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 .
The amendment filed on March 26, 2026 has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 15, “outputting” (line 11) should be – output --; “initiating” (line 12) should be – initiate --. Appropriate correction is 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-17, and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 15, and 23, “in response to the determining of the short circuit. … initiating a battery protection operation to mitigate effects of the short circuit to manage a safety protocol of the battery” is not described in the original disclosure. For example, the disclosure describes accurately predicting an output resistance of the battery (Paragraph 0097, Tables 1-5). The disclosure further describes predicting resistance to predict temperature (Fig. 8) and voltage (Fig. 9). However, paragraph 0097, Tables 1-5, Figs. 8-9 do not describe “in response to the determining of the short circuit. … initiating a battery protection operation to mitigate effects of the short circuit to manage a safety protocol of the battery”.
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 15-17 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claim 15 recites an abstract idea of “determin[ing] one or more pieces of sampling data from a plurality of pieces of battery usage data of a battery, “determin[ing] a first short fatigue metric (SFM) score based on the determined one or more pieces of sampling data” (mathematical concept), “determin[ing] … a short circuit in ether one or both of a cel of the battery and a battery pack of the battery, based on the determined first SFM score” (mental process), “the first SFM score is a sum of a capacity ratio and an energy ratio between a normal cell and a short circuit cell of the battery” (mathematical concept), “the short circuit of the battery is detected (determined) at an early stage with enhanced security” (mental process).
The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor (i.e., controller) does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III)).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the claim limitations of claim 15 is not integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
Storing an SFM score is directed to an insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The battery management controller is configured to “in response to the determined short circuit, outputting an indication of the determined short circuit, and initiating a battery protection operation to mitigate effects of the short circuit to manage a safety protocol of the battery”. Thus, the determined short circuit has not (yet) been used/applied in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)), where the meaningful way includes “initiating a battery protection operation to mitigate effects of the short circuit to manage a safety protocol of the battery”.
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(A)). Storing an SFM score is a well-understood, routine, and conventional feature known in the industry (see Ling et al. US 2019/0170802; paragraph 0066; Lim et al. US 2018/0074131, paragraph 0028), and have been found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” than the claimed judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claims do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claims 16, 17, and 19-22 are directed to an abstract idea/data.
Thus, claim 15 and its respective dependent claims 16, 17, and 19-22 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Prior Art Note
Claims 1-4, 6-17, and 19-25 do not have prior art rejections.
The combination as claimed wherein a processor-implemented method of a battery management system comprising the first SFM score is a sum of a capacity ratio and an energy ratio of a short circuit cell of the battery (claims 1, 15, 23) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on March 26, 2026 has been considered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicants argue “[t]he data in Tables 1-5 and FIGS. 8-9 proves the system generates an accurate resistance value used to predict safety-critical states (temperature, voltage), which is the essence of use in managing a safety protocol.”
Examiner’s position is that the disclosure describes accurately predicting an output resistance of the battery (Paragraph 0097, Tables 1-5). Further, the disclosure describes predicting resistance to predict temperature (Fig. 8) and voltage (Fig. 9). However, paragraph 0097, Tables 1-5, Figs. 8-9 do not describe “in response to the determining of the short circuit. … initiating a battery protection operation to mitigate effects of the short circuit to manage a safety protocol of the battery”.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101 of claims 1-4, 6-14, and 23-25 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 101 of claims 1-4, 6-14, and 23-25 have been withdrawn.
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 101 of claims 15-17 and 19-22,
Applicants argue “[t]he Claims are Not "Mental Processes" (Step 2A, Prong 1). … The SFM score is specifically configured to amplify physical short-specific hysteresis-an electrochemical phenomenon occurring within the battery cells that is not observable by the human mind or through generic data manipulation.”
Examiner’s position is that claim 15 does not recite “SFM score is specifically configured to amplify physical short-specific hysteresis-an electrochemical phenomenon occurring within the battery cells”. Nevertheless, an SFM score is interpret to be abstract data. instead, claim 15 recites “determine a first short fatigue metric (SFM) score based on the determined one or more pieces of sampling data”. This step, given the sampling data, involves an evaluation to determine the first short fatigue metric (SFM) score. Accordingly, the step is directed to a mental process.
Applicants further argue the claims now recite the use of a physics-based electrochemical- thermal model. This model operates on the physical principle of charge balance (as supported by the specification) to transform the SFM score into a physical diagnosis. These are technical tools rooted in battery electrochemistry, not "mental steps" or "mathematical concepts" in the abstract.
Examiner’s position is that is interpreted as a software module/routine executed by a generic processor. As noted above, mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III)). Further, a transformation of the SFM score into a physical diagnosis would involve an evaluation of the SFM score.
Applicants further argue “the claims are Integrated into a Practical Application (Step 2A, Prong 2). The amended independent claim 15 now includes the hardware-level safety interventions of "in response to the determining of the short circuit, outputting an indication of the determined short circuit, and initiating a battery protection operation to mitigate effects of the short circuit to manage a safety protocol of the battery".
Examiner’s position is that claim 15 recites “a battery management controller configured to … "in response to the determining of the short circuit, output an indication of the determined short circuit, and initiate a battery protection operation to mitigate effects of the short circuit to manage a safety protocol of the battery". As noted above, the determined short circuit has not (yet) been used/applied in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)), where the meaningful way includes “initiating a battery protection operation to mitigate effects of the short circuit to manage a safety protocol of the battery”.
Applicants further argue “outputting a validated, early-stage fault indicator is the critical first step in any safety protocol. The specification proves the output is reliable (99% accuracy) and related to physical risks (thermal runaway via prediction data).”
Examiner’s position is that claim 15 recites “a battery management controller configured to … "in response to the determining of the short circuit, outputting an indication of the determined short circuit …”. Accordingly, the battery management controller has not (yet) “outputting an indication of the determined short circuit”. Further, outputting an indication of the determined short circuit (recited in the claim) outputs an abstract data (i.e., determined short circuit), thus, is directed to an insignificant extra solution activity. (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Applicants further argue “the Claims Recite an Inventive Concept (Step 2B). The combination of the SFM (to amplify tiny hysteresis) with the physics-based model (to translate it into a physical resistance) results in a new type of information (early-stage, high-resistance short detection) that was not previously available for battery management systems. This new data itself is the technical improvement.”
Examiner’s position is that the combination of SFM (to amplify tiny hysteresis) with the physics-based model (to translate it into a physical resistance) results in a new type of information early-stage, high-resistance short detection is not recited in the claims. Rather, claim 15 recites “determining a first short fatigue metric (SFM) score based on the determined one or more pieces of sampling data” and “determining using a physics-based electrochemical-thermal model, a short circuit in either one or both of a cell of the battery and a battery pack of the battery, based on the determined first SFM score”. The two steps above are directed to an abstract idea because they require evaluation processes.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 May 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights