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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/14/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
Claim 1, 3-4 and 16-17 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, 3-4 and 16-17 recites “arranging the first reference curve and the second reference curve on a common charge scale” the term “common charge scale” is indefinite because the claim fails to specify the manner in which the reference curves are transformed or arranged. Although specification describes an example in which the curves are shifted such that the obtained charge values are equally (fig. 7 and corresponding description), the specification does not clearly define the term “common charge scale” or limit it to a particular type of transformation. Thus, it is unclear whether the claimed “common charge scale” requires, shifting, scaling, normalization or another transformation of the reference curves. Moreover, multiple different transformations could satisfy the condition that the obtained charge values are equal, such that the scope of the claim is unclear.
Claims 2, 5-15 are also rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 of this title, 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 1-9 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (JP2012141202A) in view of Marongiu (Journal of Power sources 324 (2016) 158-169).
Regarding claim 1, Ogawa teaches a method for degradation diagnosis of an electrochemical cell (“the mechanism in which the secondary battery 200 is charged and discharged and deteriorates will be described” [0106]), the method comprising the following steps:
a) by usage of a reference electrode, determining a first open circuit potential, relative to a preselected potential scale, for a positive electrode extracted from the electrochemical cell and determining a second open circuit potential, relative to the preselected potential scale, for a negative electrode extracted from the electrochemical cell (determining open circuit potentials of both positive and negative electrodes using a reference electrode [0073]);
b) obtaining a first charge value by comparing the determined first open circuit potential to a first reference curve of open circuit potential, relative to the preselected potential scale, as a function of charge for the positive electrode (determining charge values by comparing measured electrode potentials to reference OCP vs charge curves [0079]);
c) obtaining a second charge value by comparing the determined second open circuit potential to a second reference curve of open circuit potential, relative to the preselected potential scale, as a function of charge for the negative electrode (determining charges values for both electrodes using corresponding OCP reference curves [0079]);
d) arranging the first reference curve and the second reference curve on a common charge scale so that the obtained first charge value and the obtained second charge value are equal for the first and second reference curves on said common charge scale (aligning positive and negative electrode OCP curves on a common charge scale [0043-45] fig. 6); and
Ogawa further teaches determining capacity based on aligned electrode OCP curve (determining battery characteristics, including capacity, from aligned electrode potential curves [0080]) however Ogawa does not explicitly teach thereafter, based on the first and second reference curves, determining remaining capacity as the difference in charge on said common charge scale between a first predefined potential limit and a second predefined potential limit.
Marongiu in a relevant art teaches electrode charge limits are defined by start and end points of electrode voltage curves “Qstart and Qend represent the starting and ending points respectively of the considered electrode in the Ah scale (p. 4 section 2.2)” further capacity Is determined as a difference between such charge limits “the electrode capacities… can be calculated as the difference Qend-Qstart (p. 4)” to determine full cell capacity from aligned electrode curve as “
PNG
media_image1.png
29
320
media_image1.png
Greyscale
p. 4”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Marongiu’s change in Q based capacity determination to the aligned OCP curves of Ogawa in order to obtain a direct and quantitative measure of remaining capacity, resulted in improved capacity estimation using known techniques and therefore represents a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Ogawa teach the instant invention above:
Regarding claim 2, Ogawa does not explicitly teach wherein said first predefined potential limit corresponds an upper cutoff potential value of the first reference curve, and said second predefined potential limit corresponds to an upper cutoff potential value of the second reference curve.
Marongiu in a relevant art teaches electrode charge limits are defined by start and end points of electrode voltage curves “Qstart and Qend represent the starting and ending points respectively of the considered electrode in the Ah scale (p. 4 section 2.2)” further capacity Is determined as a difference between such charge limits “the electrode capacities… can be calculated as the difference Qend-Qstart (p. 4)” to determine full cell capacity from aligned electrode curve as “
PNG
media_image1.png
29
320
media_image1.png
Greyscale
p. 4”. Therefore, teaching that capacity limits correspond to endpoints of electrode potential curves, which inherently represent cutoff limits of such curves.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Marongiu’s change in Q based capacity determination to the aligned OCP curves of Ogawa in order to obtain a direct and quantitative measure of remaining capacity, resulted in improved capacity estimation using known techniques and therefore represents a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Ogawa teach the instant invention above:
Regarding claim 3, Ogawa does not explicitly teach determining an estimated cell voltage curve as the difference between the first reference curve and second reference curve arranged on the common charge scale; and wherein said first predefined potential limit corresponds to a first pre-identified voltage of the electrochemical cell at a first state of charge, and the second predefined potential limit corresponds to a second pre-identified voltage of the electrochemical cell at a second state of charge.
Marongiu in a relevant art teaches the full cell voltage value curve is obtained by subtracting electrode voltage curves “the full voltage curve…. Is obtained subtracting the anode from the cathode voltage curve” (p. 2). Further electrode voltage curves define the relationship between voltage and charge (state of charge), such that specific voltages correspond to specific states of charge (p. 2-3). Further defining limits of capacity based on positions on these curves “Qstart and Qend represent the starting and ending points (p. 4)”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Marongiu’s change in Q based capacity determination and electrode curve combination techniques to aligned OCP curves of Ogawa in order to obtain a direct and quantitative measure of remaining capacity, resulted in improved capacity estimation using known techniques and therefore represents a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Ogawa teach the instant invention above:
Regarding claim 4, Ogawa does not explicitly teach wherein the first open circuit potential is determined at a first location on the positive electrode, and the second open circuit potential is determined at a second location on the negative electrode, said first and second locations corresponding to a common region of the positive electrode and negative electrode within the electrochemical cell before extraction of the positive and negative electrodes.
Marongiu in a relevant art teaches extraction and analysis of electrode samples from a cell for determining electrode characteristics (p. 5), such analysis involves selecting electrode portions representative of the same operational region of the cell for meaningful comparison of electrode behavior.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the open circuit potentials corresponding locations of the positive and negative electrodes representing a common region of the cell prior to extraction, in order to ensure that the measured electrode characteristics corresponds to the same local operating conditions (e.g state of charge and degradation). Selecting corresponding locations for both electrodes represent a routine consideration in electrochemical diagnostics to improve measurement and accuracy. One of the ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to apply such corresponding location sampling as suggested by Marongiu to the electrode measurements of Ogawa in order to obtain more accurate and representative diagnostic results, resulted in improved capacity estimation using known techniques and therefore represents a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Ogawa teach the instant invention above:
Regarding claim 5, Ogawa does not explicitly teach wherein said first reference curve is a first scaled reference curve which has been scaled relative to a reference curve for the positive electrode of an undegraded electrochemical cell to account for estimated or predetermined loss of active material in the electrochemical cell, and said second reference curve is a second scaled reference curve which has been scaled relative to a reference curve for the negative electrode of an undegraded electrochemical cell to account for estimated or predetermined loss of active material in the electrochemical cell.
Marongiu in a relevant art teaches degradation mechanisms modify electrode voltage curves relative to reference (begin of life) curves “the tracked degradation modes are employed to change characteristics of the fresh electrode voltage curves (mutual position and dimension)” p. 1. Further electrode capacities and curve dimensions change due to degradation, corresponding to scaling of electrodes curves “the electrode capacities .. can be calculated as the difference Qend-Qstart (p. 4)”. The modification of curve “dimension” relative to fresh (undegraded) reference curves corresponds to scaling to account for loss of active material.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Marongiu’s degradation based modification of electrode curves relative to undegraded reference curves to the method of Ogawa in order to account for loss of active material and improve accuracy estimation.
Ogawa teach the instant invention above:
Regarding claim 6, Ogawa does not explicitly teach wherein the positive and the negative electrodes have been extracted from the electrochemical cell after the electrochemical cell has been fully discharged.
Marongiu in a relevant art teaches defining electrode charge limits corresponding to the starting point of the electrode curves “Qstart represents the starting point .. corresponding also to the fully discharged state of the full cell” p. 4. This indicates analysis of electrode behavior at fully discharged condition.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Marongiu’s degradation based modification of electrode curves relative to undegraded reference curves to the method of Ogawa in order to account for loss of active material and improve accuracy estimation.
Ogawa teach the instant invention above:
Regarding claim 7, Ogawa does not explicitly teach wherein said predetermined first and second reference curves each are determined through measurement of open circuit potential relative to the preselected potential scale as a function of charge of an electrode of an undegraded electrochemical cell having the same configuration as the electrochemical cell which is diagnosed, and optionally followed by scaling to account for an estimated or predetermined loss of active material.
Marongiu in a relevant art teaches electrode voltage curves used as references are measured on fresh (undegraded) cells “the electrode voltage curves available … have to be measured on a sample at the beginning of life” (p. 5). Further such curves are functions of charge and are used for modeling battery behavior (p. 2-3). Modifying (scaling) such reference curves to account for degradation “the tracked degradation modes are employed to change the characteristics of the fresh electrode voltage curves (mutual position and dimension) (p. 1)”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use reference curves measured from an undegraded electrochemical cell and optionally scale such curves to account for loss of active material, as taught by Marongiu, in the method of Ogawa in order to improve the accuracy of degradation diagnosis.
Ogawa teach the instant invention above:
Regarding claim 8, Ogawa does not explicitly teach determining a distribution of remaining capacity throughout the electrochemical cell by repeating steps a) to e) for a plurality of locations on the positive and negative electrodes corresponding to different regions within the electrochemical cell.
Marongiu in a relevant art teaches analyzing degradation behavior and capacity related characteristics based on electrode curves and their variations (p. 1-3). Such analysis inherently involves evaluating variations in electrode behavior, which correspond to differences across regions of the cell.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to repeat the diagnostic method of Ogawa at multiple locations within electrochemical cell in order to determine a distribution of remaining capacity, since electrochemical cells are known to exhibit spatial non uniformities (e.g. degradation, current density and temperature gradients). Repeating measurements across different regions represents a routine extension of known diagnostic technique to improve spatial resolution and accuracy. Further applying such repeated measurements across multiple regions, as suggested by Marongiu’s analysis of degradation effects to the method of Ogawa in order to obtain spatial distribution of capacity within a cell to improve diagnostic capability.
Ogawa teach the instant invention above:
Regarding claim 9, Ogawa does not explicitly teach wherein the first open cell potential and the second open cell potential are determined without assembling samples of the positive and negative electrodes to a test cell.
Marongiu in a relevant art teaches reconstructing full cell behavior from electrode voltage curves without acquiring physical reassembly of electrodes into a test cell “the full voltage curve… is obtained subtracting the anode form the cathode voltage curve” (p. 2). This indicates that electrode characteristic are used directly to determine cell behavior without assembling a separate test cell.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the electrode potentials without assembling the electrodes into test cell, as this avoids additional experimental complexity and allows direct analysis using electrode measurements. The choice between assembling a test cell and performing analysis directly from electrode measurement represents a known alternative approach yielding predictable results and to motivate one of the ordinary skill in the art to apply Marongiu’s approach of reconstructing cell behavior from electrode data to the method or Ogawa in order to simplify the diagnostic process and reduce experimental complexity.
Ogawa teach the instant invention above:
Regarding claim 12, Ogawa as modified further teaches wherein the method is performed by a control device [0177].
Ogawa teach the instant invention above:
Regarding claim 13, Ogawa as modified further teaches wherein the reference electrode is a manually operated reference electrode [0073].
Ogawa teach the instant invention above:
Regarding claim 14, Ogawa as modified further teaches wherein the electrochemical cell is a lithium-ion cell ([0002]).
Ogawa teach the instant invention above:
Regarding claim 15, Ogawa does not explicitly teach wherein the preselected potential scale is a potential scale selected from the group consisting of: Li/Li+ scale, LiFePO.sub.4/FePO.sub.4 scale, Li.sub.2Ti.sub.5O.sub.12/Li.sub.4Ti.sub.5O.sub.12 scale, and LiMn.sub.2O.sub.4/Li.sub.2Mn.sub.2O.sub.4 scale.
Marongiu in a relevant art teaches electrode voltage measurements relative to a lithium reference electrode, “lithium iron phosphates batteries (p. 1)” (p. 5). Such lithium based reference system corresponds to Li/Li+ and related lithium intercalation potential scales.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known lithium based potential scale such as those recited, for use in a method of Ogawa as modified by Marongiu, since such scales are standard in lithium ion battery analysis and provide consistent reference for electrode potential measurements.
Regarding claim 16, the structure recited is intrinsic to the method recited in claim 1, as disclosed by Ogawa (JP2012141202A) in view of Marongiu (Journal of Power sources 324 (2016) 158-169) as the recited structure will be used during the normal operation of the method, as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Ogawa as modified further teach processor [0177] which inherently involves memory to execute instructions as known in the art.
Regarding claim 17, the structure recited is intrinsic to the method recited in claim 1, as disclosed by Ogawa (JP2012141202A) in view of Marongiu (Journal of Power sources 324 (2016) 158-169) as the recited structure will be used during the normal operation of the method, as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Ogawa as modified further teach processor [0177] to execute the method.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art of record discloses or teaches the claimed combinations, or feature the following:
Re-claim 10, wherein the reference electrode comprises: a porous separator configured to be wetted with an electrolyte and arranged so that a surface of the porous separator forms a distal end of the reference electrode, said distal end intended to be in contact with a sample electrode when the reference electrode is in use; one or more reference electrode materials, selected to provide a reference potential of the preselected potential scale, arranged at a distance from the distal end and in direct contact with the porous separator; a proximal end configured to be connected to a circuit connected to a sample electrode; and a contact configured to provide electrical connection between the one or more reference electrode materials and the proximal end.
Claim 11 is objected over the prior art because of its dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
BHARATHRAJ (U.S. Publictaion 20230400525) discloses METHOD AND SYSTEM WITH BATTERY PARAMETER ESTIMATION FOR REST PERIOD.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAQI R NASIR whose telephone number is (571)270-1425. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lee Rodak can be reached at (571) 270-5628. 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.
/TAQI R NASIR/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights