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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 21-28 are currently pending and are being hereby examined herein. Claims 4 and 12-20 are cancelled.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Amendment
Any reference to the prior office action refers to the non-final rejection dated 12 August 2025.
All objections from the prior office action are withdrawn. All rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) from the prior office action not specifically mentioned in this Office Action are withdrawn (see below for remaining rejection).
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art references cited in the prior office action fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., determination of deterioration based on internal resistance during charging while the vehicle is running) are not recited in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). However, due to amendments to the claims to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (as an example, Claim 1 changed from “estimate the current deterioration state of the battery upon selecting the one battery correlation map” to “estimate a current deterioration state of the battery using the charge state and a battery temperature at a time of a charge characteristic measurement of the battery, the charge state being measured by charging of the battery during the electric vehicle running; select one battery correlation map from among the plurality of battery correlation maps stored in the memory based on the current deterioration state of the battery”), the prior art rejections from the prior office action are withdrawn as the combination of references from the prior office action does not disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the entirety of the current independent claims without impermissible hindsight.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected for the following informalities:
Claims 1, 11, and 26: “the charge state and a battery temperature at a time of a charge characteristic measurement of the battery” should be “the charge state and [[a]] the battery temperature at a time of a charge characteristic measurement of the battery”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 11, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for new matter for reciting “the charge state being measured by charging of the battery during the electric vehicle running”. Examiner reviewed the original disclosure and could not find support for “charge state” (also called “SOC” in the specification) being “measured by charging”. Specification paragraphs [0021] and [0041] discuss SOC, but do not discuss how it is measured. Additionally, this is not inherently understood as the only way to measure charge state to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the claims are rejected for containing new matter. Claims 2-3, 5-10, 21-25, and 27-28 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 21-28 are rejected because “the charge state being measured by charging the battery during the electric vehicle running” (recited in Claims 1, 11, and 26) is indefinite. See also rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). One of ordinary skill would not know the scope of the claims in view of the specification. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claims 11 and 26 are further rejected because it is indefinite how maps can be “proportionally in accordance” with states. For the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret “a plurality of battery correlation maps proportionally in accordance with a number of a plurality of battery deterioration states, the plurality of battery correlation maps being for calculating an internal resistance value at charging of a battery from a charge state and a battery temperature” as “a plurality of battery correlation maps, each battery correlation map of the plurality of battery correlation maps associated with a battery deterioration state of a plurality of battery deterioration states, the plurality of battery correlation maps being for calculating an internal resistance value at charging of a battery from a charge state and a battery temperature” (to correspond to Claim 1). Appropriate corrections are required.
Prior Art
No prior art rejections for Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 21-28 are included at this time.
Regarding Claim 1, the closest prior art, U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0219263 (hereinafter, Honkura), does not disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious at least the limitation estimate a current deterioration state of the battery using the charge state and a battery temperature at a time of a charge characteristic measurement of the battery, the charge state being measured by charging of the battery during the electric vehicle running. Additionally, there is no reference or combination of references that can be combined with Honkura to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the currently-amended Claim 1 without impermissible hindsight. (See also the final rejection Office Action dated 17 March 2025, for analysis of other limitations disclosed and not disclosed by Honkura).
Claims 11 and 26 are similar in scope to Claim 1 and the same reasoning applies. Claims 2-3, 5-10, 21-25, and 27-28 are dependent on Claim 1, therefore, at least the same reasoning applies to these claims as well.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 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 ALEXANDRA ROBYN MORFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-6109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/A.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658