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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the second discharging unit must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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:
Charging unit in claim 2;
First discharging unit in claim 2;
Processing unit in claim 2;
Second discharging unit in claim 2;
Calculation unit in claim 2,
Determination unit in claims 2 and 3.
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 20240085483) in view of Chalasani et al. (US 6304059) in view of Zhang (US 9274178)
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Shen et al. teach An abnormality detection device that detects an abnormality of a sub battery as an iron phosphate-based lithium-ion battery (Note par. 0041) that backs up a main battery, (Note par. 0003) the abnormality detection device comprising:
a charging unit that charges the sub battery to a fully charged state; (Note pars. 0011 and 0045)
a first discharging unit that discharges a predetermined amount of current from the sub battery in the fully charged state; (Note par. 0011 and 0045) and (Note [0067] S43. Discharge the battery 23 until the voltage of the battery 23 reaches a discharge cut-off voltage.)
Shen et al. does not teach a processing unit that maintains the sub battery in a state in which a current is a predetermined value or less until a predetermined time elapses after the predetermined amount of current is discharged from the sub battery;
a second discharging unit that discharges a detection current for detecting an abnormality of the sub battery from the sub battery after the predetermined time elapses;
a calculation unit that calculates a voltage drop amount for each of a plurality of battery cells that constitutes the sub battery, the voltage drop amount being a difference between a cell voltage at a start of discharge of the detection current and a cell voltage at an end of the discharge; and
a determination unit that determines an abnormality of the sub battery based on whether a difference between any two of a plurality of voltage drop amounts calculated is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value.
Chalasani et al. teach a processing unit (controller 150, Fig. 2) that maintains the sub battery in a state in which a current is a predetermined value or less until a predetermined time elapses after the predetermined amount of current is discharged from the sub battery; (Note column 4, lines 61-67)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shen et al. to include the teaching of a processing unit that maintains the sub battery in a state in which a current is a predetermined value or less until a predetermined time elapses after the predetermined amount of current is discharged from the sub battery to assess the battery capacity. (Note Chalasani et al. column 4, lines 61-67)
Zhang teach a second discharging unit that discharges a detection current for detecting an abnormality of the sub battery from the sub battery after the predetermined time elapses; (Suggested by A second voltage drop between the electrode of the first battery cell and the corresponding electrode of the second battery cell is detected during the charging or discharging period of the battery pack.) (Note column 1, lines 61-64)
a calculation unit (411, Fig. 4) that calculates a voltage drop amount for each of a plurality of battery cells that constitutes the sub battery, the voltage drop amount being a difference between a cell voltage at a start of discharge of the detection current and a cell voltage at an end of the discharge; ((64) At 501, a first voltage drop V.sub.P between a positive electrode P+ and a negative electrode P− of the battery pack B1 may be detected. As described above, this may be performed by the voltage detecting module 411 during a discharging period or a charging period of the battery pack B1. (65) At 502, a first set of voltage drops between a positive electrode and a negative electrode of each battery cell in the battery pack B1 may be detected. For example, the voltage detecting module 411 may detect a voltage drop V.sub.mi between a positive electrode of a battery cell Mi (1≦i≦n) and a negative electrode of the battery cell M.sub.i.) (Note column 5, lines 65-67 to column 9, lines 1-8 and Fig. 5)
and
a determination unit (413, Fig. 4) that determines an abnormality of the sub battery based on whether a difference between any two of a plurality of voltage drop amounts calculated is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value. (Note column 9, lines 3-27)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shen et al. to include the teaching of a second discharging unit that discharges a detection current for detecting an abnormality of the sub battery from the sub battery after the predetermined time elapses; a calculation unit that calculates a voltage drop amount for each of a plurality of battery cells that constitutes the sub battery, the voltage drop amount being a difference between a cell voltage at a start of discharge of the detection current and a cell voltage at an end of the discharge; and a determination unit that determines an abnormality of the sub battery based on whether a difference between any two of a plurality of voltage drop amounts calculated is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value to detect abnormality of a battery pack without opening the battery pack. (Note column 1, lines 30-32)
Regarding claim 4, Shen et al. does not teach wherein the difference between any two of the voltage drop amounts is a difference between the voltage drop amounts of two battery cells that are electrically adjacent to each other.
Zhang teach wherein the difference between any two of the voltage drop amounts is a difference between the voltage drop amounts of two battery cells that are electrically adjacent to each other. (Note column 9, lines 3-27 and not batteries in Fig. 8)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shen et al. to include the teaching wherein the difference between any two of the voltage drop amounts is a difference between the voltage drop amounts of two battery cells that are electrically adjacent to each other value to compare the electrical parameters of the two cells to determine if one of the cells is not functioning properly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
Regarding claim 3, wherein the determination unit determines that the sub battery is abnormal when a number of differences in the voltage drop amount that are equal to or greater than the predetermined threshold value exceeds a predetermined number.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-3441. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 5:30-1:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858