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 .
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: detection unit and calculation unit in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the claim does nt disclose how “a calculation unit” is structural connected to “a detection unit” nor “a battery”. Since claims 2-14 depend from claim 1, they also are rejected for the above reason.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6, 8-9 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkawa et al (Us Pub 2018/0050681) in view of Edamoto (JP 5307269 B1).
PNG
media_image1.png
666
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
886
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
442
801
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
518
688
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
353
617
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Ohwata et al disclose [see Figs. 2 & 7] a battery management device (battery system 100) for managing a state of a battery (battery 110), the battery management device (100) comprising: a detection unit (voltage detection unit 140) configured to acquire a detection value of a voltage output from the battery (110); and a calculation unit (battery pack control unit 150) [see Fig. 7 where calculation units are located] configured to [see Note below] estimate the state of the battery (110), wherein the calculation unit (150) specifies a first period from a completion time point at which charging of the battery (110) is completed or from a start time point after the completion time point and before an inflection point of a curve of a change with time in the voltage to a first time point at which a first time has elapsed [see Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0050] & [0052] for details], the calculation unit (150) specifies a second period from the completion time point at which discharging of the battery (110) is completed or from a start time point after the completion time point and before the inflection point of the curve of the change with time to a second time point at which a second time has elapsed [see Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0050] & [0052] for details], the calculation unit (150) acquires at least one of a difference between a first change amount of the voltage in the first period and a second change amount of the voltage in the second period, and a ratio between the first change amount and the second change amount [see Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0050] & [0052] for details]. However, the prior art does not disclose the calculation unit evaluates soundness of the battery as claimed. Edamoto disclose [see all Figs. above] a battery management device for managing a state of a battery (battery 1), the battery management device comprising: a detection unit (voltage detector 2) and a calculation unit (calculation unit 6 with unit 15), wherein the calculation unit (6 with 15) evaluates soundness of the battery (1) based on at least one of the difference and the ratio, and outputs the result [see translation pg. 5 and Fig 3 above]. Further, Edamoto teaches that the addition of calculation unit evaluates soundness of the battery is advantageous because it would help provides an assembled battery cell state estimation device capable of more easily estimating a charging rate of each cell constituting an assembled battery . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Ohwata et al by adding calculation unit evaluates soundness of the battery as taught by Edamoro in order to provides an assembled battery cell state estimation device capable of more easily estimating a charging rate of each cell constituting an assembled battery during test of the battery.
[Note: Claim limitations that employ phrases of the type “configured to” are typical of claim limitations, which may not distinguish over the prior art. It has been held that the recitation that an element is “configured to” performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. See also MPEP 2111.04]
Regarding claim 3, Ohwata et al disclose wherein when the second change amount is equal to or larger than the first change amount [see paragraph [0071] for details]. However, the prior art does not disclose the calculation unit evaluates soundness of the battery as claimed. Edamoto disclose [see all Figs. above] a battery management device for managing a state of a battery (battery 1), the battery management device comprising: a detection unit (voltage detector 2) and a calculation unit (calculation unit 6 with unit 15), wherein the calculation unit (6 with 15) evaluates soundness of the battery (1) based on at least one of the difference and the ratio, and outputs the result [see translation pg. 5 and Fig 3 above]. Further, Edamoto teaches that the addition of calculation unit evaluates soundness of the battery is advantageous because it would help provides an assembled battery cell state estimation device capable of more easily estimating a charging rate of each cell constituting an assembled battery. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Ohwata et al by adding calculation unit evaluates soundness of the battery as taught by Edamoro in order to provides an assembled battery cell state estimation device capable of more easily estimating a charging rate of each cell constituting an assembled battery during test of the battery.
Regarding claim 5, Ohwata et al disclose wherein the calculation unit (150) evaluates the at least one of the difference and the ratio is equal to or larger than a second threshold, as a failure occurring or a period until a failure occurs being less than a threshold. However, the prior art does not disclose the calculation unit evaluates soundness of the battery as claimed. Edamoto disclose [see all Figs. above] a battery management device for managing a state of a battery (battery 1), the battery management device comprising: a detection unit (voltage detector 2) and a calculation unit (calculation unit 6 with unit 15), wherein the calculation unit (6 with 15) evaluates soundness of the battery (1) based on at least one of the difference and the ratio, and outputs the result [see translation pg. 5 and Fig 3 above]. Further, Edamoto teaches that the addition of calculation unit evaluates soundness of the battery is advantageous because it would help provides an assembled battery cell state estimation device capable of more easily estimating a charging rate of each cell constituting an assembled battery . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Ohwata et al by adding calculation unit evaluates soundness of the battery as taught by Edamoro in order to provides an assembled battery cell state estimation device capable of more easily estimating a charging rate of each cell constituting an assembled battery during test of the battery.
Regarding claim 6, Ohwata et al disclose wherein the calculation unit (150) sets, for each type of the battery (110), a linear function approximating a relationship between the first change amount and the second change amount, and the calculation unit evaluates the soundness of the battery by comparing at least one of the difference and the ratio with the linear function. However, the prior art does not disclose the calculation unit evaluates soundness of the battery as claimed. Edamoto disclose [see all Figs. above] a battery management device for managing a state of a battery (battery 1), the battery management device comprising: a detection unit (voltage detector 2) and a calculation unit (calculation unit 6 with unit 15), wherein the calculation unit (6 with 15) evaluates soundness of the battery (1) based on at least one of the difference and the ratio, and outputs the result [see translation pg. 5 and Fig 3 above]. Further, Edamoto teaches that the addition of calculation unit evaluates soundness of the battery is advantageous because it would help provides an assembled battery cell state estimation device capable of more easily estimating a charging rate of each cell constituting an assembled battery . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Ohwata et al by adding calculation unit evaluates soundness of the battery as taught by Edamoro in order to provides an assembled battery cell state estimation device capable of more easily estimating a charging rate of each cell constituting an assembled battery during test of the battery.
Regarding claim 8, Ohwata et al disclose wherein the calculation unit (150) estimates a period required by predicting at least one of the difference and the ratio at a future time point based on a result of at least one of acceleration test data, operation result data in a market, and AI-based training data. However, the prior art does not disclose the calculation unit evaluates soundness of the battery as claimed. Edamoto disclose [see all Figs. above] a battery management device for managing a state of a battery (battery 1), the battery management device comprising: a detection unit (voltage detector 2) and a calculation unit (calculation unit 6 with unit 15), wherein the calculation unit (6 with 15) evaluates soundness of the battery (1) based on at least one of the difference and the ratio, and outputs the result [see translation pg. 5 and Fig 3 above]. Further, Edamoto teaches that the addition of calculation unit evaluates soundness of the battery is advantageous because it would help provides an assembled battery cell state estimation device capable of more easily estimating a charging rate of each cell constituting an assembled battery . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Ohwata et al by adding calculation unit evaluates soundness of the battery as taught by Edamoro in order to provides an assembled battery cell state estimation device capable of more easily estimating a charging rate of each cell constituting an assembled battery during test of the battery.
Regarding claim 9, Ohwata et al disclose [see Figs. 2 & 7] a battery management device (battery system 100) for managing a state of a battery (battery 110), the battery management device (100) comprising: a detection unit (voltage detection unit 140) and a calculation unit (battery pack control unit 150) [see Fig. 7 where calculation units are located]. However, the prior art does not disclose a user interface as claimed. Edamoto disclose [see all Figs above] a user interface (microcomputer 5) configured to present a processing result from the calculation unit (6 with 15), wherein the user interface (5) presents at least one of a change with time in the difference or the ratio during an operation period of the battery (1), the first change amount, the second change amount, and a result obtained by the calculation unit (6 with 15) estimating the state of the battery (1). Further, Edamoto teaches that the addition of user interface is advantageous because it would help provides an assembled battery cell state estimation device capable of more easily estimating a charging rate of each cell constituting an assembled battery. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Ohwata et al by adding user interface as taught by Edamoro in order to
Regarding claims 11-12, Ohwata et al disclose wherein the calculation unit (150) acquires a correspondence relationship between the first change amount and the second change amount used to determine whether the battery (110) is sound when the battery (110) is in a first temperature [see paragraphs [0043]-[0045] for details], the calculation unit (150) acquires the first change amount and the second change amount when the battery (110) is in a second temperature [see paragraphs [0043]-[0045] for details], and calculates a first post-conversion change amount and a second post-conversion change amount by converting values of the first change amount and the second change amount into corresponding values in the first temperature [see paragraphs [0043]-[0045] for details]. and the calculation unit evaluates the soundness of the battery using the first post- conversion change amount, the second post-conversion change amount, and the correspondence relationship when the battery is in the second temperature. However, the prior art does not disclose the calculation unit evaluates soundness of the battery as claimed. Edamoto disclose [see all Figs. above] a battery management device for managing a state of a battery (battery 1), the battery management device comprising: a detection unit (voltage detector 2) and a calculation unit (calculation unit 6 with unit 15), wherein the calculation unit (6 with 15) evaluates soundness of the battery (1) based on at least one of the difference and the ratio, and outputs the result [see translation pg. 5 and Fig 3 above]. Further, Edamoto teaches that the addition of calculation unit evaluates soundness of the battery is advantageous because it would help provides an assembled battery cell state estimation device capable of more easily estimating a charging rate of each cell constituting an assembled battery . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Ohwata et al by adding calculation unit evaluates soundness of the battery as taught by Edamoro in order to provides an assembled battery cell state estimation device capable of more easily estimating a charging rate of each cell constituting an assembled battery during test of the battery.
Regarding claims 13, Ohwata et al disclose wherein a plurality of the batteries (110 with 112a and 112b) are connected in series or in parallel to constitute a battery group (110), the calculation unit (150) monitors the battery group (110) by acquiring an output voltage of each of the batteries (110 with 112a & 112b), an output current of each of the batteries, a temperature of each of the batteries [see paragraphs [0043]-[0045] for details], an operating time or an operating period of each of the batteries, and a history of these, and the calculation unit (150) predicts a future failure of the battery group by comparing a result obtained by monitoring the battery group (110) with a result of at least one of acceleration test data, operation result data in a market, and Al-based training data.
Regarding claims 14, Ohwata et al disclose wherein the calculation unit (150) acquires an output voltage of the battery (110) via a charging port of an electrical device (battery control device 120) in which the battery (110) is mounted, and the calculation unit (150) acquires the first change amount and the second change amount using the output voltage acquired via the charging port.
Regarding claim 15, Ohwata et al disclose [see Figs. 2 & 7] a storage medium that stores a battery management program (battery system 100) to execute a step of acquiring a detection value [via voltage detection unit 140] of a voltage output from the battery (110); and a step of estimating [via battery pack control unit 150] the state of the battery (110), wherein in the estimating step, specifies a first period from a completion time point at which charging of the battery (110) is completed or from a start time point after the completion time point and before an inflection point of a curve of a change with time in the voltage to a first time point at which a first time has elapsed [see Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0050] & [0052] for details], the calculation unit (150) specifies a second period from the completion time point at which discharging of the battery (110) is completed or from a start time point after the completion time point and before the inflection point of the curve of the change with time to a second time point at which a second time has elapsed [see Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0050] & [0052] for details], the calculation unit (150) acquires at least one of a difference between a first change amount of the voltage in the first period and a second change amount of the voltage in the second period, and a ratio between the first change amount and the second change amount [see Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0050] & [0052] for details]. However, the prior art does not disclose a computer nor evaluating soundness of the battery as claimed. Edamoto disclose [see all Figs. above] a battery management device for managing a state of a battery (battery 1), the battery management device comprising: a detection unit (voltage detector 2), a calculation unit (calculation unit 6 with unit 15) and a computer (microcomputer 5), wherein the calculation unit (6 with 15) evaluates soundness of the battery (1) based on at least one of the difference and the ratio, and outputs the result [see translation pg. 5 and Fig 3 above]. Further, Edamoto teaches that the addition of a computer using a calculation unit to evaluate soundness of the battery is advantageous because it would help provides an assembled battery cell state estimation device capable of more easily estimating a charging rate of each cell constituting an assembled battery. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Ohwata et al by adding calculation unit evaluates soundness of the battery as taught by Edamoro in order to provides an assembled battery cell state estimation device capable of more easily estimating a charging rate of each cell constituting an assembled battery during test of the battery.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for details.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim2, 4, 7 and 10 are 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: regarding claim 2, the primary reason for the allowance of the claims is due to the calculation unit evaluates a degree of progress of aged deterioration of the battery according to a distance from an origin of a plot when the first change amount and the second change amount are plotted on a two-dimensional coordinate axis. Since claim 4 depends form claim 2, it also has an allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 7, the primary reason for the allowance of the claims is due to wherein the calculation unit sets at least one of a slope and an intercept of the linear function for each of the type of the battery, a characteristic of the battery, an attribute of the battery, or a combination of one or more of these, the calculation unit sets at least one of the slope and the intercept for a first battery such that a range in which the battery is evaluated to be sound is a first normal range and a range in which the battery is evaluated to be deteriorated or failed is a first abnormal range, the calculation unit sets at least one of the slope and the intercept for a second battery with a reference for being regarded as deteriorated is stricter than that of the first battery, such that a range in which the battery is evaluated to be deteriorated or failed is a second abnormal range narrower than the first abnormal range, and the calculation unit sets at least one of the slope and the intercept for a third battery with a reference for being regarded as sound is gentler than that of the first battery, such that a range in which the battery is evaluated as sound is a second normal range wider than the first normal range.
Regarding claim 10, the primary reason for the allowance of the claims is due to wherein the calculation unit acquires a correspondence relationship between the first change amount and the second change amount used to determine whether the battery is sound when the battery is in a first state of charge, the calculation unit acquires the first change amount and the second change amount when the battery is in a second state of charge, and calculates a first post-conversion change amount and a second post-conversion change amount by converting values of the first change amount and the second change amount into corresponding values in the first state of charge, and the calculation unit evaluates the soundness of the battery using the first post- conversion change amount, the second post-conversion change amount, and the correspondence relationship when the battery is in the second state of charge.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERMELE M HOLLINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-1960. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-3:30pm.
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 E 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.
/JERMELE M HOLLINGTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights