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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) (submitted on September 26, 2024; September 12, 2025; and May 12, 2026) are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it should avoid the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “comprising” and “comprises” in lines 1, 3 and 6. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
According to MPEP 2112.02: Process Claims, it is noted that “Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device” (emphasis added). It is also noted in that same MPEP section that “The Federal Circuit upheld the Board’s finding that "Donley inherently performs the function disclosed in the method claims on appeal when that device is used in ‘normal and usual operation’" and found that a prima facie case of anticipation was made out” (emphasis added). Id. at 138, 801 F.2d at 1326. It was up to applicant to prove that Donley's structure would not perform the claimed method when placed in ambient light.).”
With regard to claims 1-9, these claims present a battery power computing method according to the electronic device of claims 10-18. Therefore, the argument made against claims 10-18 also applies, mutatis mutandis, to claims 1-9. In addition, it is clearly seen that claims 1-9 are process claims which present a process of using the electronic device as claimed in claims 10-18, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 10-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ko et al. (US 2023/0138447 A1).
Ko et al. teaches a battery-based energy storage system comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
554
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
460
746
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
696
588
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
670
454
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 1 and 10, an electronic device (FIG. 1A, energy storage system 1) comprising: a battery (FIG. 1A, battery 35); and a processing circuit (FIG. 20 in view of FIG. 1A, battery management system (BMS) 34), configured to perform following steps: acquiring a battery resistance table of the battery (FIG. 1A, battery 35) (FIG. 27, step 2735), wherein the battery resistance table comprises first mapping relations between a plurality of battery resistances (FIGS. 26 A and 26B, battery internal resistance R) of the battery (FIG. 1A, battery 35) and a plurality of battery power levels (FIGS. 26 A and 26B, state of charge (SOC)); acquiring a resistance conversion table (FIGS. 26 A and 26B), wherein the resistance conversion table (FIGS. 26 A and 26B) comprises second mapping relations between a plurality of battery resistance conversions and a plurality of conditions (FIGS. 26 A and 26B, C-rate and battery temperature) of the battery (FIG. 1A, battery 35); and measuring the battery power (FIG.27, steps 2740, 2745, 2750 and 2760) according to the first mapping relations and the second mapping relations, while charging (FIG.27, steps 2740 and 2745) or discharging (FIG.27, steps 2740 and 2750) the battery (FIG. 1A, battery 35) (For more details, please read: Abstract; and paragraphs: [0238]-[0245] and [0254]-[0292]; and claims 1-20).
With regard to claims 2 and 11, the battery conditions (FIGS. 26 A and 26B, C-rate and battery temperature) exclude the battery power levels (FIGS. 26 A and 26B, state of charge (SOC)) (For more details, please read: Abstract; and paragraphs: [0238]-[0245] and [0254]-[0292]; and claims 1-20).
With regard to claims 3 and 12, the battery conditions (FIGS. 26 A and 26B, C-rate and battery temperature) are temperatures (FIGS. 26 A and 26B, battery temperature) (For more details, please read: Abstract; and paragraphs: [0238]-[0245] and [0254]-[0292]; and claims 1-20).
With regard to claims 4 and 13, the battery conditions (FIGS. 26 A and 26B, C-rate and battery temperature) are current amounts of currents ( measured battery current) flowing into (charging state of the batter) or out (discharging state of the batter ) of the battery (FIG. 1A, battery 35) (FIG. 27, step S2725) within a predetermined time interval (a certain period of time) (Claims 13-20; and FIG. 28). It is noted that the battery condition (C-rate) is determined based on measured battery current (current amounts of currents) as disclosed in FIG. 27, step S2725 and as claimed in claim 13.
With regard to claims 6 and 15, updating the resistance conversion table (FIGS. 26 A and 26B) corresponding to different temperatures (FIG. 27, steps S2725, S2730, S2735 and S2760) or different degradation levels of the battery (FIG. 1A, battery 35).
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 5, 7, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al.
Ko et al. teaches all that is claimed as discussed in the rejections of claims 1-4, 6, 10-13 and 15 above including the second mapping relations (FIGS. 26 A and 26B, C-rate and battery temperature), the battery resistance table (FIG. 27, step 2735) and the battery (FIG. 1A, battery 35), but it does not specifically teach the following features:
The relations between resistance conversion ratios of the battery resistances and the current amounts.
The battery has only one battery resistance table.
Ko et al. also disclosed in FIG. 24 that:
PNG
media_image5.png
588
808
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It is noted that
With regard to claims 5 and 14, as well-known, Ohm's Law states that the current (I) flowing through a resistance is directly proportional to the voltage (V) applied across it. In other word, voltage and current can be used interchangeably. As clearly seen, FIG. 24 discloses a relation between battery resistance and battery voltage at different battery temperatures, equivalently, relations between battery resistance and battery current. From the graphs in FIG. 24, it is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to determine the resistance conversion ratios (or differences at the two different battery temperatures) of the battery resistances and the current amounts.
With regard to claims 7 and 16, Ko et al. disclosed two battery resistance tables (FIGS. 26A and 26B). It is noted that the feature, “only one battery resistance table”, as recited in the claims is just a mere preferable and/or desirable choice for the battery (FIG. 1A, battery 35), which is well-known to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of a process or the intended use of the structure of the battery-based energy storage system. Such an implementation can significantly increase the effectiveness of cost-effective manufacturability with desirable levels of accuracy, resolution, stability and reliability in the measurements.
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 the battery-based energy storage system of Ko et al. to determine the relations between resistance conversion ratios of the battery resistances and the current amounts and to use only one battery resistance table since such an arrangement is beneficial to provide desirable and exemplary choices for a processing circuit for the battery-based energy storage system. Such an implementation can significantly increase the effectiveness of cost-effective manufacturability with desirable levels of accuracy, resolution, stability and reliability in the measurements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, 17 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reason for the indication of the allowability of claims 8, 9, 17 and 18 is the inclusion therein, in combination as currently claimed, of the limitation of acquiring a voltage difference between a first battery voltage and a second battery voltage for the measuring time interval, wherein the first battery voltage is a battery voltage with loading and the second battery voltage is a battery voltage without loading; and computing a battery resistance according to the charge variation and the voltage difference, and updating the battery resistance to a battery resistance table of the battery. This limitation is found in claims 8, 9, 17 and 18 is neither disclosed nor taught by the prior art of record, alone or in combination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants’ attention is invited to the followings whose inventions disclose similar devices.
Aoshima et al. (US 2010/0185405 A1) teaches a control device for a battery.
Wang et al. (US 10,594,145 B1) teaches a method for operation of device using battery state of health.
Fujino et al. (WO 2023188573 A1) teaches a battery deterioration state estimation device.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2170. The examiner can normally be reached MON-THURS (7:00 AM - 5:00 PM).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LEE E. 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.
HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights