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
Applicant' s amendment and response filed 9/25/2025 has been entered and made record. This application contains 5 pending claims.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-6 have been amended.
Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/25/2025 regarding claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) in claim 6 has been fully considered and are persuasive. Claim 6 has been amended and no longer subject to claim interpretation under 112(f). Thus, the 112(f) claim interpretation in claim 6 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/25/2025 regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 in claims 1-6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claims 1 and 6 have been amended to incorporate the subject matter of claim 2, which did not have prior arts rejection in the Non-final Office Action, and thus, overcome the 103 rejections. Therefore, the 103 claims rejections in claims 1-6 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/25/2025 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 in claim 1-6 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on pages 10-12 of the remark filed on 9/25/2025 that “… In the instant matter, the amended independent claims are generally directed to embodiments for determining a deterioration characteristic of a battery ... Applicant respectfully submits that the amended independent claims are not directed to any Mathematical Concepts (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), as set forth by MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). …
In the instant matter, it is submitted that the amended independent claims do recite any Mathematical Concepts and are, at most, based on or involve Mathematical Concepts. Absent identification of such Mathematical Concept(s) which is are recited in the claims, it is submitted that the amended independent claims are not "directed to" a Mathematical Concept under Prong 1 of Revised Step 2A. Thus, it is submitted that the amended independent claims are not "directed to" a Mathematical Concept under Prong 1 of Revised Step 2A.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. The steps of “acquiring a first degree of deterioration of the battery in the operation data”; “calculate at least one deterioration coefficient”; “calculate a second degree of deterioration using the at least one deterioration coefficient calculated”; “adjusting the at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model to calculate a third degree of deterioration close to the first degree of deterioration acquired”; “calculating at least one deterioration characteristic using the at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model adjusted”; “a distribution ratio is initially set to distribute the first degree of deterioration into a first-first degree of deterioration corresponding to the storage deterioration, a second-first degree of deterioration corresponding to the charge deterioration, and a third-first degree of deterioration corresponding to the discharge deterioration”, “in calculating the at least one deterioration coefficient, the operation data is input into the first deterioration characteristic calculation model to calculate a first deterioration coefficient, the operation data is input into the second deterioration characteristic calculation model to calculate a second deterioration coefficient, and the operation data is input into the third deterioration characteristic calculation model to calculate a third deterioration coefficient”, “in calculating the second degree of deterioration, the operation data is input into the degree- of-deterioration calculation model to calculate a first-second degree of deterioration, a second-second degree of deterioration, and a third-second degree of deterioration using the calculated first deterioration coefficient, the calculated second deterioration coefficient, and the calculated third deterioration coefficient”, “in adjusting the at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model, the first degree of deterioration acquired is distributed to the first-first degree of deterioration, the second-first degree of deterioration, and the third-first degree of deterioration in accordance with the distribution ratio, and the first deterioration characteristic calculation model is adjusted to calculate a first-third degree of deterioration close to the distributed first-first degree of deterioration, and the second deterioration characteristic calculation model is adjusted to calculate a second-third degree of deterioration close to the distributed second-first degree of deterioration, and the third deterioration characteristic calculation model is adjusted to calculate a third-third degree of deterioration close to the distributed third-first degree of deterioration”, and “in adjusting the at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model, the distribution ratio is adjusted to cause a sum of the calculated first-third degree of deterioration, the calculated second-third degree of deterioration, and the calculated third-third degree of deterioration to be close to the first degree of deterioration acquired” are mathematical concepts, and thus, they are considered to be an abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The applicant argues on pages 12-13 of the remark filed that “Additionally to and independently of the above, should the claims be found to be "directed to" an abstract idea under Prong 1 of Revised Step 2A (which Applicant respectfully submits they are not), Applicant submits that the claims would necessarily incorporate such recited judicial exception (if any) into a practical application thereof and/or include features which amount to significantly more than any such judicial exception. … In the instant matter, it is submitted that the features of the amended independent claims arrive at such improvement. … Applicant respectfully submits that such features, which are generally acknowledged to not be disclosed or rendered obvious by the prior art, surely amount to a "practical application" of any abstract idea to which the claims may be directed. In view of the above, it is submitted that the amended independent claims of the present application (as well as the claims dependent therefrom) are not "directed to" any judicial exception, include additional features which would amount to a practical application of any such judicial exception”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. Practical application can be demonstrated by additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements “acquiring at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model of a battery based on a test”; “inputting the operation data into a degree-of-deterioration calculation model”; “inputting the operation data into a degree-of-deterioration calculation model”; “shortening a test period for creating the at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model for suppressing deterioration of the battery”; “outputting the at least one deterioration characteristic calculated”; and “wherein the at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model includes a first deterioration characteristic calculation model corresponding to storage deterioration, a second deterioration characteristic calculation model corresponding to charge deterioration, and a third deterioration characteristic calculation model corresponding to discharge deterioration” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. The additional element “acquiring operation data on the battery after the test” represents necessary data gathering and does not integrate the limitation into a practical application. The alleged improvement of suppressing deterioration of a battery by controlling charge and discharge of the battery using a deterioration characteristic calculated is routine in monitoring and controlling a state of health of the battery and relates to improvement of the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the current claims do not recite additional elements that are indicative of integration of an abstract idea into a practical application.
The applicant argues on page 13 of the remark filed that “… it is submitted that the amended independent claims of the present application (as well as the claims dependent therefrom) are not "directed to" any judicial exception, include additional features which would amount to a practical application of any such judicial exception and/or amount to "significantly more," and comprise patent-eligible subject matter. As such, it is submitted that the grounds of the above-captioned rejection are improper and/or at least no longer exist”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. Significantly more can be demonstrated by additional elements that are not well-understood and conventional that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, the claims do not recite them. The additional elements “acquiring at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model of a battery based on a test”; “inputting the operation data into a degree-of-deterioration calculation model”; “inputting the operation data into a degree-of-deterioration calculation model”; “shortening a test period for creating the at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model for suppressing deterioration of the battery”; “outputting the at least one deterioration characteristic calculated”; and “wherein the at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model includes a first deterioration characteristic calculation model corresponding to storage deterioration, a second deterioration characteristic calculation model corresponding to charge deterioration, and a third deterioration characteristic calculation model corresponding to discharge deterioration” are routine in monitoring and controlling a state of health of the battery. Therefore, the claims do not contain additional elements that are not well-understood and conventional that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Hence, the Examiner submits that the rejections of Claims 1 and 3-6 are proper.
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 and 3-6 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 “An information processing method executed by a computer, the information processing method comprising:
acquiring at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model of a battery based on a test;
acquiring operation data on the battery after the test;
acquiring a first degree of deterioration of the battery in the operation data;
inputting the operation data into the at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model to calculate at least one deterioration coefficient;
inputting the operation data into a degree-of-deterioration calculation model to calculate a second degree of deterioration using the at least one deterioration coefficient calculated;
adjusting the at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model to calculate a third degree of deterioration close to the first degree of deterioration acquired;
calculating at least one deterioration characteristic using the at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model adjusted and shortening a test period for creating the at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model for suppressing deterioration of the battery; and
outputting the at least one deterioration characteristic calculated,
wherein the at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model includes a first deterioration characteristic calculation model corresponding to storage deterioration, a second deterioration characteristic calculation model corresponding to charge deterioration, and a third deterioration characteristic calculation model corresponding to discharge deterioration,
a distribution ratio is initially set to distribute the first degree of deterioration into a first-first degree of deterioration corresponding to the storage deterioration, a second-first degree of deterioration corresponding to the charge deterioration, and a third-first degree of deterioration corresponding to the discharge deterioration,
in calculating the at least one deterioration coefficient, the operation data is input into the first deterioration characteristic calculation model to calculate a first deterioration coefficient, the operation data is input into the second deterioration characteristic calculation model to calculate a second deterioration coefficient, and the operation data is input into the third deterioration characteristic calculation model to calculate a third deterioration coefficient,
in calculating the second degree of deterioration, the operation data is input into the degree- of-deterioration calculation model to calculate a first-second degree of deterioration, a second- second degree of deterioration, and a third-second degree of deterioration using the calculated first deterioration coefficient, the calculated second deterioration coefficient, and the calculated third deterioration coefficient,
in adjusting the at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model, the first degree of deterioration acquired is distributed to the first-first degree of deterioration, the second-first degree of deterioration, and the third-first degree of deterioration in accordance with the distribution ratio, and the first deterioration characteristic calculation model is adjusted to calculate a first-third degree of deterioration close to the distributed first-first degree of deterioration, and the second deterioration characteristic calculation model is adjusted to calculate a second-third degree of deterioration close to the distributed second-first degree of deterioration, and the third deterioration characteristic calculation model is adjusted to calculate a third-third degree of deterioration close to the distributed third-first degree of deterioration, and
in adjusting the at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model, the distribution ratio is adjusted to cause a sum of the calculated first-third degree of deterioration, the calculated second-third degree of deterioration, and the calculated third-third degree of deterioration to be close to the first degree of deterioration acquired.”
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 (process for claim 1, and apparatus for claim 6).
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:
acquiring at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model of a battery based on a test; acquiring operation data on the battery after the test; inputting the operation data into the at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model; inputting the operation data into a degree-of-deterioration calculation model; inputting the operation data into a degree-of-deterioration calculation model; shortening a test period for creating the at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model for suppressing deterioration of the battery; and outputting the at least one deterioration characteristic calculated; wherein the at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model includes a first deterioration characteristic calculation model corresponding to storage deterioration, a second deterioration characteristic calculation model corresponding to charge deterioration, and a third deterioration characteristic calculation model corresponding to discharge deterioration.
The additional elements “acquiring at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model of a battery based on a test”; “inputting the operation data into a degree-of-deterioration calculation model”; “inputting the operation data into a degree-of-deterioration calculation model”; “shortening a test period for creating the at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model for suppressing deterioration of the battery”; “outputting the at least one deterioration characteristic calculated”; and “wherein the at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model includes a first deterioration characteristic calculation model corresponding to storage deterioration, a second deterioration characteristic calculation model corresponding to charge deterioration, and a third deterioration characteristic calculation model corresponding to discharge deterioration” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. The additional element “acquiring operation data on the battery after the test” represents necessary data gathering and does not integrate the limitation into a practical application.
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, acquiring operation data on the battery after the test is considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. receiving 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, acquiring at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model of a battery based on a test is disclosed by “Lee US 20160041231”, [0018], [0019], [0022], [0023], [0080]; and “Tetsuya JP 2018009941 A”, Abstract, [0082], Claim 1.
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 6 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 3-5 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 eligible.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding Claim 1 and 3-6, the most pertinent prior arts are “Lee US 20160041231”, “Tetsuya JP 2018009941A”, “Hanafusa US 20140089692”, “ Saint-Marcoux US 20160187432”, and “Suzuki US 20170328957”.
As to claims 1 and 6, Lee teaches a processor; and a memory including a program that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform operations (Lee, [0154]), the operations including:
acquiring at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model of a battery based on a test (Lee, [0018]);
acquiring operation data on the battery after the test (Lee, [0031]; [0058]);
acquiring a first degree of deterioration of the battery in the operation data (Lee, [0080], [0146]);
inputting the operation data into the at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model (Lee, [0067]);
inputting the operation data into a degree-of-deterioration calculation model for calculating a second degree of deterioration of the battery to calculate a degree of deterioration (Lee, [0067]);
adjusting the at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model to calculate a third degree of deterioration close to the degree of deterioration acquired (Lee, [0067]);
calculating at least one deterioration characteristic using the at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model adjusted (Lee, [0067], [0080]); and
outputting the at least one deterioration characteristic calculated (Lee, [0080], [0100], FIG. 7).
Tetsuya teaches inputting the operation data into the at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model to calculate at least one deterioration coefficient (Tetsuya, [0008]);
calculate a degree of deterioration using the at least one deterioration coefficient calculated (Tetsuya, [0013]; [0067], [0083]).
Hanafusa teaches wherein the at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model includes a first deterioration characteristic calculation model corresponding to storage deterioration (Hanafusa, [0028]), a second deterioration characteristic calculation model corresponding to charge deterioration (Hanafusa, [0040], and a third deterioration characteristic calculation model corresponding to discharge deterioration (Hanafusa, [0040]),
a distribution ratio is initially set to distribute the degree of deterioration into a first degree of deterioration corresponding to the storage deterioration, a second degree of deterioration corresponding to the charge deterioration, and a third degree of deterioration corresponding to the discharge deterioration (Hanafusa, [0028], [0040]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “shortening a test period for creating the at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model for suppressing deterioration of the battery”;
“in calculating the at least one deterioration coefficient, the operation data is input into the first deterioration characteristic calculation model to calculate a first deterioration coefficient, the operation data is input into the second deterioration characteristic calculation model to calculate a second deterioration coefficient, and the operation data is input into the third deterioration characteristic calculation model to calculate a third deterioration coefficient”,
“in calculating the second degree of deterioration, the operation data is input into the degree-of-deterioration calculation model to calculate a first-second degree of deterioration, a second-second degree of deterioration, and a third-second degree of deterioration using the calculated first deterioration coefficient, the calculated second deterioration coefficient, and the calculated third deterioration coefficient”,
“in adjusting the at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model, the first degree of deterioration acquired is distributed to the first-first degree of deterioration, the second-first degree of deterioration, and the third-first degree of deterioration in accordance with the distribution ratio, and the first deterioration characteristic calculation model is adjusted to calculate a first-third degree of deterioration close to the distributed first-first degree of deterioration, and the second deterioration characteristic calculation model is adjusted to calculate a second-third degree of deterioration close to the distributed second-first degree of deterioration, and the third deterioration characteristic calculation model is adjusted to calculate a third-third degree of deterioration close to the distributed third-first degree of deterioration”, and
“in adjusting the at least one deterioration characteristic calculation model, the distribution ratio is adjusted to cause a sum of the calculated first-third degree of deterioration, the calculated second-third degree of deterioration, and the calculated third-third degree of deterioration to be close to the first degree of deterioration acquired” including all limitations as claimed.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
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 LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:00-12:00, 1:00-5:00 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 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863