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 Status
Claims 1-15 are pending for examination.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without reciting significantly more to transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, recite the steps of “acquiring state charges values …; selecting a reference battery cell …, and performing multiple linear regression analysis …”. The limitation explicitly recites a mathematical manipulation/mental process of generic data gathering and calculating statistical correlations by using a mathematical concept (i.e., linear regression analysis).
The claims do not perform an underlying transformation of the underlying state to a different state or thing. If the acts of a claimed process manipulate only numbers, abstract concepts or ideas, or signals representing any of the foregoing, the acts are not being applied to appropriate subject matter (Benson, 409 U.S. at 71-72, 175, USPQ at 676). Furthermore, claims define nonstatutory processes if they simply manipulate abstract ideas (Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1360,31 USPQ2d at 1759).
Furthermore, the claims do not add “significantly more” to the judicial exception by integrating the concept into a practical application. The claims merely output a signal that indicates a detection result without any physical action to control the operation of the battery cells for an improvement.
Regarding claims 2-14, are also rejected because they depend on claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 14 is drawn to a “storage medium” having stored thereon a computer/detection program, where the storage medium can be transitory, i.e., is not explicitly limited as disclosed as only being non-transitory computer readable media; therefore, fails to fall within a statutory category of invention. Applicant should note that adding "non-transitory" to the claim to limit a claimed computer readable medium to being statutory would be acceptable.
A claim directed to a storage medium having stored thereon a computer program is non-statutory, where the storage medium can be a signal, a carrier wave, or a data structure, per se, which are non-statutory as noted, infra.
A claim directed to a signal, a carrier wave, or a data structure, per se, is non-statutory because it is not:
A process, or
A machine, or
A manufacture, or
A composition of matter.
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.
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.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, recite the limitation “the battery cells” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the preceding clause merely introduces “each battery cell” in singular form instead of a plural form.
Regarding claims 2-14, are also rejected because they depend on claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, recites the limitations “an acquiring module”, “a selecting module” and “a regression module” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 13, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fasching (Pat. No.: US 11,131,717 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Fasching teaches a battery detection method (abstract, system and method for current leakage detection in a multi-cell battery pack), comprising:
acquiring state of charge values of each battery cell in a battery system at different time points within a preset time (Fig. 2B, the system tests each battery cell within the battery pack at each iteration of the loop);
selecting a reference battery cell from the battery cells (Fig 2B, step 232, the system disconnects a current battery cell for testing at steps 232-233); and
performing multiple linear regression analysis based on state of charge values of the reference battery cell (Fig. 2B step 240, Col. 26 line 20-24, “In some examples, method 230 comprises determining (block 240) the leakage current of first battery cell 114. The leakage current may be determined based on the cell data obtained from first battery cell 114 while the external cell current is discontinued through first battery cell 114.” and Col. 27 line 41 – 54, “Overall, in some examples, determining (block 240) the leakage current of first battery cell 114 comprises obtaining (block 242) multiple OCV data (e.g., in the form of an OCV profile) and analyzing (block 244) this OCV data and/or leakage current data. The OCV data is obtained using first node controller 112 or, more specifically, voltage probes connected to telemetry module 168. It should be noted that while the OCV data is obtained, first node controller 122 remains disconnected from power conversion stage 162 of first node controller 112 by keeping the corresponding power switch open. The OCV data is analyzed by battery pack controller 150. For example, a linear regression of the OCV data, which may be referred to as OCV(t), is performed.”. The system performs multiple linear regression of the open circuit voltage (OCV) of the selected battery cell at blocks 240-245 at different state of charge (SOC), temperature and other conditions over multiple times during the operating lifetime of this cell.), the state of charge values of each battery cell (Fig. 2B, step 290, Col. 34 line 35-40, “Referring to FIG. 2B, in some examples, method 200 comprises performing (block 290) additional tests on the same or different cells. As noted above, the test may be retested at different SOC, temperature, and other like conditions, e.g., to refine the identification of different degradation mechanisms of these cells.”. The system further performs testing for other battery cells), and timestamps at corresponding time points (Fig. 3A – Fig. 4A, the system monitors the trend of the OCV over a period of time) to obtain a consistency detection result of the battery cells in the battery system (Col. 28 line 7 – Col. 29 line 11, “In some examples, analyzing (block 244) the leakage current data comprises comparing the identified leakage current (and other conditions, if available, e.g., temperature) to known test data models. These test data models may be provided from battery data system 102. Furthermore, in some examples, analyzing (block 244) the OCV data comprises trending the leakage current data for the tested cell over time, which may be referred to as historical trending analysis. For example, the same cell may be tested (for the leakage current) multiple times over the operating lifetime of this cell.”. The system determines battery leakage based on comparing the calculated leakage current with thresholds and/or known models. For example, is the battery cell voltage remains substantially unchanged over a period of time, then the battery cell has a good state of health.).
Regarding claim 5, Fasching teaches the battery detection method according to claim 1, further comprising:
acquiring a first relational expression reflecting a capacity variation of the reference battery cell and acquiring a second relational expression reflecting a capacity variation of each battery cell (Fig. 4A, the system obtains the open circuit voltage of the first battery cell and the second battery cell); and
obtaining, based on the first relational expression and the second relational expression, a positive correlation between the corresponding relative battery capacity and relative self-discharge of each battery cell and the state of charge values of the reference battery cell, the state of charge values of each battery cell, and the timestamps at the corresponding time points (Fig. 4A, shows a graph that displays the relationship between the first and second battery cells, the state of charge of the first and second battery cells across a period of time.).
Regarding claim 13, Fasching teaches a battery detection device, comprising:
a processor; and
a memory storing a battery detection program (Fig. 1A – 1D, Col 33 line 35-37, “In more specific examples, this current reestablishing operation is performed using first node controller 112, e.g., based on instructions from battery pack controller 150”) that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to implement the battery detection method according to claim 1 (The battery detection system includes a controller and memory for storing instructions to perform the method of claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, Fasching teaches a storage medium, storing a battery detection program that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to implement the battery detection method according to claim 1 (Fig. 1A – 1D, Col 33 line 35-37, “In more specific examples, this current reestablishing operation is performed using first node controller 112, e.g., based on instructions from battery pack controller 150”. The battery detection system includes a controller and memory for storing instructions to perform the method of claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, recites an apparatus that is similar in scope as the device of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hao (Pub. No.: US 2022/0196748 A1) teaches a method, apparatus, device and medium for detecting an internal short-circuit fault of a battery cell.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHEN Y WU whose telephone number is (571)272-5711. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM, EST.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/ZHEN Y WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights