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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 11 and 15-18 are amended.
Claims 3-4, 10, 12-14 are canceled.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 11 and 15-18 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 11 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under step 1, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category of an apparatus.
Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 1 recite(s) “determining an ageing function”, “the ageing function representing a variation in a capacity or a resistance of the battery the ageing function depending on variables representative of an operation of the battery”, “based on the state of charge and the depth of discharge measured by the electrical measurement circuit at the plurality of measurement times, determine the ageing function, wherein the ageing function comprises an empirical function h(SOC, DOD) that depends on both the state of charge SOC and the depth of discharge DOD, the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the empirical function with the states of charge and the depths of discharges measured at each of the plurality of measurement times,” and
PNG
media_image1.png
318
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which are directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes because as described by the claim and in view of the specification.
Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “a battery including at least one accumulator” and “the system comprising: a charging circuit configured to supply a charging current to the battery during a charging cycle: a discharging circuit through which a discharging current of the battery flows; a control circuit configured to control the charging circuit and the discharging circuit to perform a plurality of experimental cycles of charging and discharging the battery;” are considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The elements of “an electrical measurement circuit configured to, during the experimental cycles, at a plurality of measurement times, measure a state of charge and a depth of discharge of the battery;” and “processing circuitry configured to” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “a battery including at least one accumulator” and “the system comprising: a charging circuit configured to supply a charging current to the battery during a charging cycle: a discharging circuit through which a discharging current of the battery flows; a control circuit configured to control the charging circuit and the discharging circuit to perform a plurality of experimental cycles of charging and discharging the battery;” are considered to be merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself per MPEP 2106.05(h) and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see prior art of record). The elements of “an electrical measurement circuit configured to, during the experimental cycles, at a plurality of measurement times, measure a state of charge and a depth of discharge of the battery;” and “processing circuitry configured to” are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)(see prior art of record).
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 9, 11-13 and 15-18 are considered to further describe the abstract idea.
Claims 7 and 8 the elements of “the control circuit is further configured to control the performing of the experimental cycles of charging and discharging for another battery, each charging/discharging cycle extending between an initial charge and a final charge defining the depth of discharge of the cycle, so that the battery and the another battery are subjected to respectively different experimental cycles defining respectively different total depths of discharge” and “the battery and the another battery are subjected to the charging cycles, the initial charge and the final charge of which are different” are not integrated into a practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are considered to be are considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself per MPEP 2106.05(h) and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see prior art of record).
Examiner Note with regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13 and 15-18 are distinguished over the prior art of record as previously described.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicants 101 arguments on pages 8-10 the examiner respectfully disagrees. The mere assertion of an improvement is not enough to be considered an improvement to the technology per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) “Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20140354233 A1, DEVICES FOR TESTING A BATTERY AND METHODS FOR TESTING A BATTERY; US 20060066285 A1, Method For Detecting State Of Secondary Battery And Device For Detecting State Of Second Battery.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON J BECKER whose telephone number is (571)431-0689. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/B.J.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights