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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Arguments and amendments filed on 03/17/2026 are considered. Independent claims 1, 10 and 16 are amended.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C 101:
Applicant argues “Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being directed to non- statutory subject matter. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
I. The Claims Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea Under Step 2A, Prong 1
The Office Action characterizes the claims as directed to mathematical calculations that could practically be performed in the human mind, relying on Electric Power Group v.Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). OA at 4. This characterization improperly abstracts the claims away from their actual language. The claims, as now recited, are not directed to collecting data and displaying results. In contrast, the claims are now directed to a specific technical implementation comprising: (1) receiving physical battery measurements; (2) generating a core temperature component using a thermal model; (3) applying a regression technique to EIS measurements to generate an average battery temperature signal expressed as a weighted combination of core and surface temperature components; and (4) feeding both the system input signal and the EIS-derived average temperature signal into a linear thermal model-based estimator to estimate internal battery temperature in real time. This specific combination of physical measurements, regression-based temperature estimation, and thermal model-based state estimation cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
The present claims are more analogous to those found patent-eligible in Enfish, LLCv. Microsoft Corp., 822 F3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where the Federal Circuit held that claims directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts are not abstract, than to the data collection and display claims found abstract in Electric Power Group. The claims address a technical problem: the inability to directly measure internal battery temperature in large-format batteries due to non-negligible thermal gradients between the battery core and surface. See specification, 21-23. For example, the specification states:
In accordance with features of embodiments described herein, the internal temperature of a Li-ion rechargeable battery, such as an EV battery, may be estimated using data obtained using EIS measurement technology. In some embodiments, internal temperature of batteries such as Li-ion batteries, may be tracked using a KF-based technique that incorporates regression-based estimates of average battery temperature. The KF extension enables accurate measurement of internal temperature of large form factor batteries with non- negligible internal temperature gradients and enables interpolation of low sample rate temperature estimates obtained directly from EIS. 0023, see also 21, 75.
The claims here recite a specific technical solution: using EIS-derived regression-based average temperature as a measurement input to a linear thermal model state estimator. The improved technique enables better performance of a battery and facilitates adoption of a battery in different applications, such as EVs. Here, the claims provide the specific solution for enabling improved internal battery temperature estimation of a more accurate estimate of the current state of the battery (e.g., internal battery temperature) using, not just system input signals, but also the average battery temperature, as recited in the independent claims.
These techniques offer a technological solution to a technological problem, not an abstract idea. While the claims may refer to mathematical concepts, such as models, the claims are directed to a specific technique for internal battery temperature estimation. For the foregoing reasons, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments. Examiner views the amended claims as filed on 03/17/2026 are still directed towards an abstract idea. Receiving physical battery measurements are required data gathering steps for performing mathematical or mental. Applicant’s steps 2-4 as described above also recites the mathematical steps of generating or calculating/estimating the temperature of the battery using mathematical equations or models.
Applicant discusses the claims recite specific technical solutions and improved technique enables better performance of a battery and facilitates adoption of a battery in different applications, such as EVs. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the solution and the technique discussed above seem to provide improvement in the mathematical calculations (i.e., high level mathematical calculations) itself to calculate an internal temperature of a battery than enables improvement of battery performance. The claims do not recite how the calculated values are used to improve the performance of the battery. Examiner views, just outputting the results of the mathematical calculation is not enough to show an improvement or solution to the technological field of battery. Furthermore, the specification also does not discuss any specific temperature value or range of temperature that can be related to the battery performance.
MPEP also suggests a claim to "collecting information, analyzing" it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Applicant argues “The Claims Are Integrated Into a Practical Application Under Step 2A, Prong 2
Even if the claims were found to recite a judicial exception, the additional elements integrate that exception into a practical application. The claimed system applies the mathematical steps to a specific physical environment of a battery management system to produce a concrete technical result: a real-time estimate of internal battery temperature that enables safer and more effective battery management. This is not a situation where the mathematical steps merely describe the exception itself. The use of EIS measurements as physical inputs, the application of a regression technique to those measurements, and the use of the resulting average temperature signal to correct a running thermal model state estimate all represent the application of mathematical relationships to solve a specific engineering problem in the battery management field. This is sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(a); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the amended claims do not provide limitations that can be considered to be integrated into a practical application. As discussed above in section I, the claims are further directed towards abstract ideas without any specific practical application of the invention. The limitations or steps discussed by the applicant are purely mathematical for calculating the internal temperature of a battery. The claims do not provide any safe range or warning of the battery temperature for effective battery management for general people than just calculate the value of the internal temperature of the battery and output or display the result. The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (h).
Applicant argues “III. The Examiner's Step 2B Analysis Is Legally Deficient
The Office Action states: "Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and
require further analysis under the step 2B. Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way. The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible." OA at 10. This conclusory analysis for step 2B is legally deficient.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that all pending claims satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S. C. § 101.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the amended independent claims are further directed towards abstract ideas when considered as a whole. Examiner views using a new or high-level mathematical technique to show a temperature result would not be sufficient to provide a practical application and inventive concept of the invention. MPEP 2106.05 I also suggest “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” and an inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Therefore, the claims do not provide inventive concepts.
Applicant is suggested to include a limitation can be practically implied after knowing the internal temperature of the battery (for example provide a warning to a vehicle driver that the vehicle’s battery is abnormal or overheating by using an estimated internal temperature of the battery.)
Therefore, from the above discussion examiner views the amended independent claims as whole do not overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C 103:
Regarding applicant argument on limitations further search and consideration found the applied prior art Wang teaching “generating a core temperature component based on the system input signal, wherein the core temperature component is generated using a thermal model of the battery.” in paragraphs [006], [0011]-[0014]d. From above paragraphs, examiner views the model presented by Wang be considered as thermal model which relates to inner or core temperature of a battery using a dynamic operation.
However, the further search and consideration do not find prior arts teaching the limitations:
For independent claim 1 and 16, generating an average battery temperature signal based on the core temperature component and a measured surface temperature component using a regression technique applied to electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) measurements of the battery, wherein the average battery temperature signal represents a weighted combination of the core temperature component and the surface temperature component,
estimating a current state of the battery based on the system input signal and the average battery temperature signal, wherein the estimating is performed using the thermal model of the battery comprising a plurality of model parameters, wherein the thermal model is a linear model that relates core temperature and surface temperature of the battery to battery current and ambient temperature inputs, and wherein the input signal is used as an input to the thermal model.
Similarly, for claim 10 the further search and consideration do not find prior art teaching:
“generating an average battery temperature signal based on the core temperature component and a measured surface temperature component using a regression technique applied to electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) measurements of the battery, wherein the average battery temperature signal represents a weighted combination of the core temperature component and the surface temperature component;
estimating the internal temperature of the battery based on the first input signal, the second input signal, and the average battery temperature signal, wherein the estimating is performed using a thermal model of the battery comprising a plurality of model parameters, wherein the thermal model is a linear model that relates core temperature and surface temperature of the battery to battery current and ambient temperature inputs, and wherein the input signal is used as an input to the thermal model.”
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, claim 1 recites:
A system for estimating one or more conditions of a battery, the system comprising:
at least one hardware processor, and
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the at least one hardware processor to perform operations comprising
receiving a system input signal comprising a measurement of at least one observable quantity associated with the battery,
generating a core temperature component based on the system input signal, wherein the core temperature component is generated using a thermal model of the battery;
generating an average battery temperature signal based on the core temperature component and a measured surface temperature component using regression technique applied to electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) measurements of the battery, wherein the average battery temperature signal represents a weighted combination of the core temperature component and the surface temperature component;
estimating a current state of the battery based on the system input signal and the average battery temperature signal, wherein the estimating is performed using the thermal model of the battery comprising a plurality of model parameters, wherein the thermal model is a linear model that relates core temperature and surface temperature of the battery to battery current and ambient temperature inputs, and wherein the input signal is used as an input to the thermal model, and
outputting an output signal comprising the current state of the battery.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above.
Under the step 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is determined whether the claims are drawn to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in the statutory category of (machine).
Under the step 2A, prong one, it is considered whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that cover mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental process – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Claims 1 and 16, For example, a step of
generating a core temperature component based on the system input signal, wherein the core temperature component is generated using a thermal model of the battery (considered as calculating core temperature)
generating an average battery temperature signal based on the core temperature component and a measured surface temperature component using regression technique applied to electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) measurements of the battery, wherein the average battery temperature signal represents a weighted combination of the core temperature component and the surface temperature component (considered as calculating average battery temperature),
estimating a current state of the battery based on the system input signal and the average battery temperature signal, wherein the estimating is performed using a thermal model of the battery comprising a plurality of model parameters, wherein the thermal model is a linear model that relates core temperature and surface temperature of the battery to battery current and ambient temperature inputs, and wherein the input signal is used as an input to the thermal model, and outputting an output signal comprising the current state of the battery, wherein the current state of the battery comprises an internal temperature of the battery.” (considered as predicting a present state of the battery using mathematical model or equations)
Similarly For claim 10 “generating a core temperature component based on the first input signal, wherein the core temperature component is generated using a thermal model of the battery; (considered as calculating core temperature)
generating an average battery temperature signal based on the core temperature component and a measured surface temperature component using a regression technique applied to electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) measurements of the battery, wherein the average battery temperature signal represents a weighted combination of the core temperature component and the surface temperature component; (considered as calculating average battery temperature),
estimating the internal temperature of the battery based on the first input signal, the second input signal, and the average battery temperature signal, wherein the estimating is performed using a thermal model of the battery comprising a plurality of model parameters, wherein the thermal model is a linear model that relates core temperature and surface temperature of the battery to battery current and ambient temperature inputs, and wherein the input signal is used as an input to the thermal model.” (considered as predicting a present state of the battery using mathematical model or equations)
These steps represent that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of the independent claims 10.
Next, under the step 2A, prong two, it is considered whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, it is evaluated whether the claim recites meaningful additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
In claim 1, the additional elements/steps are: hardware processor, memory, instructions. The above additional elements/steps (hardware, memory or instructions/software) are recited in generality and represent extra solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional element in the preamble of “A system for estimating…” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements/steps “receiving a system input…, and outputting an output” are also recited in generality which seem to merely be gathering and analyzing data, displaying result and not really performing any kind of inventive steps to provide any meaningful additional element. Also, it represents an extra-solution and insignificant post solution activity to the judicial exception. All uses of judicial exception require it.
In claim 10, the additional elements/steps are same as claim 1. The above additional elements/steps (hardware, memory, instructions/software) are recited in generality and represent extra solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional element in the preamble of “A system for estimating…” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements/steps “receiving a first input signal… and outputting an output…” are also recited in generality which seem to merely be gathering, analyzing data, displaying result and not really performing any kind of inventive steps to provide any meaningful additional element. Also, it represents an extra-solution activity and insignificant post solution activity to the judicial exception. All uses of judicial exception require it.
In claim 16, The additional elements/steps (software – method) are recited in generality and represent extra solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional element in the preamble of “A method of estimating…” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Also, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. All uses of judicial exception require it.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the step 2B.
Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, the claims 2-9, 11-15 and 17-20 comprise the analogous subject matter and also comprise additional features/steps which are the part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claim 1, 10 and 16 (additionally comprising mathematical relationship/mental process steps) and, therefore, the dependent claims are not eligible without additional elements that reflect a practical application and qualified for significantly more for substantially similar reason as discussed with regards to independent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding independent claims 1 and 16, none of the prior arts alone or in combination neither disclose or render obvious method and/or device comprising the limitation – “ generating an average battery temperature signal based on the core temperature component and a measured surface temperature component using a regression technique applied to electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) measurements of the battery, wherein the average battery temperature signal represents a weighted combination of the core temperature component and the surface temperature component,
estimating a current state of the battery based on the system input signal and the average battery temperature signal, wherein the estimating is performed using the thermal model of the battery comprising a plurality of model parameters, wherein the thermal model is a linear model that relates core temperature and surface temperature of the battery to battery current and ambient temperature inputs, and wherein the input signal is used as an input to the thermal mode” in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Regarding independent claims 10, none of the prior arts alone or in combination neither disclose or render obvious method and/or device comprising the limitation – “generating an average battery temperature signal based on the core temperature component and a measured surface temperature component using a regression technique applied to electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) measurements of the battery, wherein the average battery temperature signal represents a weighted combination of the core temperature component and the surface temperature component;
estimating the internal temperature of the battery based on the first input signal, the second input signal, and the average battery temperature signal, wherein the estimating is performed using a thermal model of the battery comprising a plurality of model parameters, wherein the thermal model is a linear model that relates core temperature and surface temperature of the battery to battery current and ambient temperature inputs, and wherein the input signal is used as an input to the thermal model.” in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
However, examiner cannot comment on their allowability until the rejections under 35 USC 101 are adequately addressed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matsushita US 20200328481 A1 discusses a temperature estimation in a battery.
Reher US 5711605 A discusses method and apparatus for predicting battery temperature.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARAD TIMILSINA whose telephone number is (571)272-7104. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/SHARAD TIMILSINA/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights