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 (IDSs) submitted on November 15, 2024 and April 30, 2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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 11-20, these claims present a method for controlling a battery management system according to the battery management system the of claims 1-10. Therefore, the argument made against claims 1-10 also applies, mutatis mutandis, to claims 11-20. In addition, it is clearly seen that claims 11-20 are process claims which present a process of using the system as claimed in claims 11-20, 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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (KR 2022-0054127 A).
Kim teaches an apparatus for detecting fault of battery comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
406
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
510
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 1 and 11, battery management system (FIG. 2, battery abnormality detection apparatus 200) comprising: an alarm module (FIG. 2, alarm unit 230) configured to provide an alarm in a designated manner; an electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) measurement module (FIG. 2, impedance measuring unit 210) configured to measure an EIS of a secondary battery (battery racks included in energy storage system); and a processor (FIG. 2, diagnosis unit 220) configured to receive an EIS measurement result from the EIS measurement module (FIG. 2, impedance measuring unit 210), calculate real intercepts of impedance values for the secondary battery (battery racks included in energy storage system) based on the received EIS measurement result, determine whether the secondary battery (battery racks included in energy storage system) is abnormal based on the calculated real intercepts, and control the alarm module (FIG. 2, alarm unit 230) to provide an alarm notifying that the secondary battery (battery racks included in energy storage system) is abnormal if there is an abnormality in the secondary battery (battery racks included in energy storage system) as a result of the determination (For more details, please read: Abstract; paragraphs: [0003], [0004] and [0016]-[0035]; and claims 1-15).
With regard to claims 2, the EIS measurement module (FIG. 2, impedance measuring unit 210) measures the EIS for each battery cell or battery module (FIG. 1, battery module 10) (Claims 4-7).
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 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Koba et al. (US 2014/0218042 A1).
Kim teaches all that is claimed as discussed in the rejections of claims 1, 2 and 11 above including the processor (FIG. 2, diagnosis unit 220) to calculate real intercepts of impedance values and the battery module (FIG. 1, battery module 10), but it does not specifically teach the following feature:
The processor expresses the impedance values for each of the battery cells or battery modules as a Nyquist diagram of an orthogonal coordinate system or a polar coordinate system, and calculates the real intercepts of the impedance values for each of the battery cells or battery modules using the Nyquist diagram of the orthogonal coordinate system or the polar coordinate system.
Koba et al. teaches an intelligent electronic device for electrical power system comprising:
PNG
media_image3.png
462
734
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
460
514
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
426
440
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
522
346
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 3 and 12, a processor (FIG. 8, computer 14) expresses the impedance values for each of the battery cells or battery modules as a Nyquist diagram of an orthogonal coordinate system or a polar coordinate system, and calculates the real intercepts of the impedance values for each of the battery cells or battery modules using the Nyquist diagram of the orthogonal coordinate system or the polar coordinate system (FIGS. 2, 6, 8 and 20; and paragraphs: [0026], [0040], [0051], [0067], [0098] and [0128]).
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 apparatus for detecting fault of battery of Kim to expresses the impedance values for each of the battery cells or battery modules as a Nyquist diagram as taught by Koba et al. since such an arrangement is beneficial to provide Nyquist diagrams provide critical benefits for control systems and electrochemical analysis by offering absolute stability determination, seamless handling of time delays, and clear visualization of frequency responses.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Umemoto et al. (US 2023/0324471 A1).
Kim teaches all that is claimed as discussed in the rejections of claims 1, 2 and 11 above including the processor (FIG. 2, diagnosis unit 220) to calculate real intercepts of impedance values and to determine whether the secondary battery (battery racks included in energy storage system) is abnormal, but it does not specifically teach the following feature:
A difference between a maximum value and a minimum value among the calculated real intercepts, and if the calculated difference is greater than a designated first reference value, determines that an abnormality has occurred in the secondary battery.
Umemoto et al. teaches a control device for a secondary battery comprising:
PNG
media_image7.png
406
560
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
404
556
media_image8.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 5 and 14, a difference between a maximum value and a minimum value among the calculated real intercepts, and if the calculated difference is greater than a designated first reference value, determines that an abnormality has occurred in the secondary battery (FIGS. 4 and 5; and paragraphs: [0043] and [0044]).
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 apparatus for detecting fault of battery of Kim to determine an abnormality in the secondary battery based on a difference between a maximum value and a minimum value among the calculated real intercepts as taught by Umemoto et al. since such an arrangement is beneficial to determine whether a specific deterioration occurs due to charge and discharge of the secondary battery as disclosed in the Abstract.
Claims 6, 7, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
Kim teaches all that is claimed as discussed in the rejections of claims 1, 2 and 11 above including the processor (FIG. 2, diagnosis unit 220) to calculate real intercepts of impedance values and to determine whether the secondary battery (battery racks included in energy storage system) is abnormal, but it does not specifically teach the following feature:
A standard deviation of the calculated real intercepts, and if the calculated standard deviation is greater than a designated second reference value, determines that an abnormality has occurred in the secondary battery.
A Z-score of the calculated real intercepts, and if the calculated Z-score is greater than a designated third reference value, determines that an abnormality has occurred in the secondary battery
It is noted that:
With regard to claims 6 and 15, calculating a standard deviation of the calculated real intercepts is well-known. Using the standard deviation of random intercepts in multilevel models helps quantify group-level variation, assess baseline differences, and improve model interpretation. 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 apparatus for detecting fault of battery of Kim to calculate a standard deviation of the calculated real intercepts to determine an abnormality in the secondary battery since such an arrangement is beneficial to provide key benefits that include measuring baseline spread, evaluating group heterogeneity, and keeping original data units.
With regard to claims 7 and 16, calculating a Z-score of the calculated real intercepts is well-known. Using the Z-score of real intercepts (the baseline values or y-intercepts from regression models or baseline datasets) standardizes disparate baseline values, identifies outlier baselines, and allows fair comparison across different groups or models. 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 apparatus for detecting fault of battery of Kim to calculate a Z-score of the calculated real intercepts to determine an abnormality in the secondary battery since such an arrangement is beneficial to convert raw intercept values into standard deviation units from the population mean, placing different scales onto a uniform metric and to enable direct comparison of baseline starting points across entirely different datasets, experiments, or regression contexts.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Thiem et al. (CN 114502970 A).
Kim teaches all that is claimed as discussed in the rejections of claims 1, 2 and 11 above including the processor (FIG. 2, diagnosis unit 220) that controls the EIS measurement module (FIG. 2, impedance measuring unit 210), but it does not specifically teach the following feature:
To measure the EIS during operation of a device including the secondary battery.
Thiem et al. teaches a battery monitoring method and a battery system using the same comprising:
With regard to claims 8 and 17, EIS measurement module (FIG. 5, impedance measurement and parameter estimator) measures the EIS during operation of a device including the secondary battery (FIG. 5; battery cell) (Paragraphs: [0015]-[0024]).
PNG
media_image9.png
670
914
media_image9.png
Greyscale
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 apparatus for detecting fault of battery of Kim to measure the EIS during operation as taught by Thiem et al. since such an arrangement is beneficial to reduce complexity and improve the reliability of the online lithium ion battery and a battery management system (BMS) as disclosed in the Abstract and paragraphs [0015]-[0024].
Claims 9, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Xu et al. (CN 116798528 A).
Kim teaches all that is claimed as discussed in the rejections of claims 1, 2 and 11 above including the processor (FIG. 2, diagnosis unit 220) that determines whether the secondary battery (battery racks included in energy storage system) is abnormal, but it does not specifically teach the following feature:
Determine whether it is in a designated operation section, wherein if it is in the designated operation section, determines whether the secondary battery is abnormal based on the calculated real intercepts, and if it is in another operation section except for the designated operation section, estimates an impedance of the secondary battery using an equivalent circuit model (ECM) estimation module, and determines whether the secondary battery is abnormal using the equivalent circuit model-based estimated result.
Xu et al. teaches a method for extracting electrochemical impedance spectrum parameter of heuristic global optimization algorithm comprising:
With regard to claims 9, 18 and 19, the processor determines whether it is in a designated operation section, wherein if it is in the designated operation section, determines whether the secondary battery is abnormal based on the calculated real intercepts, and if it is in another operation section except for the designated operation section, estimates an impedance of the secondary battery using an equivalent circuit model (ECM) estimation module, and determines whether the secondary battery is abnormal using the equivalent circuit model-based estimated result (Paragraphs: [0003]-[0012]; and claims 1-3).
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 apparatus for detecting fault of battery of Kim to determine whether it is in a designated operation section or in another operation section as taught by Xu et al. since such an arrangement is beneficial to provide good precision and astringency that can realize accurate EIS parameter estimation, reduce operation load and accelerate experiment progress as disclosed in the Abstract.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Ding et al. (US 11,644,513 B1).
Kim teaches all that is claimed as discussed in the rejections of claims 1, 2 and 11 above including the processor (FIG. 2, diagnosis unit 220) that controls the EIS measurement module (FIG. 2, impedance measuring unit 210), but it does not specifically teach the following feature:
Apply a variable frequency in a designated range with a designated current amplitude to the secondary battery as an input signal, and measures a voltage of the secondary battery.
Ding et al. teaches a battery management system for AC Impedance inspection of batteries in real time comprising:
PNG
media_image10.png
590
888
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
598
692
media_image11.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 10 and 20, an EIS measurement module (FIG. 1, BMS with AC impedance inspector 100 with frequency sweeper) applies a variable frequency in a designated range with a designated current amplitude to the secondary battery as an input signal, and measures a voltage of the secondary battery (Abstract; from column 5, line 44 to column 6, line 7; and claim 17).
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 apparatus for detecting fault of battery of Kim to measure the EIS during operation as taught by Ding et al. since such an arrangement is beneficial to reduce complexity and improve the reliability of the online lithium ion battery and a battery management system (BMS) as disclosed in the Abstract and paragraphs [0015]-[0024].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 13 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.
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.
Wang et al. (CN 115656861 A) teaches a power battery diagnosis device integrated in the battery management system, using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy information online diagnosis battery fault.
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