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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Although the claims are directed to software. Computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs, are not physical “things.” They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not “acts” being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program is a computer element which defines structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and the rest of the computer which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035.
Claim(s) 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the following:
1. A computer system for monitoring a cooling system associated with a battery pack in a vehicle, the computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to:
dynamically determine a modelled value, Tcalc, of the temperature of at least one battery cell of the battery pack;
determine a measured value, Tmeas, of the temperature of the at least one battery cell of the battery pack;
determine an error probability ratio based on the modelled value, Tcalc, and the measured value, Tmeas; and
if the ratio is above a threshold, determine that an error is present in the cooling system.
2. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to dynamically determine the modelled value, Tcalc, of the temperature by modelling convective heat transfer from the at least one battery cell.
3. The computer system of claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to model convective heat transfer in the at least one battery cell based on a measured ambient temperature and a measured coolant temperature.
4. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to dynamically determine the modelled value, Tcalc, of the temperature by determining a modelled value, zk, of the state of charge of the at least one battery cell.
5. The computer system of claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the modelled value, zk, of the state of charge of the at least one battery cell based on a voltage and/or a current of the at least one battery cell.
6. The computer system of claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the modelled value, zk, of the state of charge of the at least one battery cell using a Kalman filter.
7. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the modelled value, Tcalc, of the temperature by solving a differential heat transfer equation.
8. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the measured value, Tmeas, of the temperature by receiving a temperature measurement from a temperature sensor associated with the battery pack and/or the at least one battery cell.
9. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the error probability ratio is the ratio of the conditional probability mass function of an event R when an error occurs, and the conditional probability mass function of an event R when an error does not occur, wherein R is a function of the modelled value, Tcalc, and the measured value, Tmeas.
10. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine that an amount of coolant is absent from at least part of the cooling system if the ratio is above a first threshold.
11. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine that there is no coolant flow in at least part of the cooling system if the ratio is above a second threshold.
12. A vehicle comprising the computer system of claim 1.
13. A computer-implemented method for monitoring a cooling system associated with a battery pack in a vehicle, comprising, by processing circuitry of a computer system:
dynamically determining, a modelled value, Tcalc, of the temperature of at least one battery cell of the battery pack;
determining a measured value, Tmeas, of the temperature of at least one battery cell of the battery pack;
determining an error probability ratio based on the modelled value, Tcalc, and the measured value, Tmeas; and
if the ratio is above a threshold, determining that an error is present in the cooling system.
14. The computer-implemented method of claim 13, comprising dynamically determining the modelled value, Tcalc, of the temperature by one or more of:
modelling convective heat transfer from the at least one battery cell:
determining a modelled value, zk, of the state of charge of the at least one battery cell; and
solving a differential heat transfer equation.
15. The computer-implemented method of claim 14, comprising modelling convective heat transfer in the at least one battery cell based on a measured ambient temperature and a measured coolant temperature.
16. The computer-implemented method of claim 14, comprising one or more of:
determining the modelled value, zk, of the state of charge of the at least one battery cell based on a voltage and/or a current of the at least one battery cell; and
determining the modelled value, zk, of the state of charge of the at least one battery cell using a Kalman filter.
17. The computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein the error probability ratio is the ratio of the conditional probability mass function of an event R when an error occurs, and the conditional probability mass function of an event R when an error does not occur, wherein R is a function of the modelled value, Tcalc, and the measured value, Tmeas.
18. The computer-implemented method of claim 13, comprising one or more of:
determining that an amount of coolant is absent from at least part of the cooling system if the ratio is above a first threshold; and
determining that there is no coolant flow in at least part of the cooling system if the ratio is above a second threshold.
19. A computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by processing circuitry, the computer-implemented method of claim 13.
20. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the computer-implemented method of claim 13.
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process or function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting, by a computer/program, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the computer/program language, determining, in the context of this claim encompasses a user thinking about or manually making determinations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – computer/program. The computer/program is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of computer/program amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,13,19,20, 8, 10, 11, 12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN109975711A to BORGWARD, supplied by applicant with translation supplied by examiner.
1, 13, 19, 20. A computer system/method/program for monitoring a cooling system associated with a battery pack in a vehicle, the computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to (Abstract, claims 1-10):
dynamically determine a modelled value, Tcalc, of the temperature of at least one battery cell of the battery pack (paragraphs 10-15, “estimated temperature of the test point is obtained based on battery pack thermal model according to the related status information”, claims 1-10);
determine a measured value, Tmeas, of the temperature of the at least one battery cell of the battery pack (paragraphs 10-15, “Obtain the detection temperature at test point current time in related status information and the battery pack in battery pack”, claims 1-10);
determine an error probability ratio based on the modelled value, Tcalc, and the measured value, Tmeas (paragraphs 10-15, 35-45, “Judge whether the test point exception occurs according to the detection temperature at the estimated temperature and the current time; The failure for judging the battery pack according to there is abnormal test point”, claims 1-10, the examiner submits the difference calculation based on the estimated temperature, reads on an error probability ratio); and if the ratio is above a threshold, determine that an error is present in the cooling system (paragraphs 35-45, “When the detection temperature deviation at the estimated temperature and the current time is greater than preset threshold, and the estimated temperature When the duration for being greater than preset threshold with the detection temperature deviation at the current time is greater than preset duration, the detection is determined Point occurs abnormal”, claim 8).
8. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the measured value, Tmeas, of the temperature by receiving a temperature measurement from a temperature sensor associated with the battery pack and/or the at least one battery cell (paragraphs 10-15, “Obtain the detection temperature at test point current time in related status information and the battery pack in battery pack”, claims 1-10).
10. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine that an amount of coolant is absent from at least part of the cooling system if the ratio is above a first threshold (claims 1-10, “It is greater than preset ratio when occurring abnormal test point number in multiple battery core test points of any one coolant pipe road When, determine the coolant line failure；When there is any one or the more persons in following state, the battery pack overall thermal management system failure is determined: Occurs abnormal test point number in the multiple battery core test point more than or equal to the predetermined number；The coolant liquid water outlet test point is abnormal；And The coolant liquid water inlet test point is abnormal”).
11. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine that there is no coolant flow in at least part of the cooling system if the ratio is above a second threshold (claims 1-10, “It is greater than preset ratio when occurring abnormal test point number in multiple battery core test points of any one coolant pipe road When, determine the coolant line failure；When there is any one or the more persons in following state, the battery pack overall thermal management system failure is determined: Occurs abnormal test point number in the multiple battery core test point more than or equal to the predetermined number；The coolant liquid water outlet test point is abnormal；And The coolant liquid water inlet test point is abnormal”).
12. A vehicle comprising the computer system of claim 1 (Abstract).
18. The computer-implemented method of claim 13, comprising one or more of:
determining that an amount of coolant is absent from at least part of the cooling system if the ratio is above a first threshold (claims 1-10, “It is greater than preset ratio when occurring abnormal test point number in multiple battery core test points of any one coolant pipe road When, determine the coolant line failure；When there is any one or the more persons in following state, the battery pack overall thermal management system failure is determined: Occurs abnormal test point number in the multiple battery core test point more than or equal to the predetermined number；The coolant liquid water outlet test point is abnormal；And The coolant liquid water inlet test point is abnormal”); and
determining that there is no coolant flow in at least part of the cooling system if the ratio is above a second threshold (claims 1-10, “It is greater than preset ratio when occurring abnormal test point number in multiple battery core test points of any one coolant pipe road When, determine the coolant line failure；When there is any one or the more persons in following state, the battery pack overall thermal management system failure is determined: Occurs abnormal test point number in the multiple battery core test point more than or equal to the predetermined number；The coolant liquid water outlet test point is abnormal；And The coolant liquid water inlet test point is abnormal”).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-7, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BORGWARD as applied above, and further in view of CN111211374 to Bosch, supplied by applicant with translation supplied by examiner.
BORGWARD fails to teach
2. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to dynamically determine the modelled value, Tcalc, of the temperature by modelling convective heat transfer from the at least one battery cell.
3. The computer system of claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to model convective heat transfer in the at least one battery cell based on a measured ambient temperature and a measured coolant temperature.
4. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to dynamically determine the modelled value, Tcalc, of the temperature by determining a modelled value, zk, of the state of charge of the at least one battery cell.
5. The computer system of claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the modelled value, zk, of the state of charge of the at least one battery cell based on a voltage and/or a current of the at least one battery cell.
6. The computer system of claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the modelled value, zk, of the state of charge of the at least one battery cell using a Kalman filter.
7. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the modelled value, Tcalc, of the temperature by solving a differential heat transfer equation.
14. The computer-implemented method of claim 13, comprising dynamically determining the modelled value, Tcalc, of the temperature by one or more of:
modelling convective heat transfer from the at least one battery cell:
determining a modelled value, zk, of the state of charge of the at least one battery cell; and
solving a differential heat transfer equation.
15. The computer-implemented method of claim 14, comprising modelling convective heat transfer in the at least one battery cell based on a measured ambient temperature and a measured coolant temperature.
16. The computer-implemented method of claim 14, comprising one or more of:
determining the modelled value, zk, of the state of charge of the at least one battery cell based on a voltage and/or a current of the at least one battery cell; and
determining the modelled value, zk, of the state of charge of the at least one battery cell using a Kalman filter.
Bosch teaches
2. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to dynamically determine the modelled value, Tcalc, of the temperature by modelling convective heat transfer from the at least one battery cell (paragraphs 50-70).
3. The computer system of claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to model convective heat transfer in the at least one battery cell based on a measured ambient temperature and a measured coolant temperature (paragraphs 50-70).
4. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to dynamically determine the modelled value, Tcalc, of the temperature by determining a modelled value, zk, of the state of charge of the at least one battery cell (paragraphs 50-70).
5. The computer system of claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the modelled value, zk, of the state of charge of the at least one battery cell based on a voltage and/or a current of the at least one battery cell (paragraphs 50-70).
6. The computer system of claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the modelled value, zk, of the state of charge of the at least one battery cell using a Kalman filter (paragraphs 50-70).
7. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the modelled value, Tcalc, of the temperature by solving a differential heat transfer equation (paragraphs 50-70).
14. The computer-implemented method of claim 13, comprising dynamically determining the modelled value, Tcalc, of the temperature by one or more of: modelling convective heat transfer from the at least one battery cell: determining a modelled value, zk, of the state of charge of the at least one battery cell; and solving a differential heat transfer equation (paragraphs 50-70).
15. The computer-implemented method of claim 14, comprising modelling convective heat transfer in the at least one battery cell based on a measured ambient temperature and a measured coolant temperature (paragraphs 50-70).
16. The computer-implemented method of claim 14, comprising one or more of: determining the modelled value, zk, of the state of charge of the at least one battery cell based on a voltage and/or a current of the at least one battery cell; and determining the modelled value, zk, of the state of charge of the at least one battery cell using a Kalman filter (paragraphs 50-70).
BORGWARD and Bosch are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area, battery management.
Since Bosch teaches battery management that enables determining the state of a thermal management system of an electrical energy accumulator, wherein because the state of the thermal management system directly influences the power capacity of the electrical energy store and, if necessary, for example, when installed in a hybrid vehicle, the carbon dioxide emissions, appropriate measures can be taken in time or, if necessary, the requirements of the regulations can be met, and in particular, a mathematical model may be applied to the calculation, wherein the mathematical model may for example comprise differential equations or algebraic equations, and furthermore, a family of characteristic curves based on data may also be a component of the mathematical mode (paragraphs 1-28), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the technique of battery management as taught by Bosch to improve the battery management of BORGWARD for the predictable results of enabling determining the state of a thermal management system of an electrical energy accumulator, wherein because the state of the thermal management system directly influences the power capacity of the electrical energy store and, if necessary, for example, when installed in a hybrid vehicle, the carbon dioxide emissions, appropriate measures can be taken in time or, if necessary, the requirements of the regulations can be met, and in particular, a mathematical model may be applied to the calculation, wherein the mathematical model may for example comprise differential equations or algebraic equations, and furthermore, a family of characteristic curves based on data may also be a component of the mathematical mode (paragraphs 1-28).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim9,17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Neither BORGWARD nor Bosch, taken either alone or in obvious combination, disclose all the claimed features of applicant’s instant invention, specifically including:
9. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the error probability ratio is the ratio of the conditional probability mass function of an event R when an error occurs, and the conditional probability mass function of an event R when an error does not occur, wherein R is a function of the modelled value, Tcalc, and the measured value, Tmeas.
17. The computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein the error probability ratio is the ratio of the conditional probability mass function of an event R when an error occurs, and the conditional probability mass function of an event R when an error does not occur, wherein R is a function of the modelled value, Tcalc, and the measured value, Tmeas.
It is for these reasons that applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN P SHECHTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3754. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm, M-F.
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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/Sean Shechtman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights