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 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 previous cause-based deterioration state acquisition unit,” “a use condition acquisition unit,” “a deterioration rate coefficient calculation unit,” “a cause-based deterioration state computation unit,” and “a deterioration-state computation unit” in claim 12.
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.
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.
A review of the specification as filed shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structures, materials, or acts described in the specification as filed for the recited 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) limitations: computers, processors, a cpu, software, and a program.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5-6, and 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 13: “based on a use condition at time of prediction” should be corrected to “based on a use condition of the secondary battery at time of prediction”.
Claim 5 line 3: “wherein the previous cause-based deterioration state is the cause-based deterioration state calculated based on: the previous cause-based deterioration state at a time point a second time period before a time point before the first time period; and the unit cause-based deterioration state during the second time period” should be corrected to “wherein the previous cause-based deterioration state is [[the]]a cause-based deterioration state calculated based on: [[the]]a previous cause-based deterioration state at a time point a second time period before a time point before the first time period; and [[the]]a unit cause-based deterioration state during the second time period”.
Claim 6 line 4: “and voltage information as the use condition” should be corrected to “and voltage information as the use condition of the secondary battery”.
Claim 12 line 6: “acquire a use condition at time of prediction” should be corrected to “acquire a use condition of the secondary battery at time of prediction”.
Claim 13 line 6: “acquiring a use condition” should be corrected to “acquiring a use condition of the secondary battery”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 and 13 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a unit cause-based deterioration state indicating deterioration occurring during the first time period, while considering” in lines 8-9. It is unclear from the language of the claim if the recited “unit cause-based deterioration state” is intended to be a measurement, is the result of a calculation, or is a device for calculating. It is unclear if the use of “a unit” is intended to indicate a battery or is intended to indicate a processor. The claims are indefinite because it is unclear what is required by the claims. The limitation shall be interpreted as determining a deterioration that occurred during a first time period. This rejection could be overcome by amending the claim language to clarify what the “unit cause-based deterioration state” is an how it is determined.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “while considering” in line 9. Regarding claim 1, the phrase "while considering" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. This rejection could be overcome by amending the claim language to clarify the relationship between the “unit cause-based deterioration state”, the “time dependence”, and the “deterioration rate”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “time dependence varying depending on the cause of deterioration” in line 10. It is unclear from the language of the claim if the claim only requires that the deterioration be time varying or if the claim requires determining a parameter that follows a power law. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear what is required by the claim. For the purposes of examination the recited limitation shall be interpretated as requiring that the deterioration be time varying. This rejection could be overcome by amending the claim language to clarify what is time varying.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “following a power law” in lines 10-11. It is unclear from the language of the claim what is following a power law. For example, is the recited “time dependence” or the “unit cause-based deterioration state” following the power law. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear what is required by the claim. For the purposes of examination the recited limitation shall be interpreted as requiring the use of a power law when determining deterioration. This rejection could be overcome by amending the claim language to clarify how the power law is used.
Claim 13 recites the limitations “a function of acquiring,” “a function of acquiring a use condition,” “a function of determining,” “a function of calculating,” and “a function of predicting”. It is unclear from the language of the claim if the recited function is intended to a step performed in a process or a specific algorithm. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear what is required by the claim. For the purposes of examination the recited functions shall be interpreted as referring to steps. This rejection could be overcome by amending the claim language. For example, by removing reference to “a function”.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1 the limitation(s):
calculating each of the cause-based deterioration states based on:
a previous cause-based deterioration state being the cause-based deterioration state a first time period ago; and
a unit cause-based deterioration state indicating deterioration occurring during the first time period, while considering:
time dependence varying depending on the cause of deterioration and following a power law with respect to an elapsed time of the cause-based deterioration state; and
a deterioration rate varying depending on the cause of deterioration and determined based on a use condition at time of prediction.
These limitation(s) highlighted in (bold) is/are directed to an abstract idea and would fall within the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. The above portion(s) of the claim(s) constitute(s) an abstract idea because:
The limitation(s) regarding “calculating each of the cause-based deterioration states”, as drafted, is an act of observation and evaluation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a unit,” nothing in the claim language precludes the Step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a unit” language, “calculating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually calculating a deterioration state.
The limitation(s) regarding “a unit cause-based deterioration state indicating deterioration occurring during the first time period”, as drafted, is an act of observation and evaluation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a unit,” nothing in the claim language precludes the Step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a unit” language, “indicating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually calculating deterioration during a time period.
The limitation(s) regarding “time dependence varying depending on the cause of deterioration and following a power law with respect to an elapsed time of the cause-based deterioration state”, as drafted, is an act of observation and evaluation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a unit,” nothing in the claim language precludes the Step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a unit” language, “considering” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually considering time dependance.
Further, the limitation regarding “time dependence varying depending on the cause of deterioration and following a power law with respect to an elapsed time of the cause-based deterioration state”, as drafted, falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. This interpretation is supported in the specification as shown by equation 1 of the specification as filed which is an explicit recitation of an equation corresponding to the claimed limitation. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
The limitation(s) regarding “a deterioration rate varying depending on the cause of deterioration and determined based on a use condition at time of prediction”, as drafted, is an act of observation and evaluation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a unit,” nothing in the claim language precludes the Step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a unit” language, “considering” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually considering a deterioration rate.
Further, the limitation regarding “a deterioration rate varying depending on the cause of deterioration and determined based on a use condition at time of prediction”, as drafted, falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. This interpretation is supported in the specification as shown by equation 3 of the specification as filed which is an explicit recitation of an equation corresponding to the claimed limitation. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Further, referring to the MPEP 2106.04, the claim limitations are analogous to a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations, then it fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the non- abstract additional elements of the claims do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s) recited in the preceding claim(s). In particular, the claims recited the additional elements of:
The limitation(s) regarding “A deterioration-state prediction method for calculating a cause-based deterioration state for each cause of deterioration and predicting a deterioration state of a secondary battery based on a plurality of the cause-based deterioration states” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because it is recited at such a high-level of generality that it is viewed as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to batteries. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, fails to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to.
The limitation(s) regarding “a previous cause-based deterioration state being the cause-based deterioration state a first time period ago” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to. Rather the limitation is recited at such a high-level of generality that it amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e. data gathering. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are regarded as data gathering steps necessary or routine to implement the abstract idea.
The limitation(s) regarding “a unit” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim limitation is a generic computer component performing the generic computer function of receiving, storing, and comparing data such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
As such Examiner does NOT view that the claims:
-Improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field;
-Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b);
-Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c); or
-Apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) data gathering functions.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “a secondary battery” is/are seen as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Linking a judicial exception to a technological environment cannot provide an inventive concept. Similarly, with regards to the additional element(s) of “a previous caused-based deterioration state” is/are viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity, such as mere data gathering in a conventional way and, therefore, does not provide an inventive concept. Similarly, with regards to the additional element(s) of “a unit” is/are view as a generic computer component performing the generic computer function of receiving, storing, and comparing data such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Examiner further notes that such additional elements are viewed to be well- understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) as evidenced by: Sada et al. (US 20210021000 A1), Suzuki et al. (US 20230194619 A1), Ukumori et al. (US 20210033680 A1), Jung et al. (US 20220115875 A1), Okade et la. (US 20210293892 A1), Ukumori (US 20200057113 A1), Takagi (US 20120310571 A1).
Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way. As currently claimed, Examiner views that the additional elements do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, because the claims fails to recite clearly how the judicial exception is applied in a manner that does not monopolize the exception because the limitation regarding “a secondary battery,” “a previous cause-based deterioration state,” and “a unit” can be viewed as a field of use, necessary data gathering, and any device and do not impose a meaningful limitation describing what problem is being remedied or solved.
Independent claims 12 and 13 are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additionally recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an Abstract idea. Claims *** recite(s) the additional elements of:
The limitation(s) regarding “a use condition acquisition unit configured to acquire a use condition at time of prediction at which the deterioration state of the secondary battery is predicted” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to. Rather the limitation is recited at such a high-level of generality that it amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e. data gathering. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are regarded as data gathering steps necessary or routine to implement the abstract idea.
The limitation(s) regarding “a previous cause-based deterioration state acquisition unit,” “a use condition acquisition unit,” “a deterioration rate coefficient calculation unit,” “a cause-based deterioration state computation unit,” and “a deterioration-state computation unit” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to. Rather the limitation is recited at such a high-level of generality that it amounts to a generic computer component performing the generic computer function of receiving, storing, and comparing data such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The limitation regarding “a deterioration rate coefficient calculation unit configured to determine, for each cause of deterioration, a deterioration rate coefficient corresponding to a deterioration rate of the secondary battery with use of the use condition”, as drafted, falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. This interpretation is supported in the specification as shown by equation 4 which is an explicit recitation of an equation corresponding to the claimed limitation. Thus, the claim(s) are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The limitation regarding “a cause-based deterioration state computation unit configured to calculate the cause-based deterioration state for each cause of deterioration based on: a time coefficient applied to an elapsed time predetermined for the cause of deterioration; the deterioration rate coefficient; and the previous cause-based deterioration state”, as drafted, falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. This interpretation is supported in the specification as shown by equation 1 which is an explicit recitation of an equation corresponding to the claimed limitation. Thus, the claim(s) are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The limitation regarding “a deterioration-state computation unit configured to predict the deterioration state of the secondary battery based on a plurality of the cause-based deterioration states calculated for corresponding causes of deterioration”, as drafted, falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. This interpretation is supported in the specification as shown by equation 2 which is an explicit recitation of an equation corresponding to the claimed limitation. Thus, the claim(s) are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-11 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additionally recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below: there are no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that adds a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea to make the claims significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea).
Claims 4 and 6-10 recite limitations regarding data gathering steps and insignificant application necessary or routine to implement the abstract idea and thus are not significantly more than the abstract idea and viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by the prior art shown above.
Claims 2-3 and 5-9 further limit the abstract idea with an abstract idea, such as an “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts”, and thus the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sada et al. (US 20210021000 A1).
Regarding Claim 1. Sada teaches:
A deterioration-state prediction method for calculating a cause-based deterioration state for each cause of deterioration and predicting a deterioration state of a secondary battery based on a plurality of the cause-based deterioration states, the method comprising:
calculating each of the cause-based deterioration states (See para[0018] – para[0020]: Constant deterioration of the secondary battery 5 can be approximated by the sum of storage deterioration and cycle deterioration.) based on:
a previous cause-based deterioration state being the cause-based deterioration state a first time period ago (See Fig. 3, Fig. 4, para[0008], and para[0056] – para[0059]: k(T1,SOC range 1,C1) is the deterioration speed of the cycle deterioration in the primary use period.); and
a unit cause-based deterioration state indicating deterioration occurring during the first time period (See Fig. 3, Fig. 4, para[0008], and para[0056] – para[0059]: k(T2,SOC range 2,C2) is the deterioration speed of the cycle deterioration in the secondary use period.), while considering:
time dependence varying depending on the cause of deterioration and following a power law with respect to an elapsed time of the cause-based deterioration state (See para[0056] – para[0059]: in order to carry over the deterioration of the n-th power law from the primary use to the secondary use, the deterioration degrees are raised to the 1/n-th power, added up, and then raised to the n-th power.); and
a deterioration rate varying depending on the cause of deterioration and determined based on a use condition at time of prediction (See para[0056] – para[0059]: the deterioration speed update unit 21b acquires the model data of the usage method and the usage environment of the secondary battery 5 during the secondary use period and derives the deterioration speed of the storage deterioration and the deterioration speed of the cycle deterioration of the secondary battery 5 during the secondary use period.).
Regarding Claim 2. Sada teaches:
The deterioration-state prediction method according to claim 1,
wherein the cause-based deterioration state is obtained as μt={μ(t-δ)1/β-α1/β-δ}β (See para[0056] – para[0059]:
PNG
media_image1.png
68
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image2.png
62
506
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.),
where t denotes a time of prediction (See para[0057]: wherein t1 is the elapsed time in the primary use period. t2 is the elapsed time in the secondary use period.) ,
δ denotes the first time period (See para[0056] – para[0059]: primary use period.),
μ.sub.t denotes the cause-based deterioration state (See para[0056] – para[0059]: total capacity deterioration rate due to storage deterioration.),
μ.sub.(t−δ) denotes the previous cause-based deterioration state (See para[0056] – para[0059]: k(T1,SOC1) is the deterioration speed of the storage deterioration in the primary use period.),
α denotes a deterioration rate coefficient corresponding to the deterioration rate (See para[0056] – para[0059]: k(T2,SOC2) is the deterioration speed of the storage deterioration in the secondary use period.), and
β denotes a time coefficient indicating the time dependence (See para[0056] – para[0059]: in order to carry over the deterioration of the n-th power law from the primary use to the secondary use, the deterioration degrees are raised to the 1/n-th power, added up, and then raised to the n-th power.).
Regarding Claim 3. Sada teaches:
The deterioration-state prediction method according to claim 2,
wherein the deterioration state is obtained by adding up all of the calculated cause-based deterioration states (See para[0018] – para[0020]: Constant deterioration of the secondary battery 5 can be approximated by the sum of storage deterioration and cycle deterioration.).
Regarding Claim 4. Sada teaches:
The deterioration-state prediction method according to claim 1,
wherein the previous cause-based deterioration state is an actual measurement value obtained by any method (See para[0028]: The measuring device 10 is a device that measures the state of the secondary battery 5 that has already been used for the primary use, without the disassembling of the secondary battery 5.).
Regarding Claim 5. Sada teaches:
The deterioration-state prediction method according to claim 1,
wherein the previous cause-based deterioration state is the cause-based deterioration state calculated based on:
the previous cause-based deterioration state at a time point a second time period before a time point before the first time period (See para[0057]: wherein t1 is the elapsed time in the primary use period, k(T1,SOC1) is the deterioration speed of the storage deterioration in the primary use period.); and
the unit cause-based deterioration state during the second time period (See para[0057]: wherein t1 is the elapsed time in the primary use period, k(T1,SOC1) is the deterioration speed of the storage deterioration in the primary use period.).
Regarding Claim 6. Sada teaches:
The deterioration-state prediction method according to claim 1,
wherein:
the deterioration rate is determined with use of temperature information (See para[0018] and para[0056] – para[0059]: temperature T2.), current information (See para[0018], [0020] and para[0056] – para[0059]: The storage deterioration depends on the state of charge (SOC).), and voltage information as the use condition (See para[0050], [0056] – para[0059]: c2 is a charging and discharging cycle in the secondary use period.),
the temperature information includes at least one of: cell temperature (See para[0035]: the measuring device 10 also includes a temperature sensor for detecting a temperature change of the secondary battery 5 at the time of measurement.); environmental temperature; and air temperature,
the current information includes at least one of: a charging current (See para[0020]: a cumulative charging current amount [Ah].); a discharging current (See para[0020]: a cumulative discharging current amount [Ah].); a charging rate (See para[0020]: a current rate C.); a discharging rate (See para[0020]: a current rate C.); a total amount of discharged electricity (See para[0020]: cumulative discharging electric energy [Wh].); and a total amount of charged electricity (See para[0018] and para[0056] – para[0059]: The storage deterioration depends on the state of charge (SOC).), and
the voltage information includes at least one of: an average voltage; an average charging state; an upper-limit charging voltage (See para[0034]: The power supply circuit 11 can charge or discharge the secondary battery 5 connected to the measuring device 10 at a predetermined voltage value.); a lower-limit discharging voltage (See para[0034]: The power supply circuit 11 can charge or discharge the secondary battery 5 connected to the measuring device 10 at a predetermined voltage value.); a time spent in a range of a predetermined charging state (See para[0056] – para[0059]: c2 is a charging and discharging cycle in the secondary use period.); and an overvoltage.
Regarding Claim 10. Sada teaches
The deterioration-state prediction method according to claim 6,
wherein the deterioration rate is determined with use of:
use history data including history of the temperature information (See para[0026]: The management unit 1a also records the SOC, the temperature, and the rest time of the secondary battery 5 in a resting state, together with the time information.),
history of the current information (See para[0026]: The management unit 1a also records the SOC, the temperature, and the rest time of the secondary battery 5 in a resting state, together with the time information.), and
history of the voltage information (See para[0034]: The power supply circuit 11 can charge or discharge the secondary battery 5 connected to the measuring device 10 at a predetermined voltage value.); and
cell status history data including at least one of: battery capacity history (See Fig. 4 and para[0044]: The deterioration diagnosis unit 21a measures the capacity of the secondary battery 5 that has already been used for the primary use.); resistance history (See para[0046]: the internal resistance is measured.), battery voltage history (See para[0035]: The voltage sensor 13 measures the voltage of the secondary battery 5 and outputs the measured voltage to the communication unit 14.); output history (See para[0020]: a cumulative discharging current amount [Ah].); outer dimensions; and a confining pressure.
Regarding Claims 12 and 13. Sada teaches:
A deterioration-state prediction apparatus configured to predict a deterioration state of a secondary battery, the apparatus comprising:
a previous cause-based deterioration state acquisition unit configured to acquire, for each cause of deterioration of the secondary battery, a previous cause-based deterioration state being a cause-based deterioration state acquired a first time period ago for the cause of deterioration (See Fig. 3, Fig. 4, para[0008], and para[0056] – para[0059]: k(T1,SOC range 1,C1) is the deterioration speed of the cycle deterioration in the primary use period.);
a use condition acquisition unit configured to acquire a use condition at time of prediction at which the deterioration state of the secondary battery is predicted (See para[0056] – para[0059]: the deterioration speed update unit 21b acquires the model data of the usage method and the usage environment of the secondary battery 5 during the secondary use period and derives the deterioration speed of the storage deterioration and the deterioration speed of the cycle deterioration of the secondary battery 5 during the secondary use period.);
a deterioration rate coefficient calculation unit configured to determine, for each cause of deterioration, a deterioration rate coefficient corresponding to a deterioration rate of the secondary battery with use of the use condition (See Fig. 3, Fig. 4, para[0008], and para[0056] – para[0059]: k(T2,SOC range 2,C2) is the deterioration speed of the cycle deterioration in the secondary use period.);
a cause-based deterioration state computation unit configured to calculate the cause-based deterioration state for each cause of deterioration (See para[0018] – para[0020]: Constant deterioration of the secondary battery 5 can be approximated by the sum of storage deterioration and cycle deterioration.) based on:
a time coefficient applied to an elapsed time predetermined for the cause of deterioration (See para[0056] – para[0059]: in order to carry over the deterioration of the n-th power law from the primary use to the secondary use, the deterioration degrees are raised to the 1/n-th power, added up, and then raised to the n-th power.);
the deterioration rate coefficient (See Fig. 3, Fig. 4, para[0008], and para[0056] – para[0059]: k(T2,SOC range 2,C2) is the deterioration speed of the cycle deterioration in the secondary use period.); and
the previous cause-based deterioration state (See Fig. 3, Fig. 4, para[0008], and para[0056] – para[0059]: k(T1,SOC range 1,C1) is the deterioration speed of the cycle deterioration in the primary use period.); and
a deterioration-state computation unit configured to predict the deterioration state of the secondary battery based on a plurality of the cause-based deterioration states calculated for corresponding causes of deterioration (See para[0018] – para[0020] and para[0061]: The remaining performance estimation unit 21c converts the respective scales of the deterioration degree of the storage deterioration and the deterioration degree of the cycle deterioration in the horizontal axis into time, and adds up the respective capacity deterioration rates of the deterioration speed of the storage deterioration and the deterioration speed of the cycle deterioration in the vertical axis so as to estimate a total deterioration prediction curve for the primary use period and the secondary use period of the secondary battery 5.).
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) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sada et al. (US 20210021000 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 20230194619 A1).
Regarding Claim 7. Sada is silent as to the language of:
The deterioration-state prediction method according to claim 6,
wherein the overvoltage is obtained by applying a current to the secondary battery over a predetermined time period and stopping the current, and subtracting a voltage value of the secondary battery at a time point before starting applying the current to the secondary battery from a voltage value of the secondary battery at a time point a predetermined third time period after the start of applying the current.
Nevertheless Suzuki teaches:
wherein the overvoltage is obtained by applying a current to the secondary battery over a predetermined time period and stopping the current (See Fig. 10, para[0006], and para[0076]: the battery 21 is discharged continuously with a large current of several hundred amperes (A) in a period from the time t10 to the time t11.), and
subtracting a voltage value of the secondary battery at a time point before starting applying the current to the secondary battery from a voltage value of the secondary battery at a time point a predetermined third time period after the start of applying the current (See Fig. 10, and para[0006]: the processor is configured to calculate the polarization overvoltage by subtracting a voltage drop amount caused by a direct current resistance and a reactive resistance of the secondary battery determined in accordance with a temperature and a state of charge of the secondary battery from a voltage difference between an open circuit voltage of the secondary battery and the closed circuit voltage detected by the voltage sensor.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sada wherein the overvoltage is obtained by applying a current to the secondary battery over a predetermined time period and stopping the current, and subtracting a voltage value of the secondary battery at a time point before starting applying the current to the secondary battery from a voltage value of the secondary battery at a time point a predetermined third time period after the start of applying the current such as that of Suzuki. Suzuki teaches, “As a result, there is a possibility that the secondary battery cannot be properly protected, such as when the secondary battery is overdischarged. Therefore, there is always a demand to accurately calculate the voltage drop amount due to polarization of the secondary battery” (See para[0004]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sada, because determining an overvoltage would have helped to protect against overdischarge, as recognized by Suzuki.
Regarding Claim 8. Sada is silent as to the language of:
The deterioration-state prediction method according to claim 6,
wherein the overvoltage is obtained by applying a current to the secondary battery over a predetermined time period and stopping the current, and subtracting a voltage value of the secondary battery at a time point a predetermined fourth time period after the stop of the current from a voltage value of the secondary battery while the current is applied.
Nevertheless Suzuki teaches:
wherein the overvoltage is obtained by applying a current to the secondary battery over a predetermined time period and stopping the current (See Fig. 10, para[0006], and para[0076]: the battery 21 is discharged continuously with a large current of several hundred amperes (A) in a period from the time t10 to the time t11.), and
subtracting a voltage value of the secondary battery at a time point a predetermined fourth time period after the stop of the current from a voltage value of the secondary battery while the current is applied (See Fig. 10, and para[0006]: the processor is configured to calculate the polarization overvoltage by subtracting a voltage drop amount caused by a direct current resistance and a reactive resistance of the secondary battery determined in accordance with a temperature and a state of charge of the secondary battery from a voltage difference between an open circuit voltage of the secondary battery and the closed circuit voltage detected by the voltage sensor.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sada wherein the overvoltage is obtained by applying a current to the secondary battery over a predetermined time period and stopping the current, and subtracting a voltage value of the secondary battery at a time point a predetermined fourth time period after the stop of the current from a voltage value of the secondary battery while the current is applied such as that of Suzuki. Suzuki teaches, “As a result, there is a possibility that the secondary battery cannot be properly protected, such as when the secondary battery is overdischarged. Therefore, there is always a demand to accurately calculate the voltage drop amount due to polarization of the secondary battery” (See para[0004]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sada, because determining an overvoltage would have helped to protect against overdischarge, as recognized by Suzuki.
Regarding Claim 9. Sada is silent as to the language of:
The deterioration-state prediction method according to claim 6,
wherein the overvoltage is obtained as a product of the charging current and an internal resistance of the secondary battery.
Nevertheless Suzuki teaches:
wherein the overvoltage is obtained as a product of the charging current (See para[0008]: discharge current.) and an internal resistance of the secondary battery (See para[0065]: The internal resistance R of the battery 21 increases.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sada wherein the overvoltage is obtained as a product of the charging current and an internal resistance of the secondary battery such as that of Suzuki. Suzuki teaches, “As a result, there is a possibility that the secondary battery cannot be properly protected, such as when the secondary battery is overdischarged. Therefore, there is always a demand to accurately calculate the voltage drop amount due to polarization of the secondary battery” (See para[0004]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sada, because determining an overvoltage would have helped to protect against overdischarge, as recognized by Suzuki.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sada et al. (US 20210021000 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Ukumori et al. (US 20210033680 A1).
Regarding Claim 11. Sada is silent as to the language of:
The deterioration-state prediction method according to claim 10,
wherein the deterioration rate is determined by machine-learning the use history data and the cell status history data.
Nevertheless Ukumori teaches:
wherein the deterioration rate is determined by machine-learning the use history data and the cell status history data (See para[0007]: a learning processing unit that causes a learning model to learn based on learning data with time-series data relating to a state of the energy storage device from the first time point to the second time point and the SOH at the first time point as input data and with the SOH at the second time point as output data.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sada wherein the deterioration rate is determined by machine-learning the use history data and the cell status history data such as that of Ukumori. Ukumori teaches, “Thus, a learning-completed learning model capable of accurately estimating the SOH can be generated” (See para[0021]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sada, because using machine learning would have helped to accurately estimate deterioration, as recognized by Ukumori.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jung et al. (US 20220115875 A1) discloses determining an aging of a battery using an aging rate coefficient (See Abstract and para[0010].)
Okade et la. (US 20210293892 A1) discloses estimating the amount of deterioration for each deterioration mechanism of an energy storage device (See para[0020].)
Ukumori (US 20200057113 A1) discloses estimating degradation using energized and nonenergized degradation (See Abstract and para[0006].).
Takagi (US 20120310571 A1) discloses determining sum of change amounts of deterioration by adding each deterioration condition (See Abstract and para[0007].).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARTER W FERRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-0551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 am - 8 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine T. Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CARTER W FERRELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights