DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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.
Claim limitation “data acquirer structured, abnormality detector structured, representative value calculator structured (as cited in claims 1-3),” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function based on fig. 1 of current discloser PgPub, where it discloses such units are functional steps and executed by processor and collected data by sensors.
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.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recite the limitations:” to use, as the representative value[..]”. The phrase " to use, as " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims1-5 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 1-3 and 5 fall within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)); each of claim 4 fall within category of process.
Regarding Claims 1-5
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of detect a cell or parallel cell block in an abnormal state.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following bold limitations:
A battery abnormality detection system comprising:
a data acquirer structured to acquire voltage data and current data of each cell of a battery pack having a plurality of cells connected in series or of each parallel cell block of a battery pack having serially connected parallel cell blocks having a plurality of cells connected in parallel; and
an abnormality detector structured to detect a cell or parallel cell block in an abnormal state on the basis of a relative voltage change amount among the plurality of cells or among the plurality of parallel cell blocks in a constant voltage charging period..
The bold limitations above represent a combination of a mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and/ or a mental step because a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or merely data observations, evaluations, and/or judgements . Therefore, the bold limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “detect [..]an abnormal state on the basis of a relative voltage change amount [..]a constant voltage charging period” a mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea ,and/or a mental step because a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or merely data observations, evaluations, and/or judgements.
Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example,1st additional first element is “a data acquirer structured to acquire voltage data and current data of each cell of a battery pack having a plurality of cells connected in series or of each parallel cell block of a battery pack having serially connected parallel cell blocks having a plurality of cells connected in parallel” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering and or pre solution activity and /or field of use) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The 2nd additional element is “A battery abnormality detection system, a plurality of cells connected in series or of each parallel cell block, an abnormality detector structured”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic battery monitoring system, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the above, the “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic component with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Step 2B
Claims1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of Claim 1 contains additional elements that are, i.e. “batteries, system”, which are well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and MPEP 2106.05(d))The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
.
Dependent Claims 2-3
Dependent claims 2-3 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-3 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea (bold) or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity(italicized), mere use of instructions and/or generic components and/computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment(under line).
For examples:
[Claim 2] a representative value calculator structured to calculate a representative value of an amount of change in voltage of the plurality of cells or of the plurality of parallel cell blocks on the basis of each voltage change amount of the plurality of cells or the plurality of parallel cell blocks for a time between two points in the constant voltage charging period; and
a difference calculator structured to calculate a difference value between each voltage change amount of the plurality of cells or of the plurality of parallel cell blocks, and a representative value of the voltage change amount, wherein the abnormality detector is structured to judge, to be in an abnormal state, a cell or parallel cell block having a voltage drop amount relative to the representative value of the voltage change amount exceeding a threshold value.(abstract idea of mathematical relationships or rules or idea))
[Claim 3] the representative value calculator is structured to use, as the representative value, a median value of a voltage change amount of the plurality of cells or a median value of a voltage change amount of the plurality of parallel cell blocks. (abstract idea of mathematical relationships or rules or idea))
Regarding Claims 4-5
Claims 4-5 contain language similar to claim 1 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 4-5 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea).
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, 4- 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Uchinohae et al. (US 2021/0021145).
Regarding Claims 1 and 4-5: Uchinohae teaches a battery abnormality detection system comprising100: fig. 1; fig.4- 6):
a data acquirer structured (20: fig. 1) to acquire voltage data (23:fig. 1) and current data (21: fig. 1; [0036]-[0038]) of each cell of a battery pack having a plurality of cells connected in series (Vpack:[0039]; s107: fig. 6)
an abnormality detector structured to detect a cell or parallel cell block in an abnormal state(s109: fig. 6) on the basis of a relative voltage change amount among the plurality of cells or among the plurality of parallel cell blocks in a constant voltage charging period(CV) (s108: fig.6; fig. 4; step S106 as a command value CV respectively to the charger 90 at a predetermined timing: [0091]; fig. 4-5; charging period s205: fig. 6).
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Uchinohae et al. (US 2021/0021145) in view of Ono et al. (US20190077265).
Regarding Claim 2: Uchinohae further teaches a representative value calculator structured to calculate a representative value of an amount of change in voltage of the plurality of cells or of the plurality of parallel cell blocks on the basis of each voltage change amount of the plurality of cells or the plurality of parallel cell blocks for a time between two points in the constant voltage charging period(108A: fig.4; [0039], [0059]-[0062]); and
a difference calculator structured to calculate a difference value between each voltage change amount of the plurality of cells or of the plurality of parallel cell blocks, and a representative value of the voltage change amount(108b: fig.4;[0039], [0059]-[0065]),
Uchinohae silent about wherein the abnormality detector is structured to judge, to be in an abnormal state, a cell having a voltage drop amount relative to the representative value of the voltage change amount exceeding a threshold value.
However, Ono teaches wherein the abnormality detector is structured to judge, to be in an abnormal state, a cell having a voltage drop amount relative to the representative value of the voltage change amount exceeding a threshold value(s12- s14,s18: fig. 4; abstract,[0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Uchinohae, the abnormality detector is structured to judge, to be in an abnormal state, a cell having a voltage drop amount relative to the representative value of the voltage change amount exceeding a threshold valu, as taught by Ono, so as to abnormality of electrical storage apparatus is detectable at an early stage by simple structure.
Regarding Claim 3: Ono further teaches the representative value calculator is structured to use, as the representative value, a median value of a voltage change amount of the plurality of cells or a median value of a voltage change amount of the plurality of parallel cell blocks(median value: abstract, [0064], [0077]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) US 10608463: disclose r a constant voltage (CV) setting, since both, CC and CV modes are part of battery standard charging process. Constant current may be implemented by setting the current I to the value of the specific charging step and carrying out voltage increases and decreases according to the sine wave (see schematic illustration of the steps). Constant current setting may involve switching on/off the cells in series connection according to the voltage requirements to yield constant current charging. Constant voltage may be implemented by setting the voltage V to the value of the specific charging step and carrying out current increases and decreases according to the sine wave. Constant voltage setting may involve switching on/off the cells in parallel connection according to the current requirements to yield constant voltage charging. Arrows 127 indicate the respective change of voltage (V=n·i) under constant current settings and indicate the respective change of current (I=Σi) under constant voltage settings. Constant voltage setting may involve switching on/off the cells in parallel connection according to the current requirements to yield constant voltage charging. Arrows 127 indicate the respective change of voltage (V=n·i) under constant current settings and indicate the respective change of current (I=Σi) under constant voltage settings.
b) US 20200099216: disclose s an implementation, during charging of the battery, trickle charging will be conducted first, and followed by constant-current charging and constant-voltage charging. When the charging voltage reaches, for example, 4.35V, proceed to the constant-voltage charging stage, in which the charging voltage is constantly 4.35V. When the battery is fully charged gradually, the charging current will decrease. When the charging current is smaller than the preset cut-off charging current such as 100 mA, the battery can be determined to be fully charged, and the duration of the constant-voltage charging stage of the battery is acquired.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights