DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims1-20 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claim 1-10 falls within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)); For example, each of claims 11-20 fall within category of process;
Regarding Claims 1-10
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of re-diagnose the abnormal state.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. An apparatus for battery management, the apparatus comprising:
a battery;
a voltage sensor configured to measure a voltage of the battery; and
a processor configured to:
determine an abnormal state of the battery during a first diagnosis period,
determine a diagnostic profile corresponding to a type of the abnormal state of the battery based on the detected abnormal state of the battery in a first diagnosis,
control a diagnostic condition of the battery based on the diagnostic profile, and
re-diagnose the abnormal state of the battery during a second diagnosis period while the diagnostic condition is controlled based on the diagnostic profile..
The bold limitations above represent a mental step because a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or or merely data observations, evaluations, and/or judgements . Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “determine an abnormal state[..];determine a diagnostic profile[..]; control a diagnostic condition[..]; re-diagnose the abnormal state[..] ” a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment) because these limitations are merely data observations, evaluations, and/or judgements in order to re-diagnose the abnormal state.
Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, first additional first element is “a voltage sensor configured to measure a voltage of the battery” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering and or pre solution activity and /or field of use) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The 2nd additional element is “An apparatus for battery management, the apparatus comprising: a battery; a voltage sensor and a processor configured”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic battery management apparatus and computer components, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the above, the two “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic component with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Step 2B
Claims1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of Claim 1 contains additional elements that are, i.e. “sensor, processor, attery”, generic devices, which are well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and MPEP 2106.05(d))The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
.
Dependent Claims 2-3, and 9-10
Dependent claims 2-3 and 9-10 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-3, 6 and 8-10 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For examples:
2. the processor is configured to detect at least one of an increase in an internal resistance of the battery, an increase in a leakage current of the battery, or a decrease in a state of health of the battery during the first diagnosis period.
3. the processor is configured to: monitor a fast charging attempt of the battery based on the detection of the increase in the internal resistance of the battery as a determination result in the first diagnosis period; and control the diagnostic condition when the fast charging attempt is present.
9. the processor is configured to: confirm a first measurement value indicating a degree of the abnormal state of the battery in the first diagnosis period; confirm a second measurement value indicating the degree of the abnormal state of the battery in the second diagnosis period; and determine a defective state of the battery based on magnitudes of the first measurement value and the second measurement value.
10. the processor is configured to: determine the battery to be in a false defect state based on a magnitude ratio of the second measurement value to the first measurement value being outside a specified range; and count a number of times the battery is determined to be in the false defect state, and guide a precise diagnosis of the battery based on that the counted number of times the false defect state is greater than or equal to a threshold number.
The bold limitations above represent a mental step because a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or or merely data observations, evaluations, and/or judgements . Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely performs insignificant extra-solution activit(ies).
Regarding Claims 11-20
Regarding Claims 11-12 and 17-20 contains language similar to claims 1-3 and 9-10 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 11-12 and 17-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea).
Examiner Notes 1
Regarding Claims 4-8 and 13-16 contain limitations which are integrated with practical field of application and paten eligible.
For examples: 4. control the diagnostic condition to increase a change rate of a reference current followed by the battery based on the fast charging attempt.
5. control the diagnostic condition to inactivate a cell balancing operation of the battery based on the detection of the increase in the leakage current of the battery as a determination result in the first diagnosis period.
6. control the diagnostic condition based on the slow charging attempt.
7. control the diagnostic condition to charge the battery at a constant current based on the slow charging attempt.
8. control slow charging based on the minimum charging current value.
Similar to claims 13-14.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9,11-12, 17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(2)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2023/0384393).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11. Lee teaches an apparatus for battery management, the apparatus comprising(1: fig. 1, fig.19; [0335]-[0344]):
a battery(1000: fig.1-3; CG: fig.3);
a voltage sensor configured to measure a voltage of the battery(200: figs. 2-3); and
a processor configured to(2000: fig. 1):
determine an abnormal state of the battery (S7000: fig.19) during a first diagnosis period(s2000: fig.19),
determine a diagnostic profile corresponding to a type of the abnormal state of the battery(S8000: fig.19) based on the detected abnormal state of the battery in a first diagnosis(S7000: fig.19),
control a diagnostic condition of the battery based on the diagnostic profile(S9000: fig.19), and
re-diagnose the abnormal state of the battery during a second diagnosis period while the diagnostic condition is controlled based on the diagnostic profile(S6000: fig.19).
Regarding Claims 2 and 12. Lee further teaches the processor is configured to detect at least one of an
Regarding Claims 9 and 17. Lee further teaches the processor is configured to:
confirm a first measurement value indicating a degree of the abnormal state of the battery in the first diagnosis period(s4000: fig.19);
confirm a second measurement value indicating the degree of the abnormal state of the battery in the second diagnosis period(s8000: fig. 19); and
determine a defective state of the battery based on magnitudes of the first measurement value and the second measurement value(s6000:fig.19; [0344]).
Regarding Claim 19. Lee further teaches restricting entry into the second diagnosis when the first measurement value has a magnitude that cannot determine a risk of the battery(S7634, S7636 and S7638: fig.34).
Regarding Claim 20. Lee further teaches confirming with a user of the vehicle whether the second diagnosis is entered (YES: fig. 34) based on that the first measurement value is greater than or equal to a threshold value(S7634: fig. 34).
Examiner Notes 2
During the prior art rejection over claims 2 and 12,the Examiner did not consider the strikethrough limitations as alternate solutions. Same as claims 3-4, 6-8,13, 15 and 6-8, which are depends on the alternate solutions.
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kudo et al. (US 20140327400).
Regarding Claims 5 and 14. Lee silent about to control the diagnostic condition to inactivate a cell balancing operation of the battery based on the detection of the increase in the leakage current of the battery as a determination result in the first diagnosis period.
However, Kudo teaches to control the diagnostic condition to inactivate a cell balancing operation of the battery based on the detection of the increase in the leakage current of the battery as a determination result in the first diagnosis period([0113]-[0114]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Lee, control the diagnostic condition to inactivate a cell balancing operation of the battery based on the detection of the increase in the leakage current of the battery as a determination result in the first diagnosis period, as taught by Kudo, so as to safety of electric vehicles can be improved.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Jung (KR102314351)
Regarding Claim16. Lee silent the controlling of the diagnostic condition of the battery includes: monitoring a driving state of a vehicle equipped with the battery; and controlling the diagnostic condition of the battery based on detection of the driving state of the vehicle corresponding to the diagnostic profile.
However, Jung teaches the controlling of the diagnostic condition of the battery includes: monitoring a driving state of a vehicle equipped with the battery([0049]); and controlling the diagnostic condition of the battery based on detection of the driving state of the vehicle corresponding to the diagnostic profile([0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Lee, the controlling of the diagnostic condition of the battery includes: monitoring a driving state of a vehicle equipped with the battery; and controlling the diagnostic condition of the battery based on detection of the driving state of the vehicle corresponding to the diagnostic profile, as taught by Jung, so as to the state of the battery when the vehicle is in the off state and the battery is in the charging state.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 18 are allowable but there is 101rejection. Closest prior art, US 2024/0241180 discloses “determining, by the battery management apparatus 120, the anomaly score as an abnormal value is not appropriate, an error may occur for the battery management apparatus 120 to determine the anomaly state of the first battery cell 111, and this error may cause false alarm of the battery testing system 1000. Thus, the server 200 may reset the threshold value of the anomaly detection algorithm input to the battery management apparatus 120 and transmit the reset threshold value to the battery management apparatus 120”.
The prior arts fail to teaches the limitations of “determine the battery to be in a false defect state based on a magnitude ratio of the second measurement value to the first measurement value being outside a specified range; and count a number of times the battery is determined to be in the false defect state, and guide a precise diagnosis of the battery based on that the counted number of times the false defect state is greater than or equal to a threshold number.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) US 2025/0105637: disclose a cell balancing device, and more particularly, to a cell balancing device which suppresses the leakage current of a balancing switch that is connected in parallel to each of battery cells that are connected in series and blocks an operation of the balancing switch when a reverse voltage occurs in a corresponding channel.
b) US 2018/0149689: An apparatus for determining the occurrence of a leakage current between a series connected electrochemical battery cells, comprising: a first cell connection terminal for connection to a first cell's first terminal via first filter circuitry; a second cell connection terminal for connection, via second filter circuitry, to a connection between the first cell's second terminal and a second cell's first terminal, the first and second cell adjacent in the series arrangement; a first cell balancing terminal for connection to the first cell's first terminal bypassing the first filter circuitry; a second cell balancing terminal for connection to the connection between the first cell's second terminal and the second cell's first cell terminal; balancing circuitry for providing a connection between the cell balancing terminals; the apparatus configured to provide for identification of a leakage current based at least on a voltage between the cell connection terminals and the cell balancing terminals.
c) US 11,881,572: disclose the detector is adopted to monitor the operating state of the battery, if a fault of the detector is not discovered in time, subsequent monitoring may be affected seriously, and thus a false alarm is generated, to make it hard for people to determine whether the fault occurs in the battery or the detector, which brings difficulties to maintenance of a repairman. In addition, since the energy storage system includes multiple battery modules and detectors, when the fault occurs, the repairman only knows that there is an abnormal situation according to an alarm signal received, but does not know a reason and a specific location of the fault, which brings difficulties to maintenance of the repairman.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights