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 § 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 1,5,7,12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikita et al. (JPH11204150A) in view of Park et al. (US 20240044999) in view of Mao et al. (CN115932611 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Morikita et al. teach A system for estimating a short resistance of a target battery, the system comprising:
one or more processors; ([0028] The calculation and determination unit 54 calculates a discharge voltage value corresponding to a specific discharge current value based on the two measured discharge current values and discharge voltage values, compares this discharge voltage value with a predetermined discharge voltage value used as a reference value for determining the lifespan, and determines that the device has reached the end of its lifespan if the former is lower.)
memory storing instructions configured to cause the one or more processors to: (suggested by The discharge voltage is compared with a discharge voltage previously set as the reference value of the life decision, ) (Note abstract) determine voltage values of the target battery for a time period during a charging or discharging state of the target battery, wherein the time period is associated with a constant resistance value within the target battery; (Note par. 0011, a first step of discharging the lead-acid battery to be determined with a large current for a short time through a constant resistor and measuring the discharge current value and discharge voltage value at that time; a second step of discharging with a large current for a short time through a constant resistor with a different resistance value than that of the first step after the discharge in the first step is completed and measuring the discharge current value and discharge voltage value at that time; a third step of calculating a discharge voltage value corresponding to a specific discharge current value from the measured values in the first and second steps; and a fourth step of comparing the discharge voltage value obtained in the third step with a discharge voltage value predetermined as a reference value for determining the lifespan, and determining that the battery has reached the end of its lifespan if the former is lower.)
compare the voltage values with reference voltage values associated with a reference battery, (Note par. 0011, fourth step of comparing the discharge voltage value obtained in the third step with a discharge voltage value predetermined as a reference value for determining the lifespan,).
Morikita et al. does not teach based on the comparing, for the time period, determine a magnitude of a voltage deviation of the target battery with respect to the reference battery;
detect a short circuit in the target battery based on the determined magnitude of the voltage deviation; and
estimate the short resistance of the target battery based on the constant resistance value and the magnitude of the voltage deviation.
Park et al. teach based on the comparing, for the time period, determine a magnitude of a voltage deviation of the target battery with respect to the reference battery; (The control circuit is configured to detect an internal short circuit fault in the battery based on a comparison of a magnitude of the voltage difference of the battery with a threshold.)[par. 0012]
detect a short circuit in the target battery based on the determined magnitude of the voltage deviation; (The control circuit is configured to detect an internal short circuit fault in the battery based on a comparison of a magnitude of the voltage difference of the battery with a threshold.) (Note par. 0012)
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 Morikita et al. to include the teaching of detect a short circuit in the target battery based on the determined magnitude of the voltage deviation; and estimate the short resistance of the target battery based on the constant resistance value and the magnitude of the voltage deviation. (Note Park et al. par. 0010)
Mao et al. teach estimate the short resistance of the target battery based on the constant resistance value and the magnitude of the voltage deviation. ([n0089] It should be noted that the validity of equation (2) is the basis for the calculation of short-circuit resistance. Therefore, in addition to the relaxation voltage of normal battery and ISC battery, the loss voltage also needs to be measured to verify equation (2). Since the loss voltage V<sub>D</sub> is caused by the decrease in SOC, the measurement process must achieve the same amount of SOC reduction as the loss process. To this end, the battery was discharged to 2.5V and then discharged under constant resistance (5Ω, 10Ω, 20Ω, 30Ω, 50Ω, 100Ω, 200Ω) to simulate the power consumption at different ISC levels during the consumption process.) and (Note par. n0006, This method compares the voltage of a faulty battery with that of a normal battery during the relaxation process to determine whether an internal short-circuit fault has occurred, and calculates the short-circuit resistance to assess the severity of the fault.)
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 Morikita et al. to include the teaching of estimate the short resistance of the target battery based on the constant resistance value and the magnitude of the voltage deviation to judge the severity of the fault. (Note Mao et al. abstract)
Regarding claim 5, Morikita et al. teach determining of the voltage values comprises: determining a current voltage of the target battery;(par. 0008, a current detection unit and a voltage detection unit that measure the discharge current value and the discharge voltage value in the discharge circuit, respectively; ) and determining the voltage values within the time period based on the current voltage reaching a pre-defined battery voltage. (Note par. 0008, compares the discharge voltage value with a discharge voltage value predetermined as a reference value for life determination, and determines that the battery has reached the end of its life if the former is lower; and the determination display unit displays the determination result by the calculation and determination unit.) Examiner’s position is that voltage are detected during the discharge time period .
Regarding claim 7, Morikita et al. does not teach wherein the target battery comprises, or is comprised in, a rechargeable lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery.
Park et al. teach wherein the target battery comprises, or is comprised in, a rechargeable lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery. (Note par. 0004)
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 Morikita et al. to include the teaching of wherein the target battery comprises, or is comprised in, a rechargeable lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery to verify the lifespan of the lithium battery.
Regarding claim 20, Morikita et al. teach A battery-enabled device comprising:
a memory; (suggested by The discharge voltage is compared with a discharge voltage previously set as the reference value of the life decision, ) (Note abstract) and
a processor ([0028] The calculation and determination unit 54 calculates a discharge voltage value corresponding to a specific discharge current value based on the two measured discharge current values and discharge voltage values, compares this discharge voltage value with a predetermined discharge voltage value used as a reference value for determining the lifespan, and determines that the device has reached the end of its lifespan if the former is lower.) communicatively coupled with the memory, wherein the processor is configured to:
determine voltage values of a target battery for a defined time period, having a constant resistance value within the target battery, (Note par. 0011, a first step of discharging the lead-acid battery to be determined with a large current for a short time through a constant resistor and measuring the discharge current value and discharge voltage value at that time; a second step of discharging with a large current for a short time through a constant resistor with a different resistance value than that of the first step after the discharge in the first step is completed and measuring the discharge current value and discharge voltage value at that time; a third step of calculating a discharge voltage value corresponding to a specific discharge current value from the measured values in the first and second steps; and a fourth step of comparing the discharge voltage value obtained in the third step with a discharge voltage value predetermined as a reference value for determining the lifespan, and determining that the battery has reached the end of its lifespan if the former is lower.)
obtain reference voltage values corresponding to the defined time period, the reference voltages associated with a reference battery, (Note par. 0011, fourth step of comparing the discharge voltage value obtained in the third step with a discharge voltage value predetermined as a reference value for determining the lifespan,)
Morikita et al. does not teach determine a magnitude of a voltage deviation between the voltage values and the reference voltage values,
detect a short circuit in the target battery based on the determined magnitude of the voltage deviation, and
estimate a short resistance of the target battery based on the constant resistance value and the magnitude of the voltage.
Park et al. teach determine a magnitude of a voltage deviation between the voltage values and the reference voltage values, (The control circuit is configured to detect an internal short circuit fault in the battery based on a comparison of a magnitude of the voltage difference of the battery with a threshold.)[par. 0012]
detect a short circuit in the target battery based on the determined magnitude of the voltage deviation, (The control circuit is configured to detect an internal short circuit fault in the battery based on a comparison of a magnitude of the voltage difference of the battery with a threshold.) (Note par. 0012)
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 Morikita et al. to include the teaching of determine a magnitude of a voltage deviation between the voltage values and the reference voltage values, detect a short circuit in the target battery based on the determined magnitude of the voltage deviation to accurately detecting a battery in an internal short circuit fault among batteries in the absence of voltage imbalances between the batteries by the balancing operation. (Note Park et al. par. 0010)
Mao et al. teach estimate a short resistance of the target battery based on the constant resistance value and the magnitude of the voltage, ([n0089] It should be noted that the validity of equation (2) is the basis for the calculation of short-circuit resistance. Therefore, in addition to the relaxation voltage of normal battery and ISC battery, the loss voltage also needs to be measured to verify equation (2). Since the loss voltage V<sub>D</sub> is caused by the decrease in SOC, the measurement process must achieve the same amount of SOC reduction as the loss process.To this end, the battery was discharged to 2.5V and then discharged under constant resistance (5Ω, 10Ω, 20Ω, 30Ω, 50Ω, 100Ω, 200Ω) to simulate the power consumption at different ISC levels during the consumption process.) and Note (par. n0006, This method compares the voltage of a faulty battery with that of a normal battery during the relaxation process to determine whether an internal short-circuit fault has occurred, and calculates the short-circuit resistance to assess the severity of the fault.)
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 Morikita et al. to include the teaching of estimate a short resistance of the target battery based on the constant resistance value and the magnitude of the voltage to judge the severity of the fault. (Note Mao et al. abstract)
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikita et al. (JPH11204150A) in view of Park et al. (US 20240044999) in view of Mao et al. (CN115932611 A) further in view of Sagar et al. (KR 20230069786A).
Morikita et al. teach the instant invention except the following.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Morikita et al. does not teach wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the one or more processors to: determine a first curve based on the voltage values determined within the time period, obtain a second curve based on the reference voltage values associated with the reference battery, and calculate the magnitude of the voltage deviation based on a comparison of the first curve with the second curve.
Sagar et al. teach determine a first curve based on the voltage values determined within the time period, (Note Fig. 9, actual experimental data, par. 0093) obtain a second curve based on the reference voltage values associated with the reference battery,(Note model prediction , Fig. 9, par. 0093) and calculate the magnitude of the voltage deviation based on a comparison of the first curve with the second curve. (Note it is reasonable magnitude can be determined by Fig. 9 that displays the deviation between the curves)
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 Morikita et al. to include the teaching of wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the one or more processors to: determine a first curve based on the voltage values determined within the time period, obtain a second curve based on the reference voltage values associated with the reference battery, and calculate the magnitude of the voltage deviation based on a comparison of the first curve with the second curve to determine a first short fatigue metric (SFM) score based on the sampled data obtained by the battery management system. (Note Sagar et al. par. 0008)
Claim 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikita et al. (JPH11204150A) in view of Park et al. (US 20240044999) in view of Mao et al. (CN115932611 A) further in view of Lee et al. (KR 20230119958 A).
Morikita et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Morikita et al. does not teach compare the magnitude of the voltage deviation with a voltage threshold value, and based on determining that the magnitude of the voltage deviation is greater than the voltage threshold value, detect the short circuit in the target battery.
Lee et al. teach compare the magnitude of the voltage deviation with a voltage threshold value, and based on determining that the magnitude of the voltage deviation is greater than the voltage threshold value, detect the short circuit in the target battery. (Note par. 0063, Since the second battery (B2) is a lithium precipitation battery, the voltage difference between the reference voltage (VR) and the second voltage (VB2) may be greater than the critical voltage.) (Note voltage difference between reference and second voltage is considered comparing).
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 Morikita et al. to include the teaching of compare the magnitude of the voltage deviation with a voltage threshold value, and based on determining that the magnitude of the voltage deviation is greater than the voltage threshold value, detect the short circuit in the target battery to diagnose whether lithium plating occurs in the battery on the basis of the reference voltage and the target voltage. (Lee et al. abstract)
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikita et al. (JPH11204150A) in view of Park et al. (US 20240044999) in view of Mao et al. (CN115932611 A) further in view of Wang et al. (US 20220352737).
Regarding claim 8, Morikita et al. does not teach comparing the estimated short resistance with a short resistance threshold value; and based on determining that the estimated short resistance is less than the short resistance threshold value, initiating a remediation action.
Wang et al. teach the estimated short resistance with a short resistance threshold value; and based on determining that the estimated short resistance is less than the short resistance threshold value, initiating a remediation action. (Note par. 0009, In box 1518, each shorting resistance R.sub.j is compared to a resistance threshold and an alarm is generated if the a R.sub.j is less than the resistance threshold, indicating a short circuit.)
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 Morikita et al. to include the teaching of comparing the estimated short resistance with a short resistance threshold value; and based on determining that the estimated short resistance is less than the short resistance threshold value, initiating a remediation action to notify the driver that there is an abnormality.
Regarding claim 9, Morikita et al. does not teach wherein the remediation action comprises rendering an alert or controlling use of the battery.
Wang et al. teach wherein the remediation action comprises rendering an alert or controlling use of the battery. (Note par. 0009, In box 1518, each shorting resistance R.sub.j is compared to a resistance threshold and an alarm is generated if the a R.sub.j is less than the resistance threshold, indicating a short circuit.)
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 Morikita et al. to include the teaching of teach wherein the remediation action comprises rendering an alert or controlling use of the battery to notify the driver that there is an abnormality.
Claims 11, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikita et al. (JPH11204150A) in view of Park et al. (US 20240044999) in view of Mao et al. (CN115932611 A) further in view of Bae et al. (US 20210318388).
Morikita et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 11, Morikita et al. does not teach wherein the constant resistance value, the time period, and the reference voltage values are pre-stored in a memory associated with the battery-enabled device.
Bae et al. teach wherein the constant resistance value, the time period, and the reference voltage values are pre-stored in a memory associated with the battery-enabled device.( [0198] Preferably, the pre-stored reference resistance may include a reference resistance calculated based on the reference voltage pre-stored in the storing unit 105. That is, the pre-stored reference resistance corresponds to the pre-stored reference voltage, and may be a resistance calculated based on the OCV when the battery cell 11 is charged at a predetermined cycle so that the voltage of the battery cell 11 reaches the reference charge voltage. The pre-stored reference resistance may be stored in the storing unit 105. Examiner’s position is that when data is stored in memory it has at least a date which is interpreted as time period.)
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 Morikita to include the teaching of wherein the constant resistance value, the time period, and the reference voltage values are pre-stored in a memory associated with the battery-enabled device to estimate the degradation state of the battery. (Note Bae eta l. abstract)
Regarding claim 15, Morikita et al. teach determining of the voltage values comprises: determining a current voltage of the target battery;(par. 0008, a current detection unit and a voltage detection unit that measure the discharge current value and the discharge voltage value in the discharge circuit, respectively; ) and determining the voltage values within the time period based on the current voltage reaching a pre-defined battery voltage. (Note par. 0008, compares the discharge voltage value with a discharge voltage value predetermined as a reference value for life determination, and determines that the battery has reached the end of its life if the former is lower; and the determination display unit displays the determination result by the calculation and determination unit.) Examiner’s position is that voltage are detected during the discharge time period .
Regarding claim 17, Morikita et al. does not teach wherein the target battery comprises, or is comprised in, a rechargeable lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery.
Park et al. teach wherein the target battery comprises, or is comprised in, a rechargeable lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery. (Note par. 0004)
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 Morikita et al. to include the teaching of wherein the target battery comprises, or is comprised in, a rechargeable lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery to verify lifespan of the lithium battery.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikita et al. (JPH11204150A) in view of Park et al. (US 20240044999) in view of Mao et al. (CN115932611 A) further in view of Bae et al. (US20210318388) further in view of Wang et al. (US 20220352737).
Regarding claim 18, Morikita et al. does not teach comparing the estimated short resistance with a short resistance threshold value; and based on determining that the estimated short resistance is less than the short resistance threshold value, initiating a remediation action.
Wang et al. teach the estimated short resistance with a short resistance threshold value; and based on determining that the estimated short resistance is less than the short resistance threshold value, initiating a remediation action. (Note par. 0009, In box 1518, each shorting resistance R.sub.j is compared to a resistance threshold and an alarm is generated if the a R.sub.j is less than the resistance threshold, indicating a short circuit.)
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 Morikita et al. to include the teaching of comparing the estimated short resistance with a short resistance threshold value; and based on determining that the estimated short resistance is less than the short resistance threshold value, initiating a remediation action to notify the driver that there is an abnormality.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikita et al. (JPH11204150A) in view of Park et al. (US 20240044999) in view of Mao et al. (CN115932611 A) further in view of Cho et al. (KR 20200011014A).
Morikita et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 4, Morikita et al. does not teach wherein the short resistance is proportional to a ratio of the magnitude of the voltage deviation and the constant resistance value.
Cho et al. teach wherein the short resistance is proportional to a ratio of the magnitude of the voltage deviation and the constant resistance value. (Note par. 0046 [0046] Referring to FIG. 3a, while the battery (10) is being charged with constant current (CC) charging, the charging current (I) supplied to the battery (10) has a constant value, and the voltage (V) of the battery (10) gradually increases. When an internal short circuit (IS) occurs in the battery (10) during constant current (CC) charging, the voltage (V) of the battery (10) drops sharply and then rises again. Referring to FIG. 2, this phenomenon occurs because the equivalent resistance of the battery (10), that is, the combined resistance of the internal resistance (RB) and the short circuit resistance (RS) of the battery (10), changes instantaneously due to an internal short circuit of the battery (10). Examiner position is that the voltage (V) increases is interpreted as voltage deviation and the internal resistance (constant resistance) and the short circuit resistance changes instantaneously due to the internal short circuit caused by the voltage deviation thereby suggesting short resistance is proportional and affected by the voltage deviation and the internal resistance.
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 Morikita et al. to include the teaching of wherein the short resistance is proportional to a ratio of the magnitude of the voltage deviation and the constant resistance value to observe the affect of the short-circuit resistance when the voltage varies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 10, 16 and 19 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.
Regarding claim 6 and 16, wherein the time period is associated with timestamps, each voltage value corresponds to a product of a total resistance and a total current within the target battery at a time of a corresponding timestamp, and each reference voltage value corresponds to a product of a total resistance and a total current within the reference battery at a time of a corresponding timestamp.
Regarding claim 10 and 19, wherein the time period is associated with timestamps, each voltage value corresponds to a product of a total resistance and a total current within the target battery at a time of a corresponding timestamp, and each reference voltage value corresponds to a product of a total resistance and a total current within the reference battery at a time of a corresponding timestamp.
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
Prosecution Insights