attached to anode 320 and positive terminal 360 attached to cathode 360, see [0027] ). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kim and Karner measuring voltage between anode and cathode as taught by Becker that would facilitate measuring the difference of voltage between anode and cathode (Becker, [0027]).
As per Claim 5, Kim in view of Karner and Becker teaches the method of claim 4, Becker teaches wherein the voltage is measured at least 3 times ( voltage measurement 3 times, see [0007] ). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kim, Karner, and Becker measuring voltage three times that would facilitate measuring more accurate, i.e., when readings (Becker, [0027]).
As per Claim 12, Kim in view of Karner teaches the apparatus of claim 11, Kim teaches wherein the sensor is configured to measure a voltage, and wherein the voltage is measured at a plurality of states of charge (Fig 5, S100). The combination does not teach measuring a voltage between an anode of the battery cell and a cathode of the battery cell. Becker teaches measuring a voltage between an anode of the battery cell and a cathode of the battery cell ( measured voltage using sensing circuit “voltmeter”, Fig 1 shows negative terminal 310 attached to anode 320 and positive terminal 360 attached to cathode 360, see [0027] ). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kim and Karner measuring voltage between anode and cathode as taught by Becker that would facilitate measuring the difference of voltage between anode and cathode (Becker, [0027]).
As per Claim 13, Kim in view of Karner and Becker teaches the apparatus of claim 12, Kim teaches wherein the sensor is configured to measure a temperature proximate the battery cell (Fig 5, S100, [0075]).
Claim 6 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kim in view of Karner, Becker, and further US patent 4,648,279 of Milsch et al., hereinafter Milsch.
As per Claim 6, Kim in view of Karner and Becker teaches the method of claim 5, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the at least 3 times are substantially equally spaced apart from one another. Milsch teaches the at least 3 times are substantially equally spaced apart from one another ( Fig 3 shows voltages measured at three periods, i.e., a period Ts has one cycle, there are 3 cycles “periods” equally spaced apart one another, col 8 lines 25-40.). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kim, Karner, and Becker measuring voltage at three equally period as taught by Milsch that would facilitate providing three full, repetitive up-and-down motions, i.e., more specific information about the wave’s properties.
Claim 9 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kim in view of Karner, and further US patent 4,648,279 of Milsch et al., hereinafter Milsch.
As per Claim 9, Kim in view of Karner teaches the method of claim 8, Kim in view of Karner does not teach wherein the at least 3 times are substantially equally spaced apart from one another. Milsch teaches the at least 3 times are substantially equally spaced apart from one another ( Fig 3 shows voltages measured at three periods, i.e., a period Ts has one cycle, there are 3 cycles “periods” equally spaced apart one another, col 8 lines 25-40.). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kim, and Karner measuring at three equally period as taught by Milsch that would facilitate providing three full, repetitive up-and-down motions, i.e., more specific information about the wave’s properties.
Claim 10 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kim in view of Karner, and further US 2023/0155162 of Wiegman.
As per Claim 10, Kim in view of Karner teaches a battery cell monitored using the method of claim 1 (Kim, [0045]), Kim in view of Karner does not teach an aircraft battery. Wiegman teaches an aircraft battery (see [0013]). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kim and Karner having an aircraft battery as taught by Wiegman that would facilitate monitoring the status of the battery cells in the aircraft (Wiegman, [0047]).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kim in view of Karner, and further Huang et al., hereinafter Huang, TW I230250 B.
As per Claim 15, Kim in view of Karner teaches the apparatus of claim 14, the combination does not teach wherein the sensor comprises a non-contact electrolyte level sensor. Huang teaches the sensor comprises a non-contact electrolyte level sensor ( the electrolyte 104 of the sensor 100. It is noted electrolyte is a non-contact, page 2 para 1 last 4 lines and first 4 lines of para 2). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kim and Karner having a non-contact electrolyte level sensor as taught by Huang that would obtain a precise electronic signal, thereby improving the accuracy, sensitivity and detection stability of the sensor.
As per Claim 16, Kim in view of Karner and Huang teaches the apparatus of claim 15, Huang further teaches the non-contact electrolyte level sensor comprises at least one of a sonar sensor and an optical sensor (It is noted a non-contact electrolyte level sensor can be an optical sensor “non-contact”). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kim and Karner having a non-contact electrolyte level sensor as an optical sensor as taught by Huang that would improve the accuracy, sensitivity and detection stability of the sensor.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kim in view of Karner and further Scheler et al., hereinafter Scheler, US 2025/0128638.
As per Claim 17, Kim in view of Karner teaches the apparatus of claim 11, Kim teaches further comprising replacing the battery cell with another battery cell ( a battery 100/200 comprises one battery cell, replacing a battery, see [0052]. It is noted replacing a battery meaning replacing or installing with another battery ). Kim does not teach a gantry configured to remove the battery cell from a battery. Scheler teaches a gantry configured to remove the battery cell from a battery (a robot is a gantry robot includes a gantry arm with lifting tool to remove the battery, see [0006], [0013]). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kim and Karner having a gantry to remove the battery as taught by Scheler that would facilitate removing the battery from the aircraft (Scheler, [0006]).
As per Claim 19, Kim in view of Karner teaches the apparatus of claim 11 (Kim, Fig 4), the combination does not teach an aircraft battery servicing machine. Scheler teaches an aircraft battery servicing machine (see [0001], [0006]). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kim and Karner having a battery aircraft gantry robot as taught by Scheler that would facilitate removing the battery from the aircraft (Scheler, [0006]).
Claim 18 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kim in view of Karner and further US 2017/0357372 of Morimoto.
As per Claim 18, Kim in view of Karner teaches the apparatus of claim 11, the combination does not teach further comprising a control panel. Morimoto teaches an apparatus comprises a control panel (Fig 1, touch panel 31 considered “a control panel”, [0031]). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kim and Karner having a touch panel as taught by Morimoto that would facilitate repeating the touch many times, then the sensitivity of touch panel 31 may be adjusted (Morimoto, [0045]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2024/0413459 of Yao et al (Battery and electrical apparatus).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to LYNDA DINH whose telephone number is (571) 270-
7150. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10 AM - 6 PM ET.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LYNDA DINH/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights