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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) were submitted on 02/23/2023 and 10/30/2023. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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:
(A) 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 limitation(s) is/are: “a pulse extraction part”, “a pulse characteristic value calculation part”, “a histogram creation part”, and “a degradation estimation part” in claim 1, and “a segmentation part” in claim 2 which are interpreted as described in Fig. 2 and its related descriptions (paragraphs 0027-0028).
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, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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 § 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.
The current 35 USC 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (Federal Register vol. 79, No. 241. pp. 74618-74633). The analysis follows several steps. Step 1 determines whether the claim belongs to a valid statutory class. Step 2A prong 1 identifies whether an abstract idea is claimed. Step 2A prong 2 determines whether any abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. If the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application the claim is patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Last, step 2B determines whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea. In most cases the existence of a practical application predicates the existence of an additional element that is significantly more.
The 35 USC 101 analysis between each element of claims and its combination is presented in the table below
Claim number and elements
Judicial exception (Step 2A Prong one)
Practical application (Step 2A Prong two)/ Significantly more (Step 2B)
Claim 1
Step 1: Yes, statutory class
Step 2A Prong two: No / Step 2B: No
A pulse extraction device comprising:
a pulse extraction part configured to extract a pulse based on a change point at which an increase or decrease changes in time series data of a charge amount of a secondary battery;
Step2A Prong one: Yes
“extract a pulse based on a change point ~” is insignificant extra-solution activities to collect data (i.e., extracted pulse) by performing generic computer functions of a generic computer component.
a pulse characteristic value calculation part configured to calculate pulse characteristic values based on the extracted pulse;
abstract idea
mental process or mathematical concept
“calculate pulse characteristic values~” is a math process to merely measure or calculate the values of extracted pulse. (para 0023)
a histogram creation part configured to create a histogram based on the pulse characteristic value; and
abstract idea
mental process or mathematical concept
“create a histogram based on the pulse characteristic value” is a math process to illustrate a histogram of the calculated values.
a degradation estimation part configured to estimate a degradation state of the secondary battery based on the histogram.
abstract idea
mental process or mathematical concept
“estimate a degradation state ~” is a math or mental process based on a mathematical result.
1. 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. Claims 1-10 are directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as addressed below and presented in the above table.
Step 2A: Prong One
Regarding Claim 1, the limitations recited in Claim 1, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mathematical calculations and/or the mind, as presented in the above table. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or the mathematical calculations. For example, “calculate pulse characteristic values based on the extracted pulse” in the context of this claim may encompass manually calculating values (i.e., mathematical amount/quantity) related to a battery charging data which is indicative of time series data such as a temperature, current, or voltage of a battery (see at least paragraphs 0023 and 0026-0028). (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Similarly, “create a histogram based on the pulse characteristic value”, and “estimate a degradation state of the secondary battery based on the histogram” in the context of this claim may encompass manually illustrating a graph based on the mathematical result (i.e., the calculated values of the time series battery data) and inferring the battery charging state, which are indicative of mathematical concepts and/or mental processes related to concepts performed in the human mind (see at least paragraphs 0023 and 0026-0028). (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A: Prong Two
This judicial exception is abstract ideal itself and not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the specification details use of a computer system to perform mathematical calculations or mental processes of “calculate pulse characteristic values based on the extracted pulse”, “create a histogram based on the pulse characteristic value”, and “estimate a degradation state of the secondary battery based on the histogram”. The pulse extraction part, the pulse characteristic value calculation part, the histogram creation part, and the degradation estimation part are recited at high-level of generalities to merely gather routine data (i.e., signal detected during fastening operations) based on a battery charge-state data acquired from a battery sensor and perform a generic computer function of calculating and inferring the pulse characteristic values, a mathematical graph of the histogram and the battery state such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as presented in the table above. The limitation of “extract a pulse based on a change point at which an increase or decrease changes in time series data of a charge amount of a secondary battery” is insignificant extra-solution activity necessary to merely gather data (the pulse related to time series battery data) to be used for performing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Claim 1 does not present tangible or physical elements/components and/or integration of improvements to be indicative of specific features/structure/acts how and or with what to estimate a degradation of state of a battery. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Claim 1 does not present a technical solution to a technical problem by providing an improvement to the functioning of computer, or to any other technology or technical field related to estimating a degradation of state of a battery. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Therefore, there is no showing of integration into a practical application such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, or use of a particular machine.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations of “extract a pulse based on a change point at which an increase or decrease changes in time series data of a charge amount of a secondary battery” in the context of this claim are an insignificant pre-solution activity to merely gather data (the pulse related to time series battery data) to be used for performing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d). As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using a computer system to perform “calculate pulse characteristic values based on the extracted pulse”, “create a histogram based on the pulse characteristic value”, and “estimate a degradation state of the secondary battery based on the histogram” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept cannot provide statutory eligibility. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 2-8, the limitations are further directed to an abstract idea, as described in claim 1. The limitation of “a segmentation part configured to divide the time series data for each segment based on a reference value of the charge amount, wherein the pulse extraction part extracts a pulse for each segment” in Claim 2 may encompass manually calculating or inferring segment data (i.e., mathematical amount/quantity) (see at least paragraphs 0023 and 0026-0028). (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The additional element of the segmentation part in Claim 2 is recited at high-level of generalities to merely perform a generic computer function of calculating and inferring the segment data such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as presented in the table above. The limitations of “identifies, among the change points, a point at which an increasing difference from a reference value turns to a decreasing difference from the reference value as a vertex of a pulse” in Claim 3, “part identifies, among vertices of the pulse, a point at which the difference from the reference value is the largest as a vertex of a large pulse, and identifies the vertices of the pulse other than the vertex of the large pulse as vertices of a small pulse” in Claim 4, may encompass manually calculating or inferring a mathematical value/point (i.e., mathematical amount/quantity) at a specific time based on the mathematical result of the histogram (see at least paragraphs 0023 and 0026-0028). ). (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The limitation of “a current value during charging of the secondary battery, a current value during discharging, an amount of change in charge amount, and a median value of the charge amount” in Claims 5-8 is indicative of mathematical quantity/amount/value used for mathematical calculations. For the reasons described above with respect to Claims 1-8, the judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 9, it is a method type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 10, it is a method type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above.
2. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention of “a program” recited in claim 10 is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim invention is directed to a software per se which is not directed to any of the statutory categories. (MPEP 2106.03. I).
Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include:
• Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations; (MPEP 2106.03. I)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by UKUMORI (US 20200057113 A1, hereinafter referred to as “UKUMORI” cited in IDS dated 10/30/2023).
Regarding Claim 1, UKUMORI teaches a pulse extraction device (Fig. 1; 151), comprising:
a pulse extraction part (Fig. 1; sensors 51-53) configured to extract a pulse based on a change point at which an increase or decrease changes in time series data of a charge amount of a secondary battery (Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the pulse is indicative of a signal (related to current, voltage, temperature) of time series data related to the secondary battery’s status which is sampled/detected at every predetermined sampling/detecting time. Under this interpretation, at least paragraphs 0074-0079 teach monitoring clock pulses and measuring an analog signal indicative of a battery state at a sampling time using the monitored clock pules’ time);
a pulse characteristic value calculation part (Fig. 1; sensors 51-55) configured to calculate pulse characteristic values based on the extracted pulse (At least paragraphs 0074-0079 teach measuring/calculating values of a current and/or voltage, indicative of time series data related to the battery’s charge state, at a sampling time);
a histogram creation part (Fig. 1; 54) configured to create a histogram based on the pulse characteristic value (At least Figs. 3, 8 and 9, and paragraphs 0104-0106 and 0125-0132 teach a diagram illustrating a change of amount/values related to the battery’s degradation); and
a degradation estimation part (Fig. 1; capacitance probe 4) configured to estimate a degradation state of the secondary battery based on the histogram (At least paragraphs 0139-0149 teach estimating degradation of the battery based on the fluctuation magnitude of the SOC in the time-series data of the SOC, where a calculated degradation value is used to estimate a degree of degradation of the battery).
Regarding Claim 2, UKUMORI teaches further comprising: a segmentation part configured to divide the time series data for each segment based on a reference value of the charge amount, wherein the pulse extraction part extracts a pulse for each segment (Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the step of dividing the time series data for each segment is indicative of sampling the time series data of the battery state at a sampled time, which is each estimated based on the predetermined reference indicative of a charge amount and related to degradation value, which is taught at least at paragraphs 0017, 0104, 0142 and 0163).
Regarding Claim 3, UKUMORI teaches wherein the pulse extraction part identifies, among the change points, a point at which an increasing difference from a reference value turns to a decreasing difference from the reference value as a vertex of a pulse (Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “a point at which an increasing difference from a reference value turns to a decreasing difference from the reference value as a vertex of a pulse” is a different fluctuation range/magnitude from the reference value (e.g., center SOC) which is taught at least at paragraph 0085, and the step of identifying, among the change points, a point is indicative of sampling the time series data of the battery state at a sampled time, which is taught at least at paragraphs 0017, 0104, 0142 and 0163).
Regarding Claim 5, UKUMORI teaches wherein the pulse characteristic values include a current value during charging of the secondary battery, a current value during discharging, an amount of change in charge amount, and a median value of the charge amount battery (Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the pulse is indicative of At least paragraphs 0074-0079 teach monitoring clock pulses and measuring an analog signal (related to current, voltage, temperature) of time series data related to the secondary battery’s status which is sampled/detected at every predetermined sampling/detecting time.).
Regarding Claim 6, it is dependent on claim 2 and has similar limitations as of claim 5 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 7, it is dependent on claim 3 and has similar limitations as of claim 5 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 9, it is a method type claim and has similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 10, it has similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oyama et al. (US 11422194 B2) teaches “a battery diagnosis apparatus and a battery diagnosis method for accurately diagnosing a secondary battery are proposed. A pulse current generator, a voltage measuring instrument that measures a voltage response to application of a current pulse, a first data processing device that obtains a chronopotentiogram (CP) indicating a change in the voltage response over time and normalizes the CP, a database that saves normalized data, and a second data processing device that uses a correlation between the saved data and a battery state expressing factor prepared in advance to make a battery diagnosis are used”.
Iwane et al. (US 11163010 B2) teaches a secondary battery deterioration estimation, where “a secondary battery deterioration estimation device includes a memory; and a processor which executes the following processes based on executable programs stored in the memory, generating history information showing history of a use state of the secondary battery with reference to a signal output from a current sensor detecting a current flowing through the secondary battery; calculating values of elements forming an equivalent circuit of the secondary battery; calculating a state of health (SOH) of the secondary battery based on the values of the elements forming the equivalent circuit; correcting the values of the elements before the SOH is calculated or the value of the SOH obtained by the calculation based on the history information; and outputting data representing the SOH of the secondary battery”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BYUNG RO LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3707. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:00pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on (571) 270-5628. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-2555.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BYUNG RO LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858