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 Objections
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “battery capacity” in line 7 refers to “battery capacity” in line 1.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation of “a computer” in line 2 refers to “a computer” in line 1 of claim 1.
Further regarding claim 2, the examiner believes the recitation of “an amount of change in SOC” in line 5 refers to “an estimated amount of change in SOC” in line 3.
Further regarding claim 2, the examiner believes the recitation of “SOC” in line 9 refers to “an estimated SOC” in line 7.
Regarding claim 3, the recitation of “the first relationship” in line 2 lacks antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the examiner believes one of ordinary skill would not have been able to determine the “primary formula” from the disclosure. FIG. 5 of the specification appears to show a graph representing a polynomial with a coefficient R2. However, one of ordinary skill would not have been able to determine the degree of the polynomial.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi et al. (US 2019/0165586 A1) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 2021/0399567 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Adachi et al. teach a method for estimating battery capacity (the measurer 31 is configured to measure a resistance and a capacity of the secondary battery 2 that has degraded with use; [0093]; FIG. 2; a capacity of the battery 2 when the stop pressure PS is reached can be calculated by preliminarily investigating this linear function; [0095]; FIG. 1; the capacity of the battery 2 can be calculated as follows; [0097]-[0101]; Figs 17-18), comprising having a computer execute (the battery control system 1 of the present embodiment includes, as in the first embodiment, a secondary battery 2 and a controller 3; [0093]; FIG. 2) the following steps:
(a) determining a specific internal resistance by charging at a prescribed provisional SOC of 80% or more and at a prescribed temperature (under a certain condition of the temperature and the state of charge of the battery, the internal pressure of the battery 2 is expressed as a linear function of the resistance; [0048]-[0050]; FIG. 1; in the high SOC range 90 to 100% of the battery 2, the capacity tends to degrade faster than the resistance; FIG. 18; [0100]; at step S32, the controller 3 measures a resistance and a capacity of the battery 2; FIG. 16; [0102]); and
(b) determining an estimated battery capacity from the specific internal resistance based on a pre-specified first relationship between the specific internal resistance and battery capacity (FIG. 18 is a graph illustrating relationships between capacity degradation rate and resistance degradation rate as the state of charge is varied as a parameter during storage of the battery 2; [0098]).
Further regarding claim 1, Adachi et al. do not teach charging at a prescribed charging speed for a prescribed time.
Further regarding claim 1, Yamaguchi et al. teach charging at a prescribed charging speed for a prescribed time (a horizontal axis represents a charging time, a curve denoted by a symbol 111 represents a full charge capacity, a curve denoted by a symbol 112 represents a charging rate; [0042]; FIG. 3) for the purpose of calculating a full charge capacity.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate charging at a prescribed charging speed for a prescribed time, as taught by Yamaguchi et al., into Adachi et al. for the purpose of calculating a full charge capacity.
Regarding claim 3, Adachi et al. teach wherein the first relationship has a primary formula, and wherein coefficient of determination of the primary formula is 0.8 or more (FIG. 18).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi et al. (US 2019/0165586 A1) as modified by Yamaguchi et al. (US 2021/0399567 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyamoto et al. (US 2018/0128880 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Adachi et al. as modified by Yamaguchi et al. do not teach a method for estimating battery SOC, comprising, after step (b) in the method for estimating the battery capacity, having a computer execute the following steps:
(i) determining an estimated amount of change in SOC associated with battery degradation from the estimated battery capacity based on a pre-specified second relationship between the estimated battery capacity and an amount of change in SOC associated with battery degradation, or
(ii) determining an estimated SOC after change associated with battery degradation from the estimated battery capacity based on a pre-specified third specific relationship between the estimated battery capacity and SOC after change associated with battery degradation.
Further regarding claim 2, Miyamoto et al. teach a method for estimating battery SOC (the control unit 60 calculates a charging rate SOC based on the cumulative capacity information G3 calculated by the capacity calculation unit 50; [0075]; FIG. 1), comprising determining an estimated SOC after change associated with battery degradation from an estimated battery capacity based on a pre-specified third specific relationship between the estimated battery capacity and SOC after change associated with battery degradation (Formula 1; [0075]-[0076]) for the purpose of calculating a state of charge at the current time and condition.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a method for estimating battery SOC, comprising, after step (b) in the method for estimating the battery capacity, having a computer execute (ii) determining an estimated SOC after change associated with battery degradation from the estimated battery capacity based on a pre-specified third specific relationship between the estimated battery capacity and SOC after change associated with battery degradation, as taught by Miyamoto et al., into Adachi et al. as modified by Yamaguchi et al. for the purpose of calculating a state of charge at the current time and condition.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi et al. (US 2019/0165586 A1) as modified by Yamaguchi et al. (US 2021/0399567 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2025/0006995 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Adachi et al. as modified by Yamaguchi et al. do not teach wherein the prescribed time is 20 seconds or more, and wherein the prescribed charging speed is 3C or more.
Further regarding claim 4, Yang et al. teach a prescribed time is 20 seconds or more, and a prescribed charging speed is 3C or more (4C charging, 0-80% state of charge in 12.5 minutes; [0313]; FIG. 2) for the purpose of testing the chargeability of battery cells at high charging speeds.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate wherein the prescribed time is 20 seconds or more, and wherein the prescribed charging speed is 3C or more, as taught by Yang et al., into Adachi et al. as modified by Yamaguchi et al. for the purpose of testing the chargeability of battery cells at high charging speeds.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENDRICK X LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-3798. The examiner can normally be reached MWFSa 10am-8pm.
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, Douglas X Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 431-0716. 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.
18 June 2026
/KENDRICK X LIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/DOUGLAS X RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights