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 .
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.
Status of Claims
The amendment filed 02/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3 have been amended. Claim 2 has been canceled. Claims 6-10 have been newly added. Claims 1 and 3-10 are now pending.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 USC 119 (a)-(d) to application JP2023-214646 filed 12/20/2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. As such, the effective filing date of the application is 12/20/2023.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previously filed 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered but are moot because the amendments filed have necessitated new grounds of rejection as set forth below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (US 20130278221 A1), hereinafter Maeda, and Kanada (US 20180208062 A1), hereinafter Kanada.
Regarding claim 1, Maeda discloses:
A battery system comprising:
a battery mounted on a vehicle (see at least [0004]: “a driving battery on-board a vehicle,”)
a temperature sensor configured to detect a battery temperature of the battery (see at least [0041]: “] The temperature detection circuit 4 converts analog temperature signals detected by a temperature sensor 8 to digital signals with a fixed sampling period. The temperature detection circuit 4 detects battery 1 temperature with a constant sampling period, converts the temperature values to digital signals, and outputs output those signals to the computation circuit 6.”)
a first electronic control unit configured to estimate a degree of degradation of the battery (see at least Fig. 1 and [0038]: “To detect the battery 1 degradation level (SOH), the decision circuit 2 is provided with a current detection circuit 3 that detects charging and discharging current flow through the battery 1, a temperature detection circuit 4 that detects battery 1 temperature, a voltage detection circuit 5 that detects battery 1 voltage, and a computation circuit 6 that computes battery 1 degradation level (SOH) from the values detected by the various detection circuits.”)
and a second electronic control unit including a memory, the second electronic control unit being configured to communicate with the first electronic control unit and to control an inverter and a converter mounted on the vehicle (see at least Fig. 1 and [0037]: “The bidirectional power converter 11 is controlled by a control circuit 14 that controls power supplied from the battery 1 to the motor 12 and charging power from the generator 13 to the battery 1. The control circuit 14 controls the bidirectional power converter 11 considering the battery 1 degradation level (SOH), which is sent via communication lines 9 from the decision circuit 2 on the power source apparatus-side.”)
wherein: the first electronic control unit is configured to estimate the degree of degradation based on a two-dimensional map and a degradation coefficient, the two-dimensional map having the battery temperature and a state of charge (SOC) of the battery as parameters, each region in the two-dimensional map indicating a cumulative time during which the battery was at a corresponding battery temperature and a corresponding SOC, the degradation coefficient being set to increase such that a degradation rate increases as the battery temperature and the SOC increases (see at least [0018]-[0020]: “[0018] In the method of detecting battery degradation level of the present invention, the accumulated time in each battery storage temperature range can be recorded in memory, and battery degradation level can be detected based on the stored data. [0019] In the method of detecting battery degradation level of the present invention, the accumulated time in each battery conducting temperature range can be recorded in memory, and battery degradation level can be detected based on the stored data. [0020] In the method of detecting battery degradation level of the present invention, the accumulated time in each battery .DELTA.SOC range can be recorded in memory, and battery degradation level can be detected based on the stored data.”)
the second electronic control unit is configured to store the degree of degradation estimated by the first electronic control unit in the memory (see at least [0018]: “[0018] In the method of detecting battery degradation level of the present invention, the accumulated time in each battery storage temperature range can be recorded in memory, and battery degradation level can be detected based on the stored data.”)
Maeda does not explicitly disclose:
and in a case where the first electronic control unit is replaced with a new first electronic control unit, the new first electronic control unit is configured to acquire the stored degree of degradation from the second electronic control unit, create a new two-dimensional map based on the acquired degree of degradation, wherein the first electronic control unit calculates a value of the region in the new two-dimensional map corresponding to a highest battery temperature and a highest SOC based on the acquired degree of degradation, with values of remaining regions being null (see at least)
and estimate the degree of degradation based on the new two-dimensional map and the degradation coefficient.
While Maeda discloses the concepts of:
Acquiring the stored degree of degradation from the second electronic unit (see at least [0043]: “Weighting factors W that establish battery 1 degradation level (SOH) corresponding to the change in residual capacity (.DELTA.SOC) are stored in memory as a look-up-table or function, and the computation circuit 6 detects battery 1 degradation level (SOH) from the weighting factor W stored for the particular .DELTA.SOC during charging or discharging. Battery 1 degradation level (SOH) increases as .DELTA.SOC increases. Accordingly, as shown in Table 1, the weighting factor W (%) increases with increasing .DELTA.SOC. The decision circuit 2 detects .DELTA.SOC for one battery 1 charging or discharging period, and with the detected .DELTA.SOC, determines a weighting factor W1-W8(%) from the values stored in memory 7 to establish the degradation level (SOH).”)
Creating a two-dimensional map based on the acquired degree of degradation wherein the first electronic control unit calculates a value of the region in the new two-dimensional map corresponding to a highest battery temperature and a highest SOC based on the acquired degree of degradation, with values of remaining regions being null and estimate the degree of degradation based on the two-dimensional map and the degradation coefficient (see at least [0018]-[0020]: “[0018] In the method of detecting battery degradation level of the present invention, the accumulated time in each battery storage temperature range can be recorded in memory, and battery degradation level can be detected based on the stored data. [0019] In the method of detecting battery degradation level of the present invention, the accumulated time in each battery conducting temperature range can be recorded in memory, and battery degradation level can be detected based on the stored data. [0020] In the method of detecting battery degradation level of the present invention, the accumulated time in each battery .DELTA.SOC range can be recorded in memory, and battery degradation level can be detected based on the stored data.”)
Maeda fails to explicitly disclose, but Kanada teaches:
Replacing the first electronic control unit with a new first electronic control unit (see at least [0052]: “In the battery system 9 configured as described above, an abnormal value is likely to be contained in the temperature Tb of the secondary battery 110 included in the temperature history data D1 of the vehicle 1. An example thereof may include a situation in which replacement of the auxiliary battery 150 is performed in a state in which the vehicle 1 is deposited in a maintenance factory or the like and the vehicle 1 is parked when the auxiliary battery 150 does not normally operate due to deterioration over time or the like.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Maeda with factoring in replacement of components and potential gaps in data as taught by Kanada. This is because, as stated in [0003] of Kanada’s disclosure: “ Hybrid vehicles, electric vehicles, and the like equipped having a battery system including a secondary battery mounted thereon have been widely used. Since the secondary battery deteriorates with elapse of time or charging and discharging, it is desirable to take needed measures such as inspection or replacement of the secondary battery according to a deteriorated state (degree of progress of deterioration) of the secondary battery. Therefore, a technology for estimating the deteriorated state of the secondary battery with high accuracy is needed.”
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Maeda and Kanada discloses:
The battery system according to claim 1.
Maeda discloses wherein the degree of degradation is a capacity decrease amount of the battery (see at least [0004]: “A rechargeable battery degrades with charge-discharge cycle repetitions and the capacity to which it can be charged decreases. Since degradation increases due to over-charging and over-discharging, degradation can be reduced and battery lifetime extended by preventing over-charging and over-discharging, and by limiting charging and discharging operation in regions close to over-charging and over-discharging. Further, degradation can be restrained and lifetime extended by reducing the allowable current, lowering the charging voltage, or narrowing the operating temperature range as degradation proceeds.”)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Maeda and Kanada teaches:
The battery system according to claim 1.
Maeda does not explicitly disclose, but Kanada teaches wherein:
the new first electronic control unit includes a memory (see at least [0046]: “The ECU 100 includes a central processing unit (CPU) 101, a memory 102, an input and output buffer 103, and a timer 104. The ECU 100 controls each device so that the vehicle 1 enters a desired state. A main process executed by the ECU 100 includes a process of estimating the deteriorated state of the secondary battery 110.”)
the degradation coefficient corresponding to specifications of the battery is stored in advance in the memory of the new first electronic control unit (see at least [0089-0090]: “According to a minor rule (linear cumulative damage rule), the internal resistance R of the secondary battery 110 after deterioration can be considered to be obtained by integrating the amount of resistance increase for each temperature condition to which the secondary battery 110 has been exposed, with the initial resistance R.sub.0 of the secondary battery 110. Therefore, the ECU 100 calculates the internal resistance R (R.sub.m) of the secondary battery 110 by sequentially adding the amount of resistance increase in an order of the first temperature range ΔT.sub.1 to the m-th temperature range ΔT.sub.m (S162). [0090] FIG. 11 is a diagram illustrating a process of S162 of the flowchart illustrated in FIG. 10 in more detail. In a case where the integrated holding time in the first temperature range ΔT.sub.1 is indicated as τ.sub.1 and a resistance increase coefficient in the first temperature range ΔT.sub.1 is indicated as α.sub.1, internal resistance R.sub.1 of the secondary battery 110 held by τ.sub.1 in the first temperature range ΔT.sub.1 can be calculated by multiplying the initial resistance R.sub.0 by the resistance increase coefficient α.sub.1 and the integrated holding time τ.sub.1 (R.sub.1=R.sub.0×α.sub.1×τ.sub.1).”)
and in the case where the first electronic control unit is replaced with the new first electronic control unit, the first electronic control unit is further configured to estimate the degree of degradation based on the degradation coefficient stored in advance in the memory of the new first electronic control unit ((see at least [0089-0090]: “According to a minor rule (linear cumulative damage rule), the internal resistance R of the secondary battery 110 after deterioration can be considered to be obtained by integrating the amount of resistance increase for each temperature condition to which the secondary battery 110 has been exposed, with the initial resistance R.sub.0 of the secondary battery 110. Therefore, the ECU 100 calculates the internal resistance R (R.sub.m) of the secondary battery 110 by sequentially adding the amount of resistance increase in an order of the first temperature range ΔT.sub.1 to the m-th temperature range ΔT.sub.m (S162). [0090] FIG. 11 is a diagram illustrating a process of S162 of the flowchart illustrated in FIG. 10 in more detail. In a case where the integrated holding time in the first temperature range ΔT.sub.1 is indicated as τ.sub.1 and a resistance increase coefficient in the first temperature range ΔT.sub.1 is indicated as α.sub.1, internal resistance R.sub.1 of the secondary battery 110 held by τ.sub.1 in the first temperature range ΔT.sub.1 can be calculated by multiplying the initial resistance R.sub.0 by the resistance increase coefficient α.sub.1 and the integrated holding time τ.sub.1 (R.sub.1=R.sub.0×α.sub.1×τ.sub.1).”)”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Maeda with factoring in replacement of components and potential gaps in data as taught by Kanada. This is because, as stated in [0003] of Kanada’s disclosure: “Hybrid vehicles, electric vehicles, and the like equipped having a battery system including a secondary battery mounted thereon have been widely used. Since the secondary battery deteriorates with elapse of time or charging and discharging, it is desirable to take needed measures such as inspection or replacement of the secondary battery according to a deteriorated state (degree of progress of deterioration) of the secondary battery. Therefore, a technology for estimating the deteriorated state of the secondary battery with high accuracy is needed.”
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Maeda and Kanada teaches:
The battery system according to claim 6.
Maeda does not explicitly disclose, but Kanada teaches wherein, in the case where the first electronic control unit is replaced with the new first electronic control unit, a cumulative travel distance of the vehicle stored in the memory of the new first electronic control unit is different from a cumulative travel distance of the vehicle stored in the memory of the second electronic control unit (see at least [0052]: “ In the battery system 9 configured as described above, an abnormal value is likely to be contained in the temperature Tb of the secondary battery 110 included in the temperature history data D1 of the vehicle 1. An example thereof may include a situation in which replacement of the auxiliary battery 150 is performed in a state in which the vehicle 1 is deposited in a maintenance factory or the like and the vehicle 1 is parked when the auxiliary battery 150 does not normally operate due to deterioration over time or the like. Alternatively, a situation in which the auxiliary battery 150 is temporarily detached from the vehicle 1 is also conceivable for repair of other parts of the vehicle 1. Under the above-described situation, no electric power is supplied from the auxiliary battery 150 to the ECU 100, and the ECU 100 stops the operation. As a result, a loss of the temperature history data D1 (more specifically, the record) is likely to occur.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Maeda with factoring in replacement of components and potential gaps in data as taught by Kanada. This is because, as stated in [0003] of Kanada’s disclosure: “Hybrid vehicles, electric vehicles, and the like equipped having a battery system including a secondary battery mounted thereon have been widely used. Since the secondary battery deteriorates with elapse of time or charging and discharging, it is desirable to take needed measures such as inspection or replacement of the secondary battery according to a deteriorated state (degree of progress of deterioration) of the secondary battery. Therefore, a technology for estimating the deteriorated state of the secondary battery with high accuracy is needed.”
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Maeda and Kanada teaches:
The battery system according to claim 1.
Maeda does not explicitly disclose, but Kanada teaches
The battery system according to claim 1, wherein, in the case where the first electronic control unit is replaced with the new first electronic control unit, the new first electronic control unit is further configured to send a request for the degree of degradation to the second electronic control unit, and the second electronic control unit is further configured to transmit the degree of degradation stored in the second electronic control unit to the first electronic control unit (see at least [0061]: “Therefore, in the present embodiment, a configuration in which the temperature history data D2 in the missing period among the temperature history data D2 of the other vehicles 2 collected in the external server 300 is acquired is adopted. As described above, since the other vehicles 2 other than the vehicle 1 also transmit the temperature history data D2 to the server 300, the temperature history data D2 from the vehicles 2 is accumulated in the temperature history database 320. The temperature history data D1 of the vehicle 1 can be supplemented by acquiring an appropriate record d in the missing period from the temperature history data D2.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Maeda with factoring in replacement of components and potential gaps in data as taught by Kanada. This is because, as stated in [0003] of Kanada’s disclosure: “Hybrid vehicles, electric vehicles, and the like equipped having a battery system including a secondary battery mounted thereon have been widely used. Since the secondary battery deteriorates with elapse of time or charging and discharging, it is desirable to take needed measures such as inspection or replacement of the secondary battery according to a deteriorated state (degree of progress of deterioration) of the secondary battery. Therefore, a technology for estimating the deteriorated state of the secondary battery with high accuracy is needed.”
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Maeda and Kanada teaches:
The battery system according to claim 1.
Maeda further discloses:
wherein the region in the two-dimensional map corresponding to the highest battery temperature and the highest SOC corresponds to a greatest degradation coefficient (see at least [0053]: “Next, the decision circuit 2 can detect the degree of degradation due to battery 1 temperature to determine the degradation level (SOH) considering temperature-related deterioration as well. A decision circuit 2, which determines degradation level (SOH) due to temperature, detects battery 1 storage temperature and conducting temperature. Weighting factors W, which establish the degradation level, are pre-stored in memory 7 corresponding to storage temperature and conducting temperature. The decision circuit 2 uses the stored data to determine battery 1 degradation level from weighting factors W corresponding to the detected storage and conducting temperatures.”)
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Maeda and Kanada teaches:
The battery system according to claim 6.
Maeda does not explicitly disclose, but Kanada teaches wherein the two-dimensional map is not present in thememory of the new first electronic control unit (see at least [0052]: “In the battery system 9 configured as described above, an abnormal value is likely to be contained in the temperature Tb of the secondary battery 110 included in the temperature history data D1 of the vehicle 1. An example thereof may include a situation in which replacement of the auxiliary battery 150 is performed in a state in which the vehicle 1 is deposited in a maintenance factory or the like and the vehicle 1 is parked when the auxiliary battery 150 does not normally operate due to deterioration over time or the like. Alternatively, a situation in which the auxiliary battery 150 is temporarily detached from the vehicle 1 is also conceivable for repair of other parts of the vehicle 1. Under the above-described situation, no electric power is supplied from the auxiliary battery 150 to the ECU 100, and the ECU 100 stops the operation. As a result, a loss of the temperature history data D1 (more specifically, the record) is likely to occur.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Maeda with factoring in replacement of components and potential gaps in data as taught by Kanada. This is because, as stated in [0003] of Kanada’s disclosure: “Hybrid vehicles, electric vehicles, and the like equipped having a battery system including a secondary battery mounted thereon have been widely used. Since the secondary battery deteriorates with elapse of time or charging and discharging, it is desirable to take needed measures such as inspection or replacement of the secondary battery according to a deteriorated state (degree of progress of deterioration) of the secondary battery. Therefore, a technology for estimating the deteriorated state of the secondary battery with high accuracy is needed.”
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda and Kanada further in view of Tuukkanen (US 20230382256 A1), hereinafter Tuukkanen.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Maeda and Kanada teaches:
The battery system according to claim 1.
Maeda discloses:
The first electronic control unit includes a nonvolatile memory (see at least Fig. 1.)
Maeda does not explicitly disclose, but Tuukkanen teaches wherein:
second electronic control unit is configured to store the degree of degradation in the memory when the battery system is shut down, and the first electronic control unit is configured to store the two-dimensional map in the nonvolatile memory when the battery system is shut down (see first [0104]: “ It is noted therefore that the above described data may be transmitted via the communication network 111 as weather data, charge point data, battery temperature operating range data, battery temperature function data, estimated battery temperature data, charging time window data, and/or map data layers, according to any known wireless communication protocols.” See further [0136]: “The computer system 1000 also includes a read only memory (ROM) 1006 or other static storage device coupled to the bus 1010 for storing static information, including instructions, that is not changed by the computer system 1000. Some memory is composed of volatile storage that loses the information stored thereon when power is lost. Also coupled to bus 1010 is a non-volatile (persistent) storage device 1008, such as a magnetic disk, optical disk or flash card, for storing information, including instructions, that persists even when the computer system 1000 is turned off or otherwise loses power.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Maeda with the method of saving data when the system is shut down because as implied in Tuukkanen [0136], this ensures data is not lost when the system is shut down.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Maeda, Kanada and Tuukkanan discloses the battery system according to claim 3.
Maeda discloses an electrified vehicle (see at least [0035]: “FIG. 1 shows a block diagram for determining the degradation level of a battery 1 installed on-board a hybrid vehicle 10A...”)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH NELESKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6064. The examiner can normally be reached 10 - 6.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/E.R.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights