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 statements (IDS) was submitted on 03/06/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention of “A computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium” recited in claim 17 is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim invention is directed to a software per se which is not directed to any of the statutory categories. (MPEP 2106.03. I).
Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include:
• Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations; (MPEP 2106.03. I)
Claims 18-20 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 17.
Examiner Note:
Examiner recommends amending “A computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium” recited in the preamble of claims 17-20 as “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TALUKDAR et al. (US 20210239766 A1, hereinafter referred to as “TALUKDAR”, cited in IDS dated 03/06/2025).
Regarding Claim 1, TALUKDAR teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
detecting a start of a constant voltage operation phase of a battery of a vehicle (paragraphs 0007-0010 teach detecting an operating status of a battery in a battery system);
collecting current information and voltage information about the battery (paragraphs 0003 and 0005 teach collecting data related to a health/operating status of a battery, “it is important to detect health/operating status of such batteries. The health/operating status is detected using data collected in the field of the battery system … detect anomalies in a battery and associated load from current and voltage measurements of the battery …”);
monitoring a health indicator for the battery based at least in part on the current information (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is indicative of a part of estimation process to check/monitor/estimate/identify a healthy state or a fault state of a battery based on the collected data. Under this interpretation, Figs. 4B, 4C and 5A, and paragraph 0007 teach identifying and estimating data related to a health/operating status of a battery to determine if a battery is in a faulty or healthy state; “determining a charging profile of a battery in a battery system, identifying a constant voltage and a corresponding constant current in a charging cycle of the charging profile, estimating at least one of a decay constant or an internal resistance associated with the battery, using at least one of the constant voltage or the constant current”);
determining whether the battery is in a healthy state or a fault state by determining whether the health indicator is within an acceptable range (threshold value) (Figs. 4B, 4C and 5A, and paragraphs 0007-0014 teach determining/detecting if a battery is in a faulty or healthy state by comparing the decay constant (corresponding to the health indicator) with a first threshold value; “estimating at least one of a decay constant or an internal resistance associated with the battery, using at least one of the constant voltage or the constant current, comparing the decay constant with a first threshold value or comparing the internal resistance with a second threshold value, and detecting an operating status of the battery to be faulty or healthy, based on the comparison”); and
responsive to determining that the battery is in the fault state, implementing a corrective action for the battery (paragraphs 0005 and 0011 teach a corrective action to provide an alert regarding the faulty operating status of the battery; “using multiple features derived from Matric current and voltage that are classified by statistical classifiers. … such assumptions and predictions may not be accurate, leading to false alerts on the health of the battery…. providing an alert regarding the faulty operating status of the battery”).
Regarding Claim 4, TALUKDAR teaches wherein collecting the current information and the voltage information about the battery is performed while the battery is in the constant voltage operation phase (paragraphs 0003, 0005 and 0007, in particular paragraph 0007 teaches identifying a constant voltage and a corresponding constant current in a charging cycle of the charging profile, “it is important to detect health/operating status of such batteries. The health/operating status is detected using data collected in the field of the battery system … detect anomalies in a battery and associated load from current and voltage measurements of the battery … determining a charging profile of a battery in a battery system, identifying a constant voltage and a corresponding constant current in a charging cycle of the charging profile”).
Regarding Claim 5, TALUKDAR teaches wherein the collecting terminates responsive to determining that current of the battery, indicated by the current information, reaches a minimum current level (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation may be indicative of state of charging related to a charging cycle by comparing current charging state/amount with a predetermined threshold (e.g., a minimum current level). Under this interpretation, paragraphs 0003, 0005,0007 and 0053, in particular paragraph 0007 and 0053 teaches identifying a constant voltage and a corresponding constant current in a charging cycle of the charging profile, “determining a charging profile of a battery in a battery system, identifying a constant voltage and a corresponding constant current in a charging cycle of the charging profile …”; Para 0053, “The charging profile may indicate variation of current and variation with respect to time and state of the battery 102. The state of the battery 102 may be a charging state or a discharging state. The operating status detection apparatus 101 may be configured to compute the charging profile irrespective of the discharge state of the battery 102. … the charging profile of the battery 102 includes a charging cycle and a discharging cycle … The discharging cycle may include changes in voltage and current measured for the battery 102, with respect to time, during the discharging of the battery 102”).
Regarding Claim 9, it is an apparatus type claim and has similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above. The additional elements of “a battery” “a processing system” and “a memory” is taught by TALUKDAR at least at Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0049-0063.
Regarding Claim 13, it is dependent on claim 9 and has similar limitations as of claim 4 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 4 above.
Regarding Claim 14, it is dependent on claim 9 and has similar limitations as of claim 5 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 5 above.
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.
1. Claims 2-3, 6, 10-11 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TALUKDAR in view of BAYADI et al. (WO 2021006860 A1, hereinafter referred to as “BAYADI”, cited in IDS dated 03/06/2025).
Regarding Claim 2, TALUKDAR fails to explicitly disclose, but BAYADI teaches wherein the health indicator is based at least in part on a slope of a line fit to a natural log of current of the battery, indicated by the current information (Figs. 1A ~ 2B, and paragraph 0034 teach a slop of plot related to a battery’s state and data of a voltage and a current; “the slope of the plot of the charging current as shown in FIG. IB where the plot exhibits an exponential decay may have a slope which continually changes while at constant voltage until the charging operation ends. In an embodiment as shown in FIG. IB, the slope or rate of change of the charging current may continually decrease between a time at which a battery initially provides charging current at constant voltage as the battery”).
TALUKDAR and BAYADI are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of estimating a state of health (SOH) measurement of a battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified TALUKDAR to incorporate the teachings of BAYADI by providing a slop of plot related to a battery’s state and data of a voltage and a current, as taught by BAYADI at least at Figs. 1A ~ 2B, and paragraph 0034.
Regarding Claim 3, TALUKDAR fails to explicitly disclose, but BAYADI teaches wherein the health indicator is based at least in part on a coefficient of determination of a line fit to a natural log of current of the battery, indicated by the current information (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “a coefficient of determination of a line” may be indicative of an amount of a current, voltage related to charging a battery and/or determining a battery healthy state. Under this interpretation, Figs. 1A ~ 2B, and paragraphs 0025 and 0034 teach an amount of current flowing and/or a current charging profile; “if a battery is charging at a constant voltage, the battery may exhibit certain characteristics. For example, if the battery is charging at a constant voltage, the amount of current flowing into the battery to charge the battery may decrease at a particular rate, as discussed in more detail with respect to FIGS. 1 A-B and 2A-B below. For example, there may be a predefined current charging profile for a particular battery which shows a relationship such as a mapping between the value of the rate of change of the charging current …. the slope of the plot of the charging current as shown in FIG. IB where the plot exhibits an exponential decay may have a slope which continually changes while at constant voltage until the charging operation ends. In an embodiment as shown in FIG. IB, the slope or rate of change of the charging current may continually decrease between a time at which a battery initially provides charging current at constant voltage as the battery”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified TALUKDAR to incorporate the teachings of BAYADI by providing a coefficient of determination of a line, as taught by BAYADI at least at Figs. 1A ~ 2B, and paragraphs 0025 and 0034.
Regarding Claim 6, TALUKDAR fails to explicitly disclose, but BAYADI teaches wherein the corrective action is at least one of repairing the battery, replacing the battery, correcting an electrolyte leak in the battery, redesigning the battery, and adjusting a manufacturing process for manufacturing other batteries (paragraph 0022 teaches a corrective action to replace a provide an alert regarding the faulty operating status of the battery; “an alert or some other type of notification may be generated to indicate that the battery has a relatively low estimated SOH and may need to be replaced with a new or different battery”)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamada in view of TALUKDAR to incorporate the teachings of BAYADI by providing a corrective action to replace a new or different battery when a low estimated SOH is determined, taught by BAYADI at least at paragraph 0022.
Regarding Claim 10, it is dependent on claim 9 and has similar limitations as of claim 2 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 11, it is dependent on claim 9 and has similar limitations as of claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 18, it is dependent on claim 17 and has similar limitations as of claim 2 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 19, it is dependent on claim 17 and has similar limitations as of claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 3 above.
2. Claims 7-8, 15-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TALUKDAR in view of BAYADI and further in view of Fahimi et al. (US 20110060538 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Fahimi”).
Regarding Claim 7, TALUKDAR in view of BAYADI fails to explicitly disclose, but Fahimi teaches wherein the fault state is a loss of active material fault (Para 0037, “some of the chemical and physical changes that occur inside a faulty battery are: accumulation of a film of electrolyte decomposition products on the surface of the cathode which result in particle isolation and an increase in the internal impedance of the battery, and chemical reactions in the cathode (cathode decomposition) which isolate active materials in the cathode and form passive surface films on both electrodes. As a result of all these changes, the amount of available active materials”).
Fahimi is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of estimating a state of health (SOH) of batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamada in view of TALUKDAR in view of BAYADI to incorporate the teachings of Fahimi by providing an active material fault, taught by Fahimi at least at paragraph 0037.
Regarding Claim 8, TALUKDAR in view of BAYADI fails to explicitly disclose, but Fahimi teaches wherein the fault state is an electrolyte fault (Para 0037, “some of the chemical and physical changes that occur inside a faulty battery are: accumulation of a film of electrolyte decomposition products on the surface of the cathode which result in particle isolation and an increase in the internal impedance of the battery, and chemical reactions in the cathode (cathode decomposition) which isolate active materials in the cathode and form passive surface films on both electrodes. As a result of all these changes, the amount of available active materials”)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamada in view of TALUKDAR in view of BAYADI to incorporate the teachings of Fahimi by providing an electrolyte fault, taught by Fahimi at least at paragraph 0037.
Regarding Claim 15, it is dependent on claim 9 and has similar limitations as of claim 7 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 7 above.
Regarding Claim 16, it is dependent on claim 9 and has similar limitations as of claim 8 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 8 above.
Regarding Claim 20, it is dependent on claim 17 and has similar limitations as of claims 7 and 8 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claims 7 and 8 above.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rees et al. (US 20170225586 A1) teaches a battery monitor which takes measurements from a battery and is configured to detect one or more types of events affecting the battery life and to subtract a predetermined amount from a life counter representing the remaining available life of the battery, each time such an event is detected, where the monitor is also configured to calculate the state of charge of the battery, but only when the battery is in equilibrium.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BYUNG RO LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3707. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:00pm.
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 on (571) 270-5628. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-2555.
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.
/BYUNG RO LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights