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 9/10/2025 has been entered and made record. This application contains 9 pending claims.
Claims 1 and 8 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/10/2025 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 in claim 1-10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on pages 5-9 of the remark filed on 9/10/2025 that “… Subsequently, in Step 2A, Prong Two, the Examiner opines that the additional elements of claim 1 are insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection with the following reasons presented below ... Therefore, considering the claims as a whole, solving a specific technical problem in practical applications … Regarding the dependent claims, based on the preceding discussion, since Claim 1 is integrated into a practical application and complies with the subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the dependent claims 2-7 and 9-10 are also eligible. As for Claim 8, it is eligible and distinguishable from the prior art for the same or similar reasons as Claim 1.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. Practical application can be demonstrated by additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements “acquiring noise intensity of the storage battery and battery information of the storage battery” is considered necessary data gathering and thus, not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. acquiring noise data) 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). Reporting the one or more differences to a user via a display are a standard procedure in monitoring and processing geophysical data associated with a borehole. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), displaying analysis/results is considered extra solution activity in light of Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The additional elements “wherein the battery information comprises a nominal capacity of the storage battery and a current capacity of the storage battery”, “the battery detection scheme comprises at least one of a discharge load value, a detection frequency, a duty cycle, and a detection time”, and “wherein the discharge load value and the detection frequency are respectively related to the noise intensity, and the duty cycle and the detection time are respectively related to the battery information” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the current claims do not recite additional elements that are indicative of integration of an abstract idea into a practical application.
The applicant argues on page 9 of the remark filed that “Therefore, considering the claims as a whole, solving a specific technical problem in practical applications, and having significant technical effects, they constitute "significantly more" additional elements, meeting the determination of Step 2B. Thus, Claim 1 actually includes additional elements that are 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 additional elements of “acquiring noise intensity of the storage battery and battery information of the storage battery”; “wherein the battery information comprises a nominal capacity of the storage battery and a current capacity of the storage battery”, “the battery detection scheme comprises at least one of a discharge load value, a detection frequency, a duty cycle, and a detection time”, and “wherein the discharge load value and the detection frequency are respectively related to the noise intensity, and the duty cycle and the detection time are respectively related to the battery information” are well-understood and conventional, and this is a routine in detecting the health state of the storage battery according to the battery detection scheme. Therefore, the claims do not contain additional elements that are not well-understood and conventional that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The applicant also argues on pages 7-9 of the remark filed that “As to the Examiner's assertion that "US20200355749 - Takahashi" discloses "acquiring noise intensity of the storage battery and battery information," the Applicant believes there are two differences between the present application and Takahashi ... The noise in Takahashi is the noise produced by the battery itself during the switching of charging and discharging states. In contrast, according to the description in the specification of the present application, the noise intensity refers to the varying levels of noise in the environment in which the vehicle's battery is continuously supplying power to external devices ... Therefore, the applicant believes that Takahashi does not disclose "acquiring the noise intensity of the storage battery and the battery information of the storage battery (nominal capacity and current capacity of the battery)" ...”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. None of the majority of the features that were argued are not claimed. Moreover, the claim limitation of
“acquiring noise intensity of the storage battery and battery information of the storage battery” does not distinguish whether the noise intensity is from the storage battery itself or is the environmental noise on the vehicle as the applicant alleged. The claim limitation states that the noise intensity that is being acquired is “of the storage battery”, and thus, under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard (BRI), the Examiner interprets the acquiring noise intensity is the noise produced by the storage battery. Even if the alleged noise intensity is the environmental noise on the vehicle, which the Examiner does not agree, one of the prior arts “Uchinami US 5760486A” teaches the alleged noise intensity is the environmental noise on the vehicle in Col. 1, Lines 33-41; Col. 1, Lines 60-65; Col. 2, Lines 13-16; Col. 2, Lines 39-47; Col. 4, Lines 11-18; Col. 4, Lines 42-46. Therefore, both Takahashi and Uchinami teach the claim limitation of “acquiring noise intensity of the storage battery and battery information of the storage battery”.
Hence, the Examiner submits that the rejections of Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are proper.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 recite the limitation “the health state” in lines 12 and 11, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The claims use a definite article “the”, however, the claims 1 and 8 do not recite the claim limitation of “a health state”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a battery detection device that comprises at least one electrical connector, the end of which is used to detect the storage battery of the vehicle” and the phrase is indefinite because the boundary of the claim limitation is unclear to the examiner as if the claim is intended to recite the end of the battery detection device or the end of the electrical connector. For a purpose of a compact prosecution, the examiner interprets this limitation as the end of the electrical connector which is used to detect the storage battery of the vehicle.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-7, and 10 are also rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
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 and 6-10 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 claims 1 and 8, the claim recites “A method for detecting a storage battery of a vehicle, applied to a battery detection device that comprises at least one electrical connector, the end of which is used to detect the storage battery of the vehicle, the method, comprising:
acquiring noise intensity of the storage battery and battery information of the storage battery;
selecting one battery detection scheme from at least two preset candidate battery detection schemes according to the noise intensity and the battery information;
wherein the battery information comprises a nominal capacity of the storage battery and a current capacity of the storage battery,
the battery detection scheme comprises at least one of a discharge load value, a detection frequency, a duty cycle, and a detection time,
wherein the discharge load value and the detection frequency are respectively related to the noise intensity, and the duty cycle and the detection time are respectively related to the battery information; and
detecting the health state of the storage battery according to the battery detection scheme.”
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 (process for claim 1, and apparatus for claim 8).
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 mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions).
In claim 1, the steps identified in bold type are a mental process, therefore, they are considered to be 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:
acquiring noise intensity of the storage battery and battery information of the storage battery; wherein the battery information comprises a nominal capacity of the storage battery and a current capacity of the storage battery, wherein the battery detection scheme comprises at least one of a discharge load value, a detection frequency, a duty cycle, and a detection time, wherein the discharge load value and the detection frequency are respectively related to the noise intensity, and the duty cycle and the detection time are respectively related to the battery information.
The additional element “acquiring noise intensity of the storage battery and battery information of the storage battery” represents necessary data gathering and does not integrate the limitation into a practical application.
The additional elements “wherein the battery information comprises a nominal capacity of the storage battery and a current capacity of the storage battery”, “wherein the battery detection scheme comprises at least one of a discharge load value, a detection frequency, a duty cycle, and a detection time”, and “wherein the discharge load value and the detection frequency are respectively related to the noise intensity, and the duty cycle and the detection time are respectively related to the battery information” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
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 noise intensity of the storage battery and battery information of the storage battery is considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. receiving data) 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).
For example, the battery detection scheme comprising at least one of a discharge load value, a detection frequency, a duty cycle, and a detection time is disclosed by “Takahashi US 20200355749”, [0037], [0044], [0047]; and “Singh US 20010033169”, Abstract, [0004], [0007], [0035].
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 8 recites subject matter that is similar or analogous to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claim is also patent ineligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-4, 6-7, and 9-10 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not eligible.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding Claims 1-4 and 6-10, the most pertinent prior arts are “Takahashi US 20200355749”, “Singh US 20010033169”, “Ibrahim US 20090015207”, “Uchinami US 5760486A”, and “Bosua US 20160066393”.
As to claims 1 and 8, Takahashi teaches acquiring noise intensity of the storage battery and battery information of the storage battery (Takahashi, [0014]);
selecting one battery detection scheme from at least two preset candidate battery detection schemes according to the noise intensity and the battery information (Takahashi, [0014]);
wherein the battery information comprises a nominal capacity of the storage battery and a current capacity of the storage battery (Takahashi, [0008], [0053], [0107]);
wherein the battery detection scheme comprises at least one of a discharge load value, and a detection time, a detection frequency, a duty cycle (Takahashi, [0014]; [0020], [0037]);
detecting the health state of the storage battery according to the battery detection scheme (Takahashi, [0015], [0037], [0047], [0051]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “wherein the discharge load value and the detection frequency are respectively related to the noise intensity, and the duty cycle and the detection time are respectively related to the battery information” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-7 and 9-10 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claims 1 and 8.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and claims 1-4, 6-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863
Prosecution Insights