Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant' s amendment and response filed 11/18/2025 has been entered and made record. This application contains 3 pending claims.
Claims 1-3 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/18/2025 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 in claim 1-3 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on pages 6-9 of the remark filed on 11/18/2025 that “…
The Office asserts that the claims fall into the categories of "mental processes" and "mathematical concepts." See pages 4 and 5 of the Office Action. Assignee's representative respectfully disagrees. Instead, the claims recite a technical solution to the above noted technical problem, which cannot be performed in the human mind, is not manually performed by a person, and goes beyond mere mathematical concepts. … Thus, the subject claims go beyond actions that can be performed in the human mind or that are mathematical concepts. … Accordingly, the claims as a whole are not merely directed to a mathematical concept or a mental process. Instead, the claims recite a real-world application in that a display device outputs, to a user via a display device, first information indicative of the use availability of the deteriorated secondary battery at the low load time and second information indicative of the use availability of the deteriorated secondary battery at the high load time.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. The steps of “calculates a shrinkage rate for each single electrode from a capacity shift amount of the deteriorated secondary battery, a deterioration amount of a positive electrode, and a deterioration amount of a negative electrode”, and “calculates a curve representing characteristics of a charging state and an open circuit voltage of the deteriorated secondary battery by deforming the open circuit potential curve for each single electrode before deterioration of the deteriorated secondary battery by the shrinkage rate for each single electrode based on a fixed point”; “calculates an upper limit voltage and a lower limit voltage of the deteriorated secondary battery based on the curve representing the characteristics of the charging state and the open circuit voltage of the deteriorated secondary battery”, and “corrects the curve representing the characteristics of the charging state and the open circuit voltage of the deteriorated secondary battery using a voltage drop amount in accordance with a DC resistance and a DC current of the deteriorated secondary battery, calculates an upper limit voltage and a lower limit voltage of the deteriorated secondary battery after correction based on the curve representing the characteristics of the charging state and the open circuit voltage of the deteriorated secondary battery after correction” are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea. The steps of “determines a use availability of the deteriorated secondary battery at a low load time based on a result of comparison between a first threshold value and a first capacity determined by the upper limit voltage and the lower limit voltage of the deteriorated secondary battery”; and “determines a use availability of the deteriorated secondary battery at a high load time based on a result of comparison between a second threshold value and a second capacity determined by the upper limit voltage and the lower limit voltage of the deteriorated secondary battery after correction” are a combination of a mathematical concept and a mental process, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea. A human mind can observe and evaluate of collected information of a result of comparison between a first threshold value and a first capacity using a mathematical concept, and make determination, judgment and have opinion about a use availability of the deteriorated secondary battery based on the evaluation. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The applicant argues on page 9 of the remark filed that “… Based on at least the above, it is submitted that the subject claims recite meaningful features that amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. ...”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. Significantly more can be demonstrated by additional elements that are not well-understood and conventional that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, the claims do not recite them. The limitations of “an acquisition portion that acquires an open circuit potential curve for each single electrode before deterioration of a deteriorated secondary battery by a differential analysis of a voltage and a capacity and a charging and discharging curve fitting”; and “a human machine interface that outputs, to a user via a display device, first information indicative of the use availability of the deteriorated secondary battery at the low load time and second information indicative of the use availability of the deteriorated secondary battery at the high load time” are routine in monitoring a deterioration of a battery, and thus, well-understood and conventional. Therefore, the claims 1-3 do not contain additional elements that are not well-understood and conventional that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Hence, the Examiner submits that the rejections of Claims 1-3 are proper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “An availability determination apparatus, comprising:
an acquisition portion that acquires an open circuit potential curve for each single electrode before deterioration of a deteriorated secondary battery by a differential analysis of a voltage and a capacity and a charging and discharging curve fitting;
a characteristic calculation portion that calculates a shrinkage rate for each single electrode from a capacity shift amount of the deteriorated secondary battery, a deterioration amount of a positive electrode, and a deterioration amount of a negative electrode, and
calculates a curve representing characteristics of a charging state and an open circuit voltage of the deteriorated secondary battery by deforming the open circuit potential curve for each single electrode before deterioration of the deteriorated secondary battery by the shrinkage rate for each single electrode based on a fixed point;
a low-load determination portion that calculates an upper limit voltage and a lower limit voltage of the deteriorated secondary battery based on the curve representing the characteristics of the charging state and the open circuit voltage of the deteriorated secondary battery, and
determines a use availability of the deteriorated secondary battery at a low load time based on a result of comparison between a first threshold value and a first capacity determined by the upper limit voltage and the lower limit voltage of the deteriorated secondary battery; and
a high-load determination portion that corrects the curve representing the characteristics of the charging state and the open circuit voltage of the deteriorated secondary battery using a voltage drop amount in accordance with a DC resistance and a DC current of the deteriorated secondary battery, calculates an upper limit voltage and a lower limit voltage of the deteriorated secondary battery after correction based on the curve representing the characteristics of the charging state and the open circuit voltage of the deteriorated secondary battery after correction, and
determines a use availability of the deteriorated secondary battery at a high load time based on a result of comparison between a second threshold value and a second capacity determined by the upper limit voltage and the lower limit voltage of the deteriorated secondary battery after correction; and
a human machine interface that outputs, to a user via a display device, first information indicative of the use availability of the deteriorated secondary battery at the low load time and second information indicative of the use availability of the deteriorated secondary battery at the high load time.”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (apparatus for claim 1).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions).
In claim 1, the steps of “calculates a shrinkage rate for each single electrode from a capacity shift amount of the deteriorated secondary battery, a deterioration amount of a positive electrode, and a deterioration amount of a negative electrode”, and
“calculates a curve representing characteristics of a charging state and an open circuit voltage of the deteriorated secondary battery by deforming the open circuit potential curve for each single electrode before deterioration of the deteriorated secondary battery by the shrinkage rate for each single electrode based on a fixed point”;
“calculates an upper limit voltage and a lower limit voltage of the deteriorated secondary battery based on the curve representing the characteristics of the charging state and the open circuit voltage of the deteriorated secondary battery”, and
“corrects the curve representing the characteristics of the charging state and the open circuit voltage of the deteriorated secondary battery using a voltage drop amount in accordance with a DC resistance and a DC current of the deteriorated secondary battery, calculates an upper limit voltage and a lower limit voltage of the deteriorated secondary battery after correction based on the curve representing the characteristics of the charging state and the open circuit voltage of the deteriorated secondary battery after correction” are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea.
The steps of “determines a use availability of the deteriorated secondary battery at a low load time based on a result of comparison between a first threshold value and a first capacity determined by the upper limit voltage and the lower limit voltage of the deteriorated secondary battery”; and
“determines a use availability of the deteriorated secondary battery at a high load time based on a result of comparison between a second threshold value and a second capacity determined by the upper limit voltage and the lower limit voltage of the deteriorated secondary battery after correction” are a combination of a mathematical concept and a mental process, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim comprises the following additional elements:
an acquisition portion that acquires an open circuit potential curve for each single electrode before deterioration of a deteriorated secondary battery by a differential analysis of a voltage and a capacity and a charging and discharging curve fitting; a characteristic calculation portion, a low-load determination portion; and a human machine interface that outputs, to a user via a display device, first information indicative of the use availability of the deteriorated secondary battery at the low load time and second information indicative of the use availability of the deteriorated secondary battery at the high load time.
The additional elements “an acquisition portion that acquires an open circuit potential curve for each single electrode before deterioration of a deteriorated secondary battery by a differential analysis of a voltage and a capacity and a charging and discharging curve fitting” and “a human machine interface that outputs, to a user via a display device, first information indicative of the use availability of the deteriorated secondary battery at the low load time and second information indicative of the use availability of the deteriorated secondary battery at the high load time” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, therefore, only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception.
The additional elements “an acquisition portion”; “a characteristic calculation portion”, “a low-load determination portion”, and “a human machine interface” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are considered a generic computer element. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(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. 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.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, acquiring an open circuit potential curve for each single electrode before deterioration of a deteriorated secondary battery by a differential analysis of a voltage and a capacity and a charging and discharging curve fitting is disclosed by "Fujita US 20170263984", FIG. 6A, FIG. 6B, FIG. 7, FIG. 10A, FIG. 11, [0020], [0035], [0036], [0037], [0046], [0070], [0077], [0079], [0084], [0090]; and “Sugiyama US 20200217901 A1”, Abstract, [0006], [0009], [0012], [0024], [0049], [0051], [0062], [0063], [0066], [0067].
For example, a human machine interface that outputs, to a user via a display device, first information indicative of the use availability of the deteriorated secondary battery at the low load time and second information indicative of the use availability of the deteriorated secondary battery at the high load time Is disclosed by “Kazuno JP7206168B2, used US 20210053441 as translation”, [0143]; and “Juels US 9235971 B1”, Col. 10, Lines 29-39.
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 2 and 3 recite subject matter that are similar or analogous to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claims are also patent ineligible.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not eligible.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding Claims 1-3, the most pertinent prior arts are "Fujita US 20170263984",
"Tsuruta US 20180145356", "Tohda US 20130022843”, "Takahashi US 20150303719",
"Sugiyama US 20200217901", “Asada US 20090058364”, “Boehm US 20150094971”, “Ying US 20190143820”, “Kazuno JP7206168B2, used US 20210053441 as translation”, and “Juels US 9235971 B1”.
As to claims 1-3, Fujita teaches an acquisition portion that acquires an open circuit potential curve for each single electrode before deterioration of a deteriorated secondary battery by a differential analysis of a voltage and a capacity and a charging and discharging curve fitting (Fujita, FIG. 6A, FIG. 6B, FIG. 7, FIG. 10A, FIG. 11, [0020], [0035], [0036], [0037], [0046], [0070], [0077], [0079], [0084], [0090]);
calculates an upper limit voltage and a lower limit voltage of the deteriorated secondary battery based on the curve representing the characteristics of the charging state and the open circuit voltage of the deteriorated secondary battery (Fujita, [0077, FIG. 6A, FIG. 6B, FIG. 7]).
Tsuruta teaches a characteristic calculation portion that calculates a shrinkage rate for each single electrode from a capacity shift amount of the deteriorated secondary battery, a deterioration amount of a positive electrode, and a deterioration amount of a negative electrode (Tsuruta, [0035], [0049], [0050], [0058], [0070], [0131], [0134]);
a low-load determination portion (Tsuruta, [0007], [0032], [0067], [0068], [0131]); and a high-load determination portion (Tsuruta, [0007], [0048], [0052], [0067], [0071]).
Tohda teaches calculates an upper limit voltage and a lower limit voltage of the deteriorated secondary battery after correction based on the curve representing the characteristics of the charging state and the open circuit voltage of the deteriorated secondary battery after correction (Tohda, [0037], [0039]).
Kazuno teaches a human machine interface that outputs, to a user via a display device, first information indicative of the use availability of the deteriorated secondary battery at the low load time and second information indicative of the use availability of the deteriorated secondary battery at the high load time (Kazuno, [0143]).
Juels teaches a human machine interface that outputs, to a user via a display device, second information indicative of the use availability of the deteriorated secondary battery at the high load time (Juels, Col. 10, Lines 29-39).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “calculates a curve representing characteristics of a charging state and an open circuit voltage of the deteriorated secondary battery by deforming the open circuit potential curve for each single electrode before deterioration of the deteriorated secondary battery by the shrinkage rate for each single electrode based on a fixed point”;
“determines a use availability of the deteriorated secondary battery at a low load time based on a result of comparison between a first threshold value and a first capacity determined by the upper limit voltage and the lower limit voltage of the deteriorated secondary battery”; and
“a high-load determination portion that corrects the curve representing the characteristics of the charging state and the open circuit voltage of the deteriorated secondary battery using a voltage drop amount in accordance with a DC resistance and a DC current of the deteriorated secondary battery”;
“determines a use availability of the deteriorated secondary battery at a high load time based on a result of comparison between a second threshold value and a second capacity determined by the upper limit voltage and the lower limit voltage of the deteriorated secondary battery after correction.” including all limitations as claimed”.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:00-12:00, 1:00-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAL CE MANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857