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 1-7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “A method for assessing an electrical storage cell, the method comprising:
a) creating a reference data set relating to the ageing behavior of an individual reference storage cell of a specific type with regard to the charging and discharging behavior thereof;
b) creating a second reference data set of a second reference storage cell of the same type:
c) measuring an electrochemical operating characteristic of each reference storage cell for which a reference data set is created, and linking this operating characteristic to the reference data set thereof;
d) saving at least two reference data sets of at least two reference storage cells of the same type and the associated links to the operating characteristic in a database;
e) measuring the electrochemical operating characteristic of a storage cell; and
f) comparing the measured operating characteristic of the storage cell with the operating characteristics of the reference storage cells saved in the database; and
g) assigning the storage cell on the basis of an assignment key to one of the operating characteristics saved in the database and the reference data set linked thereto.”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process for claim 1).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions).
In claim 1, the step of “creating a reference data set relating to the ageing behavior of an individual reference storage cell of a specific type with regard to the charging and discharging behavior thereof” is a mathematical concept, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea.
The step of “comparing the measured operating characteristic of the storage cell with the operating characteristics of the reference storage cells saved in the database is a combination of a mathematical concept and a mental process, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea.
The step of “assigning the storage cell on the basis of an assignment key to one of the operating characteristics saved in the database and the reference data set linked thereto” is a mental process, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim comprises the following additional elements:
creating a second reference data set of a second reference storage cell of the same type: measuring an electrochemical operating characteristic of each reference storage cell for which a reference data set is created, and linking this operating characteristic to the reference data set thereof; saving at least two reference data sets of at least two reference storage cells of the same type and the associated links to the operating characteristic in a database; measuring the electrochemical operating characteristic of a storage cell.
The additional elements “creating a second reference data set of a second reference storage cell of the same type”: “measuring an electrochemical operating characteristic of each reference storage cell for which a reference data set is created, and linking this operating characteristic to the reference data set thereof”; “saving at least two reference data sets of at least two reference storage cells of the same type and the associated links to the operating characteristic in a database”; and “measuring the electrochemical operating characteristic of a storage cell” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, creating a second reference data set of a second reference storage cell of the same type is disclosed by “Schmidt DE 102017218715A1”, [0032], [0033]; and “Mitsui US 20200209319”, Abstract, [0007], [0021], [0061].
For example, measuring an electrochemical operating characteristic of each reference storage cell for which a reference data set is created is disclosed by “Schmidt DE 102017218715A1”, [0024], [0032]; and “Ugaji US 6480003 B1”, Claim 6, Claim 7.
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-7 and 9-12 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not patent 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.
Claims 1, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (DE 102017218715A1, hereinafter Schmidt) in view of Sakamoto (JP 2015094726A, hereinafter Sakamoto).
As to claim 1, Schmidt teaches creating a reference data set relating to the ageing behavior of an individual reference storage cell of a specific type with regard to the charging and discharging behavior thereof ([0012], [0032], [0033] disclose
determining the temperature T and state of charge (SOC) of a lithium-ion cell comprise
provision of impedance reference data for the impedance values measured in to obtain a first impedance value A and a second impedance value B as a function of T and SOC, Aref (T, SOC) and Bref (T, SOC). Impedance values A and B depend not only on T and SOC, but also on other parameters such as the cell's state of health (SOH), and Aref (T, SOC, SOH) and Bref (T, SOC, SOH) are determined from the reference points (i.e.,
the SOH can be determined by measuring the usable capacity after discharging and
maximum charging; and Aref (T, SOC, SOH) can be considered as a reference data set - emphasis added by Examiner);
creating a second reference data set of a second reference storage cell of the same type ([0032] and [0033] disclose the LUT or the impedance model can be supplemented with further reference points for cells with a defined aging state in order to calculate reference data for A and B as a function of T, SOC and SOH, i.e., Aref (T, SOC, SOH) and Bref (T, SOC, SOH) points (i.e., cells with a defined state of aging or different cells have different states of aging, and the SOH can be determined by measuring the usable capacity after discharging and maximum charging; and Bref (T, SOC, SOH) can be considered as a second reference data set - emphasis added by Examiner)):
measuring an electrochemical operating characteristic of each reference storage cell for which a reference data set is created, and linking this operating characteristic to the reference data set thereof ([0024] and [0032] disclose two impedance values A and B are measured; and reference data for A and B as a function of T, SOC and SOH, i.e., Aref (T, SOC, SOH) and Bref (T, SOC, SOH) points are calculated and created (i.e., measured two impedance values A and B are electrochemical operating characteristic of each reference storage cell; and the reference data set Aref (T, SOC, SOH) and Bref (T, SOC, SOH) link the operating characteristic of two impedance values A and B - emphasis added by Examiner));
saving at least two reference data sets of at least two reference storage cells of the same type and the associated links to the operating characteristic in a database ([0055] discloses a data storage in which the values for A and B are stored as a table (LUT) depending on SOC and T, and from which the required reference data can be read or interpolated (i.e., the reference data set Aref (T, SOC, SOH) and Bref (T, SOC, SOH) are stored in a lookup table (LUT) or a database - emphasis added by Examiner));
measuring the electrochemical operating characteristic of a storage cell ([0002] discloses Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) is an established method for characterizing electrochemical systems, especially galvanic cells, which generally involves measuring the impedance; [0012]); and
comparing the measured operating characteristic of the storage cell with the operating characteristics of the reference storage cells saved in the database ([0054] and [0055] disclose the control unit or the battery management unit calculates the impedance from the measured current and voltage signals, compares the impedance with the reference data saved in the database or LUT, and determines T and SOC of the battery cell).
Schmidt does not explicitly teach assigning the storage cell on the basis of an assignment key to one of the operating characteristics saved in the database and the reference data set linked.
Sakamoto teaches assigning the storage cell on the basis of an assignment key to one of the operating characteristics saved in the database and the reference data set linked thereto ([0015]; [0048] and [0050] disclose “The SOC database 122 stores the shapes of multiple reference SOC curves that have been created in advance for each battery state of a standard battery (reference battery). The fitting processing unit 123 fits (matches) the shape of the measured SOC curve of the battery 10 (target battery) with the shape of the reference SOC curves that have been created in advance for each battery state of the standard battery (reference battery) (i.e., one of the operating characteristics saved in the database and the reference data set - emphasis added by Examiner). From among the multiple reference SOC curves created, it uses a statistical method to select the reference SOC curve that is closest in shape to the measured SOC curve (i.e., the fitting processing unit matches or connects the measured SOC curve of the battery or tested cell to the most similar or closest reference cell on the basis of an assignment key or the reference plot curve that is the closest in shape to the measured plot curve - emphasis added by Examiner), and identifies the SOC amount of the battery 10 based on the selected reference SOC curve.”; [0020]; Claim 2 discloses “a database that stores the shapes of multiple reference call-call plot curves that have been created in advance for each battery state of the reference battery”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Sakamoto into Schmidt for the purpose of obtaining an SOC curve of a battery by processing battery impedance measured at a plurality of frequencies in order to select a reference SOC curve closest in shape to a measured SOC curve from among a plurality of created reference SOC curves. This combination would improve in accurately measuring and diagnosing a capacity and a state-of-health amount of a battery.
As to claim 6, the combination of Schmidt and Sakamoto teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 1.
Schmidt teaches wherein determining the electrochemical operating characteristic includes an electrochemical impedance spectroscopy ([0002] discloses
Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) is an established method for characterizing electrochemical systems, especially galvanic cells, which generally involves measuring the impedance).
As to claim 7, the combination of Schmidt and Sakamoto teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 6.
Schmidt teaches wherein determining the electrochemical operating characteristic includes considering discrete frequencies of impedance spectrum obtained by the impedance spectroscopy ([0002] and [0038] disclose the impedance spectroscopy characterizes electrochemical systems, especially galvanic cells, which generally involves measuring the impedance, i.e., the complex AC resistance, as a function of the frequency of the excitation signal. Measurements can be performed at multiple frequencies to improve accuracy, and from an initial measurement at a high frequency, for example 1 kHz to 5 kHz, an accurate temperature determination and a rough determination of the SOC can be made, and a second measurement at a low frequency, for example 10 to 500 Hz, and taking into account the temperature determined in the first measurement, can then be used to accurately determine the SOC (i.e., a high frequency of 1 kHz to 5 kHz, and a low frequency of 10 to 500 Hz are discrete frequencies of impedance spectrum - emphasis added by Examiner)).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt and Sakamoto, in view of Mitsui et al. (US 20200209319, hereinafter Mitsui).
As to claim 9, the combination of Schmidt and Sakamoto teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 1.
Schmidt teaches wherein at following assignment of a storage cell to a reference data set ([0032]; [0033]).
The combination of Schmidt and Sakamoto does not explicitly teach wherein at following assignment of a storage cell to a reference data set, producing a usage specification of the storage cell in a battery storage system.
Mitsui teaches following assignment of a storage cell to a reference data set ([0008]; [0067]), producing a usage specification of the storage cell in a battery storage system ([0003]; [0067] discloses whether or not the battery capacity (the fully charged capacity in the present embodiment) of a module M is greater than or equal to the reference capacity can be determined by extracting, as a feature value, the imaginary component of the alternating current impedance at an end of the linear portion and the slope of the linear portion from the Nyquist plot of the module M (i.e., producing a usage specification of the storage cell in a battery storage system - emphasis added by Examiner). Note that the modules M having a battery capacity of less than the reference capacity are considered to be excessively deteriorated and not suitable for reuse (rebuild)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Mitsui into Schmidt in view of Sakamoto for the purpose of evaluating performance characteristics of secondary batteries in order to determine a policy on how to reuse collected secondary batteries according to results of the evaluation. This combination would improve in accurately evaluating performance characteristics of secondary batteries so that the batteries determined to be reusable are reused or rebuilt as a part of a newly manufactured battery pack.
As to claim 10, the combination of Schmidt and Sakamoto teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 1.
Schmidt teaches wherein at following assignment of a storage cell to a reference data set ([0032]; [0033]).
The combination of Schmidt and Sakamoto does not explicitly teach after assigning the storage cell to a reference data set, assigning the storage cell to a quality class.
Mitsui teaches after assigning the storage cell to a reference data set ([0008]; [0067]), assigning the storage cell to a quality class (FIG. 8, [0070] discloses FIG . 8 shows the two group classification of the battery capacity, and the first group has capacity greater than or equal to reference capacity (i.e., battery with a better quality class - emphasis added by Examiner), and the second group has capacity less than reference capacity (i.e., battery with less quality class - emphasis added by Examiner)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Mitsui into Schmidt in view of Sakamoto for the purpose of evaluating performance characteristics of secondary batteries in order to determine a policy on how to reuse collected secondary batteries according to results of the evaluation. This combination would improve in accurately evaluating performance characteristics of secondary batteries so that the batteries determined to be reusable are reused or rebuilt as a part of a newly manufactured battery pack.
Examiner' s Note
Regarding Claims 2-5, and 11-12, the most pertinent prior arts are "Schmidt DE 102017218715A1","Sakamoto JP 2015094726A", “Ugaji US 6480003B1” , "Tanaka US 20170366023", "Mitsui US 20200209319", "Wicki EP 3893316A1", "Shu CN 109782190A", and “Wang US 11368087B1”.
As to claim 2, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “wherein data points in the reference data set related to the ageing behavior link three variables to each other, including a depth of discharge, a state of charge, and a number of equivalent full cycles of the reference storage cell possible for this.” including all limitations as claimed.
As to claim 4, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “wherein at least five reference data sets with the respectively corresponding operating characteristics are saved in the database.” including all limitations as claimed.
As to claim 5, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “creating the reference data set relating to the ageing behavior by:
a) measuring at least two load cycles of the battery store by means of a high-precision coulometer, wherein one load cycle comprises a first discharging, during which a first charge amount from a first charge state to a second charge state is measured, followed by a first charging, during which a second charge amount from the second charge state to a third charge state is measured, and a second discharging, during which a third charge amount from the third charge state to a fourth charge state is measured, wherein the charging and discharging of the load cycle occurs between a lower voltage and an upper voltage of the battery store;
b) ascertaining a first charge transfer by a difference between the fourth charge state and the second charge state, and ascertaining a second charge transfer by a difference between the third charge state and the first charge state;
c) ascertaining a capacitance loss from the difference between the first charge transfer and the second charge transfer,
performing a) to c) until a change the capacitance loss between two consecutive load cycles is below a threshold; and
determining an average capacitance loss on the basis of at least two capacitance losses.” including all limitations as claimed.
As to claim 11, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “wherein a quality criterion for the quality classes is characterized by a maximum number of equivalent full cycles in the reference data set.” including all limitations as claimed.
As to claim 12, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “wherein the quality criterion is characterized by the volume beneath a family of curves formed by the reference data set.“ including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claim 3 is also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claim 2.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Wang US 11368087B1” teaches “A bidirectional DC/DC converter and an energy storage system are provided. The bidirectional DC/DC converter includes: a first half-bridge circuit, a second half-bridge circuit, an inductor circuit, an inductor current detection circuit, and a control circuit. The control circuit is configured to: according to an operating mode, determine one of the first and second half-bridge circuits as a target half-bridge circuit; determine a target switch circuit and a freewheeling switch circuit; control the target switch circuit to be turned on and off periodically; control the freewheeling switch circuit to be turned off when the target switch circuit is turned on; control the freewheeling switch circuit to be turned on when the target switch circuit is turned off; and when an amplitude of a current flowing through the inductor circuit is less than or equal to a preset threshold value, control the freewheeling switch circuit to be turned off.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 EST.
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.
/LAL CE MANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights