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 § 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 1-4, 7-14, & 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by O’Mahony et al (U.S. PGPub # 2022/0082627).
Regarding Independent claim 1, O’Mahony teaches:
A method for battery authentication (Abstract, Paragraphs 0005-0008, 0039, 0041, 0048, 0058-0059, & elsewhere.), the method comprising:
at a battery controller (Fig. 2 Element 204. Paragraph 0033.) of a battery subsystem (Fig. 2 Element 200. Paragraph 0033.), measuring a test electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) response of one or more battery cells (Fig. 2 Element 202. Paragraphs 0024, 0027, 0033, 0042, 0054, & claim 8.) connected to the battery controller (Paragraphs 0024, 0027, 0042, 0054, & claim 8.);
comparing the test EIS response to a historical EIS response stored in a storage subsystem (Paragraph 0027.), wherein the historical EIS response corresponds to one or more authentic battery cells associated with the battery controller (Paragraph 0027.); and
based at least in part on a measured similarity between the test EIS response and the historical EIS response (Paragraph 0027.), output an authenticity determination for the one or more battery cells connected to the battery controller (Paragraph 0027.).
PNG
media_image1.png
430
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, O’Mahony teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
O’Mahony teaches the test EIS response is measured at one or more predetermined frequencies (Paragraphs 0024 & 0027.).
Regarding claim 3, O’Mahony teaches all elements of claim 2, upon which this claim depends.
O’Mahony teaches measuring the test EIS response includes supplying one or more electrical pulse waves at the one or more predetermined frequencies to the one or more battery cells (Abstract, Paragraphs 0005-0008, 0024-0025, 0032, & elsewhere wherein the injected signals meet the metes and bounds of the signals claimed by applicant.), and measuring electrical conditions at the one or more battery cells caused by the pulse waves (Abstract, Paragraphs 0005-0008, 0024-0025, 0032, & elsewhere wherein the responses are analyzed.).
Regarding claim 4, O’Mahony teaches all elements of claim 3, upon which this claim depends.
O’Mahony teaches the one or more predetermined frequencies are selected based at least in part on a battery model of the one or more authentic battery cells (Paragraphs 0024, 0042, 0052, 0084, & elsewhere.).
Regarding claim 7, O’Mahony teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
O’Mahony teaches comparing the test EIS response to the historical EIS response includes converting the test EIS response into a test result vector (Paragraph 0053.), converting the historical EIS response into a historical result vector (Paragraph 0053.), and wherein the measured similarity is a computed a vector similarity between the test result vector and the historical result vector (Paragraph 0053.).
Regarding claim 8, O’Mahony teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
O’Mahony teaches based at least in part on the measured similarity between the test EIS response and the historical EIS response being less than an authenticity threshold, the authenticity determination indicates that the one or more battery cells connected to the battery controller are not the one or more authentic battery cells (Abstract, Paragraphs 0005-0008, 0039, 0041, 0048, 0058-0059, & elsewhere.).
Regarding claim 9, O’Mahony teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
O’Mahony teaches based at least in part on the measured similarity between the test EIS response and the historical EIS response being greater than an authenticity threshold, the authenticity determination indicates that the one or more battery cells connected to the battery controller are the one or more authentic battery cells (Paragraphs 0030, 0035, 0042, 0050, 0065, & 0072.).
Regarding claim 10, O’Mahony teaches all elements of claim 9, upon which this claim depends.
O’Mahony teaches based at least in part on the measured similarity between the test EIS response and the historical EIS response being greater than the authenticity threshold and satisfying an update condition, the historical EIS response stored in the storage subsystem is replaced with the test EIS response (Paragraphs 0053 & 0095.).
Regarding claim 11, O’Mahony teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
O’Mahony teaches based at least in part on a predetermined update interval elapsing, and based at least in part on the authenticity determination indicating that the one or more battery cells connected to the battery controller are the one or more authentic battery cells, replacing the historical EIS response stored in the storage subsystem with the test EIS response (Paragraphs 0030, 0035, 0042, 0050, 0065, & 0072. Paragraphs 0053 & 0095.).
Regarding claim 12, O’Mahony teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
O’Mahony teaches the test EIS response is measured when the one or more battery cells connected to the battery controller have a predetermined charging state (Paragraphs 0024, 0027, 0042, 0054, & claim 8. Any state can be a predetermined state.).
Regarding Independent claim 13, O’Mahony teaches:
A battery subsystem (Fig. 2 Element 200. Paragraph 0033.), comprising:
one or more battery cells (Fig. 2 Element 202. Paragraphs 0024, 0027, 0033, 0042, 0054, & claim 8.) configured to store electrical energy (Fig. 2 Element 202. Paragraphs 0024, 0027, 0033, 0042, 0054, & claim 8 wherein that is what batteries do.); and
a battery controller (Fig. 2 Element 204. Paragraph 0033.) connected to the one or more battery cells (Fig. 2 Element 202. Paragraphs 0024, 0027, 0033, 0042, 0054, & claim 8.), the battery controller configured to:
measure a test electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) response of the one or more battery cells (Fig. 2 Element 202. Paragraphs 0024, 0027, 0033, 0042, 0054, & claim 8.) connected to the battery controller (Paragraphs 0024, 0027, 0042, 0054, & claim 8.);
compare the test EIS response to a historical EIS response stored in a storage subsystem, wherein the historical EIS response corresponds to one or more authentic battery cells associated with the battery controller (Paragraph 0027.); and
based at least in part on a measured similarity between the test EIS response and the historical EIS response, output an authenticity determination for the one or more battery cells connected to the battery controller (Paragraph 0027.).
PNG
media_image1.png
430
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, O’Mahony teaches all elements of claim 13, upon which this claim depends.
O’Mahony teaches the test EIS response is measured at one or more predetermined frequencies (Paragraphs 0024 & 0027.), and wherein measuring the test EIS response includes supplying one or more electrical pulse waves at the one or more predetermined frequencies to the one or more battery cells (Abstract, Paragraphs 0005-0008, 0024-0025, 0032, & elsewhere wherein the injected signals meet the metes and bounds of the signals claimed by applicant.).
Regarding claim 16, O’Mahony teaches all elements of claim 13, upon which this claim depends.
O’Mahony teaches based at least in part on the measured similarity between the test EIS response and the historical EIS response being less than an authenticity threshold (Paragraph 0053.), the authenticity determination indicates that the one or more battery cells connected to the battery controller are not the one or more authentic battery cells (Paragraphs 0030, 0035, 0042, 0050, 0065, & 0072.).
Regarding claim 17, O’Mahony teaches all elements of claim 13, upon which this claim depends.
O’Mahony teaches based at least in part on the measured similarity between the test EIS response and the historical EIS response being greater than an authenticity threshold (Paragraph 0053.), the authenticity determination indicates that the one or more battery cells connected to the battery controller are the one or more authentic battery cells (Paragraphs 0030, 0035, 0042, 0050, 0065, & 0072.).
Regarding claim 18, O’Mahony teaches all elements of claim 17, upon which this claim depends.
O’Mahony teaches based at least in part on the measured similarity between the test EIS response and the historical EIS response being greater than the authenticity threshold and satisfying an update condition (Paragraph 0053 & 0095.), the historical EIS response stored in the storage subsystem is replaced with the test EIS response (Paragraph 0053 & 0095.).
Regarding claim 19, O’Mahony teaches all elements of claim 13, upon which this claim depends.
O’Mahony teaches the test EIS response is measured when the one or more battery cells connected to the battery controller have a predetermined charging state (Paragraphs 0024, 0027, 0042, 0054, & claim 8.).
Regarding Independent claim 20, O’Mahony teaches”
An electronic device (Abstract, Paragraphs 0005-0008, 0039, 0041, 0048, 0058-0059, & elsewhere.), comprising:
a battery subsystem (Fig. 2 Element 200. Paragraph 0033.) including a battery controller (Fig. 2 Element 204. Paragraph 0033.) and one or more battery cells (Fig. 2 Elements 202, 202A & 202B.) configured to supply electrical power to components of the electronic device (Fig. 2 Elements 202, 202A & 202B wherein that is what batteries do.), wherein the battery controller is configured to:
measure a test electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) response of the one or more battery cells (Fig. 2 Element 202. Paragraphs 0024, 0027, 0033, 0042, 0054, & claim 8.) connected to the battery controller (Paragraphs 0024, 0027, 0042, 0054, & claim 8.);
compare the test EIS response to a historical EIS response stored in a storage subsystem, wherein the historical EIS response corresponds to one or more authentic battery cells associated with the battery controller (Paragraph 0027.);
based at least in part on a measured similarity between the test EIS response and the historical EIS response being greater than an authenticity threshold (Paragraph 0027.), output an authenticity determination for the one or more battery cells connected to the battery controller (Paragraph 0027.), the authenticity determination indicating that the one or more battery cells connected to the battery controller are the one or more authentic battery cells (Paragraph 0027.); and
based at least in part on the measured similarity between the test ESI response and the historical EIS satisfying an update condition (Paragraph 0027.), replacing the historical EIS response with the test EIS response (Paragraph 0027.).
PNG
media_image1.png
430
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 5-6 &15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Mahony et al (U.S. PGPub # 2022/0082627) in view of Hess et al (Hess, Michael, et al. "Combined operando X-ray diffraction–electrochemical impedance spectroscopy detecting solid solution reactions of LiFePO4 in batteries." Nature communications 6.1 (2015): 8169.).
Regarding claim 5, O’Mahony teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
O’Mahony does not explicitly teach measuring the test EIS response includes measuring a test phase-transition real impedance (PTRI) of the one or more battery cells connected to the battery controller, and wherein the test PTRI is compared to a historical PTRI of the one or more authentic battery cells.
Hess teaches measuring the test EIS response includes measuring a test phase-transition real impedance (PTRI) of the one or more battery cells connected to the battery controller, and wherein the test PTRI is compared to a historical PTRI of the one or more authentic battery cells (Page 3 column 2 to page 3 column 2 Section Results copied below.).
PNG
media_image2.png
342
342
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
576
702
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Hess to the teachings of O’Mahony such that measuring the test EIS response would include measuring a test phase-transition real impedance (PTRI) of the one or more battery cells connected to the battery controller, and wherein the test PTRI would be compared to a historical PTRI of the one or more authentic battery cells because “(i)n the case of phase-separating materials such as LFP, the superposed information should be sufficient for phase identification because one inspects for intermediate phases between the well-known stable end phases of LFP and FP.” and because this allows one to get a better measurement of the state of charge as disclosed in the highlighted section above.
Regarding claim 6, O’Mahony & Hess teach all elements of claim 5, upon which this claim depends.
O’Mahony does not explicitly teach the test PTRI is compared to the historical PTRI in a preliminary authenticity check, and wherein the method further comprises, responsive to the test PTRI differing from the historical PTRI by more than a preliminary threshold, performing a supplementary authenticity check in which one or more additional electrochemical features of the one or more battery cells connected to the battery controller are measured.
Hess teaches the test PTRI is compared to the historical PTRI in a preliminary authenticity check, and wherein the method further comprises, responsive to the test PTRI differing from the historical PTRI by more than a preliminary threshold, performing a supplementary authenticity check in which one or more additional electrochemical features of the one or more battery cells connected to the battery controller are measured (Page 3 column 2 to page 3 column 2 Section Results copied below.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Hess to the teachings of O’Mahony such that the test PTRI is compared to the historical PTRI in a preliminary authenticity check, and wherein the method further comprises, responsive to the test PTRI differing from the historical PTRI by more than a preliminary threshold, performing a supplementary authenticity check in which one or more additional electrochemical features of the one or more battery cells connected to the battery controller are measured because “(i)n the case of phase-separating materials such as LFP, the superposed information should be sufficient for phase identification because one inspects for intermediate phases between the well-known stable end phases of LFP and FP.” and because this allows one to get a better measurement of the state of charge as disclosed in the highlighted section above.
Regarding claim 15, O’Mahony teaches all elements of claim 13, upon which this claim depends.
O’Mahony does not explicitly teach measuring the test EIS response includes measuring a test phase-transition real impedance (PTRI) of the one or more battery cells connected to the battery controller, and wherein the test PTRI is compared to a historical PTRI of the one or more authentic battery cells.
Hess teaches measuring the test EIS response includes measuring a test phase-transition real impedance (PTRI) of the one or more battery cells connected to the battery controller, and wherein the test PTRI is compared to a historical PTRI of the one or more authentic battery cells (Page 3 column 2 to page 3 column 2 Section Results copied below.).
PNG
media_image2.png
342
342
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
576
702
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Hess to the teachings of O’Mahony such that measuring the test EIS response would include measuring a test phase-transition real impedance (PTRI) of the one or more battery cells connected to the battery controller, and wherein the test PTRI would be compared to a historical PTRI of the one or more authentic battery cells because “(i)n the case of phase-separating materials such as LFP, the superposed information should be sufficient for phase identification because one inspects for intermediate phases between the well-known stable end phases of LFP and FP.” and because this allows one to get a better measurement of the state of charge as disclosed in the highlighted section above.
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.
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
