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 Interpretations - 35 USC § 112(f)
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 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: "one or more computing devices .. configured to …" in claim 1.
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 § 112(b)
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.
Claims 20 and 21 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 20 and 21 recite the term, "the non-transitory storage device of claim 8." The term lacks antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17 and 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Satpathy (US 12,228,613).
Regarding claim 1, Satpathy teaches a system for state of health for grid applications (see the system of Fig. 1A), the system comprising:
one or more battery energy storage systems, each of the one or more battery energy storage systems having a plurality of batteries (Fig. 1A, col. 13, line 32 to col. 14, line 10, the system includes multiple power systems; each power system can include multiple battery packs);
one or more energy sources (col. 24, lines 7-15, the battery storage system may be used as power storage for an energy source, like a solar array or wind farm; Fig. 1A, col. 13, line 32 to col. 14, line 10, the system includes multiple power systems);
one or more power distribution systems (Fig. 1A, col. 13, line 32 to col. 14, line 10; col. 24, lines 7-15; col. 12, lines 45-54, the battery power systems may be part of a larger, grid balancing system, including electric vehicles and batteries; energy may be provided to battery storage systems from a solar array or wind farm i.e., power distribution system); and
one or more computing devices (Fig. 1A, col. 13, line 32 to col. 14, line 10, the battery data system, data store and/or processing engine receive data from the battery systems, perform analysis and operations), the one or more computing devices configured to:
for each of the one or more battery energy storage systems:
receive battery parameters for each of the plurality of batteries from the one or more battery energy storage systems (Fig. 2A, col. 20, line 59 to col. 21, line 39; col. 22, lines 20-26, the system receives battery data from the battery power systems e.g., leakage current, temperature, SOC, charge/discharge rates, cut off voltages, current and voltage data etc.);
determine a lithium plating state, a solid electrolyte interface (SEI) thickness, and a dendrite length for each of the plurality of batteries (col. 23, lines 1-57, the system may determine or detect lithium plating);
determine a battery state of health (SOH) for each of the plurality of batteries based on at least one of the lithium plating state, the SEI thickness, and the dendrite length (col. 23, lines 1-57, the system may detect lithium plating; the system uses the data to evaluate degradation and safety deterioration mechanisms associated with the battery system; see also col. 49, 14 to col. 50, line 38, the system can detect a loss of active material negative, which can indicate deterioration of the battery system, SEI formation and dendrite formation; based on this analysis, problems can be identified and mitigated);
determine a battery charge profile to mitigate aging for each of the plurality of batteries based on the SOH (col. 23, line to col. 24, line 24; col. 29, lines 4-12, the system may determine or detect lithium plating; the system uses the data to evaluate degradation and safety deterioration mechanisms associated with the battery system; based on the analysis, the system can perform operations to mitigate further deterioration e.g., reduce cut off voltages to mitigate further plating, operate in a lower impedance regimes, adjusting charging operations, restricting the speed of charging etc.) and
send updated battery parameters and control thresholds for each of the plurality of batteries to each of the one or more battery energy storage systems (col. 23, line to col. 24, line 24; col. 29, lines 4-12, the system instructs the battery storage systems to implement mitigation operations e.g., set a lower cut off voltage, adjust cut off voltage based on particular temperatures, adjust the speed of charging etc.; see also Fig. 9, claims 1 and 18, col. 40, lines 24-37, the system transmits designated control parameters to adjust operation of the battery system).
Regarding claim 2, Satpathy teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Satpathy also teaches the one or more computing devices further configured to:
balance a state of charge (SOC) of each battery energy storage system of the one or more battery energy storage systems using an optimization algorithm based on the SOH of each battery energy storage system (col. 23, lines 10-25, 43-57, the system analyzes battery data to determine degradation/safety deterioration i.e., state of health of the battery; this is balanced together with SOC to determine leakage current, which also relates to battery SOH; also, the charging of a battery may be limited to a particular SOC based on a degradation/state of health assessment i.e., the SOC is balanced against other concerns based on SOH).
Regarding claim 3, Satpathy teaches the invention as claimed in claim 2. Satpathy also teaches
wherein balance the state of charge (SOC) of each battery energy storage system of the one or more battery energy storage systems using the optimization algorithm based on the SOH of each battery energy storage system further comprises:
responsive to detecting a grid instability, for each battery energy storage system of the one or more battery energy storage systems:
control a discharge rate of each battery energy storage system of the one or more
battery energy storage systems based on at least one of the SOC, the SOH, and a geographic location of each battery energy storage system of the one or more battery energy storage systems (col. 22, lines 1-15; col. 21, lines 6-15, the system may determine the leakage current/state of health of a battery system, and based on the analysis, the system may control the discharge current and cut off voltage of the battery system; the analysis can be further based on many types of data e.g., SOC; col. 33, line 40 to col. 35, line 45; col. 29, lines 1-11, the system collects data on a battery, analyzes the data, and can determine if the battery is anomalous or problematic; if so, the battery may be placed in a mitigation profile i.e., restrict the speed/rate which the battery is discharged; see also col 12, lines 47-53; col. 20, lines 1-5; col. 21, lines 59-62, batteries may be part of a grid, thus a finding that a battery is problematic or unreliable can be considered to be a source of grid instability).
Regarding claim 4, Satpathy teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Satpathy also teaches wherein battery parameters for each of the plurality of batteries include at least one of current, voltage, and temperature (col. 21, lines 5-15, claim 1, the system can obtain battery data, including leakage current, temperature, cut off voltages etc.)
Regarding claim 5, Satpathy teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Satpathy also teaches wherein the plurality of batteries from the one or more battery energy storage systems are lithium ion batteries (col. 48, lines 48-55; col. 2 lines 21-22, the batteries may be lithium ion batteries).
Regarding claim 7, Satpathy teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Satpathy also teaches a digital twin of the one or more battery energy storage systems to determine the SOH for each of the plurality of batteries for each of the one or more battery energy storage systems (Fig. 9, col. 39, lines 44-62, the system includes a digital twin of a battery system, which is used to determine and predict states and values for the battery system; see also Fig. 10, col. 40, lines 60-67, a model may be used to simulate the battery system).
Regarding claim 9, Satpathy teaches the invention as claimed in claim 7. Satpathy also teaches wherein the digital twin is cloud-based (Fig. 9, col. 39, lines 40-53, the digital twin may be created at any device in the system, as seen in Figs. 1A-2E e.g., the battery data system or battery data processing engine, which is in the cloud i.e., is connected to power systems and batteries via the Internet.)
Regarding claim 10, Satpathy teaches the invention as claimed in claim 7. Satpathy also teaches wherein the digital twin is used for at least one of inventory management, forecasting capital expenditure and recommendations for battery energy storage system maintenance schedules (col. 12, lines 1-17, the system utilizes a twin, as noted in connection with claims 7 and 9, and the system can detect degradation at a battery system; based on the analysis, the system can enable scheduling of maintenance operations/plans).
Regarding claim 16, Satpathy teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Satpathy also teaches
determine recommended changes to thermal management strategies for each of the one or more battery energy storage systems based on the determined SOH for each of the plurality of batteries; and
send the recommended changes to each of the one or more battery energy storage systems (col. 23, line to col. 24, line 24; col. 29, lines 4-12, the system may determine or detect lithium plating; the system uses the data to evaluate degradation and safety deterioration mechanisms associated with the battery system; based on the analysis, the system can instruct the battery systems to perform operations to mitigate further deterioration e.g., reduce cut off voltages to mitigate further plating, operate in a lower impedance regimes, adjusting charging operations, restricting the speed of charging etc.; the adjustment of cut off voltage may be part of a thermal management strategy and may be temperature-dependent; see also col. 23, lines 8-25).
Regarding claim 17, the claim corresponds to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons. Satpathy also teaches a non-transitory storage device that includes machine-readable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a renewable energy distribution system, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (Fig. 3, col. 28, lines 13-39 teaches a processor and a memory with instructions).
Regarding claim 22, Satpathy teaches the invention as claimed in claim 17. Claim 22 also corresponds to claim 16 and is rejected for the same reasons.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satpathy, as applied in claim 5, and further in view of Wang (US 2025/0279655).
Regarding claim 6, Satpathy teaches the invention as claimed in claim 5. However, Satpathy does not explicitly disclose wherein any of the plurality of batteries from the one or more battery energy storage systems are second life batteries.
In the same field of endeavor, Wang teaches wherein any of the plurality of batteries from the one or more battery energy storage systems are second life batteries ([0003], it would be desirable to repurpose second life EV batteries in battery energy storage systems).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated wherein any of the plurality of batteries from the one or more battery energy storage systems are second life batteries as suggested in Wang into Satpathy because Satpathy and Wang pertain to analogous fields of technology. Both Satpathy and Wang pertain to battery energy storage systems. In Wang, second life batteries can be used in battery energy storage systems. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Satpathy so a variety of known battery types might be used in the battery energy storage systems of Satpathy; also, the usage of second life batteries has societal and environmental benefits e.g., see Wang [0003].
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satpathy, as applied in claim 7, and further in view of Poloni (US 2025/0258241) and further in view of Koleti (Koleti, R et al., "A new on-line method for lithium plating detection in lithium-ion batteries," Journal of Power Sources, published Jan. 30, 2020).
Regarding claim 8, Satpathy teaches the invention as claimed in claim 7. However, Satpathy does not expressly disclose the digital twin further comprises a pseudo-electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (pseudo-EIS).
In the same field of endeavor, Poloni teaches the digital twin further comprises a electrochemical impedance spectroscopy element ([0042], it is known to have a battery model, which includes an alternative design of an EIS circuit; the circuit can be used to monitor battery parameters/status).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the digital twin further comprises a pseudo-electrochemical impedance spectroscopy element as suggested in Poloni into Satpathy because Satpathy and Poloni pertain to analogous fields of technology. Both Satpathy and Poloni relate to systems which use digital twins/models of a battery system and that monitor and analyze data from the battery system to determine the health of the battery system. In Poloni, the model can include a circuit that performs modified EIS operations to help analyze the condition of a battery. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Satpathy, so that a variety of known techniques and models may be used to improve analysis of a battery system e.g., see Poloni [0042].
However, the combination of Satpathy and Poloni does not expressly disclose the EIS element is a pseudo-electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (pseudo-EIS).
In the same field of endeavor, Koleti teaches the EIS element is a pseudo-electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (pseudo-EIS) (Abstract, pages 3-5, Koleti teaches a ZTR (impedance at a transition frequency) tracking technique that is similar to EIS but can be applied in real-time and via a conventional battery management system; Koleti evaluates results from the ZTR tracking technique using EIS results; the data obtained from the ZTR tracking technique can be used to detect the onset of lithium plating in real time, and thus the state of health of a battery).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the EIS element is a pseudo-electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (pseudo-EIS) as suggested in Koleti into Satpathy/Poloni because Satpathy/Poloni and Koleti pertain to analogous fields of technology. Satpathy/Poloni pertains to a system that uses a model with an EIS circuit, which is used to obtain data from a battery to diagnose its state of health. Koleti also pertains to a system and method that can use EIS-like techniques to obtain data from a battery to diagnose its state of health. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Satpathy/Poloni, so that a variety of known techniques could be used to evaluate the state of health of a battery system e.g., see Koleti Abstract, pages 3-5. It should be noted that Koleti suggests incorporating its techniques into a battery management system, such as the one described in Satpathy/Poloni e.g., see Koleti Abstract.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Satpathy, Poloni and Koleti teaches the invention as claimed in claim 8. The combination of Satpathy, Poloni and Koleti also teaches wherein determine the battery state of health (SOH) for each of the plurality of batteries based on at least one of the lithium plating state, the SEI thickness, and the dendrite length further comprises: using the pseudo-EIS to determine the SOH for each of the plurality of batteries (Poloni [0042-0045], the stimulation/measurement block 110, which contain a modified EIS circuit, can be used to charge the battery; the battery is then allowed to relax, and voltage measurement can be taken and data can be collected from the battery; such techniques for monitoring battery data can be used to assess the state of health/end of life of the battery; see also Satpathy col. 46, line 61 to col. 47, line 40, the system obtains a variety of data from the battery and uses it to determine the state of health and degradation of the battery system; see also Koleti Abstract, pages 2-5, 11, the described ZTR tracking technique can be used to determine the onset of lithium plating in a battery system, and help determine mitigation operations).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-15, 18 and 19 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. At best, the prior art of record, specifically, Satpathy (US 12,227,613) teaches a system that analyzes battery data, determines degradation/safety deterioration mechanisms and commands mitigation or remedial actions e.g., reducing cut off voltages or adjusting charging operations e.g., see Satpathy Fig. 2A, col. 20, line 59 to col. 21, line 39; col. 22, lines 20-26; col. 23, line to col. 24, line 24; col. 29, lines 4-12. Koleti (Koleti, R et al., "A new on-line method for lithium plating detection in lithium-ion batteries," Journal of Power Sources, published Jan. 30, 2020) teaches analyzing battery data e.g., impedance at a transition frequency, to detect lithium plating in real time and determine the state of health of a battery e.g., see Koleti Abstract, pages 3-5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Katrasnik (US 2023/0366937) teaches a system for diagnosing characteristics of a battery system using a battery model e.g., see Katrasnik Abstract, claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC YOON whose telephone number is (408)918-7581. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 am to 5 pm ET Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ERIC J YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights