DETAILED ACTION
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
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 11/24/25. The applicant has overcome most of the objections, the 35 USC 112 rejection, and the prior art rejection as set forth in the previous office action. However, applicant’s amendment has not yet satisfactorily overcome the rejection under Section 101. Refer to the aforementioned amendment for specific details on applicant's rebuttal arguments and/or remarks. Therefore, the present claims are now finally rejected over the remaining ground of rejection as formulated hereinbelow and for the reasons of record:
Election/Restrictions and Claim Disposition
Claims 6-10 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/30/25.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are under immediate examination; claim 3 has been cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the status identifier is incorrect as claim 6 has been withdrawn from consideration. 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 1-2 and 4-5 are still 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 significantly more. Claims 1-5 are directed to a battery apparatus per se. The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed subject matter simply appears to perform some basic/general calculations, comparisons, and/or data collection/gathering of a generic source of values without significantly: (i) providing tangible/physical structures, features, components, and (ii) performing clear adjusting/interactive steps/actions in order to carry out a reasonable feedback and transformational action(s)/step(s) within the claimed battery apparatus, or within battery module per se or the battery management system per se. As best understood by the examiner, the claimed invention appears to merely provide: (i) a basic/conventional control unit (i.e., a basic/conventional controlling element or mechanism) just to perform certain calculations or determinations which is acting as a general-purpose computer without apparently causing any action(s)/step(s) to occur; and/or making an adjustment or providing a reasonable feedback; and/or providing an interactive mechanism or process; and/or triggering/initiating/generating any concrete/tangible activity; and in particular, (ii) a battery management system being routinely conventional which does not make a contribution over the prior art. To expedite prosecution, further technical explanation and/or elaboration on this matter is necessary. Further, applicant is encouraged to further elaborate the claim language to clearly address and/or clarify the foregoing point/topic. Therefore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In light of the foregoing, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/24/25, with respect to the 102 rejection based upon Terashima et al have been fully considered and are persuasive. Hence, such prior art rejection has been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejection under Section 101, applicant's arguments, filed 11/24/25, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Concerning this matter, USPTO takes the posture that the 101 rejection still applies because with respect to:
(i) Step 2A, Prong 1 (identify the law of nature/natural phenomenon/abstract ideas): The determining step appears to be an abstract idea. The determination is clearly a mathematical calculation - a simple subtraction of previously mined data points - and therefore represents an abstract idea as it could have been performed in the human mind.
(ii) Step 2A Prong 2 (has the natural phenomenon been integrated into a particular practical application?) No, there is no practical application as there is no significant post solution activity. In the present case, the determining/evaluation step, which represents the abstract idea, is the last substantive step of the claimed method. Thus, there can be no practical application as nothing is done which amounts to applying the information once it has been determined.
(iii) Step 2B (does the claim recite any elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea?) Here we look at the other elements of the claim and determine if they amount to significantly more. For this claim it appears that features such as battery control apparatus, battery modules, positive/negative terminals and/or “battery management” represent features that are well-understood routine and conventional in the art. In light of the foregoing, there does not appear to be “something more” present. The prior art reference, Terashima et al, used in the non-final rejection dated 08/27/25 supports the position that the battery related features are well known.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RAYMOND ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (8:00 am-6:30 pm).
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/RAYMOND ALEJANDRO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights