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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 3/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4 and 6-10 remain pending in the application along with added new claims 11-12, and claim 5 has been canceled. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have overcome every drawing and claim objection and 112 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 12/18/2025. The new grounds of rejection presented below are necessitated by the amendments. Accordingly, this Office Action is made Final.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites
“a battery management system for predicting a discharge time required for a voltage of a battery cell among the plurality of battery cells to reach a corresponding discharge limit voltage during a constant discharge current and for controlling a protection operation of the battery cell based on the discharge time”
instead of
“a battery management system for predicting a discharge time required for a voltage of a battery cell among the plurality of battery cells to reach a corresponding discharge limit voltage during a constant current discharge and for controlling a protection operation of the battery cell based on the discharge time”
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please see the revised 101 rejection below.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites a method for predicting a constant current discharge graph for a battery cell, the method comprising:
measuring a first discharge time required for a voltage of the battery cell to decrease to a first discharge limit voltage by a discharge of a first constant current;
measuring a second discharge time required for the voltage of the battery cell to decrease to a second discharge limit voltage by a discharge of a second constant current; and
calculating a proportional constant and an index parameter in a relationship between a constant discharge current and a discharge time during discharging of the battery cell based on the first constant current and the first discharge time and on the second constant current and the second discharge time,
predicting a discharge time required for the voltage of the battery cell to reach a third discharge limit voltage by using the proportional constant and the index parameter when discharging the battery cell with a third constant current, and
controlling a protection operation of the battery cell based on the predicted discharge time,
wherein the first discharge limit voltage is a voltage obtained by subtracting a first voltage drop due to the first constant current and an internal resistance of the battery cell from a discharge reference voltage with , and
wherein the second discharge limit voltage is a voltage obtained by subtracting a second voltage drop due to the second constant current and the internal resistance of the battery cell from the discharge reference voltage.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations of “predicting,” “measuring,” and “calculating,” the recited method covers the performance of the limitations in the mind. With the limitation of controlling a protection operation of the battery cell based on the predicted discharge time, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. A protection operation is not described in the Specification beyond any generic meaning of protection. The examiner interprets protection operation the equivalent of “apply it” such as displaying the result of “predicting,” “measuring,” and “calculating.”
Claims 2-6 and 12 do not appear to solve the deficiencies with reference to claim 1 and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent claim 7 recites a battery system, comprising:
a plurality of battery cells; and
a battery management system for predicting a discharge time required for a voltage of a battery cell among the plurality of battery cells to reach a corresponding discharge limit voltage during a constant current discharge and for controlling a protection operation of the battery cell based on the discharge time,
wherein the battery management system stores information about a proportional constant and an index parameter defining a relationship between the constant discharge current and the discharge time,
wherein the proportional constant and the index parameter for the battery cell are calculated based on a first constant current and a first discharge time and on a second constant current and a second discharge time, the first discharge time being a discharge time required for the voltage of the battery cell to decrease to a first discharge limit voltage by a discharge of the first constant current and the second discharge time being a discharge time required for the voltage of the battery cell to decrease to a second discharge limit voltage by a discharge of the second constant current, and
wherein the first discharge limit voltage is a voltage obtained by subtracting a first voltage drop due to the first constant current and an internal resistance of the battery cell from a discharge reference voltage, and the second discharge limit voltage is a voltage obtained by subtracting a second voltage drop due to the second constant current and the internal resistance of the battery cell from the discharge reference voltage.
Claim 7 recites the use of a battery system, a plurality of battery cells, and a battery management system in the manner described in claim 1 where under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations of “predicting” and “storing information,” the recited system covers the performance of the limitations in the mind. With the limitation of controlling a protection operation of the battery cell based on the predicted discharge time, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. A protection operation is not described in the Specification beyond any generic meaning of protection. The examiner interprets protection operation the equivalent of “apply it” such as displaying the result of “predicting,” “measuring,” and “calculating.”
The claims does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because storing and retrieving information in memory are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Claims 8-11 do not appear to solve the deficiencies with reference to claim 7 and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Regarding independent claim 1, closest prior art Kouzaki et al. (EP 0637754 B1, published 2002-09-25) teaches a method for predicting a constant current discharge graph for a battery cell (¶0023 and Figs. 4,12: the Peukert equation describes how discharge time is shortened as constant current discharge value increases), the method comprising:
measuring a first discharge time required for a voltage of the battery cell to decrease to a first discharge limit voltage by a discharge of a first constant current (Fig. 11 and ¶0022: the end or cut-off voltage at a given constant-current value may be seen as the discharge limit voltage. Terminal voltage decreases gradually with discharge time, then at time T it decreases sharply as the usable capacity of the battery is exhausted);
measuring a second discharge time required for the voltage of the battery cell to decrease to a second discharge limit voltage by a discharge of a second constant current (¶0023 and Figs. 4, 12: the time T needed for the terminal voltage of the battery to reach an end/ cut-off voltage (and decrease sharply) decreases with increasing constant- current discharge); and
calculating a proportional constant and an index parameter in a relationship between a constant discharge current and a discharge time during discharging of the battery cell based on the first constant current and the first discharge time and on the second constant current and the second discharge time (¶0006, 0023-0024 and Figs. 4,12: The Peukert equation relates the constant discharge current and discharge time of the battery. As evidence by Doerffel et al. (“A critical review of using the Peukert equation for determining the remaining capacity of lead-acid and lithium-ion batteries” Elsevier, published 2006), the Peukert equation relating constant current to maximum discharge time can be written as Ipc * t = C , or as I = C1/pc * t1/pc , where ‘I’ is constant current, ‘t’ is maximum discharge time, C1/pc is a proportional constant and ‘1/pc’ is an index parameter. Multiple discharge curves relating current and discharge time are illustrated in Figs. 4, 12 and ¶0024 of Kouzaki),
Kouzaki does not teach
wherein the first discharge limit voltage is a voltage obtained by subtracting a first voltage drop due to the first constant current and an internal resistance of the battery cell from a discharge reference voltage with a discharge current of 0, and
wherein the second discharge limit voltage is a voltage obtained by subtracting a second voltage drop due to the second constant current and the internal resistance of the battery cell from the discharge reference voltage.
Closest prior art Ohkawa et al. (EP 3267552 A1, published 2018-01-10) teaches calculating the difference between open circuit voltage OCV and closed circuit voltage CCV (abstract). However, Ohkawa does not teach or provide motivation to combine the difference calculation of OCV and CCV and determine first or second discharge limit voltages,
wherein the first discharge limit voltage is a voltage obtained by subtracting a first voltage drop due to the first constant current and an internal resistance of the battery cell from a discharge reference voltage with a discharge current of 0, and
wherein the second discharge limit voltage is a voltage obtained by subtracting a second voltage drop due to the second constant current and the internal resistance of the battery cell from the discharge reference voltage.
Regarding independent claim 7, closest prior art Kouzaki et al. (EP 0637754 B1, published 2002-09-25) teaches a battery system (Fig. 1 and ¶0029: circuit 3 connected to terminals of a lead acid battery), comprising:
a battery management system (Fig. 1: microcomputer 18) for predicting a discharge time required for a voltage of a battery cell among the plurality of battery cells to reach a corresponding discharge limit voltage during a constant current discharge (¶0033: microcomputer 18 reads terminal voltage and discharge current values and obtains the corresponding remaining capacity value from ROM 19. Discharge time is calculated is shown in Figs. 4 and 12),
wherein the battery management system stores information about a proportional constant and an index parameter defining a relationship between a constant discharge current and a discharge time (¶0033: information stored in ROM),
wherein the proportional constant and the index parameter for the battery cell are calculated based on a first constant current and a first discharge time and on a second constant current and a second discharge time (¶0006, 0023-0024 and Figs. 4,12: The Peukert equation relates the constant discharge current and discharge time of the battery. As evidence by Doerffel et al. (“A critical review of using the Peukert equation for determining the remaining capacity of lead-acid and lithium-ion batteries” Elsevier, published 2006), the Peukert equation relating constant current to maximum discharge time can be written as Ipc * t = C , or as I = C1/pc * t1/pc , where ‘I’ is constant current, ‘t’ is maximum discharge time, C1/pc is a proportional constant and ‘1/pc’ is an index parameter. Multiple discharge curves relating current and discharge time are illustrated in Figs. 4, 12 and ¶0024 of Kouzaki),
the first discharge time being a discharge time required for the voltage of the battery cell to decrease to a first discharge limit voltage by a discharge of the first constant current (Fig. 11 and ¶0022: the end or cut-off voltage at a given constant-current value may be seen as the discharge limit voltage. Terminal voltage decreases gradually with discharge time, then at time T it decreases sharply as the usable capacity of the battery is exhausted) and the second discharge time being a discharge time required for the voltage of the battery cell to decrease to a second discharge limit voltage by a discharge of the second constant current (¶0023 and Figs. 4, 12: the time T needed for the terminal voltage of the battery to reach an end/ cut-off voltage (and decrease sharply) decreases with increasing constant- current discharge).
Kouzaki does not teach
wherein the first discharge limit voltage is a voltage obtained by subtracting a first voltage drop due to the first constant current and an internal resistance of the battery cell from a discharge reference voltage with a discharge current of 0, and the second discharge limit voltage is a voltage obtained by subtracting a second voltage drop due to the second constant current and the internal resistance of the battery cell from the discharge reference voltage.
Closest prior art Ohkawa et al. (EP 3267552 A1, published 2018-01-10) teaches calculating the difference between open circuit voltage OCV and closed circuit voltage CCV (abstract). However, Ohkawa does not teach or provide motivation to combine the difference calculation of OCV and CCV and determine first or second discharge limit voltages,
wherein the first discharge limit voltage is a voltage obtained by subtracting a first voltage drop due to the first constant current and an internal resistance of the battery cell from a discharge reference voltage with a discharge current of 0, and the second discharge limit voltage is a voltage obtained by subtracting a second voltage drop due to the second constant current and the internal resistance of the battery cell from the discharge reference voltage.
Claims 2-6 and 8-12 further limit allowed independent claims 1 and 7 and are therefore also allowed.
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 Ryu-Sung Peter Weinmann whose telephone number is (703)756-5964. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, Julian Huffman, can be reached at (571) 272-2147. 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.
/Ryu-Sung P. Weinmann/Examiner, Art Unit 2859 May 8, 2026
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights