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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/25/2024 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a data acquisition unit,” “a data processing unit,” “a calculation unit” in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
According to MPEP 2181, II, B, “In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Image… the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose microprocessor to a special purpose computer so that a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement the disclosed algorithm to achieve the claimed function. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338, 86 USPQ2d at 1241.” A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding algorithm for performing the claimed function as described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Figs. 2, 13-14, 16 and paras. [0062]-[0065], [0090]-[0099], [0107]-[0109].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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 battery diagnostic system for estimating SOH (State Of Health) indicating a degree of deterioration of a secondary battery, comprising:
a model section configured to acquire an usage history data indicating a usage state of the secondary battery and calculate the SOH based on the usage history data;
a SOH calculation section configured to acquire physical quantities that change depending on the degree of deterioration of the secondary battery as sensing data, and calculate the SOH based on the sensing data; and
based on the SOH calculated by the model section and the SOH calculated by the SOH calculation section, a SOH estimation section configured to combine both calculation results to estimate an optimal SOH,
wherein the sensing data is an impedance data of the secondary battery obtained by an electrochemical impedance spectroscopy,
the SOH calculation section calculates the SOH by a Gaussian process regression using the impedance data as input,
a storage unit in which information on a specific frequency within a frequency range used in the electrochemical impedance spectroscopy is stored in advance is included, and
the SOH calculation section calculates the SOH using an imaginary component of an impedance corresponding to the specific frequency stored in the storage unit, out of the impedance data.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Step 1: 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 (Machine).
Step 2A, Prong One: 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 exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation that 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, the limitations of “calculate the SOH based on the sensing data (see para. [0018] of instant application),” “based on the SOH calculated by the model section and the SOH calculated by the SOH calculation section, a SOH estimation section configured to combine both calculation results to estimate an optimal SOH, wherein the sensing data is an impedance data of the secondary battery obtained by an electrochemical impedance spectroscopy, the SOH calculation section calculates the SOH by a Gaussian process regression using the impedance data as input (paras. [0050], [0056]-[0059] of instant application),” and “the SOH calculation section calculates the SOH using an imaginary component of an impedance corresponding to the specific frequency stored in the storage unit, out of the impedance data (see para. [0056] of instant application)” are mathematical calculations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations, then it falls within “Mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 6, 8, and 9.
Step 2A, Prong Two: 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. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, none of the additional elements indicate a practical application.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: a battery diagnostic system for estimating SOH (State Of Health) indicating a degree of deterioration of a secondary battery (preamble); a model section configured to acquire an usage history data indicating a usage state of the secondary battery; a SOH calculation section configured to acquire physical quantities that change depending on the degree of deterioration of the secondary battery as sensing data, and calculate the SOH based on the sensing data; a storage unit in which information on a specific frequency within a frequency range used in the electrochemical impedance spectroscopy is stored in advance is included;
In Claim 6: a battery diagnostic system for estimating SOH (State OF Health) indicating a degree of deterioration of a secondary battery (preamble); a data acquisition unit configured to acquire time series data indicating an usage state of the secondary battery; a data processing unit configured to acquire the time series data from the data acquisition unit and process the time series data as histogram data;
In Claim 8: a battery diagnostic system for estimating SOH (State Of Health) indicating a degree of deterioration of a secondary battery (preamble); acquire an usage history data indicating a usage state of the secondary battery and calculate a first SOH based on the usage history data; acquire physical quantities that change depending on the degree of deterioration of the secondary battery as sensing data; store information on a specific frequency within a frequency range used in an electrochemical impedance spectroscopy in advance, wherein the sensing data is an impedance data of the secondary battery obtained by the electrochemical impedance spectroscopy
In Claim 9: a battery diagnostic system for estimating SOH (State Of Health) indicating a degree of deterioration of a secondary battery (preamble); a computer including a processor and a memory that stores instructions configured to, when executed by the processor.
The additional elements such as a battery diagnostic system, a secondary battery, computer, processor, and memory in claims 1, 6, 8, and 9 are recited at a high-level of generality without descriptions of its specific structure/features to perform the claimed features for producing the mathematical process addressed above (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, the additional elements of “a battery diagnostic system for estimating SOH (State OF Health) indicating a degree of deterioration of a secondary battery” in claims 1, 6, 8, 9 are preamble statements reciting purpose or intended use (See MPEP 2111.02)(II)).
Further, note that the additional elements of “a model section configured to acquire an usage history data indicating a usage state of the secondary battery; a SOH calculation section configured to acquire physical quantities that change depending on the degree of deterioration of the secondary battery as sensing data, and calculate the SOH based on the sensing data; a storage unit in which information on a specific frequency within a frequency range used in the electrochemical impedance spectroscopy is stored in advance is included” and “a SOH calculation section configured to acquire physical quantities that change depending on the degree of deterioration of the secondary battery as sensing data, and calculate the SOH based on the sensing data” in claims 1 and 8 are insignificant (gathering data) extra-solution activity to perform abstract idea that is mathematical calculations (i.e. calculating SOH) (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Also, the additional elements of “ data acquisition unit configured to acquire time series data indicating an usage state of the secondary battery” and “a data processing unit configured to acquire the time series data from the data acquisition unit” in claims 6 and 9 are insignificant (gathering data) extra-solution activity to perform abstract idea that is mathematical calculations (i.e. calculating SOH) (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, the additional elements of “a storage unit in which information on a specific frequency within a frequency range used in the electrochemical impedance spectroscopy is stored in advance is included” is insignificant (post-solution) extra-solution activity to process the result performed by abstract idea that is mathematical calculations (i.e. calculating SOH) (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 1 does not present tangible or physical elements/components and/or integration of improvements to be indicative of specific features/structure/acts, for example, how and or with what to calculate the SOH. Therefore, the claims have no significance more beyond the abstract idea. This is just a processor running mathematics. Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 6, 8, and 9. Therefore, the independent claims 1, 6, 8, and 9 are ineligible.
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.
Claims 1, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baba et al. (US 2016/0131720 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Baba”) in view of Yazami et al. (US 2021/0055353 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Yazami”) and Hollas et al. (DE 102014217135 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Hollas”).
Regarding claim 1, Baba teaches a battery diagnostic system for estimating SOH (State Of Health) indicating a degree of deterioration of a secondary battery (Fig. 1; para. [0026]: a first state of health SOH1 and a second state of health SOH2 estimated respectively by the first state of health estimation unit), comprising:
a model section configured to acquire an usage history data indicating a usage state of the secondary battery and calculate the SOH based on the usage history data (Fig. 1, 3 and para. [0030]: The parameter estimation unit 3 estimates each parameter in an equivalent circuit model of the battery B, based on the charge and discharge current value i and terminal voltage value v received respectively from the charge and discharge current detection unit 1 and terminal voltage detection unit 2);
a SOH calculation section configured to acquire physical quantities that change depending on the degree of deterioration of the secondary battery as sensing data (Fig. 1, 1 and 2), and calculate the SOH (Fig. 1, 6 (SOH1) and 7 (SOH2); para. [0026]: The first correction value calculation unit 9 calculates a first correction value for correcting a current integration method state of charge, based on the difference between a first state of health SOH1 and a second state of health SOH2 estimated respectively by the first state of health estimation unit 6 and the second state of health estimation unit) based on the sensing data (Fig. 1, 1 and 2) and
based on the SOH calculated by the model section (Fig. 1, 6 and para. [0033]: the first state of health SOH1, based on SOCi estimated by the current integration method state of charge estimation unit 4 and SOCv estimated by the open circuit voltage method state of charge estimation unit 5) and the SOH calculated by the SOH calculation section (Fig. 1, 7; para. [0035]: e second state of health SOH2, based on the relationship between the internal resistance value and state of health of the battery), a SOH estimation section configured to combine both calculation results to estimate an optimal SOH (Fig. 1, 8),
wherein the sensing data is an impedance data of the secondary battery (Fig. 1, 7; para. [0035]: e second state of health SOH2, based on the relationship between the internal resistance value and state of health of the battery)
the SOH calculation section calculates the SOH as input (para. [0037]: The first correction value calculation unit 9 calculates the first correction value, by multiplying the difference (SOH2−SOH1) of the state of health received from the first subtraction unit 8 by a Kalman gain; para. [0039]: in the Kalman filter, the observation noise is Gaussian white noise) the sensing data is an impedance data of the secondary battery (para. [0035]: e second state of health SOH2, based on the relationship between the internal resistance value and state of health of the battery).
Baba does not specifically teach electrochemical impedance spectroscopy, a Gaussian process regression, a storage unit in which information on a specific frequency within a frequency range used in the electrochemical impedance spectroscopy is stored in advance is included, and the SOH calculation section calculates the SOH using an imaginary component of an impedance corresponding to the specific frequency stored in the storage unit, out of the impedance data.
However, Yazami teaches electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (para. [0089]: another well-known experimental technique is the impedance measurement. To estimate it, Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS) is performed), a Gaussian process regression (para. [0163]: SOH estimated from ΔS with Gaussian process regression) using the impedance data (para. [0089]: see above),
a storage unit in which information on a specific frequency within a frequency range (para. [0090]: SOH estimation can be done through it. Moreover, the impedance at different frequency ranges gives information on different dynamics of the battery) used in the electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (para. [0089]: another well-known experimental technique is the impedance measurement. To estimate it, Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS) is performed) is stored in advance is included (para. [0086]: cycling data is stored. Then previous knowledge of the operation performance of the cell or battery is used to estimate the SOH),
the SOH calculation section calculates the SOH using para. [0086]: cycling data is stored. Then previous knowledge of the operation performance of the cell or battery is used to estimate the SOH; para. [0090]: SOH estimation can be done through it. Moreover, the impedance at different frequency ranges gives information on different dynamics of the battery).
Baba and Yazami are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of assessing state of health of a battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the electrochemical impedance spectroscopy, a Gaussian process regression, and a storage unit such as are described in Yazami o into Baba, in order to assess a state of health (SOH) of an electrochemical cell (Yazami, para. [0009]).
Baba and Yazami do not specifically teach using imaginary component of an impedance.
However, Hollas teaches using imaginary component of an impedance (page 6, lines 3-5: The method for determining the SOH value comprises the method steps of providing a battery of known temperature and known time afterlast charge / discharge and determining at least one impedance value at least one frequency f. From the impedance determined, the imaginary part of the impedance is determined as an evaluation variable).
Baba and Hollas are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of determining states of a battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate imaginary component of an impedance such as is described in Hollas into Baba, in order to determine a state-of-health value SOH of a battery by means of which the SOH value can be determined more reliably (Hollas, page 5, lines 36-37).
Regarding claim 3, Baba in in view of Yazami and Hollas teaches all the limitation of calim1.
Baba and Hollas do not specifically teach that the specific frequency is a frequency determined based on machine learning using impedance data of the secondary battery obtained in advance by the electrochemical impedance spectroscopy, and a frequency having a large influence on the SOH of the secondary battery.
However, Yazami teaches that the specific frequency is a frequency determined (para. [0090]: SOH estimation can be done through it. Moreover, the impedance at different frequency ranges gives information on different dynamics of the battery) based on machine learning (para. [0138]: machine learning models) using impedance data of the secondary battery obtained in advance by the electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (para. [0089]: another well-known experimental technique is the impedance measurement. To estimate it, Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS) is performed), and a frequency having a large influence on the SOH of the secondary battery (para. [0090]: see above).
Baba and Yazami are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of assessing state of health of a battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the specific frequency such as is described in Yazami o into Baba, in order to assess a state of health (SOH) of an electrochemical cell (Yazami, para. [0009]).
Regarding claim 4, Baba in in view of Yazami and Hollas teaches all the limitation of calim1.
Baba and Hollas do not specifically teach that the sensing data is data on voltage changes during charging of the secondary battery, and the SOH calculation section calculates the SOH by Gaussian process regression using as input data on voltage changes during charging of the secondary battery.
However, Yazami teaches that the sensing data is data on voltage changes during charging of the secondary battery, and the SOH calculation section calculates the SOH by Gaussian process regression using as input data on voltage changes during charging of the secondary battery (para. [0006]: Currently SOH is assessed mostly by testing a battery during charging and discharging at a certain rate. This enables discharge capacity and voltage to be determined; para. [0167]: FIG. 25 shows the evolution of SOH with cycling; they are the output data used to find the model. As previously, multiple linear regression and Gaussian process regression are tested to find a model).
Baba and Yazami are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of assessing state of health of a battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sensing data such as is described in Yazami o into Baba, in order to assess a state of health (SOH) of an electrochemical cell (Yazami, para. [0009]).
Regarding claim 5, Baba in in view of Yazami and Hollas teaches all the limitation of calim1.
Baba and Hollas do not specifically teach that the SOH estimation section estimates the SOH using a nonlinear Kalman filter.
However, Yazami teaches that the SOH estimation section estimates the SOH using a nonlinear Kalman filter (paras. [0094], [0189]-[0191]: extended Kalman filter).
Baba and Yazami are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of assessing state of health of a battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the SOH estimation section such as is described in Yazami o into Baba, in order to assess a state of health (SOH) of an electrochemical cell (Yazami, para. [0009]).
Regarding claim 8, it is a system type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above. The additional element of a computer including a processor and a memory that stores instructions configured to, when executed by the processor, cause the processor (para. [0048]: a charging-control processor), taught by Yazami.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baba in view of Yazami, Hollas, and Brandon et al. (JP 2013537638 A, hereinafter referred to as “Brandon”).
Regarding claim 2. Baba in in view of Yazami and Hollas teaches all the limitation of calim1, in addition, Yazami teaches the impedance obtained by the electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (para. [0089]: another well-known experimental technique is the impedance measurement. To estimate it, Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS) is performed).
Baba and Yazami are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of assessing state of health of a battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the electrochemical impedance spectroscopy such as is described in Yazami o into Baba, in order to assess a state of health (SOH) of an electrochemical cell (Yazami, para. [0009]).
Baba, Yazami, and Hollas do not specifically teach that the impedance obtained by the electrochemical impedance spectroscopy is a value calculated by dividing a response voltage by an alternating current as a complex number with an absolute value and a phase information after measuring the response voltage corresponding to the alternating current applied to the secondary battery.
However, Brandon teaches that the impedance obtained by the electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (page 7, lines 14-15: a method of using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) to monitor (when connected to a simple load) is provided) is a value calculated by dividing a response voltage by an alternating current as a complex number with an absolute value and a phase information after measuring the response voltage corresponding to the alternating current applied to the secondary battery (page 7, line 9: calculating a complex impedance of at least one cell from the sensed voltage and current).
Baba and Brandon are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed monitoring the state of at least one cell of a battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the impedance obtained by the electrochemical impedance spectroscopy such as is described in Brandon into Baba, in order to provide proper management of the battery in use is essential to the commercial success of electric and hybrid electric vehicles (page 6, lines 20-21).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baba in view of Masahiro et al. (JP 2018179684 A, hereinafter referred to as “Masahiro”) and Wang et al. (CN 111323719 A, hereinafter referred to as “Wang”).
Regarding claim 6, Baba teaches a battery diagnostic system for estimating SOH (State OF Health) indicating a degree of deterioration of a secondary battery (Fig. 1; para. [0026]: a first state of health SOH1 and a second state of health SOH2 estimated respectively by the first state of health estimation unit ), comprising:
a data acquisition unit configured to acquire time series data indicating an usage state of the secondary battery (Fig. 1, 3 and para. [0030]: The parameter estimation unit 3 estimates each parameter in an equivalent circuit model of the battery B, based on the charge and discharge current value i and terminal voltage value v received respectively from the charge and discharge current detection unit 1 and terminal voltage detection unit 2);
a data processing unit configured to acquire the time series data from the data acquisition unit and process the time series data (Fig. 1, 3 and para. [0030]: see above) as data; and
a calculation unit calculates the SOH as an estimated value using either the time series data acquired by the data acquisition unit (Fig. 1, 9),
wherein parameters such as SOC (State OF Charge), temperature, current, and the calculation unit calculates the SOH using each of the parameters and a product of two or more of the parameters (Fig. 1; para. [0026]: a first state of health SOH1 and a second state of health SOH2 estimated respectively by the first state of health estimation unit).
Baba does not specifically teach histogram data acquired by the data processing unit based on a preset calculation model, and ΔDOD (Depth Of Discharge) of the secondary battery.
However, Masahiro teaches histogram data acquired by the data processing unit based on a preset calculation model (page 3, lines 3-5: graph which shows an example of the relationship between the current and voltage at the time of low charge in constant current constant voltage, and time. It is a graph which shows the relationship of SOH and voltage change amount at the time of making a no-load period into 30 minutes).
Baba and Masahiro are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of estimating degradation state of a battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the histogram data such as is described in Masahiro into Baba, in order to provide a secondary battery degradation state estimation device for quickly and accurately estimating the degradation state of a secondary battery, and a battery system (page 5, lines 24-25).
Baba and Masahiro do not specifically teach ΔDOD (Depth Of Discharge) of the secondary battery.
However, Wang teaches ΔDOD (Depth Of Discharge) of the secondary battery (page 10, lines 29-page 11, line 12: SOC, Depth of Discharge (DOD), temperature, current)
Baba and Wang are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of determination of health state of power battery pack. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the DOD such as is described in Wang into Baba, in order to determine the health state of a power battery pack of an electric automobile (Wang, page 6, lines 3-4).
Regarding claim 7, Baba in view of Masahiro and Wang teaches al the limitation of claim 6.
Baba, Masahiro, and Wang do not specifically teach that the product of parameters includes at least one of SOC×T, ΔDOD×T, and I×ΔDOD, and the temperature is defined as T and the current is defined as I.
However, Wang teaches DoD (see page 10, lines 29-page 11, line 12: SOC, Depth of Discharge (DOD). Therefore, product of parameters includes at least one of SOC×T, ΔDOD×T, and I×ΔDOD, and the temperature is defined as T and the current is defined as I would be an obvious variation of such method. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Wang’s DoD in order to determine the health state of a power battery pack of an electric automobile (see MPEP 2143: “Obvious To Try”-choosing from a finite number of predictable solution).
Regarding claim 9, it is a system type claim and has similar limitations as of claim 6 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 6 above. The additional element of a computer including a processor and a memory that stores instructions configured to, when executed by the processor, cause the processor (page 5, line 5: personal computers), taught by Masahiro.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Christensen et al. (US 10,386,422 B2) teaches that the invention pertains to a method of determining the State of Health (SoH) and/or State of Charge (SoC) of a rechargeable battery during use of said battery, the method comprising the steps of: generating a first excitation signal within a first selected frequency range, generating a second excitation signal within a second selected frequency range, applying said first and second excitation signals on said rechargeable battery, measuring the response signal for each of said two excitation signals, and then calculate the Electrochemical Impedance (El) as the ratio between the excitation signals and respective response signals, and then determine the SoH and/or SoC of the rechargeable battery by comparing the calculated El to a circuit model for the battery and/or determining the SoH and/or SoC of the rechargeable battery by directly evaluating characteristics of the El.
Wang et al. (US 9,847,558 B1) teaches that the disclosed battery system comprises a three-electrode metal-ion battery configured with voltage meters connected between anode and cathode, between anode and a reference electrode, and between cathode and the reference electrode; a current source connecting the anode and cathode; and a programmable computer. The system is configured to control the current source to drive the battery with a current cycling profile, and to measure current signals between anode and cathode, and voltage signals derived from the voltage meters.
Kim et al. (WO 2022092621A1) teaches that an apparatus for diagnosing a battery according to an embodiment of the present disclosure may comprise: a battery cell; a calculation unit for calculating the degree of degradation of a battery module including the battery cell; a measurement unit for measuring the alternating-current impedance of a battery pack including the battery module; an estimation unit for estimating the SOH of the battery pack on the basis of the alternating-current impedance of the battery pack; and a diagnosis unit for diagnosing the state of the battery pack on the basis of the degradation of the battery cell, the degradation of the battery module, and the SOH of the battery pack.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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.
/SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights