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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4, 10-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3-4 and 10-11 do not give the threshold value in any set of units, therefore it is unclear what the numbers actually mean. For examination purposes, it will be assumed that the threshold value is given in units of ohms per volt (i.e.
Ω
/
V
).
Claim 15 contains a number of issues which are addressed below:
Claim 15 recites storing reactance slope information for a normal and defective cell “for each frequency”. There is no prior reference to indicate what set of frequencies “each frequency” is meant to refer to. For examination purposes, it will be assumed that “each frequency” should be replaced with “a set of frequencies comprising the predetermined frequency”. Additionally, it is unclear over what range the reactance slope information is taken (is it the “voltage section of the predetermined range”?). For examination purposes it will be assumed that the reactance slopes of the normal and defective cells are taken over the voltage section of the predetermined range.
Claim 15 recites that the battery cell is diagnosed as normal if “the reactance slope in the voltage section of the predetermined range is included in the reactance slope of the normal cell”. This is confusing for a few of reasons.
First, “the reactance slope in the voltage section of the predetermined range” may refer to the battery cell or to the normal cell or the defective cell, since each cell has a reactance slope in the voltage section of the predetermined range. To fix this issue, the examiner recommends instead reciting “the battery cell’s reactance slope in the voltage section of the predetermined range”. This will be the interpretation used for examination purposes.
Second, the claim previously recited storing information on “a reactance slope of a normal cell” for a range of frequencies, thus it is unclear which frequency “the reactance slope of the normal cell” is meant to refer to. This is true even though the claim earlier refers to obtaining “information on the reactance slope of the normal cell…corresponding to the predetermined frequency.” For examination purposes, it will be assumed that Applicant intends to refer to the reactance slope of the normal cell at the predetermined frequency.
Even with the above interpretation, other issues exist. What does it mean to recite that the battery cell’s reactance slope “is included in the reactance slope of the normal cell”? This can be interpreted in many reasonable ways. If one assumes that the reactance slope over the predetermined range is to be represented by a single value (such as the average slope over the range), then is this to mean that both the battery cell and normal cell’s slopes are equal or equal to within some error? If one considers the reactance slope over the predetermined range to be a continuous function over the range, then does the above mean that the battery cell’s reactance slope is at some voltage value in the predetermined range equal to the normal cell’s reactance slope at some second point in the predetermined range? Based on a review of the specification, the examiner believes that none of these interpretations are intended. In the specification, it seems that the battery cell’s reactance slope over the predetermined range is compared to a set of normal cells’ reactance slopes over the same predetermined range, and that if the battery cell’s average slope over the predetermined range is within the distribution defined by the normal cells’ average reactance slopes in the predetermined range, then the battery cell is determined to be normal.
The above issues exist when considering the next portion of claim 15 reciting comparing the battery cell with the reactance slope of the defective cell.
For examination purposes then, the following re-write of claim 15 will be used:
The apparatus of claim 8, further comprising:
a memory configured to store information on a reactance slope of a normal cell in the voltage section of the predetermined range and a reactance slope of a defective cell in the voltage section of the predetermined range for a set of frequencies comprising the predetermined frequency,
wherein the processor:
obtains, from the memory, information on the reactance slope of the normal cell in the voltage section of the predetermined range at the predetermined frequency and the reactance slope of the defective cell in the voltage section of the predetermined range at the predetermined frequency,
diagnoses the battery cell as normal when the battery cell's reactance slope in the voltage section of the predetermined range is within a threshold value of the reactance slope of the normal cell in the voltage section of the predetermined range at the predetermined frequency, and
diagnoses the battery cell as defective when the battery cell's reactance slope in the voltage section of the predetermined range is within a second threshold value of the reactance slope of the defective cell in the voltage section of the predetermined range at the predetermined frequency.
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, 5-8, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1 of the 101 analysis, claims 1, 5-8, and 12-14 are directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 is rejected in response to the following analysis:
At Step 2A, Prong One, the judicial exceptions are bolded in the copy of claim 1 below:
A method of diagnosing a battery cell, the method comprising:
applying an activation waveform having a predetermined frequency to the battery cell in an activation process;
performing an electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) measurement in a charging section of the activation process;
based on the EIS measurement, calculating a slope of a reactance of the battery cell in a voltage section of a predetermined range; and
diagnosing the battery cell based on the slope.
Calculating a slope in a range is a mathematical operation, and diagnosing a battery cell based on a slope encompasses a judgement, which is a mental process.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. While applying a waveform to a battery cell and performing EIS measurements require physical actions on a physical battery, the result of the measurements are to “[diagnose] the battery cell” without further details of the diagnosis. In other words, when considered as a whole the claim recites applying EIS to a battery cell then making a diagnosis based on the reactance over some range. The diagnosis is not a particular practical result because many determinations are encompassed by the claim language.
At Step 2B, claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the reasons given above.
Claim 8 recites an apparatus comprising a charger/discharger, and EIS meter, and a processor, all of which are configured to perform the method of claim 1. While these additional elements recite physical devices which perform claim 1’s method, the conclusions in the analysis of claim 1 apply, wherein the diagnosis does not represent a particular practical result. Therefore claim 8 is rejected.
Claims 5-7 and claims 12-14 depend from claims 1 and 8, respectively, and recite additional limitations which do not remedy the issue noted in the rejection of claim 1. These claims are therefore also rejected.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to “a computer program”. According to MPEP § 2106.03: “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”.
To overcome this rejection, the following language is suggested: “A non-volatile, non-transitory recording medium storing a computer program which …”
Note however that, if claim 16 were corrected as suggested above, it would still be ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the 101 rejection of claim 1 above.
Examiner’s Statement Regarding Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 USC § 101
Claims 2-4, 9-11, and 15 are eligible.
Claims 2, 9, and 15 recite that the diagnosis is whether or not the battery cell is defective. This represents a particular result which is practical and useful in the field of battery testing, therefore these claims are eligible.
Claims 3-4 and 10-11 depend from claims 2 and 9, respectively, and are therefore also eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 12-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koba (US 20140229130 A1) in view of Tkachenko (US 20170302088 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Koba discloses an apparatus for diagnosing a battery cell (Abstract: "The present invention pertains to the detection of the state of charge [SOC] of a battery"; see also Fig. 2 depicting an apparatus; the diagnosis involves SOC estimation), the apparatus comprising:
a part (Fig. 2: the AC voltage application part of the impedance measuring instrument 12) configured to apply an activation waveform having a predetermined frequency to the battery cell in a process (¶29: an impedance measuring instrument applies an AC voltage to the battery and measures impedance; see Fig. 1 depicting performing impedance measurements over a range of predetermined applied frequencies);
an electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) meter configured to perform an EIS measurement in the process (Fig. 2: the measuring part of impedance measuring instrument 12; ¶29: "impedance measuring instrument (or an impedance analyzer) 12…is measurement means for measuring a complex impedance of the battery 10"); and
a processor (Fig. 2, computer 14) configured to calculate a slope of a reactance of the battery cell (see at least Fig. 7 depicting calculating an angle representing a slope of reactance to resistance between two points; see below for further description) in a voltage section of a predetermined range (see Fig. 5, angles representing slope of reactance to resistance are calculated at some point over a range of SOCs and subsequently at some point in a range of open circuit voltage (OCV) values; see further description below) based on the EIS measurement (¶29: Computer 14 accepts the impedance data (the EIS measurements) and calculates "a slope of a straight line connecting together the sets of complex impedance data"; Fig. 7 depicts calculating an angle representing a slope of a line connecting the impedances of the battery under test with a reference battery, the impedances having been measured at the same applied frequency; ¶11: "the detection means detects a slope of a straight line that connects together the reference complex impedances and the complex impedance measured by the measurement means" and compares to a storage which "preliminarily stores correlations between a slope and a state of charge"; and ¶10: the device measures "a complex impedance…whose frequency is identical with a frequency of a reference complex impedance…of the base battery that serves as a reference"); and
diagnose the battery cell based on the slope (¶11: "the detection detects the state of charge of the battery by use of the calculated slope and the correlations between the slope and the state of charge stored in the storage means").
Koba does not explicitly disclose that the battery is in an activation process, or a charger/discharger configured to apply the activation waveform in an activation process, or that the EIS measurement is performed in a charging section of the activation process.
Tkachenko teaches a battery charging circuit for which "during charging, without disconnecting the pulsed charging current from the battery, EIS measurements can be made" (Abstract). Tkachenko teaches that this is useful because "the pulsed charging current can serve double-duty, for battery charging and as a drive signal for the EIS measurements" (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Tkachenko with the invention of Koba by putting the battery in an activation (charge/discharge) process, and by incorporating with the impedance measuring instrument a charger/discharger configured to apply the activation waveform in an activation process, and by causing the EIS measurement to be performed in a charging section of the activation process. Doing so would enable one to use the waveform to charge the battery and act as a drive signal for EIS measurements.
Regarding claim 9, Koba in view of Tkachenko teaches the limitations of claim 8, and further teaches that the processor diagnoses the battery cell as a defective cell when the slope is equal to or less than a threshold value (from Fig. 5 of Koba, if the slope is high enough, for example
≥
60
°
, then the cell is likely totally discharged and therefore inoperative; see rejection of claim 8).
Regarding claim 12, Koba in view of Tkachenko teaches the limitations of claim 8, and further teaches that the predetermined frequency is equal to or less than 25 Hz (Note Fig. 1, where EIS measurements span a set of predetermined frequencies from > 0.1Hz to over 100 Hz).
Regarding claim 13, Koba in view of Tkachenko teaches the limitations of claim 12, and further teaches that the predetermined frequency is equal to or greater than 1 Hz (see rejection of claim 12 for arguments).
Regarding claim 15, Koba in view of Tkachenko teaches the limitations of claim 8, and further teaches a memory configured to store information on a reactance slope of a normal cell in the voltage section of the predetermined range and a reactance slope of a defective cell in the voltage section of the predetermined range (see Koba, Fig. 5 and the “storage means” in ¶11; also discussed in the rejection of claim 8 above). While Koba in view of Tkachenko does not explicitly teach that the memory stores the reactance slopes “for a set of frequencies comprising the predetermined frequency”, it would have been obvious to do so in order to establish a relationship between slope and SOC at multiple different applied frequencies for EIS measurement, thus expanding the set of applied EIS frequencies from which SOC information can be estimated.
Furthermore, consider Fig. 5 of Koba. The limitations of claim 15 are met by comparing the angle of the battery under test to the data in Fig. 5 (¶11: a memory "stores correlations between a slope and a state of charge"; recall also that the data points in Fig. 5 are determined by comparing the measured impedance of a test battery to that of a reference battery at equivalent frequencies, see ¶10-11 and discussion in the rejection of claim 1), and designating the battery as "normal" or usable if its slope indicates there is significant charge remaining (on Fig. 5 that appears to be within maybe 15
°
of 45°) or "defective" i.e. inoperable if its slope is close to the fully discharged slope value (within 10° or so of 80°). It would have been obvious for Koba in view of Tkachenko to do so in order to apply a previously collected dataset to estimate whether a battery is usable from its EIS measurements.
For the reasons above, then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Koba in view of Tkachenko configure the processor to:
obtain, from the memory, information on the reactance slope of the normal cell in the voltage section of the predetermined range at the predetermined frequency and the reactance slope of the defective cell in the voltage section of the predetermined range at the predetermined frequency,
diagnose the battery cell as normal when the battery cell's reactance slope in the voltage section of the predetermined range is within a threshold value of the reactance slope of the normal cell in the voltage section of the predetermined range at the predetermined frequency, and
diagnose the battery cell as defective when the battery cell's reactance slope in the voltage section of the predetermined range is within a second threshold value of the reactance slope of the defective cell in the voltage section of the predetermined range at the predetermined frequency.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 5-6, the limitations of these claims are found in claims 8-9 and 12-13, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites a computer program stored in a non-volatile recording medium, which when executed by a computing device causes it to execute the method of claim 1. These limitations are rejected for the same reasons as claim 8, noting that the additional limitations of claim 16 recite the normal operations of applying a general-purpose computer to a method, which would have been obvious to implement a method autonomously.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koba (US 20140229130 A1) in view of Tkachenko (US 20170302088 A1), and further in view of Chow (US 20140350877 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Koba in view of Tkachenko teaches the limitations of claim 8 but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 14.
Chow discloses a battery with an OCV range that encompasses 3.5V and 3.8V over its SOC curve (Fig. 2 and ¶12: Fig. 2 is a graph for a lithium battery).
It would have been obvious in light of Chow for the battery under test of Koba in view of Tkachenko to have a voltage section that includes a section between 3.5V and 3.8V, since there are batteries with an SOC curve that encompasses that OCV range.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations of claim 7 are found in claim 14 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 10-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, Koba in view of Tkachenko teaches the limitations of claim 2, but the examiner finds that it would not have been obvious to cause the threshold value to be -8.2 ohms per volt. Therefore claim 3 is distinguishable over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 4, the discussion of claim 3 above applies, replacing -8.2 ohms with -8 ohms.
Regarding claims 10-11, these claims recite the same limitations as claims 3-4 and are considered distinguishable over the prior art of record for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)272-0266. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am-5pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/E.W.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights