Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Current application, US Application No. 18/638,040, is filed on 04/17/2024.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the application filed on 04/17/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In par. [0009 and 0016], the phrase “the battery unit includes a plurality of battery units” is illogical.
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.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. As per claims 7 and 14, the limitation “the battery unit includes a plurality of battery units” are ambiguous because the limitation is illogical. The specification recites “battery pack”, “cells”, “cell arrays” sub-assemblies” or “battery modules” in the specification (see specification – [0002]) and also recites “battery unit” in numerous locations, but fails provide structural description of the “battery unit” or the “battery units”. It is not clear how the battery unit is related to the other battery names, e.g. battery pack, cells, etc., and how the battery unit can include the plurality of the same battery units.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. 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.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
“A method for diagnosing a health of a battery pack of a vehicle, (1.A) comprising:
obtaining a vehicle dynamics data for the vehicle during a time period in which an impact event occurs at the vehicle; (1.B.1)
obtaining a battery unit acceleration data for a battery unit of the vehicle during the time period; (1.B.2)
determining an inertial load on the battery unit from the vehicle dynamics data and the battery unit acceleration data; (1.C)
comparing the inertial load to a threshold determined using a virtual model of the battery unit to determine a health status of the battery unit; (1.D)
and performing a remedial action for the battery unit based on the health status. (1.E)”.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (Process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion).
For example, highlighted limitations/steps (1.C)– (1.D) are treated by the Examiner as belonging to Mathematical Concept grouping or a combination of Mathematical Concept and Mental Process groupings as the limitations include Mathematical Calculations/Algorithms, or show Mathematical Relationship combined with optional Mental evaluations/judgements.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements: (Side Note: duplicated elements are not repeated)
In Claim 1: “A method for diagnosing a health of a battery pack of a vehicle”, “obtaining a vehicle dynamics data for the vehicle during a time period in which an impact event occurs at the vehicle”, “obtaining a battery unit acceleration data for a battery unit of the vehicle during the time period” and “performing a remedial action for the battery unit based on the health status”;
In Claim 6: “at least one of (i) sending a signal indicating the health of the battery unit; (ii) sending the signal instructing an operator of the battery unit”;
As per claim 1, the additional element in the preamble “A method for diagnosing a health of a battery pack of a vehicle” is not a meaningful limitation because the preamble simply links the method with an intended purpose which can be also interpreted as an abstract idea, i.e. diagnosing a health of a battery pack of a vehicle.
The limitations/steps “obtaining a vehicle dynamics data for the vehicle during a time period in which an impact event occurs at the vehicle” and “obtaining a battery unit acceleration data for a battery unit of the vehicle during the time period” represent standard data collection steps in the art and only add insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception.
The limitation/step “performing a remedial action for the battery unit based on the health status” represents a standard follow-on action after assessing the battery health status and is recited in a high level generality which is treated as trivial, e.g. simply creating a mitigation plan, which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception.
As per claim 6, the limitations/steps “(i) sending a signal indicating the health of the battery unit; (ii) sending the signal instructing an operator of the battery unit” represent standard result report step in the art and only add insignificant extra solution ac to the judicial exception.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements as a whole do not reflect an improvement to the computer technology or other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. No particular machine or real-world transformation are claimed. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Under Step 2B analysis, the above claims fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as shown in the prior art of record.
The limitations/elements listed as additional elements above are well understood, routine and conventional steps/elements in the art according to the prior art of record. (See Erha, Xu, Raff, Huang and others in the list of prior art cited below)
Claims 1-7, therefore, are not patent eligible.
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 1-3, 6-10, 13-17 and 19-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erhart (US 20250170897 A1), hereinafter ‘Erha’ in view of Xu (Xu, Yalong, Fei Liu, Jiale Guo, Meng Li, and Bing Han. "Mechanical properties and thermal runaway study of automotive lithium-ion power batteries." Ionics 28, no. 1 (2022): 107-116), hereinafter ‘Xu’.
As per claim 1, Erha discloses
A method for diagnosing a health of a battery pack of a vehicle, (a method of … evaluating a mechanical impact on a battery pack in … vehicle, battery pack [abs], battery system, monitor the state of the battery cell, state of health ‘SOH’ [0031]) comprising:
obtaining a vehicle dynamics data for the vehicle during a time period in which an impact event occurs at the vehicle; (detecting … condition data determining an underbody impact using a … sensor, determining a degree of severity, including a plurality of levels, of the underbody impact based on … condition data [0005], acceleration of a vehicle [0051])
obtaining a battery unit acceleration data for a battery unit of the vehicle during the time period; (an acceleration of the battery module that can be detected by the acceleration sensor [0042], battery pack, acceleration sensors [0067, Fig. 1])
determining an inertial load on the battery unit from the vehicle dynamics data and the battery unit acceleration data; (evaluation unit is adapted to detect an impact on the traction battery depending on a pressure signal of an air pressure in the chamber [0041], Measurement information is determined using the pressure measurement device, wherein the measurement information relates to a pressure generated by a load acting on the protective plate [0043],mechanical load events [0045], mechanical stress and thus the potential consequences for the battery pack [0046], second sensor, such as an accelerometer [0047], punctual load, point load [0047], condition data … can be used to determine the mechanical load acting on the battery pack, structure-forming components … essential … for its, i.e. battery, mechanical stability, arrangement, connection with other components (e.g., the vehicle), or protection, advantageous to gain knowledge of a mechanical load acting on these structure-forming components [0058])
comparing fault severity of the event of a vehicle underbody or a battery pack to a threshold to determine a health status of the battery unit; (the degree of severity describes the severity of the mechanical stress and thus the potential consequences for the battery pack [0046], second sensor, such as an accelerometer [0047], fault report, degree of severity, threshold values [0062-0064], battery pack … determining a degree of severity … a plurality of levels [0065] )
However, Erha is silent regarding comparing the inertial load to a threshold determined using a virtual model of the battery unit to determine a health status of the battery unit.
Xu discloses comparing the mechanical stress of the battery unit to a threshold determined using a virtual model of the battery unit to determine a health status of the battery unit. (mechanical stress of … batteries [abs], mechanical response of crushing velocity to battery pack, curve, inertial force of battery [pg. 113 left col par. 2. Fig. 12], Fbattery is the sum of the inertia force and reaction force of the battery pack at the collision contact point, acceleration, strain curve obtained in the battery pack excursion experiment [pg. 113 right col par 1-3, Fig, 14], mechanical-electrochemical-thermal coupling model [pg. 10 right col par. 1, Fig. 8], mechanical model, maximum strain failure criterion, strain threshold for triggering a short circuit [pg. 111 right col par. 1-3]).
Xu is in the same vehicle battery status diagnosing art as Erha.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Erha in view of Xu to compare the inertial load to a threshold determined using a virtual model of the battery unit to determine a health status of the battery unit with a rationale for promoting a safe operation of the battery in the vehicle (see Erha - protecting the batteries from operating outside their safe operating area, state of safety ‘SOS’ [0031]).
As per claim 8, Erha discloses
A system for diagnosing a health of a battery unit of a vehicle, (evaluating a mechanical impact on a battery pack in … vehicle, battery pack [abs], battery system, monitor the state of the battery cell, state of health ‘SOH’ [0031], devices [0023], battery management system [0029], BMS [0031], apparatus [0042]), comprising:
a vehicle dynamics sensor for measuring vehicle dynamics data for the vehicle during a time period in which an impact event occurs at the vehicle; (detecting first condition data determining an underbody impact using a first sensor [0005],
vehicle sensor data … for detecting an impact [0041])
an accelerometer for obtaining a battery unit acceleration data for the battery unit during the time period; (acceleration sensor [0042], accelerometer [0047])
a processor (one or more processors [0024])
Erha in view of Xu disclose the remaining limitations as shown claim 1 above.
As per claim 15, Erha discloses
A vehicle, (vehicle 100 [0067, FI. 1]) comprising:
a battery pack; (a battery pack [abs, 0002, 0005])
a vehicle dynamics sensor for measuring vehicle dynamics data for the vehicle during a time period in which an impact event occurs at the vehicle; (detecting first condition data determining an underbody impact using a first sensor [0005], vehicle sensor data … for detecting an impact [0041])
an accelerometer for obtaining a battery unit acceleration data for a battery module of the battery pack during the time period; (acceleration sensor [0042], accelerometer [0047])
a processor(one or more processors [0024]))
Erha in view of Xu disclose the remaining limitations as shown claim 1 above.
As per claims 2, 9 and 16, Erha and Xu disclose claims 1, 8 and 15 set forth above.
Erha further discloses simulating the impact event using the virtual model to determine the threshold. (vehicle … model was built for crash simulation tests [pg. 107 right col par. 1], simulation analysis, modeling and simulation, established failure criteria, simulation … the stretch cutoff stress … is brought in as a criterion, failure threshold [pg. 109 left col par. 2 – pg. 110 left col par. 1, Fig. 5-6])
As per claims 3, 10 and 17, Erha and Xu disclose claims 2, 9 and 16 set forth above.
Erha further discloses simulating the impact event offline (comparison between simulation and experiment [pg. 110 left col par. 1], implying simulation of the impact event is offline) and determining the health status online. (battery management system ‘BMS’… monitoring their status, ‘SOH’, status of power ‘SOP’ [0031-0033], mechanical load events … underbody events, BMS, combination of the first sensor and the second sensor makes it possible to determine the underbody impact on the one hand and its severity on the other [0045-0047])
As per claims 6, 13 and 20, Erha and Xu disclose claims 1, 8 and 15 set forth above.
Erha further discloses performing the remedial action (degree of severity, take adequate measures [0046], in case of abnormal operation state … battery pack … disconnected [0040]) further comprises at least one of:
(i) sending a signal indicating the health of the battery unit; (warning and/or damage signal [0043])
(ii) sending the signal instructing an operator of the battery unit; (BMS … monitoring … state, reporting that data [0031, 0039], fault report [0062, 0074, claim 11], for a driver assistance system [0052])
(iii) shutting down the battery unit; (battery module, battery cell, BMS … manage … battery module … protecting the batteries from operating outside … safe operating area [0028-0031], disconnected [0040])
and (iv) shutting down a battery pack. (battery pack … disconnected [0040])
As per claims 7 and 14, Erha and Xu disclose claims 1 and 8 set forth above.
Erha further discloses wherein the battery unit includes a plurality of battery units, (battery module, battery cell [0028-0031]) further comprising obtaining the battery unit acceleration data for each of the plurality of battery units, (an acceleration of the battery module that can be detected by the acceleration sensor [0042], battery pack, acceleration sensors [0067, Fig. 1])
determining the health status for each of the plurality of battery units based on the respective battery unit acceleration data (BMS, monitoring … state, ‘SOH’
detect an impact on the traction battery [0041], MBS, acceleration sensor, acceleration of the battery module, inferring … state [0042])
and performing the remedial action for each battery unit based on the health status of the respective battery unit. (take adequate measures [0046], in case of abnormal operation state … battery pack … disconnected [0040]).
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erha and Xu in view of Raffler (Raffler, Marco, and et al. "Influence of loading rate and out of plane direction dependence on deformation and electro-mechanical failure behavior of a lithium-ion pouch cell." Journal of Energy Storage 56 (2022): 105906), hereinafter ‘Raff’.
As per claims 4, 11 and 18, Erha and Xu disclose claims 1, 8 and 15 set forth above.
Erha further discloses implying determination of the battery health based on a magnitude of the inertial load and a direction of the inertial load. (see Erha - magnitude and/or frequency of deflections of the second condition, e.g. severity of impact, data with the reference signal [0062-0064]) and
Xu also implies determining the health based on a magnitude of the inertial load and a direction of the inertial load. (see Xu - mechanical model, body force [pg. 111 right col par. 1, Fig. 8], side comment: body force vector implies to include both magnitude and direction of inertial load), but the combined prior art is not explicit on determining the health based on a magnitude of the inertial load and a direction of the inertial load.
Raff explicitly recites determining the health based on a magnitude of the inertial load and a direction of the inertial load (traffic accidents … mechanical loads acting on the battery, dynamic loads, two influencing factors loading speed and loading direction, loading rate [pg. 1 right col par 1 – pg. 2 left col par. 2, Table 1]).
Raff is also concerned on battery condition in a vehicle during impact event as the combined prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Raff to determine the health based on a magnitude of the inertial load and a direction of the inertial load with a rationale for promoting a safe operation of the battery in the vehicle.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erha and Xu in view of Huang (CN 117828742 A).
As per claims 5, 12 and 19, Erha and Xu disclose claims 1, 8 and 15 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art recites obtaining the vehicle dynamics data and obtaining the battery unit acceleration data, but is silent regarding obtaining the vehicle dynamics data in a vehicle-centered frame of reference and obtaining the battery unit acceleration data in a unit-centered frame of reference.
Huang discloses simulating vehicle collision analyzing the dynamics of the vehicle and its force transmission to the battery (collision simulation [pg. 4 line 11-20], vehicle body frame, battery pack frame, analyze the structure and test the dynamics [pg. 9 line 21-42], force transmission path, battery pack frame [claim 4]).
Huang is also in the same battery impact analysis art as the combined prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Huang to obtain the vehicle dynamics data in a vehicle-centered frame of reference and obtain the battery unit acceleration data in a unit-centered frame of reference with a rationale for promoting a safe operation of the battery in the vehicle.
Notes with regard to Prior Art
The prior arts made of record are provided as additional references relevant to the current claims.
Sharma (US 20250296580 A1) discloses EV operational optimization related to determination of the battery health status due to impacts from vehicle operations (obtain input data associated with an electric vehicle from a plurality of data sources. The input data may include sensor data, battery data, vehicle health data, route data, and vehicle speed data, distance data, environmental data, and traffic data [0005], compute an inertial force value [0064-0068], by accurately calculating the inertial force value, the road slope force value, the road load friction value, and the aerodynamic drag force value, the evaluation module 212 may provide valuable insights into the electric vehicle's 110 energy consumption, range, and performance under different driving conditions [0151], a battery retention value … based on the computed inertial force value [claim 7]).
Xie (CN 112550200 A) discloses
A method for diagnosing a health of a battery pack of a vehicle, (dentification method of … vehicle collision state according to the signal collected by the sensor [pg. 4 line 27-32]) comprising:
obtaining a vehicle dynamics data for the vehicle during a time period in which an impact event occurs at the vehicle; (collision condition, visual movable window … speed, energy … to distinguish the collision intensity, time window [pg. 3 line 32-pg. 4 line 8])
obtaining a battery unit acceleration data for a battery unit of the vehicle during the time period; (acceleration sensor, acceleration signal when collision [abs, pg. 3 line 9-20], the acceleration sensor is installed on each sensitive part of the … vehicle, energy storage mounting position [pg. 3 line 23-26])
determining a collision energy on the battery unit from the vehicle dynamics data and the battery unit acceleration data; (speed change amount, energy variation, collision intensity, calculating the collision energy [pg. 3 line 32-pg. 4 line 8], diagnosis module, when the collision occurs, can quickly store the vehicle running state, acceleration curve and other effective data … performing technical analysis [pg. 4 line 20-24, claim 7])
and performing a remedial action for the battery unit based on the health status. (identifying the collision state of the vehicle, timely outputting the collision output signal, triggering power off; The protection action of the fuel [pg. 3 line 4-8], when detecting the fault, immediately lighting the warning lamp and storing the related fault, warning the driver and passenger for fault processing, inquiring by the fault code, capable of quickly and accurately locating the fault reason, timely removing the fault [pg. 4 line 15-19])
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS KAY, whose telephone number is (408) 918-7569. The examiner can normally be reached on M, Th & F 8-5, T 2-7, and W 8-1.
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://ppair-my.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.
/DOUGLAS KAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights