DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objection
2. Claims 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 4 and 5 recite the limitation “the reference condition”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
3. 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.
4. 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 battery manager” in claims 10-18.
The disclosure provides that the battery manager (160) may be implemented in software and/or hardware (Specification [0054]-[0055]). Therefore, the claim limitation will be interpreted to be a hardware AND software computer program product stored on a memory (see MPEP § 2181(II)(B) wherein when the supporting disclosure for a computer-implemented invention discusses the implementation of the functionality of the invention through hardware, software, or a combination of both, a question can arise as to which mode of implementation supports the means-plus-function limitation. The language of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) requires that the recited "means" for performing the specified function shall be construed to cover the corresponding "structure or material" described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Therefore, by choosing to use a means-plus-function limitation and invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant limits that claim limitation to the disclosed structure, i.e., implementation by hardware or the combination of hardware and software, and equivalents thereof. Therefore, the examiner should not construe the limitation as covering pure software implementation).
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 § 101
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 101 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the 2019 PEG (now been incorporated into MPEP 2106), the revised procedure for determining whether a claim is "directed to" a judicial exception requires a two-prong inquiry into whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea of detecting battery internal short circuit.
Specifically, representative claim 10 recites:
An electronic device, comprising:
a battery; a battery manager communicatively coupled with the battery; one or more processors configured to execute instructions, the one or more processors being associated with the battery manager; and a memory storing the instructions, wherein execution of the instructions configures the processor to:
generate a voltage slope based on cell voltage and current data of the battery taken by the battery manager during a charging window or discharging window of the battery;
determine a change in a sign of the voltage slope by comparing the voltage slope with a reference voltage slope of a reference battery;
(c) determine, based on the change in the sign of the voltage slope, a deviation in a magnitude of the voltage slope by comparing the magnitude of the voltage slope with a preset magnitude of the reference voltage slope; and
(d) detect an intermittent short in the battery based on a determination that a deviation in the magnitude of the voltage slope is greater than a preset threshold value.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
The highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the additional elements are NOT sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions, as analyzed below:
Step
Analysis
1. Statutory Category ?
Yes.
System/Apparatus
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
See the bolded portion as listed above.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), each or the combination of the limitations (a), (b), (c) and (d) recited in the bolded portion encompasses mathematical concepts and/or calculations, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, which also encompasses mental processes, i.e. data manipulation, evaluation and judgment, that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
Nothing in the bolded portion precludes the limitations (a), (b), (c) and (d) from practically being performed in the human mind with the aid of pen/paper. As such, the bolded portion of instant claim 10, reciting a series of mathematical concepts and mental process, amounts to an abstract idea falling within a combination of the “Mental Process” and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of Abstract Ideas defined by the 2019 PEG.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
Representative claim 10 recites the additional elements “a battery; a battery manager communicatively coupled with the battery; one or more processors configured to execute instructions, the one or more processors being associated with the battery manager; and a memory storing the instructions” at a high level of generality. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the abstract idea of detecting internal short circuit in a generic rechargeable battery environment using a general-purpose computer. The claimed computer components are merely invoked as tools to perform the recited abstract idea. It is held that performing an abstract idea using a general-purpose computer system would not amount to significantly more than the abstract algorithm itself. See, for example, Whitserve LLC v. Dropbox, Inc. and MPEP 2106.05(f); see also ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. 208 (2014).
Further, under the BRI, the additional elements of “…taken by the battery manager during a charging window or discharging window of the battery” recited in limitation (a) encompass processes of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea. The claim does not require a particular device or sensor to receive the data information in a unique way that is never done before in the relevant technological field. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3): … that were described as mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea. See also Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 13863, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, in all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the algorithm across a wide range of applications.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly, it is considered that the “core” of pending claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea of detecting battery internal short circuit. Under the BRI, all the claimed additional limitations recite activities that are all well-understood, routine, conventional in the art, they do not provide any inventive concepts or reflect a qualified improvement. The claim does not recite any additional element that can be treated as “significantly more”. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The dependent claims 11-18 inherit attributes of the independent claim 10, but do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claim merely extends (or narrows) the abstract idea which does not amount for "significant more" because it merely adds details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
Claims 1-9 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reason as for claims 10-18 set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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; or
(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.
8. Claims 1-2, 8-11, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yan et al. (US 20230208178 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Yan discloses a computer implemented electronic device for detecting battery module failures and a method of operating the device (Abstract, para. 0005), the device comprising: a battery, a battery manager (BMS or iBMS) communicatively coupled with the battery (Fig. 3); one or more processors configured to execute instructions, the one or more processors being associated with the battery manager (Fig. 3; para. 0041, 0046-0047, 0058); and a memory storing the instructions, wherein execution of the instructions configures the processor to: generate a voltage slope (see the timeseries of V for cells 1, 3, 14, 15, and 16 shown in Fig. 5) based on cell voltage and current data of the battery taken by the battery manager during a charging window or discharging window of the battery (para. 0007, 0060: “During processing of the charging data, once a situation that voltages of cells 1, 3, 14, 15, and 16 do not increase but decrease and the accumulated decreased value exceeds 30 mV (as shown in FIG. 5) is detected, it is determined that the several cells have “a sign of a micro-short circuit”; see also discussion of Fig. 2); determine a change in a sign of the voltage slope (para. 0060: “voltages of cells 1, 3, 14, 15, and 16 do not increase but decrease”) by comparing the voltage slope with a reference voltage slope of a reference battery (e.g., any of the “normal” cells 4, 5, 8, 10, etc. shown in Fig. 5; note: by inherency, the voltage slop of a “normal” cell should keep rise during the charging process); determine, based on the change in the sign of the voltage slope, a deviation in a magnitude of the voltage slope by comparing the magnitude of the voltage slope with a preset magnitude of the reference voltage slope (para. 0060: “the accumulated decreased value exceeds 30 mV (as shown in FIG. 5)”; note: with the BRI to the claim, “the accumulated decreased value” reads on the recited “a deviation in a magnitude of the voltage slope”); and detect an intermittent short in the battery based on a determination that a deviation in the magnitude of the voltage slope is greater than a preset threshold value (para. 0059: “the internal resistance of cells 1, 3, 14, 15, and 16 exceeds the safety threshold value of 13 mQ, and the cells are in a state of a serious fault with “potential safety hazards” and needing to be retired again (only cells with the serious fault are marked in FIG. 5)”; para. 0060: “ … it is determined that the several cells have “a sign of a micro-short circuit” and are in a state of “having potential safety hazards”).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Yan discloses: wherein the reference battery corresponds to a healthy battery including the reference voltage slope and the preset magnitude of the reference voltage slope during a preset constant charging or discharging window (para. 0054, 0059-0060; note: by inherency, “the sub-healthy state” must be defined in reference to a “healthy state”; see also discussion of Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Yan discloses: wherein the battery comprises a rechargeable lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery (para. 0057).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Yan discloses: intermittently monitoring the battery to obtain the cell voltage and current data (para. 0044, 0058).
Regarding claim 19, Yan discloses a processor-implemented method, the method comprising: comparing a voltage slope, the voltage slope being based on monitored cell voltage and current data of a battery, with a reference voltage slope of a reference battery (para. 0060; see also discussion of claim 1 above); comparing a magnitude of the voltage slope with a preset magnitude of the reference voltage slope to determine a deviation in a magnitude of the voltage slope, and determining an occurrence of an intermittent short in the battery based on a determination that a deviation in the magnitude of the voltage slope is greater than a preset threshold value (para. 0059-0060; see also discussion for claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 20, Yan discloses the claimed invention (para. 0044, 0058),
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claims 3-7 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al. in view of Ryu et al. (US 20230168308 A1).
Regarding claims 3, 5, 12-13, Yan does not mention explicitly: estimating, using an Electrochemical-Thermal (ECT) model, a severity of the detected intermittent short based on the deviation in the magnitude of the voltage slope with respect to the preset magnitude of the reference voltage slope of the reference battery under a similar reference condition, wherein the ECT model is a model that uses one or more of a Butler-Volmer equation, an Eyring equation, a Nernst equation, and a Tafel equation.
Ryu teaches a technique of detecting a defect of internal resistance (in the form of an intermittent short) in a rechargeable battery (Abstract; para. 0007, 0058), wherein a severity of the defect is estimated using an Electrochemical-Thermal (ECT) model that uses a Butler-Volmer equation (para. 0067: “If there is a potential difference between the electrode and the electrolyte in an equilibrium state, electric current flows. … The magnitude of the current is determined according to the magnitude of the overvoltage, and the correlation between the overvoltage and the current can be expressed by the Butler Volmer equation expressed by the Butler Volmer equation. From the correlation, the resistance that interferes with the movement of electrons between the electrode and the electrolyte can be obtained”; para. 0075: “the degree of change in the output value was simulated while increasing the degree of internal short circuit. …”; see also para. 0091).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ryu’s teaching of defect severity estimation technique into the Yan device/method to arrive the claimed invention. Doing so would allow for, e.g., taking proper remedy actions based on the estimated severity. It is deemed that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of such a combination were predictable for monitoring/diagnosing operation conditions of a rechargeable battery, since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Yan discloses: wherein the reference condition corresponds to an operating condition under which the variation trend (i.e., profile) of the characteristic values of the battery is the same as that of the reference battery (para. 0068: “According to the variation trend of battery characteristic values …, the reliability threshold and the safety threshold of the battery characteristic values and the consistency thereof are obtained based on the variation law of the same kind and the same batch of lithium batteries in the aging process”; see also para .0045), wherein the characteristic values include the temperature values (para. 0070: “In the process of charging/discharging of the lithium battery clusters, … obtains voltage and temperature information of the cell, … and then uploads the information to the cloud diagnosis platform for analysis”) and the current values of the battery (para. 0059: “the DC internal resistance may be calculated according to the real-time data of the cell and the corresponding formula …”).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 15-16, Yan discloses: detecting a subsequent change in the sign of the voltage slope upon detecting the intermittent short in the battery and generating an alert if said subsequent change (e.g., the accumulated voltage drop value) is greater than a threshold (para. 0119).
Yan does not mention explicitly: estimating a duration of the intermittent short in the battery based on a detection of the subsequent change in the sign of the voltage slope; generating an alert if the estimated duration of the intermittent short is greater than a threshold duration.
The teaching of Ryu further includes: estimating a duration (e.g., the time constant value) of the intermittent short in the battery based on a detection of the subsequent change in the detected defect, and generating an alert if the estimated duration of the intermittent short is greater than a threshold duration (para. 0091-0092, 0011: “comparing the time constant with a predetermined time constant, and determining the rechargeable battery as defective when the time constant is less than the predetermined time constant”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ryu’s teaching of the intermittent short duration estimation technique into the Yan device/method to arrive the claimed invention. Doing so would allow for taking more accurate remedy actions based on the estimated duration. It is deemed that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of such a combination were predictable for monitoring and diagnosing operation conditions of a rechargeable battery, since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20220200293 A1 – METHOD AND APPARATUS WITH BATTERY SHORT CIRCUIT DETECTION
US 20210288353 A1 -- METHODS AND ELECTRONIC DEVICES FOR OBTAINING INFORMATION ON A BATTERY PACK
US 20230333165 A1 -- STORAGE BATTERY INTERNAL STATE ESTIMATION DEVICE AND STORAGE BATTERY INTERNAL STATE ESTIMATION METHOD
Contact Information
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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 on (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.
/X.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 /MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights