DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/10/2026 has been entered.
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 1-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to one of the four statutory class, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example), we recognize that the limitations “calculating a SOC value currently charged in a charge periodically according to a current integration method in a process of charging the lithium battery, obtaining a sum of a SOC value displayed before charging the lithium battery and the SOC value charged, and determining whether the sum is in a predetermined charging platform area of the lithium battery, calculating and obtaining a correction coefficient according to a pre calibrated formula, and applying the correction coefficient to correct the SOC value charged, and obtaining a SOC value to be displayed according to the SOC value displayed before charging and a SOC value corrected in response to the sum is determined to be in the predetermined charging platform area and the correction trigger condition is determined to be reached; wherein the correction coefficient is a positive number less than 1, determining a current SOC state of the lithium battery according to the SOC value displayed before charging the lithium battery and the SOC value corrected, calculating a current SOC value by a voltage calibration method and determining a calculated current SOC value as the SOC value to be displayed if the sum is not in the predetermined charging platform area of the lithium battery, comparing the calculated current SOC value with a SOC value expected to be displayed in a previous week; obtaining an intermediate value between the calculated current SOC value and the SOC value expected to be displayed in a previous week through a damping algorithm as the SOC value to be displayed if a difference between the calculated current SOC value and the SOC value expected to be displayed in a previous week is greater than a predetermined threshold” are abstract ideas as they involve a combination of mental process and usage of mathematical concept. Similar rejections are made for other independent and dependent claims. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite “displaying the SOC value to be displayed through a vehicle,” but said limitation, recited at high level of generality, is an insignificant post-solution activity of displaying desired results. The claims also recite various units, but said limitations are merely generic processing devices to implement the abstract idea. The claims do not improve any devices, and also do not improve other technology. At most, the claims is an improved abstract idea of correcting SOC. In short, the claims do not provide sufficient evidence to show that it is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite “displaying the SOC value to be displayed through a vehicle,” but said limitation, recited at high level of generality, is an insignificant post-solution activity of displaying desired results that is well-understood, routine and conventional. The claims also recite various units, but said limitations are merely generic devices to implement the abstract idea, that is also well-understood, routine and conventional. As such, the claims do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In Response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention is directed to determining the state of a lithium battery. The displaying limitations are recited, but they are merely an insignificant post-solution activity of displaying the desired data during the usage of generic computer and display. Vehicle is also recited along with battery state determination, but it is merely an insignificant generic field of use, and also not significantly more. Despite the several steps involved in the determination of the SOC, they are primarily all abstract ideas. As such, the claimed invention at most is an improvement in the abstract idea of determining the state of the lithium battery. However as had been stated previously, improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea, and not eligible. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. For these reasons, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857