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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are “configured to” in claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8. The claims describes the various modules in functional terms of what they do, rather than how they do it. Under 35 USC 112(f), the Specification must identify a specific and readily-identifiable algorithm in the Specification associated with the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For example, Page 11, Lines 5-13 discloses “Meanwhile, the control unit 120 provided in the battery management apparatus 100 may selectively include processors known in the art, application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), other chipsets, logic circuits, registers, communication modems, data processing devices, and the like to execute various control logic performed in the present disclosure.”
In order to exam the merit, Examiner interprets the above mentioned limitations performed by a generic computer.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 10 recite the limitation “every charge/discharge cycle of the battery” and the phrase is indefinite because the boundary of the claim limitation is unclear to the examiner as to what the every charge/discharge cycle is.
For a purpose of a compact prosecution, the examiner interprets this limitation as every charge and/or discharge cycle of the battery.
Dependent claims 2-9 are also rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
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 1-10 are 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.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “A battery management apparatus, comprising:
a voltage sensor configured to measure a voltage of a battery after discharge of the battery is terminated at a preset discharge termination voltage in every charge/discharge cycle of the battery; and
a controller configured to, for each measured voltage of the battery: receive the measured voltage from the voltage sensor;
calculate a first voltage deviation of the battery based on a preset first threshold voltage and the measured voltage;
calculate a second voltage deviation between the first voltage deviation and a preset second threshold voltage; and
adjust the discharge termination voltage based on a threshold deviation set to correspond to the second voltage deviation.”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (apparatus for claim 1).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
In claim 1, the steps identified in bold type are a mathematical concept, therefore, they are considered to be abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim comprises the following additional elements:
a voltage sensor configured to measure a voltage of a battery after discharge of the battery is terminated at a preset discharge termination voltage in every charge/discharge cycle of the battery; and a controller configured to, for each measured voltage of the battery: receive the measured voltage from the voltage sensor.
The additional element “a voltage sensor configured to measure a voltage of a battery after discharge of the battery is terminated at a preset discharge termination voltage in every charge/discharge cycle of the battery” represents necessary data gathering and does not integrate the limitation into a practical application. The additional element “a controller configured to, for each measured voltage of the battery: receive the measured voltage from the voltage sensor” is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. In addition, a generic controller or processor is generally recited and therefore, not qualified as a particular machine.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, a voltage sensor configured to measure a voltage of a battery after discharge of the battery is terminated at a preset discharge termination voltage in every charge/discharge cycle of the battery is considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e., receiving measured data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
For example, a controller configured to, for each measured voltage of the battery: receive the measured voltage from the voltage sensor is disclosed by “Ugaji US 20100264929”, [0013], [0053], [0065], [0067], FIGs. 1, 4, 5; and “Muraoka US 20100045236”, Abstract, [0021], [0031], [0086].
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 10 recites subject matter that is similar or analogous to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claim is also patent ineligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-9 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not patent eligible.
Examiner' s Note
Regarding Claims 1-10, the most pertinent prior arts are “Ugaji US 20100264929”, “Wada JP 4260821B2”, “Muraoka US 20100045236”, “US 20100134070 Yun”, “Tanaka US 20160254687”, “Joe US 20150051855”, and “Nukui WO 2012023215A1”.
As to claims 1 and 10, Ugaji teaches a voltage sensor (FIG. 5, detecting section 2) configured to measure a voltage of a battery after discharge of the battery is terminated at a preset discharge termination voltage in every charge/discharge cycle of the battery (Ugaji, [0013], [0065]); and
a controller (FIG. 5, control section 6) configured to, for each measured voltage of the battery: receive the measured voltage from the voltage sensor (Ugaji, [0013] and [0066], FIG. 5).
Wada teaches calculate a first voltage deviation of the battery based on a preset first threshold voltage and the measured voltage (Wada, [0042]);
calculate a second voltage deviation between the first voltage deviation and a preset second threshold voltage (Wada, [0047]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “adjust the discharge termination voltage based on a threshold deviation set to correspond to the second voltage deviation” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 2-9 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claim 1.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Kotlarewsky US 4562398A” teaches “A method and apparatus is disclosed for automatic control of battery maintenance including fast recharge and equalizing of the voltages on individual cells of the battery. The charging current through a resistance in series with the battery is monitored, and in response, a control circuit energizes a relay which controls the output voltage of a power supply used to charge the battery and drive a load. The control circuit includes a clock, connected to a recharge counter, which effects the recharge process for a predetermined period of time. The recharge counter is connected to the relay which regulates the output voltage of the power supply. The control circuit also includes a battery current sensor, which monitors the charging current of the battery, and a second counter, which provides an enabling signal to the relay for initiating a longer cycle which equalizes the charges on individual cells of the battery if the battery has been recharged from a severely discharge state.”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 EST.
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, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/LAL CE MANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights