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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/21/2025, 06/17/2025 and 08/29/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
Oath/Declaration as file 02/21/2025 is noted by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “…a measurement unit configured to measure a pack capacity of a battery pack and a voltage of each of a plurality of batteries included in the battery pack during a charging-discharging process…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “means” or equivalent term coupled with functional language “…a measurement unit configured to measure a pack capacity of a battery pack and a voltage of each of a plurality of batteries included in the battery pack during a charging-discharging process …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “measurement unit” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “…a measurement unit configured to measure a pack capacity of a battery pack and a voltage of each of a plurality of batteries included in the battery pack during a charging-discharging process …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means” or equivalent term
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “…a measurement unit configured to measure a pack capacity of a battery pack and a voltage of each of a plurality of batteries included in the battery pack during a charging-discharging process …”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “…a control unit configured to calculate a relative capacity ratio among the plurality of batteries based on a voltage range of each of the plurality of batteries, and estimate a capacity of each of the plurality of batteries based on the pack capacity and the relative capacity ratio…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “means” or equivalent term coupled with functional language “…a control unit configured to calculate a relative capacity ratio among the plurality of batteries based on a voltage range of each of the plurality of batteries, and estimate a capacity of each of the plurality of batteries based on the pack capacity and the relative capacity ratio…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “control unit” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “…a control unit configured to calculate a relative capacity ratio among the plurality of batteries based on a voltage range of each of the plurality of batteries, and estimate a capacity of each of the plurality of batteries based on the pack capacity and the relative capacity ratio…”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means” or equivalent term
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “…a control unit configured to calculate a relative capacity ratio among the plurality of batteries based on a voltage range of each of the plurality of batteries, and estimate a capacity of each of the plurality of batteries based on the pack capacity and the relative capacity ratio…”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claim(s) 1 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If Applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Note: The 112(f) invocation regarding the “control unit” is not a rejection because paragraph [0066] of the Specification recites “The control unit 120 provided in the battery capacity estimating apparatus 100 may selectively include, for example, a processor, an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), various chipsets, logic circuitry, registers, a communication modem, and a data processing device, which are well known in the art, in order to execute various control logics performed in the present disclosure.”
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.
Claims 1-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform each of the claimed functions cited above in the row of the 112(f) grid entitled “Prong B” for each of the respective placeholders.
The specification with regards to the measurement unit; does not demonstrate that the application has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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 1-11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…a measurement unit configured to measure a pack capacity of a battery pack and a voltage of each of a plurality of batteries included in the battery pack during a charging-discharging process…”;. The term “first connection switching unit” renders the claim indefinite as the claim does not define sufficient structure to achieve the function of measure a pack capacity of a battery pack and a voltage of each of a plurality of batteries included in the battery pack during a charging-discharging process; the original specification does not provide clarification as to what structure performs the particular functions of this claim, and one of ordinary skill in the art could interpret so many structures that can perform the particular function of measure a pack capacity of a battery pack and a voltage of each of a plurality of batteries included in the battery pack during a charging-discharging process. Thus, for these reasons, the phrase “measurement unit” renders claim 1 indefinite.
Claims 2-11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as they further limit rejected Claim 1.
Please make the proper corrections.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asai et al. JP 2021027031 (Provided by Applicant; Hereinafter Asai) in view of Kim et al. US 2022/0276314 (Provided by Applicant; Hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Asai teaches a battery capacity estimating apparatus (Figs. 1, 7) comprising:
a measurement unit (Figs. 1, 3; [0015, 0032]; voltage value detection unit, 31) configured to measure a pack capacity (Figs. 1, 3; [0015, 0032]; capacity estimation unit, 62) and a voltage of each of a plurality of batteries during a charging-discharging process (Figs. 1, 3; [0015, 0032]; voltage value detection unit, 31; current value detection unit, 32; capacity estimation unit, 62; discloses a detection unit (3) which comprises a voltage value detection unit (31) and current value detection unit (32) which detect a voltage value and a current value of a secondary battery, respectively; and a capacity estimation unit (62) which estimates a full charge capacity and a full discharge capacity of a second battery module); and
a control unit (Figs. 1, 3, 7; control unit, 7) configured to calculate a relative capacity ratio among the plurality of batteries based on a voltage range of each of the plurality of batteries (Figs. 1, 3, 7; [0015, 0020, 0047]; control unit, 7), and estimate a capacity of each of the plurality of batteries based on the pack capacity and the relative capacity ratio (Figs. 1, 3, 7; [0015, 0020, 0047]; control unit, 7).
Asai does not specifically teach a battery pack.
However, Kim does teach a battery pack (Fig. 2; [0055]; “In addition, referring to FIG. 2, the battery management apparatus 100 may be provided inside a battery pack 1 and connected to a battery cell 10”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the deterioration level determination device for rechargeable battery and assembled battery of Asai by implementing the teachings of Kim regarding a battery pack; in order to “diagnose a state of a battery cell based on a capacity-voltage differential profile” (See Kim; Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Asai and Kim teaches the battery capacity estimating apparatus according to claim 1, wherein Asai further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to estimate the capacity of each of the plurality of batteries by multiplying the pack capacity by the relative capacity ratio (Figs. 1, 3, 7; [0015, 0020, 0047]; control unit, 7).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Asai and Kim teaches the battery capacity estimating apparatus according to claim 1, wherein Asai further teaches wherein the plurality of batteries are configured to be connected in series with each other (Figs. 1, 3, 7).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Asai and Kim teaches a battery pack (Kim; Fig. 2; [0055]; “In addition, referring to FIG. 2, the battery management apparatus 100 may be provided inside a battery pack 1 and connected to a battery cell 10”) comprising the battery capacity estimating apparatus according to claim 1 (See Rejection of Claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Asai and Kim teaches a vehicle (Asai; Figs. 1, 4; [0084]) comprising the battery capacity estimating apparatus according to claim 1 (See Rejection of Claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, Asai teaches a battery capacity estimating method (Figs. 1, 7) comprising:
a measurement step (Figs. 1, 3; [0015, 0032]; voltage value detection unit, 31) of measuring a pack capacity (Figs. 1, 3; [0015, 0032]; capacity estimation unit, 62) and a voltage of each of a plurality of batteries during a charging-discharging process (Figs. 1, 3; [0015, 0032]; voltage value detection unit, 31; current value detection unit, 32; capacity estimation unit, 62; discloses a detection unit (3) which comprises a voltage value detection unit (31) and current value detection unit (32) which detect a voltage value and a current value of a secondary battery, respectively; and a capacity estimation unit (62) which estimates a full charge capacity and a full discharge capacity of a second battery module);
a relative capacity ratio calculation step (Figs. 1, 3, 7; control unit, 7) of calculating the relative capacity ratio among the plurality of batteries based on a voltage range of each of the plurality of batteries (Figs. 1, 3, 7; [0015, 0020, 0047]; control unit, 7); and
a capacity estimation step (Figs. 1, 3, 7; [0015, 0020, 0047]; control unit, 7) of estimating a capacity of each of the plurality of batteries based on the pack capacity and the relative capacity ratio (Figs. 1, 3, 7; [0015, 0020, 0047]; control unit, 7).
Asai does not specifically teach a battery pack.
However, Kim does teach a battery pack (Fig. 2; [0055]; “In addition, referring to FIG. 2, the battery management apparatus 100 may be provided inside a battery pack 1 and connected to a battery cell 10”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the deterioration level determination device for rechargeable battery and assembled battery of Asai by implementing the teachings of Kim regarding a battery pack; in order to “diagnose a state of a battery cell based on a capacity-voltage differential profile” (See Kim; Abstract).
Regarding claim 13, Asai teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a program for executing a battery capacity estimating method (Figs. 1, 7) comprising:
a measurement step (Figs. 1, 3; [0015, 0032]; voltage value detection unit, 31) of measuring a pack capacity (Figs. 1, 3; [0015, 0032]; voltage value detection unit, 31) and a voltage of each of a plurality of batteries during a charging-discharging process (Figs. 1, 3; [0015, 0032]; voltage value detection unit, 31; current value detection unit, 32; capacity estimation unit, 62; discloses a detection unit (3) which comprises a voltage value detection unit (31) and current value detection unit (32) which detect a voltage value and a current value of a secondary battery, respectively; and a capacity estimation unit (62) which estimates a full charge capacity and a full discharge capacity of a second battery module);
a relative capacity ratio calculation step (Figs. 1, 3, 7; control unit, 7) of calculating the relative capacity ratio among the plurality of batteries based on a voltage range of each of the plurality of batteries (Figs. 1, 3, 7; [0015, 0020, 0047]; control unit, 7); and
a capacity estimation step (Figs. 1, 3, 7; [0015, 0020, 0047]; control unit, 7) of estimating a capacity of each of the plurality of batteries based on the pack capacity and the relative capacity ratio (Figs. 1, 3, 7; [0015, 0020, 0047]; control unit, 7).
Asai does not specifically teach a battery pack.
However, Kim does teach a battery pack (Fig. 2; [0055]; “In addition, referring to FIG. 2, the battery management apparatus 100 may be provided inside a battery pack 1 and connected to a battery cell 10”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the deterioration level determination device for rechargeable battery and assembled battery of Asai by implementing the teachings of Kim regarding a battery pack; in order to “diagnose a state of a battery cell based on a capacity-voltage differential profile” (See Kim; Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance (As long as Applicant is able to overcome the 112 issues disclosed earlier in the Office Action):
Regarding claim 2, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1,
“…wherein the control unit is configured to: determine the voltage range of each of the plurality of batteries; adjust the determined plurality of voltage ranges to correspond to each other to calculate a change ratio of each of the plurality of batteries; and calculate the relative capacity ratio of each of the plurality of batteries based on the calculated plurality of change ratios.”
Claims 3-7 are also allowed as they further limit objected claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Imade US 2021/0382119 - An ECU performs processing including obtaining a current in a battery assembly, calculating a current in each battery, calculating an SOC of each battery, calculating an OCV of each battery, calculating ΔOCV, calculating an average value Ave of ΔOCVs, carrying out current restriction control when the average value Ave exceeds a first range and exceeds a second range, providing a warning signal when the average value Ave does not exceed the second range, and carrying out normal current control when the average value Ave does not exceed the first range.
Suzuki et al. US 2002/0169572 - Methods and apparatus for computing residual battery capacity of a battery pack enable: storing a plurality of correction coefficients for calculating said residual battery capacity for said battery pack at a plurality of pre-set temperatures; detecting a temperature of a battery cell of said battery pack; and at least one of: (i) if a correction coefficient associated with said detected temperature is stored, said residual battery capacity is computed based on said correction coefficient and a voltage of said battery cell; and (ii) if said correction coefficient associated with said detected temperature is not stored, stored correction coefficients associated with preset temperatures above and below said detected temperature are used to compute a correction coefficient associated with said detected temperature and said residual battery capacity is computed based on said computed correction coefficient and said voltage of said battery cell.
Tamegai US 2016/0356855 - An apparatus for estimating a residual capacity of a storage battery including an electrode whose stage structure is changed based on a state of includes a current monitor configured to monitor a current value flowing in the storage battery; a voltage monitor configured to monitor a voltage value of the storage battery; a Coulomb counter configured to integrate the current value monitored by the current monitor; a differentiation circuit configured to detect a differential value of the voltage value monitored by the voltage monitor; a reset detecting circuit configured to reset an accumulated error due to current integration of the Coulomb counter using an inflection point of the differential value detected by the differentiation circuit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL J RIOS RUSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-3459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 10am-6pm, EST.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/RAUL J RIOS RUSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights