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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/4/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 11-20 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.
Regarding claim 11, in line 6-8, the claim recites “setting an outlier criterion; setting, using the processor, an outlier criterion”. It is unclear whether the two instances of “an outlier criterion” are referring to the same criterion.
Claims 12-20 are dependent on claim 11 and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
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, 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 1, 2, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fasching et al., US 20220057455 in view of Rahimian et al., US 20200235441
Regarding claim 1, Fasching discloses an abnormal battery cell diagnosis device comprising: a voltage measurement module configured to measure an initial open circuit voltage (OCV) or a closed circuit voltage (CCV) of a battery cell (Fig. 1b; ¶[0054]; node controller 112 receives OCV measurements from battery cell 114); and a processor configured to: calculate an interquartile range (IQR) using the measured initial OCV or the measured initial CCV, set an outlier criterion based on the calculated IQR (¶[0073]; “processing the selected battery data involves an outlier detection scheme. One specific example involves a numeric outlier technique, e.g., a numeric value beyond Q3+k*IQR, where “IQR” represents the interquartile range”), and identify the battery cell as a normal or an abnormal battery cell using, at least in part, the set outlier criterion (Abstract; Fig. 1b; controller 150 determines state of health of cell determined based on OCV measurements).
Fasching does not explicitly disclose a timer configured to determine a minimum rest time for the battery cell. Rahimian teaches a timer configured to determine a minimum rest time for the battery cell (¶[0015]; “measure the cell voltage after a time interval of rest (e.g., 2 hours, 3 hours, 4 hours, 5 hours or more)”); and to calculate a range depending on whether the minimum rest time is satisfied (¶[0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Rahimian into Fasching for the benefit of providing rest time so that the voltage measurement is less prone to fluctuations due to charging or discharging.
Regarding claim 2, Fasching teaches wherein determining IQR based on the measured initial OCV and to set the outlier criterion for the battery cell. Rahimian teaches wherein, if the determined minimum rest time is greater than a minimum rest time threshold value, the processor is configured to calculate the OCV when it is in a battery idle mode (¶[0044]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Rahimian into Fasching for the benefit of providing rest time so that the voltage measurement is less prone to fluctuations due to charging or discharging.
Regarding claim 11, Fasching discloses an abnormal battery cell diagnosis method comprising: measuring, using a voltage measurement module, an initial open circuit voltage (OCV) or closed circuit voltage (CCV) for a battery cell (Fig. 1b; ¶[0054]; node controller 112 receives OCV measurements from battery cell 114); calculating, by the processor, an interquartile range (IQR) using the measured initial OCV or the measured initial CCV and setting an outlier criterion (¶[0073]; “processing the selected battery data involves an outlier detection scheme. One specific example involves a numeric outlier technique, e.g., a numeric value beyond Q3+k*IQR, where “IQR” represents the interquartile range”); setting, using the processor, an outlier criterion based on the calculated IQR; and identifying, by the processor, the battery cell as a normal or an abnormal battery cell using, at least in part, the set outlier criterion (Abstract; Fig. 1b; controller 150 determines state of health of cell determined based on OCV measurements).
Fasching does not explicitly disclose a timer configured to determine a minimum rest time for the battery cell. Rahimian teaches a timer configured to determine a minimum rest time for the battery cell (¶[0015]; “measure the cell voltage after a time interval of rest (e.g., 2 hours, 3 hours, 4 hours, 5 hours or more)”); and to calculate a range depending on whether the minimum rest time is satisfied (¶[0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Rahimian into Fasching for the benefit of providing rest time so that the voltage measurement is less prone to fluctuations due to charging or discharging.
Regarding claim 12, Fasching teaches wherein calculating the IQR based on the measured initial OCV; and setting the outlier criterion for the battery cell. Rahimian teaches setting the outlier criterion comprises: if the determined minimum rest time is greater than a minimum rest time threshold value, in a battery idle state. Rahimian teaches wherein, if the determined minimum rest time is greater than a minimum rest time threshold value, the processor is configured to calculate the OCV when it is in a battery idle mode (¶[0044]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Rahimian into Fasching for the benefit of providing rest time so that the voltage measurement is less prone to fluctuations due to charging or discharging.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3-10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, prior art does not disclose or suggest: “wherein the processor is configured to: obtain a median value of a voltage of an entire battery pack including the battery cell based on an initial OCV measured for each battery cell of the entire battery pack, and to calculate the IQR using a first quartile (Q1) value and a third quartile (Q3) value, each determined using the obtained median value” in combination with all the limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, prior art does not disclose or suggest: “wherein, if the determined minimum rest time is less than a minimum rest time threshold value, the processor is configured to calculate the IQR based on the measured initial CCV and to set the outlier criterion for the battery cell when it is in a battery charging mode” in combination with all the limitations of claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FEBA POTHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9219. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 PM.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached on 571.272.2258. 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.
/FEBA POTHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2858