DETAILED ACTION
This action is filed in response to the application filed on 4/24/2024.
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
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) form PTO-1149 filed on 4/24/2024 and 1/23/2025. These IDS have been considered.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to the abstract concept of performing mental steps without significantly more. Claim 1 recites the following abstract concepts in BOLD of
A lithium plating detection method, comprising:
charging a to-be-tested battery and stopping charging after the to-be-tested battery has been charged to a first state of charge (SOC), and allowing the to-be-tested battery to rest;
obtaining a first voltage of the to-be-tested battery upon completion of electrochemical equilibrium;
collecting a second voltage of the to-be-tested battery; and
determining that lithium plating has occurred in the to-be-tested battery in case where a difference between the second voltage and the first voltage is greater than a first voltage threshold.
Under 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 as Claim 1 recites a method.
Under 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 abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers performing mathematics or mental steps. The step of determining lithium plating occurred based on a comparison to a threshold can be interpreted as a mental process that can be performed in the human mind.
Next, under 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner notes that since the claimed methods and system are not tied to a particular machine or apparatus, they do not represent an improvement to another technology or technical field. Similarly there are no other meaningful limitations linking the use to a particular technological environment. Finally, there is nothing in the claims that indicates an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or transform a particular article to a new state.
Under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the first limitation teaches charging and resting a battery. This limitation recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field of endeavor of battery management which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
The limitations teaching obtaining first and second voltages recite necessary data gathering and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
Claims 2-12 further limit the abstract ideas without integrating the abstract concept into a practical application or including additional limitations that can be considered significantly more than the abstract idea:
Claims 2-4 and 6-9 further limit the data gathered which is not significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
Claim 5 recites data gathering as well as an additional abstract idea of determining the state of a battery by comparing data and identifying it. These steps are mental processes that do not integrate the abstract ideas of claim 1 into a practical application.
Claim 10 teaches generating a warning which is data output that is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), displaying analysis/results is considered extra solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55”, see also MPEP 2106.05(h), As a whole the claim itself is analogous to the Electric Power Group decision in which it was determined that “ Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).”
Claims 11 and 12 recite generic computing components of a processor a memory, and a battery. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.
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, 5, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (CN112014741 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Yang teaches a lithium plating detection method, comprising:
charging a to-be-tested battery and stopping charging after the to-be-tested battery has been charged to a first state of charge (SOC), and allowing the to-be-tested battery to rest;
obtaining a first voltage of the to-be-tested battery upon completion of electrochemical equilibrium (e.g. see [0020-0021] “It is determined that the battery is in a static state; If the last record before the resting state in the battery's historical operating states is the charging state, then the first voltage is collected”);
collecting a second voltage of the to-be-tested battery (e.g. see [0029] “When the absolute value of the battery current is less than or equal to the current threshold, the voltage of the battery is collected as the second voltage”); and
determining that lithium plating has occurred in the to-be-tested battery in case where a difference between the second voltage and the first voltage is greater than a first voltage threshold (e.g. see [0031-0033] “Calculate the difference between the second voltage and the first voltage; Compare the difference with the preset voltage value; When the difference is greater than the preset voltage value, lithium plating is confirmed to have occurred in the battery”).
Regarding Claim 5, Yang teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Yang further discloses collecting, in a first time interval, voltage of the to-be-tested battery at a first preset frequency (e.g. see [0077] “In this embodiment, after determining that the change in the working state of the battery is from the charging state to the resting state, the first voltage of the battery 11 is collected, which includes: collecting the current value of the battery 11 after the battery 11 has been resting for a second duration T2 (e.g., 1 second)); and
determining that the to-be-tested battery has completed electrochemical equilibrium in case where a difference between two collected consecutive voltages is less than a second voltage threshold (e.g. see [0072] and [0079]), and identifying a voltage at end of the two consecutive voltages as the first voltage (e.g. see [0075] “Step S23: When the working state of the battery 11 enters the resting state, the voltage of the battery 11 is collected as the first voltage”).
Regarding Claim 10, Yang teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Yang further discloses generating an early warning message, which is used for indicating that lithium plating has occurred in the to-be-tested battery (e.g. see [0085-0086] “In Step S26: Trigger the protection circuit of the battery 11. In this embodiment, after confirming that lithium plating has occurred in the battery 11, the processor13 sends a control command to the battery 11 to trigger the protection circuit of the battery 11.For example, the processor 13 sends a control command to trigger the switch driver 170 to turn off the switch MOS 171”).
Regarding Claim 11, Yang teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Yang further discloses a battery management system (e.g. see [0006] “In view of this, it is necessary to provide a battery lithium plating detection method, electronic device and storage medium that can detect lithium plating in batteries in real time”), comprising:
at least one processor; and a memory communicatively connected with the at least one processor; wherein the memory stores instructions executable by the at least one processor, and the instructions are executed by the at least one processor to enable the battery management system to implement steps of the battery lithium plating detection method (e.g. see [0036-0039] “One embodiment of this application provides a terminal device, the terminal device comprising: Battery; Processor; and The memory stores multiple program modules, which are loaded and executed by the processor to detect whether lithium plating has occurred in the battery, as described above, using the battery lithium plating detection method”).
Regarding Claim 12, Yang teaches the limitations of Claim 11. Yang further discloses a battery (e.g. see[0036-0037] “One embodiment of this application provides a terminal device, the terminal device comprising: Battery”).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN112014741 A) in view of Mano (EP2362478 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Yang teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Yang does not explicitly disclose wherein the first SOC meets a first SOC range or a second SOC threshold range, wherein the first SOC threshold range is 5%~30% and the second SOC threshold range is 50%~60%.
In the same field of endeavor, Mano teaches wherein the first SOC meets a first SOC range or a second SOC threshold range, wherein the first SOC threshold range is 5%~30% and the second SOC threshold range is 50%~60% (e.g. see [pg. 3 paragraphs 5-6] “in addition, in the determination system according to the first aspect, the determination start allowable voltage may correspond to a 60 to 70 percent state of charge of the lithium ion secondary battery. In addition, in the determination system according to the first aspect, the voltage that corresponds to the predetermined low state of charge may correspond to a 10 to 20 percent state of charge of the lithium ion secondary battery,” Examiner notes the State of charge threshold ranges of the prior art partially overlap with the ranges provided in the instant application. As cited in MPEP 2144.05(I), overlapping and close ranges are sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the state of charge embodiment of Yang with the threshold ranges of Mano for the purpose of determining the proper time to collect voltage measurements with the advantage of a threshold range tailored to a user’s preferences.
Claims 3-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN112014741 A) in view of U. Iraola, I. Aizpuru, L. Gorrotxategi, J. M. C. Segade, A. E. Larrazabal and I. Gil, "Influence of Voltage Balancing on the Temperature Distribution of a Li-Ion Battery Module," in IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 507-514, June 2015, doi: 10.1109/TEC.2014.2366375 (hereinafter “Iraola”).
Regarding Claim 3, Yang teaches the limitations of Claim 1. While Yang discloses a voltage threshold of 0.06V (e.g. see [0083] “Preferably, the preset voltage value is 0.06V,” Examiner notes the threshold of the prior art ensures the voltage difference is greater than the threshold of 5-30 mV), Yang does not explicitly disclose wherein the first voltage threshold ranges from 5~30 millivolts (mV).
In the same field of endeavor, Iraola teaches wherein the first voltage threshold ranges from 5~30 millivolts (mV) (e.g. see [pg. 509 Col 2 paragraph 2] “A threshold value is defined to fix the value when the voltage balancing is going to start working following (1). Vlim is the voltage limit, Vlow is the lowest voltage of one of the cells, and Vthreshold is a user defined value, 5 mV during these experimental tests”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the voltage threshold of Yang with the specific threshold of Iraola for the purpose of setting the threshold to a particular voltage with the advantage of ensuring the voltage difference is at a suitable level in order to determine lithium plating.
Regarding Claim 4, Yang teaches the limitations of Claim 3. While Yang discloses a voltage threshold of 0.06V (e.g. see [0083] “Preferably, the preset voltage value is 0.06V,” Examiner notes the threshold of the prior art ensures the voltage difference is greater than the threshold of 5-30 mV), Yang does not explicitly disclose wherein the first voltage threshold is 5 mV.
In the same field of endeavor, Iraola teaches wherein the first voltage threshold is 5 mV(e.g. see [pg. 509 Col 2 paragraph 2] “A threshold value is defined to fix the value when the voltage balancing is going to start working following (1). Vlim is the voltage limit, Vlow is the lowest voltage of one of the cells, and Vthreshold is a user defined value, 5 mV during these experimental tests”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the voltage threshold of Yang with the specific threshold of Iraola for the purpose of setting the threshold to a particular voltage with the advantage of ensuring the voltage difference is at a suitable level in order to determine lithium plating.
Regarding Claim 6, Yang teaches the limitations of Claim 5. While Yang discloses a voltage threshold of 0.06V (e.g. see [0083] “Preferably, the preset voltage value is 0.06V,” Examiner notes the threshold of the prior art ensures the voltage difference is greater than the threshold of 5-30 mV), Yang does not explicitly disclose wherein the second voltage threshold ranges from 1-5 mV.
In the same field of endeavor, Iraola teaches wherein the second voltage threshold ranges from 1-5 mV (e.g. see [pg. 509 Col 2 paragraph 2] “A threshold value is defined to fix the value when the voltage balancing is going to start working following (1). Vlim is the voltage limit, Vlow is the lowest voltage of one of the cells, and Vthreshold is a user defined value, 5 mV during these experimental tests”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the voltage threshold of Yang with the specific threshold of Iraola for the purpose of setting the threshold to a particular voltage with the advantage of ensuring the voltage difference is at a suitable level in order to determine lithium plating.
Regarding Claim 7, Yang teaches the limitations of Claim 6. While Yang discloses a voltage threshold of 0.06V (e.g. see [0083] “Preferably, the preset voltage value is 0.06V,” Examiner notes the threshold of the prior art ensures the voltage difference is greater than the threshold of 5-30 mV), Yang does not explicitly disclose wherein the second voltage threshold is 5 mV.
In the same field of endeavor, Iraola teaches wherein the second voltage threshold is 5 mV (e.g. see [pg. 509 Col 2 paragraph 2] “A threshold value is defined to fix the value when the voltage balancing is going to start working following (1). Vlim is the voltage limit, Vlow is the lowest voltage of one of the cells, and Vthreshold is a user defined value, 5 mV during these experimental tests”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the voltage threshold of Yang with the specific threshold of Iraola for the purpose of setting the threshold to a particular voltage with the advantage of ensuring the voltage difference is at a suitable level in order to determine lithium plating.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN112014741 A) in view of Nishida (JP2020169968A).
Regarding Claim 8, Yang teaches th limitations of claim 1. Yang does not explicitly disclose collecting, in a second time interval, the second voltage of the to-be-tested battery at a second preset frequency.
In the same field of endeavor, Nishida teaches collecting, in a second time interval, the second voltage of the to-be-tested battery at a second preset frequency (e.g. see [pg. 8 paragraph 2] “therefore, in the metallic lithium precipitation detection device 1 of the first embodiment, the time t2 shown in FIGS. 3 and 4 is set to the time before 1000 seconds have elapsed since the secondary battery 2 was opened”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the time interval of Yang with the second time interval of Nishida for the purpose of collecting the second voltage with the advantage of ensuring enough time has lapsed in order to obtain an accurate voltage reading.
Regarding Claim 9, Yang teaches th limitations of claim 8. Yang does not explicitly disclose wherein the second time interval is greater than 5min.
In the same field of endeavor, Nishida teaches wherein the second time interval is greater than 5min. (e.g. see [pg. 8 paragraph 2] “therefore, in the metallic lithium precipitation detection device 1 of the first embodiment, the time t2 shown in FIGS. 3 and 4 is set to the time before 1000 seconds have elapsed since the secondary battery 2 was opened”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the time interval of Yang with the second time interval of Nishida for the purpose of collecting the second voltage with the advantage of ensuring enough time has lapsed in order to obtain an accurate voltage reading.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NYLA GAVIA whose telephone number is (703)756-1592. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30pm.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/NYLA GAVIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights