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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's Amendment and Response filed 05/12/2026 has been entered and made of record. This application contains 20 pending claims.
Claims 1, 6-11, 13, 16 and 18 have been amended.
This necessitated a new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action as stated below:
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argued that the new limitation “wherein the AC signal source is independent of a DC voltage of the battery” overcome the Ramezan.
However, examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument because in paragraph 0061 discloses “the power source 210 is an alternating-current (AC) voltage or current source. In one embodiment, the power source 210 is a local electric grid (mains) configured to provide a single-phase or three-phase AC voltage having a predetermined frequency, such as 50 Hz or 60 Hz, and a predetermined nominal voltage, such as a nominal voltage between 110-127 volts or 220-240 volts”. Since the AC source 210 from the local grid (providing power to the charging circuit to charge the battery 202) therefore, the battery does not affect the AC source 210 which is independent of a DC voltage of battery.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are amended from
“current measurement unit” to “current measurement processing circuitry”;
“voltage measurement unit” to “voltage measurement processing circuitry”; and
“determination measurement unit” to “determination measurement processing circuitry”.
However, the specification does not have “current measurement processing circuitry”, “voltage measurement processing circuitry” and “determination measurement processing circuitry”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a current measurement processing circuitry, a voltage measurement processing circuitry and health determination processing circuitry in claim 1 and dependent claims.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
According to specification and drawings, there are no description for these processing circuitries, therefore, a broadest reasonable interpretation these units are well-known and conventional.
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.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-12, 14-16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Ramezan et al. (US 20200150185, hereinafter Ramezan).
Regarding to claim 1, Ramezan discloses an apparatus for determining the health of a battery comprising a plurality N of series-connected cells (fig. 6), the apparatus comprising:
an AC signal source (fig. 6[210]) operable to cause an AC current to flow through one or more cells of the plurality of series-connected cells (fig. 6[202], paragraph 0060 discloses battery 202 includes one or more electrochemical cells 204 arranged in parallel and/or in series to form the battery 202);
a current measurement processing circuit (fig. 6[218]) operable to measure the AC current;
a voltage measurement processing circuit (fig. 6[220]) operable to measure an AC voltage induced across the one or more cells by the AC current; and
a health determination processing circuit (fig. 6 show [212] included charge controller [214] as a health determination unit) operable to determine a measurement of the health of the battery based on the measured AC current and the measured AC voltage (paragraph 0064 discloses the current sensor 218 comprises a Hall Effect sensor arranged in series with the battery 202 and configured to measure the battery current. The voltage sensor 220 is connected in parallel with the battery 202 and is configured to measure a battery voltage across the positive and negative battery terminals 206, 208 of the battery 202. In some embodiments, the voltage sensor is further configured to measure voltages of individual cells 204 of the battery 202. In some embodiment, the charge controller 214 is configured to determine, calculate, and/or estimate further battery parameters such as state of charge, state of health, impedance, capacity, open-circuit voltage, and/or rest voltage).
wherein the AC signal source is independent of a DC voltage of the battery (paragraph 0061 discloses the power source 210 is a local electric grid (mains) configured to provide a single-phase or three-phase AC voltage having a predetermined frequency, such as 50 Hz or 60 Hz, and a predetermined nominal voltage, such as a nominal voltage between 110-127 volts or 220-240 volts).
Regarding to claim 16, Ramezan discloses a method of determining the health of a battery (abstract and fig. 2) comprising a plurality N of series-connected cells (fig. 6 and paragraph 0060 discloses battery 202 includes one or more electrochemical cells 204 arranged in parallel and/or in series to form the battery 202), the method comprising:
using an AC signal source to cause an AC current to flow through one or more cells of the plurality of series-connected cells (fig. 6[210] provide current to battery 202 with N-cells 204);
measuring the AC current (fig. 6[218], fig. 2[130] and paragraph 0029);
measuring an AC voltage induced across the one or more cells by the AC current (paragraph 0029); and
determining a measurement of the health of the battery based on the measured AC current and the measured AC voltage (paragraph 0064 discloses the current sensor 218 comprises a Hall Effect sensor arranged in series with the battery 202 and configured to measure the battery current. The voltage sensor 220 is connected in parallel with the battery 202 and is configured to measure a battery voltage across the positive and negative battery terminals 206, 208 of the battery 202. In some embodiments, the voltage sensor is further configured to measure voltages of individual cells 204 of the battery 202. In some embodiment, the charge controller 214 is configured to determine, calculate, and/or estimate further battery parameters such as state of charge, state of health, impedance, capacity, open-circuit voltage, and/or rest voltage)
wherein the AC signal source is independent of a DC voltage of the battery (paragraph 0061 discloses the power source 210 is a local electric grid (mains) configured to provide a single-phase or three-phase AC voltage having a predetermined frequency, such as 50 Hz or 60 Hz, and a predetermined nominal voltage, such as a nominal voltage between 110-127 volts or 220-240 volts).
Regarding to claims 5 and 20, Ramezan discloses the apparatus (method) of claim 1 and 16 respectively above, wherein the health determination apparatus is further operable to: determine an impedance of the one or more cells based on the measured AC current and the measured AC voltage (paragraph 0029 discloses he electrical tests may include information such as current-voltage-temperature profiles, open circuit voltage-state of charge measurements, energy capacity measurements, impedance measurements, and swelling measurements); and determine the measurement of the health of the battery based on the determined impedance (paragraph 0042 discloses The battery state of health SoH may be defined in a conventional manner as a function of capacity, nominal capacity, impedance, nominal impedance, and the like).
Regarding to claim 7, Ramezan discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the AC signal source is operable to cause the AC current to flow through the one or more cells, optionally wherein the signal source is external to or separate from the battery (fig. 6 shows 210 is external and separate from the battery 202); and/or the AC signal source is configured to superimpose the AC current on a DC current provided by the one or more cells and/or by the plurality N of series-connected cells (since 210 provides AC current to the battery, therefore, it would has necessitated that the current source 210 is capable of superimpose the AC current on a DC current provided by the one or more cells and/or by the plurality N of series-connected cells).
Regarding to claim 8, Ramezan discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the AC signal source (fig. 6[210]) is coupled to terminals of the battery (fig. 6[202]), or to the one or more cells (fig. 6[204]), to cause the AC current to flow through the one or more cells (fig. 6 shows 210 provided AC current to 202), optionally using a switch (paragraph 0063 and fig. 6 discloses and shows charge controller 214 is configured to operate switches and other components of the charging circuit 212 in order to convert, regulate, and/or control the charging current and/or the charging voltage applied to the battery 202 by the power source 210).
Regarding to claim 9, Ramezan discloses the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the AC signal source (fig. 6[210]) is coupled to the terminals of the battery (fig. 6[202]), or to the one or more cells (fig. 6[204]), via a DC decoupling component or an AC coupling component, that component optionally comprising a capacitor and/or a transformer (paragraph 0062 discloses charging circuit 212 further includes various circuits and hardware configured to convert, regulate, and/or control a charging current and/or charging voltage applied to the battery 202 by the power source 210. The circuits and hardware may include components such as contactors, relays, transistors, transformers, diodes, capacitors, inductors, and resistors arranged in a conventional manner).
Regarding to claim 10, Ramezan discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the AC signal source (fig. 6[210]) causes the AC current to flow through the N series-connected cells (fig. 6[204]).
Regarding to claim 11, Ramezan discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the health determination processing circuit (fig. 6 show [212] included charge controller [214] as a health determination unit) is further operable to: measure a plurality of AC voltages, each induced across a respective one or more cells of the N series-connected cells by the AC current (paragraph 0064 discloses the voltage sensor is further configured to measure voltages of individual cells 204 of the battery 202); and determine a measurement of the health of the battery based on the measured AC current and at least two of the plurality of measured AC voltages (paragraph 0064 discloses the charge controller 214 is configured to determine, calculate, and/or estimate further battery parameters such as state of charge, state of health, impedance, capacity, open-circuit voltage, and/or rest voltage).
Regarding to claim 12, Ramezan discloses the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the plurality of AC voltages comprises N AC voltages each induced across a respective one of the N series-connected cells by the AC current (paragraph 0064 discloses the voltage sensor is further configured to measure voltages of individual cells 204 of the battery 202).
Regarding to claim 14, Ramezan discloses the apparatus of claim 1, comprising said battery the battery (fig. 6[202]).
Regarding to claim 15, Ramezan discloses a vehicle, or a propulsion unit or power unit therefor, or a power supply or containerized power supply, comprising the apparatus of claim 1, optionally wherein the vehicle is an aircraft, seacraft or spacecraft (paragraph 0003 discloses portable electronics and electric and hybrid-electric vehicles, among other devices and systems).
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 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramezan.
Regarding to claims 2 and 17, Ramezan discloses the apparatus (method) of claims 1 and 16 respectively above, except wherein N≥20, or N≥50, or N≥100, or N≥200, or N≥400, or N≥800.
Fig. 6 shows battery 202 with a plurality of N cells except wherein N≥20, or N≥50, or N≥100, or N≥200, or N≥400, or N≥800.
However, at the time before the effective filing date, it would be obvious to a POSITA to determining the health of a battery with N cells wherein N≥20, or N≥50, or N≥100, or N≥200, or N≥400, or N≥800 as a matter of intended use.
Claim(s) 3 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramezan as applied to claim 1 and 16 respectively above, and further in view of Rocci et al. (US 20110068746 hereinafter Rocci).
Regarding to claims 3-4 and 18-19, Ramezan discloses the apparatus (method) of claims 1 and 16 respectively above, wherein: the N series-connected cells are connected in series between terminals of the battery and configured, when charged, to generate a potential difference V.sub.B across the battery terminals (fig. 6 and paragraph 0062 shows and discloses 210 connected to charging circuit 212 and 212 configures to convert, regulate, and/or control the charging current and/or the charging voltage applied to the battery 202 by the power source 210).
However, Ramezan does not discloses the AC current is configured such that the peak-to-peak voltage V.sub.PP of the AC voltage is small compared to V.sub.B.
Rocci discloses monitoring system may assist in the management of battery string health by detecting individual batteries within a string that may need servicing. Fig. 2 show the AC current source 210 connected to the battery terminals for providing potential difference (VB) across the battery terminals and paragraph 0071 discloses the Peak voltage generated by Itest from 210 is 5mV which is small compared to VB (paragraph 38 discloses VB is 12V for 6 cells battery).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date, it would be obvious to a POSITA to incorporate Rocci into Ramezan in order for the management of battery string health by detecting individual batteries within a string that may need servicing.
Regarding to claims 4 and 19, Ramezan in view of Rocci discloses the apparatus of (method) of claims 3 and 19 respectively above, wherein X is the ratio V.sub.B/V.sub.PP and wherein: X≥100, or X≥200, or X≥400, or X≥800; and/or X≥N, or X≥2N, or X≥4N (paragraph 38 of Rocci discloses VB is 12V for 6 cells battery and paragraph 0071 discloses the Peak voltage generated by Itest from 210 is 5mV).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramezan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (KR 20230067793 hereinafter Park).
Regarding to claim 6, Ramezan discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the health determination apparatus is further operable to: calculate (paragraph 0066 discloses the information included current and voltage); and calculate the measurement of the health of the battery based on the (paragraph 0066 discloses the charge controller 214 is configured to receive measured values for voltage, current, and temperatures as inputs from the sensors 218, 220, and 222 and calculate a state of charge and/or a state of health of the battery 202 (block 320)).
Ramezan does not discloses calculate RMS current and voltage.
However, at the time before the effective filing date. it would be obvious to a POSITA to use the RMS current and voltage as a matter of choice.
Furthermore, Park discloses measure resistance using an AC signal, the effective value of the AC signal is used. Therefore, V .sub.rms and I .sub.rms can be obtained by calculating the RMS values of voltage and current as RMS (Root Mean Square) values.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date. it would be obvious to a POSITA to use the RMS current and voltage in order to calculate the impedance accurately.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramezan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abhyankar et al. (US 20150241484 hereinafter Abhyankar).
Regarding to claim 13, Ramezan discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the AC signal source comprises:
a totem-pole arrangement of transistors and a controller operable to control the transistors so that the totem-pole arrangement functions as an oscillator, the totem-pole arrangement optionally connected to a transformer (paragraph 0062 discloses circuits and hardware may include components such as contactors, relays, transistors, transformers, diodes, capacitors, inductors, and resistors arranged in a conventional manner); or
an AC signal generator connected to an amplifier; or
an inductor and a switch connected in series and a controller operable to control the switch so that the inductor and the switch function as an oscillator.
Even if Ramezan does not discloses the signal source comprises:
a totem-pole arrangement of transistors and a controller operable to control the transistors so that the totem-pole arrangement functions as an oscillator, the totem-pole arrangement optionally connected to a transformer; or an AC signal generator connected to an amplifier; or
an inductor and a switch connected in series and a controller operable to control the switch so that the inductor and switch function as an oscillator.
Abhyankar discloses a Royer oscillators included the totem-pole arrangement functions as an oscillator connected to a transformer as shown in fig. 1.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date, it would be obvious to a POSITA to incorporate a current source as taught by Abhyankar as a matter of design choice without unexpected results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SON T LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5818. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7AM - 4PM.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 5712724448. 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.
/SON T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights