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 Objections
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 7, 9-11 and 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
It appears that terms such as SOC and SOH in claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 are acronyms, and thus, should be in parenthesis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: 1) A resistance value history acquirer, 2) A degradation state calculator, 3) A charge/discharge controller, 4) A degradation state notifier, 5) A degradation suppression controller, 6) A resistance value history acquisition step, 7) A degradation state calculation step, 8) A charge/discharge control step, and 9) A degradation suppression control step in claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13 and 14.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-15 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.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-4, 6 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (JP2003129927A) in view of Tanjiyou (JPH0843505A) and Akaha et al. (JP2012185122A). English translations have been provided with the Office action.
With regard to claim 1, Sato teaches a degradation state estimation device for estimating a degradation state of a secondary battery (Abstract, pages 2-3, pars. 1-2 – Calculates a state (remaining life state of health (SOH)) of a secondary battery), the degradation state estimation device comprising:
a resistance value history acquirer configured to acquire a history for a resistance value of the secondary battery (Sato describes on page 4, par. 17 where it acquires resistances Ro and Re; The internal resistance R is performed every time the engine is started (history). Sato also describes on page 9, Step 13, that repeated calculations of internal resistances are performed and stored in RAM, together with the number of times processing. Further, on page 9, Step 14, Sato describes that the SOH is estimated from the internal resistance, where the plurality of internal resistances (history of resistances) stored in RAM is approximated.); and
a degradation state calculator configured to calculate a degradation state SOH of the secondary battery, based on the history for the resistance value acquired by the resistance value history acquirer (Sato describes on page 9, Step 12, calculating the SOH based on the internal resistance. Also on page 9, Step 14, Sato describes that the SOH is estimated from the internal resistance, where the plurality of internal resistances (history of resistances) stored in RAM is approximated.).
Although Sato teaches that the battery is a lead storage battery (page 3, par. 2), Sato doesn’t specifically teach that it can be a lithium metal battery that includes lithium metal in a negative electrode. Sato also doesn’t specifically teach that the degradation state is calculated where a state of charge (SOC) of the lithium metal secondary battery has entered a predetermined range.
Tanjiyou teaches a system that measures the degree of deterioration of a secondary battery mounted on a vehicle by measuring the internal resistance, where the battery is a lithium metal battery (Abstract, page 1, par. 1). Tanjiyou further teaches that the internal resistance stays constant when the remaining capacity (SOH/SOC) is a predetermined value (30% or more), and changes when it becomes less (pages 2-2, par. 10). This would also teach that the state of charge (SOC) is in a predetermined range.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to include the teachings of Tanjiyou into the system taught by Sato. This would have been obvious because both Sato and Tanjiyou are used to determine the deterioration state of a secondary battery mounted on a vehicle by using similar means like measuring the internal resistance. A person skilled in the art would have understood that one could perform these operations on a plurality of different types of batteries such as lead storage (taught by Sato) or non-aqueous electrolyte (lithium metal) (taught by Tanjiyou) batteries since the methods of estimating their deterioration would apply to both.
It would have also been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to include the teachings of Tanjiyou of calculating the degradation state in a case where the SOC has entered a predetermined range into the system taught by Sato. This would have been obvious because when the remaining capacity is about 30% or more, the internal resistance is constant (and hence, the SOC is also at the predetermined range). However, when the range changes to less than 30%, it is important to calculate remaining capacity and notify occupants since the remaining capacity of the battery health is low and charging will be required soon thereafter (See Tanjiyou page 2, last paragraph).
Although Sato teaches that a remaining capacity of the battery is calculated during discharging when describing a prior art reference (Japanese unexamined patent publication no. 9-171065 (page 4, par. 5), Sato doesn’t specifically refer to this teaching while describing their own system.
Regardless, Akaha teaches a system that evaluates a deterioration level of a battery similar to Sato above, where internal resistance is measured and stored as history data (Abstract). Akaha further teaches that although the calculation of the internal resistance can be performed when the battery is charged and discharged, it is preferable to calculate the internal resistance at the time of discharging (page 4, par. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to include the teaching of Akaha for acquiring the internal resistance while the battery is discharging for a predetermined amount of time into the system taught by Sato above. This would have been obvious because Akaha specifically teaches that although the calculation of the internal resistance can be performed when the battery is charged and discharged, it is preferable to calculate the internal resistance at the time of discharging when the flowing current value is large because accuracy is good (page 4, par. 1).
It is also noted that Tanjiyou teaches that the internal resistance is calculated when the battery is being discharged for a predetermined time (page 3, par. 12).
With regard to claim 9, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
With regard to claim 2, Sato, Tanjiyou and Akaha teach the degradation state estimation device according to claim 1, wherein the resistance value history acquirer acquires a history for a first resistance value that is of the lithium metal secondary battery in discharging for a first amount of time, and a history for a second resistance value that is of the lithium metal secondary battery in discharging for a second amount of time that is longer than the first amount of time, and the degradation state calculator calculates the degradation state SOH of the lithium metal secondary battery based on the history for the first resistance value and the history for the second resistance value that are acquired by the resistance value history acquirer. (Sato teaches on pages 4-5, pars. 17-20, that an initial internal resistance, Ro, is calculated at the start of the engine. An internal resistance, R, is then calculated after a certain period of time has passed, and a state of the battery has stabilized. The SOH is calculated using Ro and R. Also, on page 6, Step 1, it determines the amount of time that has elapsed after the battery was last used. If enough time has not elapsed, it uses the previous resistance value. It is also taught on page 6 that it is necessary to wait for a stable first time period in order to measure the voltage more accurately (this is determined by measuring the resistance at that time).
With regard to claim 10, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
With regard to claim 3, Sato, Tanjiyou and Akaha teach the degradation state estimation device according to claim 2, wherein the resistance value history acquirer acquires the history for the first resistance value and the history for the second resistance value while a vehicle is traveling, and the degradation state calculator calculates the degradation state SOH in a case where the state of charge SOC of the lithium metal secondary battery has become less than or equal to 30% (Tanjiyou teaches that the internal resistance can be calculated while the vehicle is running (page 3, par. 12). Tanjiyou also teaches that the SOH can be calculated when the remaining capacity (SOC) is 30% or less (pages 2-3, par. 10).
With regard to claim 11, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
With regard to claim 4, Sato teaches of measuring a first resistance, Ro, during an engine starting period, and measuring a second resistance, Re, after a certain period of time has elapsed and the battery has stabilized (Page 4, par. 17). However, Sato doesn’t specifically teach that the times that those resistances are measured are at 1 second, and 5 seconds to 30 seconds, respectively.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to set the times to measure the resistance values Ro and Re, such as 1 second (for the Ro measurement) and 5 to 30 seconds (for the Re measurement) in the system taught by Sato. This would have been obvious because Sato teaches that the Ro measurement is taken at the start engine period when current is at its maximum (almost no or very little resistance) and the Re measurement is taken when there is maximum load (very high resistance) (Page 4, par. 17). A person skilled in the art would have understood that the time difference to take these measurements could span from 1 second (right when the engine starts) to a few seconds thereafter, which would be in the range of 5 to 30 seconds.
With regard to claim 12, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
With regard to claim 6, Sato, Tanjiyou and Akaha teach the degradation state estimation device according to claim 1, further comprising: a degradation state notifier configured to make a notification for the degradation state SOH that is of the lithium metal secondary battery and is calculated by the degradation state calculator (Sato teaches that the CPU outputs the calculated SOH, indicating the deteriorated state to a display means (Page 9, Steps 10 and 14). Tanjiyou also displays the capacity (SOH) (Pages 2-3, pars. 10 and 14).
Claims 7-8 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al., Tanjiyou and Akaha et al. (JP2012185122A), and in further view of Yamamoto et al. (2011/0187312).
With regard to claim 7, Sato, Tanjiyou and Akaha teach the degradation state estimation device according to claim 2, however, they do not specifically teach of a degradation suppression system, comprising a degradation suppression controller configured to, based on the degradation state SOH calculated by the degradation state calculator, execute degradation suppression control to suppress degradation of the lithium metal secondary battery.
Yamamoto teaches of a system to accurately calculate the deterioration state of a second battery mounted to a vehicle and thus adopt an appropriate using method so that the life of the battery is extended, where this is accomplished by suspending the charge/discharge of the battery to suppress the deterioration of the battery (pars. 21, 23, 96).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to include the suppression method taught by Yamamoto into the system taught by Sato, Tanjiyou and Akaha above. This would have been obvious because by suppressing the deterioration of the battery will extend the life of the battery (Yamamoto - pars. 21 and 97). Being that these batteries are part of a vehicle, a person skilled in the art would have understood the benefits of this extended life.
With regard to claim 14, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
With regard to claim 8, Sato, Tanjiyou, Akaha and Yamamoto teach the degradation suppression system according to claim 7, and Tanjiyou further teaches of a ratio of internal resistances during discharge and charge cycles, such as Rd/Rc. Ideally, that value should be 1.0 when the remaining capacity of the battery is 30% or more. However, when the remaining capacity is less than 30%, the internal resistance ratio Rd/Rc increases (See page 2, par. 7). That is, as the resistance increases during discharging, the ratio will go above 1.0.
However, Tanjiyou doesn’t specifically teach that the ratio would need to exceed 3.0 to alert an occupant about the possibility of whether the vehicle can drive home or to a charging station, or to perform some other suppression operation.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to set a specific number, such as 3.0, which would trigger some type of suppression operation. This would have been obvious because Tanjiyou makes it clear that 1.0 is an ideal resistance ratio and that anything higher would indicate a considerably low battery capacity. A person skilled in the art would have understood that almost any number could be determined when they believe one would need to be alerted to such a situation.
With regard to claim 15, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8.
Claims 1, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizoguchi et al. (2024/0426935) in view of Tanjiyou (JPH0843505A) and Akaha et al. (JP2012185122A).
With regard to claim 1, Mizoguchi teaches a degradation state estimation device for estimating a degradation state of a lithium metal secondary battery that includes lithium metal in a negative electrode (Pars. 2, 7, 43, 74), the degradation state estimation device comprising:
a resistance value history acquirer configured to acquire a history for a resistance value of the secondary battery (Pars. 32, 94 – the deterioration rate may be determined by the use history which includes resistance history); and
a degradation state calculator configured to calculate a degradation state SOH of the secondary battery, based on the history for the resistance value acquired by the resistance value history acquirer (Pars. 43, 94-96 – the deterioration rate can be predicted (calculated) based on use history data, including resistance history).
However, Mizoguchi doesn’t specifically teach that the degradation state is calculated where a state of charge (SOC) of the lithium metal secondary battery has entered a predetermined range.
Tanjiyou teaches a system that measures the degree of deterioration of a secondary battery mounted on a vehicle by measuring the internal resistance, where the internal resistance stays constant when the remaining capacity (SOH/SOC) is a predetermined value (30% or more), and changes when it becomes less (pages 2-3, par. 10). This would also teach that the state of charge (SOC) is in a predetermined range.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to include the teachings of Tanjiyou of calculating the degradation state in a case where the SOC has entered a predetermined range into the system taught by Mizoguchi. This would have been obvious because when the remaining capacity is about 30% or more, the internal resistance is constant (and hence, the SOC is also at the predetermined range). However, when the range changes to less than 30%, it is important to calculate remaining capacity and notify occupants since the remaining capacity of the battery health is low and charging will be required soon thereafter (See Tanjiyou page 2, last paragraph).
Mizoguchi also doesn’t specifically teach acquiring the internal resistance values when the battery is discharging for a predetermined amount of time.
Akaha teaches a system that evaluates a deterioration level of a battery similar to Mizoguchi above, where internal resistance is measured and stored as history data (Abstract). Akaha further teaches that although the calculation of the internal resistance can be performed when the battery is charged and discharged, it is preferable to calculate the internal resistance at the time of discharging (page 4, par. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to include the teaching of Akaha for acquiring the internal resistance while the battery is discharging for a predetermined amount of time into the system taught by Mizoguchi above. This would have been obvious because Akaha specifically teaches that although the calculation of the internal resistance can be performed when the battery is charged and discharged, it is preferable to calculate the internal resistance at the time of discharging when the flowing current value is large because accuracy is good (page 4, par. 1).
It is also noted that Tanjiyou teaches that the internal resistance is calculated when the battery is being discharged for a predetermined time (page 3, par. 12).
With regard to claim 9, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
With regard to claim 6, Mizoguchi, Tanjiyou and Akaha teach the degradation state estimation device according to claim 1, further comprising: a degradation state notifier configured to make a notification for the degradation state SOH that is of the lithium metal secondary battery and is calculated by the degradation state calculator (Tanjiyou teaches displaying the capacity (SOH) (Pages 2-3, pars. 10 and 14).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 13 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, as well as overcoming the USC 112(b) rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT T BADERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3644. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00AM-3:00PM M-Th., every other Friday off.
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, John Cottingham, can be reached at 571-272-1400. 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.
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights