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 § 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 1-19 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.
The term “intermediate” in independent claims 1 & 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “intermediate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What defines intermediate? Is it one of several characteristics and is measured in between the others? Is it a characteristic measured at some time in the functional cycle of the battery pack? Clarification is required. All subsequent dependent claims are likewise rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claims 1-19 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.
The term “aging state degree of the battery pack” in independent claims 1 & 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “aging state degree of the battery pack” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It can be been interpreted as meaning a state of degradation based on estimated or measured characteristics. The term is somewhat ambiguous because (from the context) it could also be interpreted as the actual age of the battery; this is further ambiguous as it could infer the length of time in service of the battery pack or the age based on date of manufacture of the battery pack. Clarification is required. All subsequent dependent claims are likewise rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 requires “the second predetermined intermediate characteristic value includes a higher value of the intermediate characteristic value compared to another second predetermined intermediate characteristic value at which the operational limit remains constant. What is the “another” second predetermined intermediate characteristic value? Is it a random number? Where does it come from? What determines the second predetermined intermediate characteristic value?
Claim 3 recites the limitation “another second predetermined intermediate characteristic value” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What is the “another” second predetermined intermediate characteristic value? Is it a random number? Where does it come from? What determines the second predetermined intermediate characteristic value?
“The wording of claim 3 is wholesale unclear; it appears to state that a value “includes” “another” value and the “operational limit remain constant” (which - additionally -- mixes the plural and singular in terms of the operational limit), which is so vague in that there is no particular specification as to the respective relationship intended by the term “includes.””
Claim 17 is 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.
Claim 17 requires “the second predetermined intermediate characteristic value includes a higher value of the intermediate characteristic value compared to another second predetermined intermediate characteristic value at which the operational limit remains constant. What is the “another” second predetermined intermediate characteristic value? Is it a random number? Where does it come from? What determines the second predetermined intermediate characteristic value?
Claim 17 recites the limitation “another second predetermined intermediate characteristic value” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What is the “another” second predetermined intermediate characteristic value? Is it a random number? Where does it come from? What determines the second predetermined intermediate characteristic value?
“The wording of claim 17 is wholesale unclear; it appears to state that a value “includes” “another” value and the “operational limit remain constant” (which - additionally -- mixes the plural and singular in terms of the operational limit), which is so vague in that there is no particular specification as to the respective relationship intended by the term “includes.””
Claims 3 & 17 will be interpreted using the broadest reasonable interpretation below in order to advance prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, 13-16, & 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Legnedahl et al (U.S. PGPub # 2019/0160948).
Regarding Independent claim 1, Legnedahl teaches:
A method for operating a battery pack (Paragraphs 0001, 0011, & 0012.), the method comprising:
a) determining a current intermediate characteristic value characterizing an aging state degree of the battery pack based on a detected and/or obtained condition measurement signal (Paragraphs 0013, 0020, & 0114-0117.);
b) performing a comparison of the current intermediate characteristic value and a first predetermined value of the intermediate characteristic value, wherein the first predetermined value includes a value of the intermediate characteristic value at which a predefined value of the aging state degree is undercut (Paragraphs 0013, 0029, 0030-0034, 0059, 0101, & 0108.); and
c) adjusting an operational limit for the battery pack based on the comparison (Paragraphs 0037, 0059, 0101, & 0108.).
Regarding claim 2, Legnedahl teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Legnedahl teaches the comparison further includes: performing a comparison of the current intermediate characteristic value and a second predetermined value of the intermediate characteristic value, wherein the second predetermined value includes a value of the intermediate characteristic value at which a sudden cell failure is expected, for identifying an end-of-safe-operation, EoS, of the battery pack (Paragraphs 0029-0033 wherein the accumulated parameter may be “indicative of the operation of the energy storage system, and, when said first accumulated parameter reaches a first threshold value, or said second accumulated parameter reaches a second threshold value, setting the allowed operating extent for the remaining battery pack(s) to the decreased working range.”).
Regarding claim 3, Legnedahl teaches all elements of claim 2, upon which this claim depends.
Legnedahl teaches the second predetermined intermediate characteristic value includes a higher value of the intermediate characteristic value compared to another second predetermined intermediate characteristic value at which the operational limit remains constant (Paragraphs 0029-0033 wherein the accumulated parameter may be “indicative of the operation of the energy storage system, and, when said first accumulated parameter reaches a first threshold value, or said second accumulated parameter reaches a second threshold value, setting the allowed operating extent for the remaining battery pack(s) to the decreased working range.”).
Regarding claim 4, Legnedahl teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Legnedahl teaches the operational limit includes an operational current limit, operational voltage limit and/or an operational temperature limit (Paragraphs 0114-0119.).
Regarding claim 5, Legnedahl teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Legnedahl teaches the adjusting comprises: increasing or decreasing of a maximum value and/or a minimum value of the operational limit (Paragraphs 0037-0043, 0059-0060, 0080-0089, 0101, & 0108.).
Regarding claim 6, Legnedahl teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Legnedahl teaches the adjusting comprises: continuous narrowing of an interval between a maximum value and a minimum value of the operational limit (Paragraph 0039 wherein “decreasing the allowed working range throughout the method” is disclosed. See also paragraphs 0043, 0049, 0051-0052, & elsewhere.).
Regarding claim 9, Legnedahl teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Legnedahl teaches the intermediate characteristic value includes an energy throughput, ETP (Paragraphs 0032-0034, 0044, 0060, & 0075-0076.).
Regarding claim 10, Legnedahl teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Legnedahl teaches the detected and/or obtained condition measurement signal includes a voltage, a current, and an elapsed time of a battery system comprising the battery pack (Paragraphs 0032 & 0034-0035 wherein “time passed after disconnection of the at least one battery pack” is disclosed & 0088 wherein “at least one accumulated parameter indicative of the operation of the energy storage system 10 is to be monitored from the time of disconnection of the battery pack 12 from the remaining, active and functioning, battery packs 12” is disclosed.” See also paragraphs 0046, 0060, & 0116-0117 wherein the other parameters are disclosed.).
Regarding claim 13, Legnedahl teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Legnedahl teaches the detected and/or obtained condition measurement signal is measured during a charging operation and/or discharging operation (Paragraphs 0031-0032 wherein the disconnection of the “at least one battery pack, the electrical work performed by the energy storage system after disconnection of the at least one battery pack and/or the energy throughput of the energy storage system after disconnection of the at least one battery pack” provides information which would necessarily be during operation of and discharging of the remaining batteries.).
Regarding claim 14, Legnedahl teaches all elements of claim 2, upon which this claim depends.
Legnedahl teaches the first and/or the second predetermined value of the intermediate characteristic value is adjusted during operation of the battery pack depending on: a usage of the battery pack (Paragraphs 0037-0042, 0059, 0080-0089, 0101, 0108 wherein this is common practice.), an aging feedback from a field with a plurality of battery packs of the same type of battery pack as the battery pack, and/or an application of the battery pack (See Abstract and Paragraphs 0001-0004, 0011, 0013, 0039 & elsewhere wherein a vehicle application is disclosed.).
Regarding Independent claim 15, Legnedahl teaches:
A battery system, including:
a battery pack (Fig. 1 Element 12. Paragraphs 0070-0072. Fig. 3 Elements 12 & 13. See Paragraphs 0111-0112.) including at least one battery cell (Fig. 3 Elements 12 & 13. See Paragraphs 0111-0112.);
a measurement means (Fig. 3 Element 17. Paragraphs 0113-0118.) and/or a communication interface (Fig. 3 Element 15. Paragraphs 0113-0118.) for detecting and/or obtaining a condition measurement signal (Fig. 3 Elements 15 & 17. Paragraphs 0113-0118.); and
a control unit (Fig. 1 Element 20. Fig. 3 Element 20. Paragraphs 0058-0059, 0072-0073, & 0118.); wherein the control unit is configured for performing the following steps of:
a) determining a current intermediate characteristic value characterizing an aging state degree of the battery pack based on a detected and/or obtained condition measurement signal (Paragraphs 0013, 0020, & 0114-0117.);
b) performing a comparison of the current intermediate characteristic value and a first predetermined value of the intermediate characteristic value, wherein the first predetermined value includes a value of the intermediate characteristic value at which a predefined value of the aging state degree is undercut (Paragraphs 0013, 0029, 0030-0034, 0059, 0101, & 0108.); and
c) adjusting an operational limit for the battery pack based on the comparison (Paragraphs 0037, 0059, 0101, & 0108.).
Regarding claim 16, Legnedahl teaches all elements of claim 15, upon which this claim depends.
Legnedahl teaches the comparison further includes: performing a comparison of the current intermediate characteristic value and a second predetermined value of the intermediate characteristic value, wherein the second predetermined value includes a value of the intermediate characteristic value at which a sudden cell failure is expected, for identifying an end-of-safe-operation, EoS, of the battery pack (Paragraphs 0029-0033.).
Regarding claim 17, Legnedahl teaches all elements of claim 15, upon which this claim depends.
Legnedahl teaches the second predetermined intermediate characteristic value includes a higher value of the intermediate characteristic value compared to another second predetermined intermediate characteristic value at which the operational limit remains constant (Paragraphs 0029-0033 wherein the accumulated parameter may be “indicative of the operation of the energy storage system, and, when said first accumulated parameter reaches a first threshold value, or said second accumulated parameter reaches a second threshold value, setting the allowed operating extent for the remaining battery pack(s) to the decreased working range.”).
Regarding claim 18, Legnedahl teaches all elements of claim 15, upon which this claim depends.
Legnedahl teaches the operational limit includes an operational current limit, operational voltage limit and/or an operational temperature limit (Paragraphs 0114-0119.).
Regarding claim 19, Legnedahl teaches all elements of claim 15, upon which this claim depends.
Legnedahl teaches the adjusting comprises: increasing or decreasing of a maximum value and/or a minimum value of the operational limit (Paragraphs 0037-0042, 0059, 0080-0089, 0101, & 0108.).
Regarding claim 20, Legnedahl teaches all elements of claim 15, upon which this claim depends.
Legnedahl teaches the adjusting comprises: continuous narrowing of an interval between a maximum value and a minimum value of the operational limit (Paragraph 0039 wherein “decreasing the allowed working range throughout the method” is disclosed. See also paragraphs 0043, 0049, 0051-0052, & elsewhere.).
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.
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.
Claims 7-8 & 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legnedahl et al (U.S. PGPub # 2019/0160948).
Regarding claim 7, Legnedahl teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Legnedahl does not explicitly teach the continuous narrowing is a linear and/or exponential narrowing.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have the continuous narrowing be a linear and/or exponential narrowing because a linear narrowing would allow one to easily and precisely control the limiting because a linear narrowing is conceptually and experimentally easy to grasp and initiate in the lab.
Regarding claim 8, Legnedahl teaches or makes obvious all elements of claim 7, upon which this claim depends.
Legnedahl may not explicitly teach the linear narrowing is based on the current intermediate characteristic value and/or a deviation between the current intermediate characteristic value and a second predetermined intermediate characteristic value, wherein the second predetermined value includes a value of the intermediate characteristic value at which a sudden cell failure is expected.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have the linear narrowing is based on the current intermediate characteristic value because a linear narrowing would allow one to easily and precisely control the limiting because a linear narrowing is conceptually and experimentally easy to grasp and initiate in the lab and this narrowing would most easily be based on the easily gathered current intermediate characteristic value because it has already been measured, detected, etc. and it is, as disclosed above a common practice in the field..
Regarding claim 11, Legnedahl teaches all elements of claim 10, upon which this claim depends.
Legnedahl does not explicitly teach the elapsed time is measured independently of the current.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have the elapsed time be measured independently of the current because it is necessarily better to make independent measurements using specific, dedicated tools for a particular measurement. Further, it would be more precise to measure time independently with a proper, dedicated time-keeping instrument without any other unnecessary data being simultaneously collected.
Regarding claim 12, Legnedahl teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Legnedahl does not explicitly teach the ETP is determined by ETP =
∫
0
t
u
*
i
d
t
.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have the ETP be determined by ETP =
∫
0
t
u
*
i
d
t
because this is the integral definition of energy. Power is defined in physics as P = I2R = VI wherein V = IR. Energy is the integral of power over time which would be
∫
0
t
V
*
I
d
t
or
∫
0
t
u
*
i
d
t
as written by applicant.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legnedahl et al (U.S. PGPub # 2019/0160948) in view of Chiang et al ( U.S. PGPub # 2009/0123813).
If Applicant does not accept the interpretation of the 102 rejection of claim 10 above, this is also provided.
Regarding claim 10, Legnedahl teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
If Applicant does not accept that Legnedahl teaches the detected and/or obtained condition measurement signal includes a voltage, a current, and an elapsed time of a battery system comprising the battery pack (Paragraphs 0032, 0034-0035, 0046, 0060, 0088, & 0116-0117.).
Chiang teaches the detected and/or obtained condition measurement signal includes a voltage, a current, and an elapsed time of a battery system comprising the battery pack (Paragraphs 0005-0006.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Chiang to the teachings of Legnedahl such that the detected and/or obtained condition measurement signal includes a voltage, a current, and an elapsed time of a battery system comprising the battery pack because these parameters “basically define various battery parameters that are commonly tracked and monitored by Battery Management Systems.” See provided International search opinion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed but not cited represents the previous state of the art and analogous art that teaches some of the limitations claimed by applicant. Specifically, U.S. PGPub # 2020/0136197 addresses identification features not unlike the characteristics disclosed by applicant. U.S. Pat. # 10,288,692 addresses the state of charge and open circuit voltage and other aspects regarding the life of the battery like applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW whose telephone number is (469)295-9025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lee Rodak can be reached on 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights