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 .
Claim Objections
2. Previous objections are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment filed December 18, 2025.
3. Claims 10 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a) In claim 10 on the claims filed December 18, 2025 on pg. 6 lines 18-19, please change "and the first battery information is generated by measuring the second battery" to: --and the second battery information is generated by measuring the second battery--.
b) In claim 13 on the claims filed December 18, 2025 on pg. 7 line 4, please change "the step of using the universal gauge master algorithm to process the first battery" to:
--a step of using a universal gauge master algorithm to process the first battery--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. Previous rejections are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment filed December 18, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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 1-15 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.
In view of the new 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019), the Examiner has considered the claims and has determined that under step 1, claims 1-9 are to a machine, and claims 10-15 are to a separate machine. Next under the new step 2A prong 1 analysis, the claims are considered to determine if they recite an abstract idea (judicial exception) under the following groupings: (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, or (c) mental processes. The independent claims contain at least the following bolded limitations (see representative independent claims) that fall into the grouping of mathematical concepts and/or mental processes:
1. A multi-battery system, comprising:
a plurality of devices, wherein each of the plurality of devices comprises:
a battery;
a measurement circuit comprising an analog-to-digital converter (ADC), configured to measure the battery, and perform an analog-to-digital conversion operation on measured results of the battery to generate digital codes serving as battery information;
a communication interface, coupled to the measurement circuit, configured to transmit the battery information;
a processing circuit, configured to receive the plurality of battery information transmitted from the plurality of devices, and to process the battery information of the plurality of devices to generate a plurality of gauge results corresponding to the plurality of devices, respectively.
10. A processing circuit within an electronic device, configured to perform the steps of:
receiving a first battery information from a first device, wherein the first battery information corresponds to a first battery within the first device, and the first battery information is generated by measuring the first battery, and performing an analog-to-digital conversion operation on measured results of the first battery;
processing the first battery information to generate a first gauge result;
receiving a second battery information from a second device, wherein the second battery information corresponds to a second battery within the second device, and the first battery information is generated by measuring the second battery, and performing the analog-to-digital conversion operation on measured results of the second battery; and
processing the second battery information to generate a second gauge result.
It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula."(see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I.). Thus the limitations of "process the battery information of the plurality of devices to generate a plurality of gauge results corresponding to the plurality of devices, respectively," "processing the first battery information to generate a first gauge result," and "processing the second battery information to generate a second gauge result," are all considered as words serving the same purpose as a formula. The "processing of data" can amount to a mental step to evaluate/analyze the battery information to generate a result or classification, or can amount to a mathematical concept if the processing of data requires more advanced numerical manipulations/calculations on battery information to generate a gauge result as an output/solution.
Next in step 2A prong 2, the independent claims are analyzed to determine whether there are additional elements or combination of elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, in order to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These limitations have been identified and underlined above, and are not indicative of integration into a practical application because: (1) the limitations of a "multi-battery system," "a plurality of devices, wherein each of the plurality of devices comprises: a battery" amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of devices with a battery (see MPEP 2106.05(h); (2) the limitations of "a measurement circuit, comprising an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) configured to measure the battery, and perform an analog-to-digital conversion operation on measured results of the battery to generate digital codes serving as battery information," "configured to receive the plurality of battery information transmitted from the plurality of devices," "receiving a first battery information from a first device, wherein the first battery information corresponds to a first battery within the first device, and the first battery information is generated by measuring the first battery, and performing an analog-to-digital conversion operation on measured results of the battery" and "receiving a second battery information from a second device, wherein the second battery information corresponds to a second battery within the second device, and the first battery information is generated by measuring the second battery, and performing the analog-to-digital conversion operation on measured results of the second battery" amount to adding insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); and (3) the limitations of "a processing circuit," "a communication interface, coupled to the measurement circuit, configured to transmit the battery information," and "a processing unit within an electronic device, configured to perform the steps of" amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Next in step 2B, the independent claims are considered to determine if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
The recitations for a "multi-battery system," "a plurality of devices, wherein each of the plurality of devices comprises: a battery" do not add significantly more because such limitations amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of devices with a battery (see MPEP 2106.05(h), and merely define the field of use to which the calculations pertain to. The recitations for "a measurement circuit, comprising an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) configured to measure the battery, and perform an analog-to-digital conversion operation on measured results of the battery to generate digital codes serving as battery information," "configured to receive the plurality of battery information transmitted from the plurality of devices," "receiving a first battery information from a first device, wherein the first battery information corresponds to a first battery within the first device, and the first battery information is generated by measuring the first battery, and performing an analog-to-digital conversion operation on measured results of the battery" and "receiving a second battery information from a second device, wherein the second battery information corresponds to a second battery within the second device, and the first battery information is generated by measuring the second battery, and performing the analog-to-digital conversion operation on measured results of the second battery," do not add significantly more because such limitations amount to adding insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and do not describe any gathering of data in an unconventional way or using a particular measurement arrangement. . The performing of an analog-to-digital conversion and transmitting such battery information for receiving amount to necessary data gathering and outputting to format the measurements for "processing," and amounts to an activity incidental to the primary process of gathering data as a merely nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The recitations of "a processing circuit", "a communication interface, coupled to the measurement circuit, configured to transmit the battery information," and "a processing unit within an electronic device, configured to perform the steps of" do not add significantly more, because such limitations amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). As recited in the MPEP, 2106.07(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection (see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014); see also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94).
Dependent claim 2 contains additional limitations that amount to insignificant extrasolution data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)), as the claim merely describes a format and types of measured data. Dependent claims 3 and 13 describe additional insignificant extrasolution data gathering steps (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) to describe the obtained battery parameters that are transmitted to the processing circuit, as well as additional abstract idea mathematical calculations to establish a battery model according to the battery parameters and using the battery model and battery information to calculate a gauge result. Dependent claims 4-5 and 11-12 describe general details of the first and second device and amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Dependent claims 6-7 describe additional insignificant extrasolution data gathering steps (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) to describe obtaining the battery information expressed as a simple gauge result, and/or stored battery information history, where both sets of data are transmitted for obtaining by the processing circuit. Dependent claims 8-9 and 14-15 amount to part of the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts as they describe further details of the types of output variables of the gauge results.
6. An invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. Applications of such concepts "to a new and useful end" remain eligible for patent protection (see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67)). However, "a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea" (see Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics Corp. _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q. 2d1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). There needs to be additional elements or combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception or render the claim as a whole to be significantly more than the exception itself in order to demonstrate “integration into a practical application” or an “inventive concept.” For instance, particular physical sensor arrangements for actively obtaining the measurement data, or further physical applications using the calculated gauge results to drive a transformation, change in operation, or maintenance/repair of a technology or technical process could provide integration into a practical application to demonstrate an improvement to the technology or technical field.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
8. Claim(s) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Chandra et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2017/0108906, hereinafter "Chandra") as modified by Subbotin et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0173012, hereinafter "Subbotin"). In regards to amended claim 1, Chandra teaches a multi-battery system (Chandra abstract and paragraph [0029] teach a power system with multiple heterogeneous energy storage devices, such as batteries), comprising:
a plurality of devices, wherein each of the plurality of devices comprises (Chandra paragraphs [0002] and [0013] teach a plurality of heterogeneous energy storage devices, each having different battery technologies):
a battery (Chandra paragraphs [0013] and [0029] teach where each energy storage device has a battery);
a measurement circuit, configured to measure the battery to generate battery information (Chandra paragraphs [0002] and [0013] teach a common measuring circuitry to measure the battery to generate battery information such as voltage and current);
a communication interface, coupled to the measurement circuit, configured to transmit the battery information (Chandra paragraphs [0002] and [0013] teach a communication bus as a communication interface coupled to the measurement circuit to transmit the battery information);
a processing circuit, configured to receive the plurality of battery information transmitted from the plurality of devices, and process the battery information of the plurality of devices to generate a plurality of gauge results corresponding to the plurality of devices, respectively (Chandra paragraphs [0002], [0013], and [0052]-[0053] teach a controller of a fuel gauge to receive the transmitted plurality of measured battery information of the plurality of devices and perform an algorithmic processing to generate a plurality of status values (gauge results) indicative of the state of each energy storage device). Chandra fails to expressly teach comprising an analog-to-digital converter (ADC), and perform an analog-to-digital conversion operation on measured results of the battery to generate digital codes serving as battery information.
Subbotin paragraph [0025] teaches where a controller is operatively connected to a battery pack and receives sensor data from the voltage sensor, the current sensor, and the temperature sensor. Subbotin paragraph [0025] teaches where the controller optionally includes analog to digital converters (ADCs) in embodiments where on or more of the sensors generate analog sensing signals to enable the controller to process digital representations (codes) of the analog sensor signals, although in other embodiments the sensors include ADC circuits that produce digital output data directly. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Subbotin to include an analog-to-digital converter to perform an analog-to-digital conversion operation on measured analog data of each battery in order to provide the correct format for digital processing by the processing circuit. Therefore, it would be well understood and conventional to include an ADC to properly prepare a measurement for processing by the processing circuit.
In regards to amended claim 2, Chandra teaches wherein the battery information comprises voltage and current (Chandra paragraphs [0002] and [0013] teach measured battery information including voltage and current).
Chandra fails to expressly teach the digital codes of a voltage, a current and a temperature of the battery.
Subbotin paragraph [0025] teaches where a controller is operatively connected to a battery pack and receives sensor data from the voltage sensor, the current sensor, and the temperature sensor. Subbotin paragraph [0025] teaches where the controller optionally includes analog to digital converters (ADCs) in embodiments where on or more of the sensors generate analog sensing signals to enable the controller to process digital representations (codes) of the analog sensor signals, although in other embodiments the sensors include ADC circuits that produce digital output data directly. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine the teachings of Subbotin because relevant analog measurements from voltage, current, and temperature sensors need to be presented in an appropriate digital code form for processing. Therefore, it would be routine and conventional to expect a conversion to a digital code as an output of an ADC to present the measurements in an appropriate digital code format for processing by a processor.
In regards to amended claim 3, Chandra teaches wherein each of the plurality of devices comprises battery parameters (Chandra paragraphs [0002] and [0013] teach where each of the plurality of energy storage devices comprise battery parameters such as voltage and current), each of the plurality of devices transmits the battery parameters to the processing circuit via the communication interface (Chandra paragraphs [0002] and [0013] teach where the battery parameters of each of the energy storage devices are transmitted to the controller via a communication bus), the processing circuit establishes a battery model of the battery according to the battery parameters (Chandra paragraphs [0002] and [0013] teach where the controller establishes a battery model according to energy storage device specific parameters depending on the type of energy storage device), and the processing circuit uses the battery model and the battery information to determine the gauge result (Chandra paragraphs [0002], [0013], and [0052]-[0053] teach using the various measurements with the energy storage device type specific parameters (model) to determine the state (gauge result) of each energy storage device).
In regards to claim 4, Chandra teaches wherein the plurality of devices comprise a first device and a second device, and the first device and the second device and the processing circuit are within one electronic device (Chandra Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0002], [0013], and [0021] teach where the plurality of devices comprise two or more heterogeneous energy storage devices including a first energy storage device and second energy storage device, where the first device and second device and controller are integrated within one multiple energy storage device).
In regards to amended claim 5, Chandra teaches wherein the plurality of devices comprise a first device and a second device (Chandra paragraphs [0002] and [0013] teach where the plurality of devices comprise two or more heterogeneous energy storage devices including a first energy storage device and second energy storage device), the first device and the processing circuit are within an electronic device (Chandra Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0002] and [0013] teach where a first energy storage device and controller are within a multiple energy storage device). Chandra fails to expressly teach where the second device is external to the electronic device and communicates wirelessly with the electronic device. However, Chandra paragraphs [0021] teaches where an energy storage device system may be configured as devices separate from the operating system (of the processing circuit controller). Chandra paragraphs [0077]-[0081] teach a distributed configuration where a central computing device (processor) may be local to the multiple devices (i.e., including a first device and processing circuit within one device) or may be located remotely from the multiple devices (i.e., having a second device be located remotely from the processing circuit), and describes an embodiment where the computing (electronic) device may be implemented according to more than one different device class, where the components of the distributed system can communicate wirelessly over a "cloud" network.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chandra because Chandra allows for a distributed configuration where a second device can be located external to an electronic computing device housing a first device. Therefore since a computing device may be implemented as more than one class of device (such as in a personal computer and mobile phone), it would be logical to describe having an embodiment where a second energy storage device is located in an external second class of device (such as a mobile phone) separate from the computing device of a first class (such as a personal computer) housing the first energy storage device, where they can still communicate wirelessly with each other using a wireless cloud network.
In regards to claim 6, Chandra teaches wherein the plurality of devices further comprise a first device (Chandra paragraphs [0002] and [0013] teach wherein the plurality of energy storage devices comprise a first energy storage device), and the first device further comprises:
a battery fuel gauge, configured to generate a simple gauge result according to the battery information (Chandra paragraphs [0002] and [0013] teach a multiple energy storage device fuel gauge that generates a simple state of charge result according to the battery information);
wherein the battery fuel gauge transmits the simple gauge result to the processing circuit via the communication interface (Chandra paragraphs [0002] and [0013] teach where the fuel gauge transmits results to the system components (including the processing circuit) via the communication bus).
In regards to claim 7, Chandra teaches wherein the plurality of devices further comprise a first device (Chandra paragraphs [0002] and [0013] teach where the plurality of devices further comprises a first energy storage device), and the first device further comprises:
a storage unit (Chandra Fig. 2 Item 204 teaches a data storage device 204 as a storage unit), configured to store battery information history, wherein the battery information history comprises the digital codes of voltage, current and temperature of the battery over a past period of time (Chandra paragraphs [0030] and [0058] teach where the data storage device stores SOC estimation parameters (battery information history) that have been programmed (as digital codes) in the past during manufacturing, including voltage, current, and thermal conditions (temperature) over time (such as through discharge curves));
wherein the battery information history is transmitted to the processing circuit via the communication interface (Chandra Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0031]-[0032] teach where the SOC estimation parameters (battery information history) are transmitted to the controller via the communication interface 210).
In regards to amended claim 8, Chandra teaches wherein the plurality of gauge results respectively correspond to the batteries of the plurality of devices (Chandra Fig. 3 Items 306, 308, and 310 and paragraphs [0002] and [0013] teach where the gauge status results correspond to each of the batteries of the plurality of devices), and each of the gauge results comprises at least one of charging state, remaining capacity, full charge capacity, state of health and lifetime of the corresponding battery (Chandra paragraph [0037] teaches where each gauge result comprises at least a state of charge (charging state) and aging (lifetime) data of the corresponding battery).
In regards to claim 9, Chandra teaches wherein the processing circuit generates an output gauge result according to a first gauge result and a second gauge result of the plurality of gauge results and a state or characteristic of the multi-battery system (Chandra Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0037]-[0039] teach where the controller generates an output gauge result according to a first gauge result of an individual energy storage device battery (such as 306, 308, or 310) and also a second gauge result of the plurality of gauge results (such as 304) which corresponds to an overall status of state of charge (SOC) of all the energy storage devices of the multi-battery system).
In regards to amended claim 10, Chandra teaches a processing circuit within an electronic device (Chandra abstract teaches a controller (processing circuit) within a fuel gauge device), configured to perform the steps of:
receiving a first battery information from a first device, wherein the first battery information corresponds to a first battery within the first device, and the first battery information is generated by measuring the first battery (Chandra Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0002] and [0013] teach receiving measured battery information from a first energy storage device, wherein the first battery information corresponds to measuring a first battery within the first energy storage device);
processing the first battery information to generate a first gauge result (Chandra paragraphs [0002], [0013], and [0052]-[0053] teach using an algorithm to process the measured first battery information to generate a state of the first energy storage device);
receiving a second battery information from a second device, wherein the second battery information corresponds to a second battery within the second device, and the [second] battery information is generated by measuring the second battery (Chandra Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0002] and [0013] teach receiving measured battery information from a second energy storage device, wherein the second battery information corresponds to measuring a second battery within the second energy storage device); and
processing the second battery information to generate a second gauge result (Chandra paragraphs [0002], [0013], and [0052]-[0053] teach using an algorithm to process the measured second battery information to generate a state of the second energy storage device). Chandra fails to expressly teach performing an analog-to-digital conversion operation on measured results of the first battery, and performing the analog-to-digital conversion operation on measured results of the second battery.
Subbotin paragraph [0025] teaches where a controller is operatively connected to a battery pack and receives sensor data from the voltage sensor, the current sensor, and the temperature sensor. Subbotin paragraph [0025] teaches where the controller optionally includes analog to digital converters (ADCs) in embodiments where on or more of the sensors generate analog sensing signals to enable the controller to process digital representations (codes) of the analog sensor signals, although in other embodiments the sensors include ADC circuits that produce digital output data directly. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Subbotin to include an analog-to-digital converter to perform an analog-to-digital conversion operation on measured analog data of each battery in order to provide the correct format for digital processing by the processing circuit. Therefore, it would be well understood and conventional to include an ADC to properly prepare an analog measurement for processing by the processing circuit.
In regards to claim 11, Chandra teaches wherein the first device and the second device are within the electronic device (Chandra Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0002] and [0013] where the first and second device are within one multiple energy storage device).
In regards to claim 12, Chandra teaches wherein the first device is within the electronic device (Chandra Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0002] and [0013] teach where a first energy storage device and is within a multiple energy storage device). Chandra fails to expressly teach where the second device is external to the electronic device.
However, Chandra paragraphs [0021] teaches where an energy storage device system may be configured as devices separate from the operating system (of the processing circuit controller). Chandra paragraphs [0077]-[0081] teach a distributed configuration where a central computing device (processor) may be local to the multiple devices (i.e., including a first device and processing circuit within one device) or may be located remotely from the multiple devices (i.e., having a second device be located remotely from the processing circuit), and describes an embodiment where the computing (electronic) device may be implemented according to more than one different device class, where the components of the distributed system can communicate wirelessly over a "cloud" network.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chandra because Chandra allows for a distributed configuration where a second device can be located external to an electronic computing device housing a first device. Therefore since a computing device may be implemented as more than one class of device (such as in a personal computer and mobile phone), it would be logical to describe having an embodiment where a second energy storage device is located in an external second class of device (such as a mobile phone) separate from the computing device of a first class (such as a personal computer) housing the first energy storage device, where they can still communicate using a wireless cloud network.
In regards to claim 13, Chandra teaches further comprising:
receiving battery parameters of the first battery from the first device (Chandra paragraphs [0002] and [0013] teach receiving measured battery parameters from each of the multiple energy storage devices, including from the first battery of the first energy storage device);
establishing a battery model of the first battery according to the battery parameters (Chandra paragraphs [0002] and [0013] teach where the controller establishes a battery model according to energy storage device specific parameters depending on the type of energy storage device); and
the step of using the universal gauge master algorithm to process the first battery information to generate the first gauge result (Chandra paragraphs [0002], [0013], and [0052]-[0053] teach using a universal correlation gauge algorithm to process the measured first battery information to generate a state of the first energy storage device) comprises:
using the universal gauge master algorithm and the battery model to process the first battery information to generate the first gauge result (Chandra paragraphs [0002], [0013], and [0052]-[0053] teach using the various measurements with the energy storage device type specific parameters (model) to determine the state (gauge result) of each energy storage device).
In regards to claim 14, Chandra teaches wherein the first gauge result comprises at least one of charging state, remaining capacity, full charge capacity, state of charge, state of health and lifetime of the first battery (Chandra paragraph [0037] teaches where each gauge result (including a first gauge result) comprises at least a state of charge (charging state) and aging (lifetime) data of the corresponding battery); and
the second gauge result comprises at least one of charging state, remaining capacity, full charge capacity, state of charge, state of health and lifetime of the second battery (Chandra paragraph [0037] teaches where each gauge result (including a second gauge result) comprises at least a state of charge (charging state) and aging (lifetime) data of the corresponding battery).
In regards to amended claim 15, Chandra teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to perform the steps of:
generating an output gauge result according to a first gauge result and a second gauge result of the plurality of gauge results and a state or characteristic of the electronic device (Chandra Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0037]-[0039] teach where the controller generates an output gauge result according to a first gauge result of an individual energy storage device battery (such as 306, 308, or 310) and also a second gauge result of the plurality of gauge results (such as 304) which corresponds to an overall status of state of charge (SOC) of all the energy storage devices of the multi-battery system).
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed December 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
10. Applicant argues in regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections that: (1) Claim 1 emphasizes that each device has a "measurement circuit comprising an ADC" which describes a specific circuit responsible for performing battery measurement and analog-to-digital conversion operations. Applicant argues that this is a physical conversion process, not a mental activity. Applicant argues that in addition, the "digital codes" are electronic signals representing the battery status, not abstract mathematical values. Applicant argues that therefore, because claim 1 describes the specific operations of circuit components and is not directed to simple mathematical formulas or human mental activities, and claim 1 as a whole should not be considered as an abstract idea (see Applicant's Arguments/Remarks 12/18/2025, pg. 10 paragraph 2).
11. In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that the new limitations have not been identified as an "abstract idea" but rather as additional elements that do not provide an integration into a practical application or significantly more (see underlined analysis in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections above). These new limitations describe steps that amount to insignificant extrasolution data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), especially because such data conversion amounts to an activity incidental to the primary process of gathering data, as a merely nominal or tangential addition to the claim. In other words, just like "using a processor" is not enough to make a claim patent eligible, merely describing routine and necessary data conversion using an analog-to-digital converter is not enough to make a claim patent eligible. The measured data must be presented in a format that is comprehensible for processing/analysis in any case, and thus merely describing a necessary step (to convert the data into a digital value) does not provide an integration into a practical application or significantly more.
12. Applicant further argues in regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections that: (2) Claim 1 describes a specific distributed architecture: measurement and digitization (A/D conversion) are completed in the individual devices to generate "digital codes" which are then transmitted to the processing circuit via a communication interface for subsequent processing. Applicant argues that this is different from simply collecting data for mathematical calculation; it involves a hardware configuration for a specific signal processing flow (see Applicant's Arguments/Remarks 12/18/2025, pg. 10 paragraph 3). Applicant argues that the distributed architecture of the present invention can reduce manufacturing costs of the device and increase the accuracy of the battery measurement (see Applicant's Arguments/Remarks 12/18/2025 pg. 10 paragraph 4).
13. In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that the analog-to-digital conversion, while completed in a distributed fashion, amount to insignificant extrasolution-data gathering activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) to gather the necessary digital data needed for the abstract idea data processing. To the examiner, adding an analog-to-digital converter is no different than specifying requiring a sensor measurement for each device, as these are all necessary elements needed to gather the required data from each of the plurality of devices. This does not amount to a particular measurement arrangement because of the distributed nature of the plurality of devices. The inclusion of a necessary analog-to-digital converter amounts to a tangential addition to the data gathering, as the subsequent operation of the computer or processor is not "improved," but rather multi-sourced data is gathered in a necessary form for processing by the processor.
14. Applicant makes similar arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections for the remaining claims (see Applicant's Arguments/Remarks 12/18/2025, pg. 10 last paragraph through pg. 11 paragraph 1). These arguments have been considered, and are respectfully responded to in sections 11 and 13 above.
15. Applicant argues in regards to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections that since Chandra describes the shared voltage measuring circuitry (212) measuring the multiple batteries (202), this implies that the battery (202) itself does not possess a measurement circuit, nor does it possess an ADC. Applicant argues that therefore, Chandra fails to disclose the features of claim 1: "a plurality of devices, wherein each of the plurality of devices comprises: a battery; a measurement circuit comprising an analog-to-digital converter (ADC), configured to measure the battery, and perform an analog-to-digital conversion operation on measured results of the battery to generate digital codes serving as battery information; a communication interface, coupled to the measurement circuit, configured to transmit the battery information" (see Applicant's Arguments/Remarks 12/18/2025, pg. 12 paragraph 2). Applicant argues that because Chandra teaches using shared voltage measuring circuitry rather than the "distributed measurement, centralized calculation" architecture of claim 1, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to achieve the content of claim 1 by making simple modifications based on Chandra (see Applicant's Arguments/Remarks 12/18/2025, pg. 12 paragraph 3). Applicant makes similar arguments regarding the remaining claims (see Applicant's Arguments/Remarks 12/18/2025, pg. 12 paragraph 4 through pg. 13 paragraph 2).
16. In response, the Examiner agrees that Chandra in isolation does not teach a measurement circuit comprising an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) and the associated analog-to-digital conversion limitations. Therefore, the secondary reference of Subbotin et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0173012) has been added to further teach this limitation. Regarding Chandra describing a shared voltage measuring circuitry, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion that this implies that the battery itself does not possess a measurement circuit. There is no requirement in claim 1 that there is a separate, exclusive measurement circuit for each battery or each of the plurality of devices, especially when some of the devices can be located within the same electronic device (e.g., claim 4). Therefore, given broadest reasonable interpretation, as long as there is a measurement circuit (even if it is multiplexed) that performs a measurement at each battery, this is sufficient to read on the claim language for each of a plurality of devices comprising a measurement circuit (whether shared or not). Furthermore, the additionally added new reference of Subbotin et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0173012) provides support for the ADC to be implemented directly at each sensor directly, as such an alternative is well known in the art to provide the equivalent function of converting the analog sensor measurements into digital form whether at the sensors directly or at a controller/processor. Finally, the communication bus in Chandra paragraph [0002] functions as part of a shared communication interface coupled to the shared measurement circuit, in order for the measurements to be communicated from each battery, where there is no limitation against having a shared communication interface. The response provided in this section is also applicable to the remaining claims, which have the same arguments as presented for claim 1.
Conclusion
17. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1598. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9:30 am to 6 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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached on (571)272-2619. 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.
PAUL D. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/PAUL D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 2/26/2026