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 § 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites calculating a state of health (SOH) of each of the plurality of battery cells based on the time series data; calculating a moving average value for each of the plurality of battery cells by applying a moving average filter to each of the calculated SOH; calculating a deviation value for a target battery cell of the plurality of battery cells based on a deviation between an average value of the plurality of calculated moving average values of the plurality of battery cells and the calculated moving average value of the target battery cell; and diagnosing an abnormality in the target battery cell based on the deviation value which has been identified as abstract ideas falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. The calculations of a SOH, a moving average, a deviation and diagnosing based on the deviation involve mathematical operations, as supported by applicant’s filed specification; see [0008-0009].
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited processors and memory merely read as tools for performing the abstract ideas; as neither the performance or result of the abstract ideas improve these generically claimed computer elements. MPEP 2106.05(a)
The recited battery merely reads as an additional element that generically links the abstract ideas to a field of use; as neither the performance or result of the abstract ideas improve or better the battery. Therefore, the battery fails to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element, neither alone or in combination, are bettered by the abstract ideas. These additional elements are merely employed as tools to perform mathematical operations while generically linking the abstract ideas to a field of use. Therefore, the additional elements fail to amount to significantly more.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected similarly.
Claims 2 and 11 further define the abstract ideas falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract ideas into a practical application; as the when the SOC is calculated, the current integration and calculated SOHc does nothing to improve the identified additional elements.
Claims 3-7 and 12-16 further define the abstract ideas falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 define limitations that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, as the performance of an abnormality processing function involving at least one of a notification function a short-circuit function, or isolating the target battery cell fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. MPEP 2106.05(f)
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 (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 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) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LV (CN 104635163A) in view of Lin et al. (2010/0321025).
With respect to claim 1, LV teaches an apparatus comprising: one or more processors (as indirectly in Fig. 1 and claim 1 which recited a battery management system); and one or more memory (as indirectly taught in Fig. 1 and claim 1 which recited a battery management system) coupled to the one or more processors (as indirectly in Fig. 1 and claim 1 which recited a battery management system) and storing instructions (Fig.1) that, when executed by the one or more processors (as indirectly in Fig. 1), cause the one or more processors (as indirectly in Fig. 1) to perform operations for diagnosing a battery (as read in the abstract), the operations comprising: acquiring (as S2; [0008]) time series data (Fig. 2) related to a state of each of a plurality of battery cells of the battery (as Lv teaches collecting real-time data for each cell of the single battery; [0033]); calculating (at S3) a state of health (SOH) of each of the plurality of battery cells based on the time series data [0036]; calculating (at S5) an average value for each of the plurality of battery cells [0038]); calculating (at S5) a deviation value for a target battery cell of the plurality of battery cells based on a deviation (as LV teaches calculating a difference value of a cell of the battery; [0038]) and diagnosing (at S6) an abnormality in the target battery cell based on the deviation value (as LV teaches triggering the system to enter a protection state and sending an alarm based on the calculated deviation value when the average difference value exceeds a preset threshold; [0038-0039]).
LV remains silent regarding calculating a moving average value for each of the plurality of battery cells by applying a moving average filter to each of the calculated SOH and the calculated deviation value being between an average value of the plurality of calculated moving average values of the plurality of battery cells and the calculated moving average value of the target battery cell.
Lin et al. teaches a similar apparatus that includes calculating a moving average value for each of a plurality of battery cells (as read in the abstract) by applying a moving average filter (SMA; [0032]) to each of calculated SOH [0019] and the calculated deviation value being between the moving average value of the plurality of calculated moving average values of the plurality of battery cells and the calculated moving average value of the target battery cell.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the control logic of LV to calculate a moving average for each cell by applying a moving average filter and then calculating the deviations between the moving averages, as taught in Lin et al., because such a modification aids in reducing random noise from the sensors, thereby improving the overall accuracy in the calculations and diagnostic process of LV.
With respect to claim 10, LV as modified teaches the method steps are performed during the operation of the rejected structure of claim 1.
With respect to claim 19, LV as modified teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium (as indirectly taught for the battery management system of LV) storing instructions (seen in Fig. 1) that, when executed by one or more processors (as indirectly taught), cause the one or more processors to perform the rejection operations of claim 1.
With respect to claims 2, 11 and 20 LV as modified teaches the apparatus wherein calculating the SOH further comprises: calculating an SOC difference before and after a charging section [0018] for each of the plurality of battery cells based on the time series data (as LV teaches SOC involving Coulomb Counting formal, which involves calculating a change in charge over time); calculating a current integration value [0013-0014] in the charging section for each of the plurality of battery cells based on the time series data (as read in LV); and calculating a SOHc for each of the plurality of battery cells based on the SOC difference, the current integration value, and an initial capacity of each of the plurality of battery cells (as LV teaches using the SOC differences, integration value and an initial capacity of each cell to calculate a SOHc for each cell; [0041]).
With respect to claims 3 and 12, LV as modified teaches the apparatus wherein the current integration value (taught in [0041]) is calculated if the SOC difference is equal to or greater than a designated value (as LV teaches determining the current integration value regardless, thereby indirectly reading on the claimed invention, as the integration occurs when SOC difference unconditional).
With respect to claims 4 and 13, LV et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 2, but remains silent regarding wherein calculating the SOHc is based on:
PNG
media_image1.png
86
280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the ΔT is the current integration value, ΔSOC is the SOC difference, and C is the initial capacity.
The need to determine a SOH for each battery cell is taught in the LV, along with the current integration value, difference is SOC and the initial capacity. Because LV et al. teaches all the recited variables, the examiner has concluded the recited equation for SOHc requires only a finite number of potential variables, based on the measured data and calculated data taught in LV as modified.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to derive the claimed equation based on the measured variables taught in LV, as there were only a finite number of predictable solutions, providing a reasonable expectation of success in deriving the equation from the prior art. MPEP 2141 III.
With respect to claims 5 and 14, LV as modified teaches the apparatus wherein the moving average filter comprises an exponential moving average filter (as taught in Lin et al. [0032]).
With respect to claims 6 and 15, LV et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 2, but remains silent regarding wherein the EMA filter calculates an EMA value based on:
PNG
media_image2.png
47
378
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein EMAt is an EMA value in a current cycle of the battery cell, α is a weight, SOH is the SOH in the current cycle of the battery cell, and EMAt-1 is the EMA value in a previous cycle.
The use of EMA filter is taught in the Lin et al., along with the other claimed variable. Because LV and Lin et al. teach all the recited variables, the examiner has concluded the recited equation for EMAt requires only a finite number of potential variables, based on the measured data and calculated data taught in LV as modified.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to derive the claimed equation based on the measured variables taught in LV and Lin et al., as there were only a finite number of predictable solutions, providing a reasonable expectation of success in deriving the equation from the prior art. MPEP 2141 III.
With respect to claims 7 and 16, LV as modified teaches the apparatus wherein diagnosing an abnormality in the target battery cell further comprises diagnosing the target battery cell as a defective battery cell if the deviation value is equal to or greater than a threshold value (as LV teaches in [0011-0012] triggering the alarm identifying there is an abnormality when the average difference value exceeds the preset threshold value of the second single battery).
With respect to claims 8 and 17, LV as modified teaches the apparatus wherein the operations further comprise performing an abnormality processing function (i.e. as LV teaches triggering an alarm function; [0012]) based on an abnormality diagnosis of the target battery cell [0011-0012].
With respect to claims 9 and 18, LV as modified teaches the apparatus wherein the abnormality processing function [0011-0012] comprises at least one of a notification function (i.e. an alarm).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Plett (2006/0097698) which teaches a method that involves determining a state-of-charge (SOC) for a group of cells.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
