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 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- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (ie an Abstract Idea) without significantly more. The claims do not include an invention concept sufficient to transform the idea into a Patent-Eligible Application.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claims 1 and 12 are directed to an apparatus and a method, which falls within the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A: Prong One – Judicial Exception
Invention merely determines SOC, and claims as a whole are directed toward the abstract idea of determining SOC of a battery module relative to a total capacity of the battery module according to level of charge and adjusted rated capacity, which falls under the category of a mathematical concept. The claims recite a judicial exception, namely a mathematical concept including mathematical relationships and calculations.
Claim 1 recites operations including:
determining an adjusted rated capacity
determining a State of Charge of (SOC) according to the level of charge and adjusted rated capacity;
determining residual battery capacities
determining the adjusted rated capacity using those residual capacities.
These limitations involve collecting battery data and performing mathematical evaluations and recalculations. These operations involve mathematical calculations and relationships. Thus, these claims fall in the category of Mathematical Concepts of Abstract Ideas.
Step 2A: Prong Two – Practical Application
The additional elements of the battery module, portable electronic device, and first and second batteries only provide the technological environment and do not improve the technology by controlling operations of the battery module based on the determined SOC. The additional elements are conventional in the art as evidenced by the cited art in the art rejection, which does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a Practical Application.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept
The claims are directed to electrical components such as a processor, batteries, battery gauge circuits, and a portable electronic device. These components are well-understood routine and conventional in the field of portable electronics and battery management systems. The claims merely implement the Abstract Idea of Mathematical Calculations using generic computer and battery components performing their routine functions.
Accordingly, the claims 1-20 do not include significantly more than the Abstract Idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the predetermined discharging current” in lines 22, 25 and 30. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the predetermined discharging current” in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the predetermined discharging current” in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the predetermined discharging current” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the predetermined discharging current” in lines 3, 6 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the predetermined discharging current” in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the predetermined discharging current” in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the predetermined discharging current” in line 30. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the predetermined discharging current” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the claim rejections – 35 U.S.C. 101
The applicant argues that the effect of the amended claims is that the residual battery capacity to be presented to the user (e.g. the value of the SoC) will be decreased in a linearly manner, especially when the battery voltage is approaching the level to trigger a power-off of the portable electronic device. Thus, under Step 2A Prong 2, claim 1 includes additional element(s) that provide the improvements to the portable electronic device.” This argument is not persuasive as claims 1 and 12 do not require displaying SOC decreases linearly. The claims do not recite a technical improvement in controlling charging or discharging; modifying battery operation, improving battery efficiency, extending battery life, reducing power consumption or charging any operation of the portable electronic device. Rather, the claims use mathematical calculations to produce a value that is displayed to the user.
Thus, the arguments are not persuasive and the claims are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200036048 A1 Dual Battery System For Cell Phone Adams, Jr.; Michael Donnell
US 20210135475 A1 Battery Management System Bharathraj; Sagar Et Al.
US 20210167611 A1 Asymmetric Dual Battery System Baby; Anil Et Al.
US 20220407344 A1 Power Charging System Cha; Jaedeok Et Al.
US 9002413 B2 Battery Cell Phone Combination Furtney; Terrence Michael
US 20200266499 A1 Controlling Plurality Of Ha; Youngmi Et Al.
US 20220337073 A1 Managing Plural Batteries Ha; Youngmi Et Al.
US 5610496 A Dual Battery Control System Hofbauer; Thomas Et Al.
US 5606242 A Smart Battery Algorithm Hull; Matthew P. Et Al.
US 20240288503 A1 Correction Device Imanaka; Yuki Et Al.
US 20020101218 A1 Battery Pack Having Memory Koenck, Steven E. Et Al.
US 20170005489 A1 Method For Controlling Multiple Batteries Kwon; Choel-Hwi
US 20180219986 A1 Wirelessly Receiving Power Lee; Kyung-Jin Et Al.
US 20220388417 A1 Method For Battery Management Lee; Sangki Et Al.
US 20200244075 A1 Battery Control Apparatus Park; Mi-So Et Al.
US 20210175729 A1 Battery Management Systems And Methods Rea; David Et Al.
US 20160066278 A1 Battery Consumption Monitoring Zhao; Qiujun Et Al.
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 ALEXIS B PACHECO whose telephone number is (571)272-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:30.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
ALEXIS BOATENG PACHECO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/ALEXIS B PACHECO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights