This Office action is in response to amendment filed on 11/16/2025.
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s amendments filed 11/16/2025 to the claims are accepted and entered. In this amendment:
Claims 1-18 and 22 have been amended.
Claims 1-22 have been examined.
Response to Argument
3. Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/16/2025:
Applicant amended claim 6 regarding the 112(b) rejection is accepted. The
rejection of claim 6 has been withdrawn.
Applicant amended claims 1-18 and 22 regarding the 112(f) are accepted. The
112(f) interpretation of the claims have been withdrawn.
Regarding the 101 rejection, Applicant argues that the claims recite actions such
as obtaining "via a network, analysis data including measurement data obtained by measuring characteristics related to charging and discharging of one or more battery cells included in the one or more battery modules and identification data for identifying at least one of the battery modules or the battery cells ... " that cannot be practically applied in the mind because of the physical requirements of accessing and interacting with specific devices. However, even assuming that the claims recite a judicial exception, in Step 2A, Prong 2 of the analysis, whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application is determined. As noted in MPEP 2106.04, "[a] claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field."
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite additional limitations of “acquiring analysis data including measurement data obtained” is data gathering, which is form of insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, data obtained from a generic acquisition unit, using processor and network, which are generic computer components, i.e., to acquire data and transmit data, are recited at a high level of generality. The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. They do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claimed invention does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant's arguments regarding the prior art Takechi does not disclose:
“transmitting the results of the analysis via the network to “a battery management
device configured to charge or discharge the one or more battery cells”. Remark, p.13.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees because Takechi does teach “transmitting the results of the analysis data as addressed in the previous Office, Takechi teaches transmitting recording the “battery characteristics” considered “analysis data” data to the database “DB” network system, i.e., as shown in Fig 13, [0051], [0143], Fig 17, para [0032] show a distributed-type DB network system. Fig 12, para [0142] show transmitting/receiving information via wireless communication, see [0142].
Applicant argues that the specification, paragraph [0040], notes the benefit of
having the analysis separate from each battery module. According to the analysis system 10 of the present example since the analysis device 100 is not provided for each battery module 202, cost of the battery modules 202 can be reduced. Remark, page 14.
In response, the examiner notes that the features upon what applicant relies (i.e., in the argument (2) above) are not recited in rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in response to the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F. 2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-16, and 18-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 18 recite “one or more battery modules” and “at least one of battery modules”, “one or more battery cells” and “at least one of battery cells”, should be consistent. Further, “the battery cells” should be consistent whether one or more battery cells or at least one of battery cells to avoid lacking antecedent basis.
Please correct all dependent claims 2, 4, 6-16 and 19-22 where applicable
In addition, the examiner notes that there is an inconsistency between limitations “a data acquisition unit acquires analysis data related to charge or discharge (as recited in lines 5-6 of claim 1 and line 3 of claim 18) and a battery management device configured to charge or discharge the one or more battery cells (as recited in the last 2 lines of claims 1 and 18). It is suggested to amend “a battery management device which is configured to manage (or control) the charge or discharge the one or more battery cells.”
If the claims are amended, please also to correct the specification. Applicant is advised to correct the specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) as required.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a machine/process (claims 1 and 18, devices and method) which are statutory categories.
However, evaluating claims 1 and 18, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims are directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea using the grouping of mental process including “identifying at least one of battery cells and analyzing characteristics related to charging and discharging of one or more battery cells.”
Next, Step 2A, Prong Two evaluates whether additional elements of the claim “integrate the abstract idea into a practical application” in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation of “acquiring analysis data including measurement data obtained” is data gathering, which is form of insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, data obtained from a generic acquisition unit, using processor and network, which are generic computer components, i.e., to acquire data and transmit data, are recited at a high level of generality. The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. They do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B, consideration is given to additional elements that may make the abstract idea significantly more. Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements that make the claims significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional limitations as recited above in step 2A prong Two, are considered insignificant extra-solution activities that are not sufficient to integrate the claim into a particular practical application.
The limitations have been considered individually and as a whole and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-17 and 19-22 do not integrate the claims into a practical application or amount to "significant more" because they merely add details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea and/or include additional limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activities, mere computer implementation using generic computer elements. Thus, the dependent claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 1-5 and 7-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated over US 2021/0367277 of Takechi (of record).
As per Claim 1, Takechi teaches an analysis device, comprising:
at least one processor (Fig 2, control unit 40 includes a processor, see [0072]);
a data acquisition unit that uses the at least one processor to acquire from one or more battery modules (Fig 5: recording unit 123 to record battery characteristics, see Fig 7, [0112], [0114]), via a network (Fig 13, [0041], [0051]), analysis data including measurement data obtained by measuring characteristics (“battery characteristics” is considered “analysis data”, see Fig 7, [0067], [0093], [0112], [0114]) related to charging and discharging of one or more battery cells included in the one or more battery modules (see [0039], [0108], [0111]) and identification data for identifying at least one of the battery modules or the battery cells (Fig 7 shows identified unit cells, [0095], [0112], [0114]-[0115] );
a data analysis unit that uses the at least one processor to analyze characteristics related to a charging capacity of at least one of the battery cells, based on the analysis data acquired by the data acquisition unit (Fig 5: a module control unit 12a considered “a data analysis unit”, i.e., calculate full charge, SOC, SOH, see [0091]-[0094], [0103], [0108] ); and
a data transmission unit that uses the at least one processor to transmit transmission data corresponding to an analysis result obtained by the data analysis unit via the network (Fig 5: a module control unit 12a considered “a data analysis unit”, to transmit the calculated battery characteristic (Fig 11, result as shown in Fig 7, see [0112], [0141], [0045], [0076], [0131], [0120]-[0122] ) to a battery management device configured to charge or discharge the one or more battery cells (Fig 2 shows battery management devices 12 records the calculated battery characteristics, see [0067], [0073], [0117], [0140]).
As per Claim 2, Takechi teaches the analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the data acquisition unit is that uses the at least one processor to acquire the identification data in which module identification data for identifying the battery modules and cell identification data for identifying the battery cells are associated with each other (Fig 7 shows identified unit cells received, [0095], [0112], [0114]-[0115] ); and
the data analysis unit uses the at least one processor to analyze the characteristics related to the charging capacity of the battery cell for each of the battery modules (Fig 7 shows contents of information recorded by recording unit 123, such as: module IDs and cell IDs, and characteristics, i.e., state of charge SOC and state of health SOH, [0095], [0112], [0115]).
As per Claim 3, Takechi teaches the analysis device according to claim 1, further comprising an analysis data recording unit that uses the at least one processor to record the measurement data acquired by the data acquisition unit over time, in association with the identification data (recording processes continuing with recording time, [0095], [0102], [0112]-[0114]).
As per Claim 4, Takechi teaches the analysis device according to claim 3, wherein the data analysis unit uses the at least one processor to allocate, based on a history of the measurement data corresponding to a same piece of the identification data, a new piece of the identification data to the battery cell corresponding to the same piece of the identification data (Fig 7 shows, i.e., a second line of cell ID “010012302” in column 2, considered a new piece, which has the same piece with line 1 of module ID “003456”).
As per Claim 5, Takechi teaches the analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the data analysis unit uses the at least one processor to generate control data for controlling the battery cell based on the analysis result (control unit 40 outputs a current value considered “a control data” [0073] ), and the data transmission unit uses the at least one processor to transmit the transmission data including the control data (transmits the information to/from, see [0078], [0072], [0097]).
As per Claim 7, Takeichi teaches the analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the data analysis unit uses the at least one processor to generate replacement time data indicating a time to replace the battery cell based on the analysis result (Fig 9: step 403, [0127] ), and
the data transmission unit uses the at least one processor to transmit the transmission data including the replacement time data (Fig 10, step S406: “replacement time arrived” and step S407: “transmit notification of replacement arrival” [0136] ).
As per Claim 8, Takeichi teaches the analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the data analysis unit uses the at least one processor to generate failure data indicating a failure of the battery cell based on the analysis result, and the data transmission unit uses the at least one processor to transmit the transmission data including the failure data (detect an abnormality and transmit the information, see [0078], [0138], [0142]).
As per Claim 9, Takeichi teaches the analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the data analysis unit uses the at least one processor to analyze the characteristics related to the charging capacity of the battery cell based on derivation characteristics of capacitance-voltage characteristics obtained during charging or discharging of the battery cell (the time at which the battery characteristic has been calculated for each cell, see [0057], [0093]. Fig 6A shows resistance Ra, Rb and capacitance Cb values “characteristics”, i.e., the capacitor Cb corresponds to “electric double layer capacitance” considered in a form of charging a capacitor, see [0104]. It is noted the time at which calculating the voltage characteristic of a battery considered derivation characteristic of capacitance voltage obtained during charging/discharge of the battery cell).
As per Claim 10, Takeichi teaches the analysis device according to claim 9, wherein the data acquisition unit uses the at least one processor to acquire the analysis data including temperature data indicating a temperature of the battery cell at a time of measuring the capacitance-voltage characteristics (Fig 4 shows temperature detection circuit 12c detects temperature of battery cell, see [0058], [0067], [0085], [0091]-[0092], [0098], [0101]), and
the data analysis unit uses the at least one processor to correct the analysis by the derivation characteristics based on the temperature of the battery cell (improve traceability of each unit cell [0052], [0040], correct equivalent circuit model, i.e., Figs 4A-4C, to minimize the error [0107]).
As per Claim 11, Takeichi teaches the analysis device according to claim 9, further comprising a reference characteristics recording unit having recorded thereon reference characteristics of the derivation characteristics of each of the battery cells (a full charge capacity calculated considered “reference characteristic” [0108], and stored in recording unit 123 considered “a reference characteristic recording unit” [0109]), wherein the reference characteristics include one or more reference feature points (It is noted when measuring the full charge capacity of a battery cell, the time point is considered [0033], [0039], a specific time point as a reference feature point” [0103]), and the data analysis unit uses the at least one processor to analyze the battery cell based on a measurement feature point in the derivation characteristics of the battery cell and the one or more reference feature points in the reference characteristics (a first time point at starting “switch OFF state” and a second time point in “open circuit voltage’ considered a measurement feature point in derivation characteristics of battery cell” [0108]).
As per Claim 12, Takeichi teaches the analysis device according to claim 11, wherein the reference characteristics recording unit uses the at least one processor to record at least one of the reference characteristics at the charging of the battery cell or the reference characteristics at the discharging of the battery cell (Fig 7 shows characteristics recorded considered “reference characteristics”), and
the data analysis unit uses the at least one processor to select the reference characteristics to be compared with the derivation characteristics, based on which of data obtained during the charging or data obtained during the discharging the measurement data of the battery cell is (initial full charge capacity is stored, then compare the full charge capacity of the cell calculated against the initial full charge capacity stored [0109], [0134]).
As per Claim 13, Takeichi teaches the analysis device according to claim 9, wherein the data analysis unit uses the at least one processor to calculate a deterioration rate of the battery cell based on a deterioration amount of the battery cell calculated from the derivation characteristics (the module battery of which the output voltage during discharge among battery characteristic, i.e., is high even deterioration has not been advanced [0065], output voltage during discharge “characteristic” considered when calculating the deterioration rate of a battery, i.e., detect abnormal [0138]).
As per Claim 14, Takeichi teaches the analysis device according to claim 13, wherein the data analysis unit uses the at least one processor to calculate a measurement interval for measuring data related to the charging and discharging of the battery cell based on the deterioration rate of the battery cell (Fig 10, step S401 “Yes”: recording timing for battery characteristic considered “a measurement interval”, see [0128]-[0129]), and the data transmission unit uses the at least one processor to transmit the transmission data corresponding to the measurement interval (Fig 14, steps S402 and S101-S102: transmit and read battery characteristic [0130]).
As per Claim 15, Takeichi teaches the analysis device according to claim 9, wherein the data analysis unit uses the at least one processor to calculate, based on a deviation amount of the charging capacities between two or more of the battery cells, the deviation amount being calculated from the derivation characteristics of the two or more of the battery cells, a deviation rate of the charging capacities between the two or more of the battery cells ([0002]- battery packs includes cells, when charging/ discharging repeated, “variation occurs in the battery characteristics” considered “a deviation amount of charging capacity”, also considered “when assessing the deviation rate between battery cells in battery pack”).
As per Claim 16, Takeichi teaches the analysis device according to claim 15, wherein the data analysis unit uses the at least one processor to calculate the measurement interval for measuring the data related to the charging and discharging of the two or more of the battery cells, based on the deviation rate of the two or more of the battery cells (Fig 10, step S401 “Yes”: recording timing for battery characteristic considered “a measurement interval” [0128]-[0129]), and the data transmission unit uses the at least one processor to transmit the transmission data corresponding to the measurement interval (Fig 14, steps S402 and S101-S102: transmit and read battery characteristic [0130]).
As per Claim 17, Takeichi teaches an analysis system, comprising: the analysis device according to claim 1 (a module control unit 12a considered “a data analysis unit”); and an analysis data transmission unit that uses the at least one processor to transmit the analysis data to the analysis device via the network (a transmission unit to transmit the calculated battery characteristic (see [0045], [0120]-[0122]).
As per Claim 18, Takechi teaches an analysis method, comprising:
generating measurement data obtained by measuring characteristics related to
charging and discharging of one or more battery cells included in one or more battery
modules (Fig 2 shows battery management devices “BMS” 12. It is noted BMS generates and measures battery characteristics [0043], [0108], Fig 10);
transmitting, via a network, analysis data from one or more of the battery modules including the measurement data and identification data for identifying at least
one of the battery modules or the battery cells (Fig 14 step S415: transmit “battery characteristics” is considered “analysis data”, see Fig 7, [0067], [0093], [0112], [0114]);
acquiring the analysis data (Fig 5: recording unit 123 to record battery characteristics, see Fig 7, [0112], [0114]), via a network (Fig 13, [0041], [0051]);
analyzing characteristics related to a charging capacity of at least one of the
battery cells, based on the analysis data acquired in the acquiring the analysis data (Figs 5, fig 7: full charge capacity calculate unit 131, SOC 129, SOH 132 [0108]); and
transmitting transmission data corresponding to an analysis result obtained in
the analyzing the characteristics via the network to a battery management device configured to charge or discharge the one or more battery cells (Fig 11 shows transmitting via network, Fig 14, transmitting battery characteristics S415, i.e., Fig 7 shows result of battery characteristics, see [0112], [0141]).
Claim 19 is rejected for the same rational as in claims 9 and 13-14.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same rational as in claims 9 and 15.
As per Claim 21, Takeichi teaches the analysis method according to claim 18, wherein the battery cell is identified by cell identification data, the analyzing the characteristics is to allocate, based on a history of the measurement data corresponding to a same piece of the cell identification data, a new piece of the cell identification data to the battery cell corresponding to the same piece of the cell identification data (Fig 7 shows, i.e., a second line of cell ID “010012302” in column 2, considered a new piece, which has the same piece with line 1 of module ID “003456”); and
the analyzing the characteristics is to update the cell identification data of the battery cell when a change of a full charge capacity calculated from the history of the measurement data is equal to or larger than a reference value (Fig 7 shows the battery cell identification having battery characteristics recorded considered updated see [0040]-[0042], [0112], “when the state of health “SOH” is at predetermined proportion, such as 70%” considered “reference value” and when the full charge capacity is not higher than 70% when compared with that in the state of a new article, thus, 70% of SOH “reference value” is equal to 70% the full charge capacity).
Claim 22 is rejected for the same rationale as in claim 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. The following is a quotation under AIA of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action.
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
10. Claim 6 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Takechi in view of JP 2010-220380A of Kato et la., hereinafter Kato.
As per Claim 6, Takechi teaches the analysis device according to claim 5, Takechi further teaches wherein the data analysis unit uses the at least one processor to calculate a remaining capacity of each of the battery cells in each of the battery modules based on the measurement data (Fig 7 shows SOC, i.e., 76.65%, 76.76%, and so on considered remaining capacity of each cell, i.e., cell IDs in column 2).
Takechi does not explicitly teach the data analysis unit uses the at least one processor to generate the control data for discharging at least one of the battery cells in which the remaining capacity is not smallest among the at least one battery cells to reduce a difference between the remaining capacity of the at least one of the battery cells and the remaining capacity of the battery cell in which the remaining capacity is smallest among the at least one battery cells.
Kato teaches the data analysis unit uses the at least one processor to generate the control data for discharging at least one of the battery cells in which the remaining capacity is not smallest among the at least one battery cells to reduce a difference between the remaining capacity of the at least one of the battery cells and the remaining capacity of the battery cell in which the remaining capacity is smallest among the at least one battery cells (see page 4, para 1, page 10 – i.e., remaining capacity of the secondary battery “SB” cell is the smallest if it has smallest full charge capacity (para 4), when a remaining capacity smaller than (meaning not smallest) the remaining capacity of the SB cell with the smallest full charge capacity (para 5).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teaching of Takeichi having a smallest and not smallest remaining capacity as taught by Kato that would be possible to suppress the secondary battery cell having a small full charge capacity from reaching the lower limit voltage early at the end of discharge, thereby improving the available remaining capacity of the assembled battery after capacity adjustment can do (Kato, page 10, para 2).
Conclusion
11. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to LYNDA DINH whose telephone number is (571) 270-
7150. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10 AM-6 PM ET.
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 M Vazquez can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LYNDA DINH/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857