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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submissions filed on 03/13/2026 and 04/03/2026 have been entered.
Status of Claims
In the communication filed on 03/05/2026, claims 1-5 and 7-8 are pending. Claims 1, 5, and 8 are amended. No claims are new. Claim 6 is presently cancelled.
Response to Arguments
The prior objections to the Drawings are withdrawn due to the amendments. The replacement drawings filed 03/05/2026 are attached with examiner annotations to indicate they are approved.
The prior rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn due to the amendments.
The applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the amended claims 1 and 8 “amounts to a practical application because the stored SOH value leads to the effect of accurate estimation of the SOH of the secondary battery 10 in a variety of temperature ranges”. The applicant further references the case of Thales Visionix Inc. v. US, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017) to argue “claims 1 and 8 are subject matter eligible” because “paragraphs 6 and 7 of the specification as filed describe that the claimed subject matter leads to a more accurate determination of the state of health of a secondary battery. This is a specific improvement of the measurement system of a battery, rather than just solving a generic mathematical problem.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner notes that the Applicant argues that the Federal Circuit’s holding in Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2017) supports subject matter eligibility of the claimed invention. The examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Thales does not apply because Thales found the claims were not directed to an abstract idea because they specified a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors to calculate the position and orientation of a moving object on a moving platform reference frame more accurately. Applicant has not shown how the claims here recite similar inertial sensors or calculations of positions of moving objects on moving reference frames.
The examiner asserts the amended subject matter “store/storing the determined deterioration degree SOH in a storage” is an additional element that merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, the applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are respectfully refuted.
Thus, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of amended claims 1-5 and 7-8 have been withdrawn due to the amendments. The applicant’s arguments, in combination with the newly-claimed subject matter, have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 12 recites “calculate a product of the α and the β to obtain a value X, and”, which should be revised to remove the ending “and”.
Claim 8, lines 12-13 recite “obtaining constants … A and B, and”, which should be revised to remove the ending “and”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims 1-5 and 7 recite “a battery pack” which comprises “a secondary battery” and “a secondary battery control device”. Thus, the claims are to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 8 recites “a secondary battery control method”. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea?
Claim 1 recites:
A battery pack comprising:
a secondary battery;
and a secondary battery control device configured to:
obtain a Q-dQ/dV curve where dQ/dV that is a ratio of an amount of change in a capacity of the secondary battery to an amount of change in a voltage is indicated along a vertical axis and the capacity of the secondary battery is indicated along a horizontal axis, a capacity between two characteristic points or two points mathematically equivalent thereto being represented by α,
select a dQ/dV value at any extreme point of a plurality of extreme points plotted on the Q-dQ/dV curve or a point mathematically equivalent thereto, the dQ/dV value being represented by β,
calculate a product of the α and the β to obtain a value X,
obtain constants from a relationship between the value X in a correction sample and a deterioration degree of the correction sample represented by A and B,
and determine a deterioration degree SOH of the secondary battery with SOH=AX+B [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite mathematic concepts because they are mathematical relationships],
store the determined deterioration degree SOH in a storage,
wherein the constants A and B vary with a combination of the plurality of extreme points that serve as the characteristic points and the extreme point used for the calculation of the dQ/dV value [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite mathematic concepts because they are mathematical relationships].
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application?
The examiner finds that the additional elements “a battery pack comprising a secondary battery and a secondary battery control device” do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The examiner finds that the additional element “store the determined deterioration degree SOH in a storage” merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
The examiner finds that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 2 recites:
The battery pack according to claim 1,
wherein both of the two characteristic points are any of the plurality of extreme points [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite mathematic concepts because they are mathematical relationships].
Claim 3 recites:
The battery pack according to claim 1,
wherein the two characteristic points are two points sandwiching any of the plurality of extreme points [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite mathematic concepts because they are mathematical relationships].
Claim 4 recites:
The battery pack according to claim 3,
wherein the extreme point sandwiched by the two characteristic points is a maximum point plotted in a voltage range of 3.6 V or higher and 3.8 V or lower on a V-dQ/dV curve where dQ/dV that is a ratio of an amount of change in a capacity of a secondary battery to an amount of change in a voltage is indicated along a vertical axis and the voltage of the secondary battery is indicated along a horizontal axis [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite mathematic concepts because they are mathematical relationships].
Claim 5 recites:
The battery pack according to claim 1,
wherein the secondary battery control device includes a processor programmed to calculate the dQ/dV;
select the two characteristic points on the Q-dQ/dV curve and obtain the capacity between the two characteristic points;
select any extreme point of the plurality of extreme points on the Q-dQ/dV curve and obtain a dQ/dV value at the extreme point;
obtain a product of the capacity between the two characteristic points and the dQ/dV value;
and correct the deterioration degree SOH of the secondary battery based on a value obtained by calculating the dQ/dV value. [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite mathematic concepts because they are mathematical relationships].
The elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements.
The examiner finds that the additional element “a processor” merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The examiner finds that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 7, the examiner finds that each of the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use:
wherein the secondary battery contains a lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide (NCM) and a lithium manganese oxide (LMO) in a positive electrode as active materials.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea?
Claim 8 recites:
A method for controlling a control device of a secondary battery, the method comprising:
obtaining a Q-dQ/dV curve where dQ/dV that is a ratio of an amount of change in a capacity of the secondary battery to an amount of change in a voltage is indicated along a vertical axis and the capacity of the secondary battery is indicated along a horizontal axis, a capacity between two characteristic points or two points mathematically equivalent thereto being represented by α,
selecting a dQ/dV value at any extreme point of a plurality of extreme points plotted on the Q-dQ/dV curve or a point mathematically equivalent thereto, the dQ/dV value being represented by β,
calculating a product of the α and the β to obtain a value X,
and obtaining constants from a relationship between the value X in a correction sample and a deterioration degree of the correction sample are represented by A and B,
determining a deterioration degree SOH of the secondary battery with SOH=AX+B [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite mathematic concepts because they are mathematical relationships],
and storing the determined deterioration degree SOH in a storage,
wherein the constants A and B vary with a combination of the plurality of extreme points that serve as the characteristic points and the extreme point used for the calculation of the dQ/dV value [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite mathematic concepts because they are mathematical relationships].
The examiner finds that the additional elements “method for controlling a control device of a secondary battery” do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The examiner finds that the additional element “storing the determined deterioration degree SOH in a storage” merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
The examiner finds that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and objections set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, though the prior art teaches a battery pack comprising a secondary battery; and a secondary battery control device configured to obtain a Q-dQ/dV curve where dQ/dV that is a ratio of an amount of change in a capacity of the secondary battery to an amount of change in a voltage is indicated along a vertical axis and the capacity of the secondary battery is indicated along a horizontal axis, a capacity between two characteristic points or two points mathematically equivalent thereto being represented by α, select a dQ/dV value at any extreme point of a plurality of extreme points plotted on the Q-dQ/dV curve or a point mathematically equivalent thereto, the dQ/dV value being represented by β, calculate a product of the a and the β to obtain a value X, and obtain constants from a relationship between the value X in a correction sample and a deterioration degree of the correction sample represented by A and B, determine a deterioration degree state of health (SOH), of the secondary battery with SOH = AX + B, and store the determined deterioration degree SOH in a storage, it fails to teach the inclusion of and the combination with “wherein the constants A and B vary with a combination of the plurality of extreme points that serve as the characteristic points and the extreme point used for the calculation of the dQ/dV value”.
Claims 2-5 and 7 would be allowable due to their dependency on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, though the prior art teaches a method for controlling a control device of a secondary battery, the method comprising obtaining a Q-dQ/dV curve where dQ/dV that is a ratio of an amount of change in a capacity of the secondary battery to an amount of change in a voltage is indicated along a vertical axis and the capacity of the secondary battery is indicated along a horizontal axis, a capacity between two characteristic points or two points mathematically equivalent thereto being represented by α, selecting a dQ/dV value at any extreme point of a plurality of extreme points plotted on the Q-dQ/dV curve or a point mathematically equivalent thereto, the dQ/dV value being represented by β, calculating a product of the α and the β to obtain a value X, obtaining constants from a relationship between the value X in a correction sample and a deterioration degree of the correction sample are-is represented by A and B, and determining a deterioration degree state of health (SOH} of the secondary battery with SOH = AX + B, and storing the determined deterioration degree SOH in a storage, it fails to teach the inclusion of and the combination with “wherein the constants A and B vary with a combination of the plurality of extreme points that serve as the characteristic points and the extreme point used for the calculation of the dQ/dV value”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel P McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM Eastern.
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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/DANIEL P MCFARLAND/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights