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 .
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-4, 6-10 are pending.
Claims 1 and 8 are amended. Claim 5 is canceled.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/2/2025 regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/2/2025 regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claimed invention is not an abstract idea, but a specific, practical, and technical improvement in the field of battery management systems for electric vehicles, rooted in the application of the Kalman filter algorithm and specific, physical sensor measurements to accurately estimate the State of Charge (SOC) of a battery pack in real-time.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument. Nowhere in the claims is explicitly recited a battery management system for an electric vehicle. Nowhere in the claims is recited any method or system that effects, controls, or changes how batteries for electric vehicles charge, discharge, or otherwise function. For at least these reasons, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues the claims are not merely directed to a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea. Instead, the claims recite a highly specific, integrated, and technical solution to a complex, real-world engineering problem: the accurate, real-time estimation of the State of Charge (SOC) in a lithium battery, which is a "closed and complex nonlinear system" with randomly changing external and internal parameters.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument. As recognized by the applicant the claims recite a system that estimates SOC. The claims recite a mathematical formula used for the estimating and estimating SOC is considered an abstract mathematical limitation. No where in the claims is recited any limitation that requires real-time estimation tied to a particular machine providing real time voltage, current, or resistance measurements. For at least these reasons, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues the method (Claim 1) and system (Claim 8), as further implemented by the non- transitory computer-readable medium (Claim 9) and electronic device (Claim 10), are directed to a new and non-conventional use of the Kalman filter algorithm, specifically configured to: Integrate Detection Parameters on a Chip: The invention integrates the SOC estimation algorithm and detection parameters together on the chip of the electric vehicle, allowing for real-time SOC estimation, overcoming limitations of prior art technologies that require uploading battery parameters to the cloud for online estimation. This integration is a concrete technical solution to the problem of providing real-time, on-board energy management.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument. Nowhere in the claims is explicitly recited a battery management system for an electric vehicle. Nowhere in the claims is recited a chip of an electric vehicle. Although the claims do recite a processor/computer, 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. Finally, although applicants estimation method may improve the result output by a computer, there is no improvement in the functioning of the computer or any particular machine recited. As recited in MPEP 2106.05.I, an inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). For at least these reasons, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues the invention is a technological improvement because it Generates and Utilizes a Physical Lookup Table: The method and system rely on generating a preset lookup table using physically extracted charge/discharge voltage and current data from the first charge and discharge of the electric vehicle. This table utilizes a first equivalent resistance (see, paragraph [0038] of Pub. No. US2023/0375622 of the present application), calculated from the physical electrical measurements (see, paragraphs [0037]-[0038] of Pub. No. US 2023/0375622 of the present application), to obtain initial SOC values and, later, observed SOC values. The use of this specific lookup table structure provides high accuracy with a small device memory, essential for chip-based implementation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument. Although the table used by Applicant’s invention was made using “extracted” parameters (here Examiner is interpreting extracted to mean obtained from directly or indirectly from measurements), a system that generates a table is not claimed, nor is the physical infrastructure such as sensors which would be necessary to generate current, voltage, resistance, or charge/discharge measurements in real time or otherwise. Applicant’s arguments further point to the abstract nature of the invention which is directed to a generic computer device and method that calculates values based on a table of other values as opposed to a system or method that is integrated into a practical application. For at least these reasons, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues the invention is a technological improvement because it Accounts for Temperature Effects: The claimed method explicitly calculates the initial capacity (see, paragraphs [0035] and [0043] of Pub. No. US 2023/0375622 of the present application) based on the initial value of the SOC in combination with the rated capacity (see, paragraph [0043] of Pub. No. US 2023/0375622 of the present application) and a present temperature (see, paragraphs [0042] and [0043] of Pub. No. US 2023/0375622 of the present application) of the battery pack. This calculation uses a temperature coefficient (see, paragraph [0043] of Pub. No. US 2023/0375622 of the
present application) to adjust the capacity, ensuring high accuracy at both high and low
temperatures. This is a technical refinement that solves a deficiency in prior art methods
that do not account for temperature's influence.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument. Examiner notes that a specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The solution to the problem, as claimed by the applicant, must recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner has examined the claims and has not found any elements that fulfill this requirement. Calculating capacity is considered an abstract idea because calculation requires mathematics. For at least these reasons, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant further argues the claims meet the "significantly more" requirement by detailing the application of the Kalman filter in a particular, unconventional, and technical manner that improves the functioning of the electronic device/system itself because it Improves the Functioning of a Computer or Electronic Device: The invention's core is the integration of the SOC estimation algorithm and detection parameters onto a chip (e.g., control unit/processor). This architectural choice enables real-time SOC estimation on the vehicle itself, solving the prior art problem of needing to upload data to the cloud for online estimation. This constitutes an improvement to the electronic device's internal functionality for battery management.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument. As noted above, nowhere in the claims is explicitly recited a battery management system for an electric vehicle. Nowhere in the claims is recited a chip of an electric vehicle. Although the claims do recite a processor/computer, 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. Finally, although applicants’ estimation method may improve the value output by a computer, there is no improvement in the functioning of the computer or any particular machine recited. Applicant’s particular algorithm for estimating SOC does not change the physical architecture of the system. Proving storage capacity, i.e. memory, on a chip is exceedingly well known and not an improvement in the technology. For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues a Specific Technical Solution: The claims detail a specific, ordered sequence of steps tied to physical measurements from the battery pack:
Initial Value: Extracting the cell voltage to calculate the terminal voltage, which is then matched against the physically-derived lookup table to get an initial SOC.
State/Observed Values: Calculating the initial capacity based on the initial SOC, rated capacity, and temperature (see, paragraph [0043] of Pub. No. US 2023/0375622 of the present application), and then calculating the State Value of the SOC 0 using the amperage-hour integration method (see, paragraph [0049] of Pub. No. US 2023/0375622 of the present application). Separately, obtaining the Observed Value (see, paragraph [0050] of Pub. No. US 2023/0375622 of the present application) by extracting new voltage/current and matching a second equivalent resistance (see, paragraphs [0048] and [0050] of Pub. No. US 2023/0375622 of the present application) in the lookup table.
Adaptive Refinement: Using the State Value and Observed Value to calculate the Kalman Gain (see, paragraph [0036] of Pub. No. US 2023/0375622 of the present application) and update the Estimated Value (see, paragraph [0036] of Pub. No. US 2023/0375622 of the present application). The method further allows for adaptive adjustment of the covariance values (see, paragraph [0053] of Pub. No. US 2023/0375622 of the present application) to improve accuracy depending on the charging state.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument. Although applicant may use values that are tied to a physical system in the claimed calculations, the present invention does not do more than read in values. There are not recited devices capable of making physical measurements nor are there recited steps of making physical measurements. Under BRI the recited “extraction” steps read on a computer system that reads in values from a data file which amounts to drafting effort to tie the abstract concept to a generic computer. For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: instances of “the lookup table” should be “the preset lookup table”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: There are two periods “..” at the end of claim 8. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: in Claim 8, “an extraction module”, “a calculation module”, and “an updating module”, are interpreted to have the structure of a processor, or software executed by a processor, see instant application, [0016] and [0064].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to the abstract concept of performing mental steps without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract concepts in BOLD of
Specifically, Claim 1 recites:
“A Kalman filter-based method for estimation of a state of charge (SOC), comprising:
extracting a cell voltage of a battery pack to calculate a terminal voltage, and matching the terminal voltage in a preset lookup table to obtain an initial value of the SOC;
calculating an initial capacity of the battery pack based on the initial value of the SOC, and calculating a state value of the SOC and an observed value of the SOC in an interval period based on the initial capacity;
and calculating a Kalman gain based on the state value of the SOC and the observed value of the SOC, and updating an estimated value of the SOC based on the Kalman gain,
wherein the Kalman gain is calculated through an error covariance between the observed value of the SOC and the actual value of the SOC and an error covariance between the state value of the SOC and the actual value of the SOC in the formula of:
Kk = (Pk-1 + Q) / (Pk-1 + Q + R),
wherein Pk-1 is an error variance between the estimated value of the SOC and the actual value of the SOC at the last moment, Kk is the Kalman gain, Q is the error covariance between the state value of the SOC and the actual value of the SOC, and R is the error covariance between the observed value of the SOC and the actual value of the SOC
wherein the lookup table is generated by extracting a charge voltage and a charge current when an electric vehicle is in its first charge, and a discharge voltage and a discharge current when the electric vehicle is its first discharge;
obtaining a first equivalent resistance based on the charging voltage, the discharging voltage, the charging current, and the discharging current; and
generating the lookup table by using the first equivalent resistance, the charge voltage and the discharge voltage as table elements.
Claim 8 recites:
“A system for estimation of a state of charge (SOC) based on a Kalman filter, comprising:
an extraction module, configured to extract a cell voltage of a battery pack to calculate a terminal voltage, and match the terminal voltage in a preset lookup table to obtain an initial value of the SOC;
a calculation module, configured to calculate an initial capacity of the battery pack based on the initial value of the SOC, and calculate a state value of the SOC and an observed value of the SOC in an interval period based on the initial capacity;
and an updating module, configured to calculate a Kalman gain based on the state value of the SOC and the observed value of the SOC, and update an estimated value of the SOC based on the Kalman gain,
wherein the Kalman gain is calculated through an error covariance between the observed value of the SOC and the actual value of the SOC and an error covariance between the state value of the SOC and the actual value of the SOC in the formula of:
Kk = (Pk-1 + Q) / (Pk-1 + Q + R),
wherein Pk-1 is an error variance between the estimated value of the SOC and the actual value of the SOC at the last moment, Kk is the Kalman gain, Q is the error covariance between the state value of the SOC and the actual value of the SOC, and R is the error covariance between the observed value of the SOC and the actual value of the SOC
wherein the lookup table is generated by extracting a charge voltage and a charge current when an electric vehicle is in its first charge, and a discharge voltage and a discharge current when the electric vehicle is its first discharge;
obtaining a first equivalent resistance based on the charging voltage, the discharging voltage, the charging current, and the discharging current; and
generating the lookup table by using the first equivalent resistance, the charge voltage and the discharge voltage as table elements..
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under 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 claims are considered to be in a statutory category namely, a “machine” or “process”.
Under 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 limitation the fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers performing mathematics and/or mental steps. The “calculating” steps are considered mathematics. The limitation “extracting a cell voltage” from a preset lookup table can be considered a mental step as it can be done in the human mind or with a pen and paper. The newly added limitations to claims 1 and 8, further specify the contents of the values in the lookup table used in the previously identified abstract limitations and are considered to further limit the abstract ideas without adding any additional non-abstract elements.
Next, under 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 because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner notes that since the claimed methods and system are not tied to a particular machine or apparatus, they do not represent an improvement to another technology or technical field. Similarly, there are no other meaningful limitations linking the use to a particular technological environment. Finally, there is nothing in the claims that indicates an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or transform a particular article to a new state.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “an extraction module, a calculation module, and an updating module” is considered necessary data gathering using generic devices and not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Claims 2-4, 6-7, and 9-10 further limit the abstract ideas without integrating the abstract concept into a practical application or including additional limitations that can be considered significantly more than the abstract idea. More specifically, claims 9 and 10 recite generic computer elements. 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.
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 CATHERINE T RASTOVSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-0349. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-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, TC2800 Director Allana Lewin Bidder can be reached at 571-272-5560. 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.
/Catherine T. Rastovski/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857