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 .
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 1-4 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 recites, in part:
detects the maximum value after a first current cumulative value that is the charging current cumulative value from a start of charging of the battery becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined value, and
estimates a full charge capacity of the battery, based on a second current cumulative value that is the charging current cumulative value from when the maximum value is detected until the battery is fully charged.
Regarding the “detects” recitation, it appears that language may have been inadvertently omitted before this recitation. For purposes of the present examination, the language “wherein the maximum value detecting unit is controlled such that it” prior to the “detects” recitation is presumed, recognizing that the specification discloses in connection with Fig. 6 that the maximum value detecting unit 340 detects the maximum value of the voltage variation ΔVB based on the voltage VB when comparing unit 330 determines that first current cumulative value ΣQ1 exceeds the threshold cumulative value Qs. Regarding the “estimates” recitation, the claim does not clearly set forth which of the previously-recited components performs this functionality The specification discloses in connection with Fig. 6, for example, that full charge capacity calculation unit 360 performs this functionality, but the claim does not appear include such a feature. Clarification is required so that the scope of the claim is clear. For purposes of the present examination, the language “a full charge capacity calculation unit that” prior to the “estimates” recitation is presumed. Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2012/0176092 to Fujii et al. (Fujii).
Regarding claim 1, Fujii discloses a battery system (Fig. 1, duplicated below), comprising a battery (Fig. 1, battery 11); a voltage sensor for detecting a voltage of the battery (Fig. 1, voltage detection section 22); a current sensor for detecting a charging current of the battery (Fig. 1, current detection section 31); and a control device (Fig. 1, at least current integral section 24, inflection point detection section 23, battery capacity detection section 25 and battery capacity deterioration calculation section 26, in combination), wherein the control device includes
a current cumulating unit for computing a charging current cumulative value that is a cumulative value of the charging current of the battery (Fig. 1, current integral section 24), and
a maximum value detecting unit for detecting a maximum value of a voltage change amount when charging the battery, based on the voltage,
[wherein the maximum value detecting unit is controlled such that it] detects the maximum value after a first current cumulative value that is the charging current cumulative value from a start of charging of the battery becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined value (Fig. 1, inflection point detection section 23 in combination with that portion of battery capacity detection section 25 that detects/identifies inflection points P1/P2 of Fig. 3; also see Fig. 3 (duplicated below) and paragraphs 31-40, with reference to paragraph 37, as shown in Fig. 3, the inflection point detection section 23 detects, as the inflection point P1 or P2 at the time when the voltage change rate dV/dt exceeds a predetermined threshold value Vth, the voltage change rate dV/dt designated by each of the voltage change rate curve ∆V1 and the voltage change rate curve ∆V2; the inflection point detection section 23 transfers the detected inflection point P (P1 or P2) to the battery capacity detection section 25; because the inflection point P1 or P2 exists in the inflection ranges P1a and P2a shown in Fig. 2, it is possible to detect a correlation between the voltage change rate dV/dt and the battery capacity Ah; with reference to paragraph 39, battery capacity detection section 25 has a capacity table 25a in which the first inflection point P1 shown in Fig. 3 and the corresponding battery capacity (for example, 1 Ah) are related in one-to one correspondence, and the second inflection point P2 and the corresponding battery capacity (for example, 4.3 Ah) are related in one-to one correspondence; on receiving the information regarding the inflection point P transferred from the inflection point detection section 23, the battery capacity detection section 25 judges that the inflection point P is the first inflection point P1 when the integrated current value Ih supplied from the current integral section 24 is within a predetermined first battery capacity range W1 (for example, within a range of 1.5 Ah to 2.5 Ah) shown in Fig. 3; further, the battery capacity detection section 25 judges that the inflection point P is the second inflection point P2 when the integrated current value Ih supplied from the current integral section 24 is within a predetermined second battery capacity range W2 (for example, within a range of 3.8 Ah to 4.8 Ah) shown in Fig. 3; the examiner notes that in Fujii’s operation of Fig. 3, the particular maximum value (e.g., inflection point P1 or P2) is only detected/identified when the integrated current value Ih supplied from the current integral section 24 is within a predetermined first battery capacity range, e.g., range W1 or W2 as shown in Fig. 3; which in turn requires the integrated current value Ih to be equal to or greater than a predefined value of 1.5 Ah for W1 and a predefined value of 3.8 Ah for W2; accordingly, when the integrated current Ih is within range W1, the inflection point is detected/identified as P1 and when the integrated current Ih is within range W2, the inflection point is detected/identified as P2), and
[a full charge capacity calculation unit that] estimates a full charge capacity of the battery, based on a second current cumulative value that is the charging current cumulative value from when the maximum value is detected until the battery is fully charged (Fig. 1, portion of battery capacity detection section 25 that estimates the full charging capacity IhFb based on a second current cumulative value Ihb; see, e.g., Fig. 3 and paragraphs 31-40, with reference to paragraph 30, when the judgment result indicates that the inflection point P is the first inflection point P1, the battery capacity detection section 25 refers the capacity table 25a, and stores the battery capacity of 1 Ah which corresponds with the first inflection point P1 as the first battery capacity Ih1 shown in Fig. 3; further, the battery capacity detection section 25 stores the integrated current value Iha when receiving the inflection point P transferred from the inflection point detection section 23, and obtains the second battery capacity Ih2 (for example, 3 Ah) shown in Fig. 3 by subtracting the integrated current value, which has been stored, from the integrated current value Ihb when the battery voltage VT transferred from the voltage detection section 22 becomes the full charging voltage FV; further, the battery capacity detection section 25 adds the obtained second battery capacity Ih2 of 3 Ah and the previously stored first battery capacity Ih1 of 1 Ah in order to obtain the full charging capacity IhFb of 4 Ah; the battery capacity detection section 25 outputs the obtained full charging capacity as the current full charging capacity IhFb to the battery capacity deterioration calculation section 26; accordingly, Fujii estimates a full charge capacity of the battery, based on a second current cumulative value Ihb that is the charging current cumulative value from when the maximum value P1 is detected until the battery is fully charged to FV).
PNG
media_image1.png
533
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fujii, Fig. 1
PNG
media_image2.png
610
719
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fujii, Fig. 3
Claim 2 recites wherein the predetermined value is set based on a time from an end time of charging or discharging of the battery a previous time to the start of charging this time, the voltage at a time of starting charging, and a temperature of the battery at the time of starting charging. The examiner notes that this language merely identifies factors/considerations used to determine the predetermined value, and neither claim 2 nor claim 1 appear to recite any structure that sets the predetermined value based on these factors/considerations. Accordingly, claim 2 is interpreted as merely setting forth a manner of operating the battery system, e.g., the manner in which the predetermined value is selected, and therefore carries no patentable weight. See MPEP 2114 (a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (citation omitted)). Claim 2 is therefore anticipated by Fujii as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Fujii discloses wherein the full charge capacity is calculated by adding the second current cumulative value to a reference capacity that is set in advance (see Fujii as applied to claim 1, e.g., paragraph 40, the battery capacity detection section 25 adds the obtained second battery capacity Ih2 of 3 Ah and the previously stored first battery capacity Ih1 of 1 Ah in order to obtain the full charging capacity IhFb of 4 Ah).
Claim 5 recites an estimation method of estimating a full charge capacity of a battery, the estimation method comprising:
determining whether a first current cumulative value that is a cumulative value of a charging current from a start of charging of the battery is equal to or greater than a predetermined value;
detecting a maximum value of a voltage change amount of the battery when the first current cumulative value is equal to or greater than the predetermined value;
calculating a second current cumulative value by cumulation of the charging current from when the maximum value is detected until the battery is fully charged; and estimating the full charge capacity of the battery by adding the second current cumulative value to a reference capacity that is set in advance,
and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as anticipated by Fujii for reasons analogous to those discussed above in connection with the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii in view of US 2016/0318417 to Suzuki (Suzuki).
Regarding claim 4, Fujii is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing wherein the control device further includes an offset learning unit that stops charging when charging the battery, and calculates an offset value of the current sensor, and performs calculation of the offset value by the offset learning unit, on condition that the maximum value is detected. Determining/learning an offset of a current sensor for measuring battery current when charging is stopped is known. For example, Suzuki discloses a controller is configured to detect the second voltage value with the use of the voltage sensor, when the charging is completed or when the charging is temporarily stopped in order to acquire an offset value of the current sensor (Yoshida, e.g., claim 7). It 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 to modify Fujji such that the control device further includes an offset learning unit that stops charging when charging the battery, and calculates an offset value of the current sensor. In this way, in the manner discloses by Suzuki, current sensor offset can be obtained to provide increased current sensing accuracy. The examiner notes that in the case of determining current sensor offset when charging is completed, the offset will necessarily be performed after Fujii’s maximum value is detected/identified.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2016/0049821 to Aridome relates to a technique for estimating a full charge capacity of a secondary battery; see, e.g., Fig. 3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL R MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1964. 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.
/DANIEL R MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863