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 .
Status of the claims
The amendment received on has been acknowledged and entered. Claim 1 is amended. Thus, claim 1 is currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on December 29, 2025 with respect to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
On the page 4 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that “[C]laim 1, as a whole, is not merely directed to a mathematical concept or a mental process. Instead, claim 1 recites a real-world application in that a display device receives information indicative of the analysis result and outputs the information indicative of the analysis result via a display. Based on at least the above, it is submitted that claim 1 recites meaningful
features that amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The steps of analyzing, calculating and calculating are mathematical calculations. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation (see MPEP 2016.04(a)(2)C). Further, the pending claims are not patent eligible since a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(a).I) and an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a).II and MPEP 2106.05(a).II: Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48)). Further, the step of receiving is insignificant extra-solution (gathering data) activity that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, in displaying step, receiving information is insignificant extra-solution (gathering data) activity that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and outputting information in displaying step is insignificant extra-solution (post-solution) activity that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Applicant’s amendments filed December 29, 2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A battery state measurement method using a battery state measurement system including at least a server device configured to analyze a state of a battery, the method being performed by a computer of the server device, the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of pieces of characteristic data indicating characteristics associated with change of the battery state based on physical quantity data indicating a physical quantity associated with the battery state;
analyzing a deterioration state of the battery through analysis of a dV/dQ curve indicating a rate of change of a voltage with respect to change of a reference capacity of the battery on the basis of the plurality of pieces of characteristic data, resulting in an analysis result,
wherein the analysis is performed by repeatedly executing a process including:
calculating a negative-electrode value on the basis of an initial positive-electrode value in the dV/dQ curve and a cell value obtained in a previous cycle; and
calculating a cell value on the basis of the initial positive-electrode value and the negative-electrode value, wherein the server device performs the repeated process without requiring a three-electrode configuration and under a real-time condition using data transmitted from an onboard device during actual vehicle operation; and
causing a display device to receive information indicative of the analysis result and output the information indicative of the analysis result via a display.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Step 1: under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are 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).
Step 2A, Prong One: under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted 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 groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation that falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
For example, the steps of “analyzing a deterioration state of the battery through analysis of a dV/dQ curve indicating a rate of change of a voltage with respect to change of a reference capacity of the battery on the basis of the plurality of pieces of characteristic data, resulting in an analysis result (see page 24, lines 7-13 and page 20 lines 16-18 of instant application),” “the analysis is performed by repeatedly executing a process including: calculating a negative-electrode value on the basis of an initial positive-electrode value in the dV/dQ curve and a cell value obtained in a previous cycle (page 4, line 20 - page 5, line 1, page 20, lines 19-23, and page 31, lines 16-18 of instant application) and calculating a cell value on the basis of the initial positive-electrode value and the negative-electrode value (page 20, lines 19-23 and page 31, lines 16-18 of instant application), wherein the server device performs the repeated process without requiring a three-electrode configuration and under a real-time condition using data transmitted from an onboard device during actual vehicle operation (see page 15, lines 13-19, page 25, lines 2-5, page 31, lines 11-page 32, line 3 of instant application)” are mathematical calculations because server device performing the repeated process using data is the indicative of mathematical calculation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation (see MPEP 2016.04(a)(2)C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts preformed in human mind and mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: 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. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. 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 This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Therefore, none of the additional elements indicate a practical application.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: a battery state measurement method using a battery state measurement system including at least a server device configured to analyze a state of a battery (preamble); causing a display device to receive information indicative of the analysis result and output the information indicative of the analysis result via a display.
The additional element of “receiving a plurality of pieces of characteristic data indicating characteristics associated with change of the battery state based on physical quantity data indicating a physical quantity associated with the battery state” is insignificant extra-solution activity that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, in displaying step, “receiving information is insignificant extra-solution (gathering data) activity that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and outputting information in displaying step is insignificant extra-solution (post-solution) activity that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (Kazuno, Kajitani (US 20210286009 A1)). For example, Kazuno and Kajitani teach a battery state measurement method using a battery state measurement system including at least a server device configured to analyze a state of a battery (para. [0009] of Kazuno; paras. [0100], [0102]-[0105], [0156] of Kajitani). Further, Kazuno and Kajitani teach receiving a plurality of pieces of characteristic data indicating characteristics associated with change of the battery state based on physical quantity data indicating a physical quantity associated with the battery state (para. [0009] of Kazuno; paras. [0102]-[0105], [0156]: of Kajitani). Furthermore, merely “displaying” a result (i.e., receive information and output the information indicative via a display) is nothing more than outputting a signal or displaying result. There is established case law to prove that such a feature is insufficient extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The independent claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuno et al. (US 2021/0156921 A1,” hereinafter referred to as “Kazuno”) in view of Guo et al. (CN 110988086 A, hereinafter referred to as “Guo”) further in view of Kimura et al. (US 2020/0126322 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Kimura”).
Regarding claim 1, Kazuno teaches a battery state measurement method using a battery state measurement system including at least a server device configured to analyze a state of a battery, the method being performed by a computer of the server device (para. [0009]: the server device includes a reception part configured to receive the plurality of pieces of feature data transmitted from the in-vehicle device and a diagnosis part configured to diagnose a deterioration state of the battery on the basis of the plurality of pieces of feature data), the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of pieces of characteristic data indicating characteristics associated with change of the battery state based on physical quantity data indicating a physical quantity associated with the battery state (para. [0009]: the server device includes a reception part configured to receive the plurality of pieces of feature data transmitted from the in-vehicle device and a diagnosis part configured to diagnose a deterioration state of the battery on the basis of the plurality of pieces of feature data ); and
analyzing a deterioration state of the battery through analysis of the battery on the basis of the plurality of pieces of characteristic data, (para. [0009]: the server device includes a reception part configured to receive the plurality of pieces of feature data transmitted from the in-vehicle device and a diagnosis part configured to diagnose a deterioration state of the battery on the basis of the plurality of pieces of feature data), resulting in an analysis result (para. [0037]: expressing the deterioration state of the battery 40 diagnosed).
Kazuno does not specifically teach a dV/dQ curve indicating a rate of change of a voltage with respect to change of a reference capacity and the analysis is performed by repeatedly executing a process including calculating a negative-electrode value on the basis of an initial positive-electrode value in dV/dQ curve and a cell value obtained in a previous cycle and calculating a cell value on the basis of the initial positive-electrode value and the negative-electrode value.
However, Guo teaches repeatedly a dV/dQ curve indicating a rate of change of a voltage with respect to change of a reference capacity (page 6, lines 30-32: for each cycle stage, acquiring the battery capacity Q of the three-electrode battery, the positive voltage V+ and the negative voltage V- through a second standard test, and then performing differential processing on the battery capacity Q of the three-electrode battery respectively relative to the positive voltage V+ and the negative voltage V- to correspondingly obtain the dQ/dV+ value of the positive electrode and the dQ/dV- value of the negative electrode) and
the analysis is performed by repeatedly executing a process including calculating a negative-electrode value on the basis of an initial positive-electrode value in dV/dQ curve (page 11, lines 38-41: performing comparative analyses between quasi-steady state dQ/dV…no significant irreversible structural failure occurred in both the positive and negative electrode materials; page 12, lines 2-5: comparing the capacity differential dQ/dV (or voltage differential dV/dQ) curves of the quasi-equilibrium state at different stages), note that the above feature of “performing comparative analyses including positive and negative electrode during the cycling test between quasi-steady state dQ/dV” in page 11, lines 38-41 and “comparing the capacity differential dQ/dV curves at different stage” in page 12, lines 2-5 reads on “repeatedly performing a process of calculating a negative-electrode value on the basis of an initial positive-electrode value in the differential capacitance test method curve) and
a cell value obtained in a previous cycle (page 11, lines 20-24: the quasi-steady state capacity differential rate of change Δ is calculated according to the following equation…V represents the voltage of the anode or the cathode; q represents the battery capacity, x is the cycle number of the previous cycle stage, and n is the interval cycle number of the two adjacent cycle stages, note that acquiring the battery capacity and then performing differential processing on the battery capacity Q); Note that the above feature of “ for each cycle stage, acquiring the battery capacity Q and then performing differential processing on the battery capacity Q” in page 6, lines 30-32 and “differential rate of change Δ, where q represents the battery capacity, x is the cycle number of the previous cycle stage” in page 11, lines 20-24 reads on “repeatedly performing a process of calculating a negative-electrode value on the basis of an initial positive-electrode value in the dV/dQ curve and a cell value which is previous by one cycle”;
calculating a cell value on the basis of the initial positive-electrode value and the negative-electrode value (page 6, lines 30-32: for each cycle stage, acquiring the battery capacity Q of the three-electrode battery, the positive voltage V+ and the negative voltage V- through a second standard test, and then performing differential processing on the battery capacity Q of the three-electrode battery respectively relative to the positive voltage V+ and the negative voltage V- to correspondingly obtain the dQ/dV+ value of the positive electrode and the dQ/dV-value of the negative electrode, note that the above feature of “battery capacity Q” in page 6, lines 30-32 reads on “cell value”).
Kazuno and Guo are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of detecting structural stability of an electrode material in a battery cycling process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the analyzing a deterioration state of the battery such as is described in Guo into Kazuno, in order to provide a method for detecting structural stability of an electrode material in a battery cycling process (Guo, page 6, lines 23-24).
Kazuno and Guo do not specifically teach that the server device performs the repeated process without requiring a three-electrode configuration and under a real-time condition using data transmitted from an onboard device during actual vehicle operation; and causing a display device to receive information indicative of the analysis result and output the information indicative of the analysis result via a display.
However, Kimura teaches that the server device (Fig. 1 and paras. [0028]-[0035]: information processing server 110) performs the repeated process ((para. [0028]: a predetermined interval) without requiring a three-electrode configuration (paras. [0049], [0053]: battery; Fig. 7 and para. [0055]: in-vehicle battery 307) and under a real-time condition using data transmitted (para. [0028]: the pieces of information concerning the vehicle are transmitted to the information processing server 110 at a predetermined interval or in accordance with the occurrence of a specific event, note that the above feature of “transmitted to the information processing server 110 at a predetermined interval” reads on “real-time condition”) from an onboard device during actual vehicle operation (Fig. 7 and paras. [0049], [0053]: sensor unit 301 in vehicle); and
causing a display device to receive information indicative of the analysis result and output the information indicative of the analysis result via a display (Fig. 7 and para. [0050], [0054]: display unit 308).
Kazuno and Kimura are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of identification information of the vehicle including the charging stature of battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the server device such as is described in Kimura into Kazuno, in order to allow the information processing server to provide the estimated position of the charging station to the vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park et al. (JP 2017004955 A) teaches an apparatus for estimating a state of a battery simplifies a battery pack including a plurality of battery cells to a single battery cell thereby allowing estimation of a pack state of the entire battery pack.
Ukumori et al. (US 20200182938 A1) teaches an apparatus for estimating a state of a battery simplifies a battery pack including a plurality of battery cells to a single battery cell thereby allowing estimation of a pack state of the entire battery pack.
Tamanaha et al. (US 2013/0134778 A1) teaches a vehicle controls power consumption of a battery on the basis of a target battery remaining amount set by a user and detects or stores a deterioration-related parameter relating to deterioration of the battery. A server calculates a deterioration parameter coefficient that represents the degree of the effect of the deterioration-related parameter on the deterioration of the battery.
Sengoku et al. (US 2012/0310471 A1) teaches that disclosed is a vehicle state monitoring system in which, when a vehicle (2) has been in a driving stopped state for a reference duration or more, a message is sent to a contact address associated with a vehicular identifier of the vehicle (2).
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 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 SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. 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 571-273-8300.
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.
/SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858