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 2/24/2026 has been entered and made record. This application contains 15 pending claims.
Claims 1, 10, and 12 have been amended.
Claim 17 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/24/2026 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 in claim 1 and 3-17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on pages 9-14 of the remark filed on 2/24/2026 that “… Applicant notes that the claim amendments have been drafted to emphasize improvements to computer functionality and technological process provided by the claimed embodiments, and respectfully submits that the claims are not directed to an "abstract idea. … First, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is not directed to a mathematical process at least because, although some of the features of claim 1 may be based on mathematical concepts, the mathematical concepts are not recited in the claim.” The applicant continue to argue that “Second, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is not directed to a mental process at least because a human mind would be unable to perform any features of claim 1. … Similarly, the features of claim 1, including "storing, in the memory, a lookup table defining ECM parameter values as a function of state parameter values of a battery cell," "determining a value of an ECM parameter of each battery cell by retrieving corresponding values from the lookup table," and "iteratively calculating a cell voltage value, a cell current value, and a value of a state parameter of each battery cell until a difference between successive iterations is below a predetermined threshold," as recited in claim 1, cannot be practically performed by the human mind as a mental process, contrary to the Office action's allegations. …”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. The steps of “selecting a connection relationship of battery cells constituting the battery pack and an equivalent circuit model (ECM) of the battery cells”; “determining parameter initial values of each of the battery cells, and an initial value of a G parameter and an initial value of an H parameter of the battery pack”; “based on the one of the pack current value or the pack voltage value and the initial value of the G parameter and the initial value of the H parameter of the battery pack, determining the other of the pack current value or the pack voltage value of the battery pack”; “based on the pack current value and the pack voltage value of the battery pack and the parameter initial values of each battery cell, iteratively calculating a cell voltage value, a cell current value, and a value of a state parameter of each battery cell until a difference between successive iterations is below a predetermined threshold”; “based on the value of the state parameter of each battery cell, determining a value of an ECM parameter of each battery cell by retrieving corresponding values from the lookup table”; “based on the value of the ECM parameter of each battery cell, determining a value of a G parameter and a value of an H parameter of each battery cell”; “based on the value of the G parameter and the value of the H parameter of each battery cell, calculating a value of the G parameter and a value of the H parameter of the battery pack using predetermined mathematical relationships that hierarchically relate G parameters and H parameters of the battery cells to G parameters and H parameters of the battery pack” are a combination of a mathematical concept and a mental process, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea. The step of “wherein the G parameter indicates a degree of sensitivity of voltage with respect to a change of current, and the H parameter indicates a valid potential determined based on a local equilibrium potential distribution and resistance distribution in the battery pack or the battery cell” is a mathematical concept, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea. A human mind can observe and evaluate of collected information of a current value or a voltage value, calculate a cell voltage value, a cell current value, and a value of a state parameter of each battery cell, and compare the results with a predetermined threshold value using a mathematical concept, and make determination, judgment and have opinion about a state of the battery based on the evaluation. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The applicant argues on page 13 of the remark filed that “Additionally, in Example 38 of the 2019 PEG, the Patent Office concludes that, despite explicitly reciting "generating a normally distributed first random value," the claim does not recite a mathematical calculation because "[w]hile some of the limitations may be based on mathematical concepts, the mathematical concepts are not recited in the claims." (Emphasis added). Similarly, the features of claim 1, including "iteratively calculating a cell voltage value, a cell current value, and a value of a state parameter of each battery cell until a difference between successive iterations is below a predetermined threshold" and "calculating a value of the G parameter and a value of the H parameter of the battery pack using predetermined mathematical relationships that hierarchically relate G parameters and H parameters of the battery cells to G parameters and H parameters of the battery pack," do not recite any mathematical concepts, and any alleged mathematical concept is merely a consequence of the claimed features that does not render claim 1 ineligible. (Emphasis added).”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. The Examiner respectfully submits that the claim explicitly recites a mathematical concept and a mental process and are not analogous to those of Example 38. While some of the limitations may be based on mathematical concepts in Example 38, the mathematical concepts are not recited in the claims; and the claim also does not recite a mental process because the steps are not practically performed in the human mind. However, in the present claim, a mathematical concept and a mental process are recited as stated above. A human mind can observe obtained data, evaluate the data, and make judgment and opinion based on the evaluation of the data.
Hence, the Examiner submits that the rejections of Claims 3-17 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 and 3-16 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 “A method for simulating a battery pack, the method being performed by a computing device including a processor and a memory, the method comprising:
selecting a connection relationship of battery cells constituting the battery pack and an equivalent circuit model (ECM) of the battery cells;
storing, in the memory, a lookup table defining ECM parameter values as a function of state parameter values of a battery cell;
determining parameter initial values of each of the battery cells, and an initial value of a G parameter and an initial value of an H parameter of the battery pack;
receiving one of a pack current value or a pack voltage value of the battery pack;
based on the one of the pack current value or the pack voltage value and the initial value of the G parameter and the initial value of the H parameter of the battery pack, determining the other of the pack current value or the pack voltage value of the battery pack;
based on the pack current value and the pack voltage value of the battery pack and the parameter initial values of each battery cell, iteratively calculating a cell voltage value, a cell current value, and a value of a state parameter of each battery cell until a difference between successive iterations is below a predetermined threshold;
based on the value of the state parameter of each battery cell, determining a value of an ECM parameter of each battery cell by retrieving corresponding values from the lookup table;
based on the value of the ECM parameter of each battery cell, determining a value of a G parameter and a value of an H parameter of each battery cell;
based on the value of the G parameter and the value of the H parameter of each battery cell, calculating a value of the G parameter and a value of the H parameter of the battery pack using predetermined mathematical relationships that hierarchically relate G parameters and H parameters of the battery cells to G parameters and H parameters of the battery pack;
wherein the G parameter indicates a degree of sensitivity of voltage with respect to a change of current, and the H parameter indicates a valid potential determined based on a local equilibrium potential distribution and resistance distribution in the battery pack or the battery cell; and
wherein the method achieves real-time simulation with computational complexity that increases linearly with a number of the battery cells, as opposed to exponential complexity of conventional battery pack simulation methods.”
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).
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 “selecting a connection relationship of battery cells constituting the battery pack and an equivalent circuit model (ECM) of the battery cells”;
“determining parameter initial values of each of the battery cells, and an initial value of a G parameter and an initial value of an H parameter of the battery pack”;
“based on the one of the pack current value or the pack voltage value and the initial value of the G parameter and the initial value of the H parameter of the battery pack, determining the other of the pack current value or the pack voltage value of the battery pack”;
“based on the pack current value and the pack voltage value of the battery pack and the parameter initial values of each battery cell, iteratively calculating a cell voltage value, a cell current value, and a value of a state parameter of each battery cell until a difference between successive iterations is below a predetermined threshold”;
“based on the value of the state parameter of each battery cell, determining a value of an ECM parameter of each battery cell by retrieving corresponding values from the lookup table”;
“based on the value of the ECM parameter of each battery cell, determining a value of a G parameter and a value of an H parameter of each battery cell”;
“based on the value of the G parameter and the value of the H parameter of each battery cell, calculating a value of the G parameter and a value of the H parameter of the battery pack using predetermined mathematical relationships that hierarchically relate G parameters and H parameters of the battery cells to G parameters and H parameters of the battery pack” are a combination of a mathematical concept and a mental process, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea.
The step of “wherein the G parameter indicates a degree of sensitivity of voltage with respect to a change of current, and the H parameter indicates a valid potential determined based on a local equilibrium potential distribution and resistance distribution in the battery pack or the battery cell” is a mathematical concept, therefore, it is 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:
storing, in the memory, a lookup table defining ECM parameter values as a function of state parameter values of a battery cell; receiving one of a pack current value or a pack voltage value of the battery pack; and wherein the method achieves real-time simulation with computational complexity that increases linearly with a number of the battery cells, as opposed to exponential complexity of conventional battery pack simulation methods.
The additional elements “storing, in the memory, a lookup table defining ECM parameter values as a function of state parameter values of a battery cell”; and “wherein the method achieves real-time simulation with computational complexity that increases linearly with a number of the battery cells, as opposed to exponential complexity of conventional battery pack simulation methods” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. The additional element “receiving one of a pack current value or a pack voltage value of the battery pack” represents necessary data gathering and does not integrate the limitation into a practical application. In addition, a generic memory is generally recited and therefore, not qualified as a particular machine.
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, receiving one of a pack current value or a pack voltage value of the battery pack 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, wherein the method achieves real-time simulation with computational complexity that increases linearly with a number of the battery cells, as opposed to exponential complexity of conventional battery pack simulation methods is disclosed by “Govindaraj US 20180219524”, [0050]; and “Alanqar US 20190257544”, [0003].
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 3-16 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 patent eligible.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding Claims 1, and 3-16, the most pertinent prior arts are “Kim et al., "Efficient and Extensible Quasi-Explicit Modular Nonlinear Multiscale Battery Model: GH-MSMD", J. Electrochem. Soc. 164 (6) A 1076-A 1088 (2016)”, hereinafter Lim 1; “Lim KR 1020190123172A”, (Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.) 2019.10.31 (applicants admitted prior art, US 20210048480 used as translation), hereinafter Lim 2; “Kim US 20060284614”, “Schmidt US 20180318918”; “Schaefer US 20120290234”; “Lee US 20220221516”, “Govindaraj US 20180219524”, and “Alanqar US 20190257544”.
As to claim 1, Lim 1 teaches selecting a connection relationship of battery cells constituting the battery pack (Lim 1, Fig. B2, p. A 1088),
determining parameter initial values of each of the battery cells, and an initial value of a G parameter and an initial value of an H parameter of the battery pack; receiving one of a pack current value and a pack voltage value of the battery pack; based on the one of the pack current value and the pack voltage value and the initial value of the G parameter and the initial value of the H parameter of the battery pack, determining the other of the pack current value and the pack voltage value of the battery pack; based on the pack current value and the pack voltage value of the battery pack and the parameter initial values of each battery cell, iteratively calculating a cell voltage value, a cell current value, and a value of a state parameter of each battery cell until (e.g. see Abstract; Page A1077, Right, Lines 1-5; Appendix B: GH-MSMD Extension to a Multi-Cell Battery Model).
Lee teaches, iteratively calculating a cell voltage value, a cell current value, and a value of a state parameter of each battery cell until a difference between successive iterations is below a predetermined threshold (e.g. see [0010], [0029], Claims 1 and 15).
Lim 2 teaches selecting a connection relationship of battery cells constituting the battery pack and an equivalent circuit model (ECM) of the battery cells (e.g. see Fig. 4 and [0016]) determining parameter initial values of each of the battery cells (e.g. resistor value RO, see [0016]), and
an initial value of a G parameter and an initial value of an H parameter of the battery pack (e.g. "The battery state estimation method may further include initializing a first state vector composed of the first G parameter and the first H parameter ", see [0014]);
receiving one of a pack current value and a pack voltage value of the battery
pack (e.g. "the voltage measurement unit 120 may also measure a voltage of both terminals of each battery cell, each battery module, or each battery pack.", see [0042]); and the internal state of the battery may be simply estimated from the G parameter and the H parameter of the battery (see [0058], [0103]).
Schaefer teaches storing, in the memory, a lookup table defining ECM parameter values as a function of state parameter values of a battery cell (e.g. see Abstract, [0008], [0031], [0047]).
Govindaraj teaches wherein the method achieves real-time simulation with computational complexity that increases linearly with a number of the battery cells, as opposed to exponential complexity of conventional battery pack simulation methods (e.g. see [0050]).
However, none of the prior art alone or in combination teaches "based on the
value of the state parameter of each battery cell, determining a value of an ECM parameter of each battery cell;
based on the value of the ECM parameter of each battery cell, determining a value of a G parameter and a value of an H parameter of each battery cell; and
based on the value of the G parameter and the value of the H parameter of each
battery cell, calculating a value of the G parameter and a value of the H parameter of
the battery pack using predetermined mathematical relationships that hierarchically relate G parameters and H parameters of the battery cells to G parameters and H parameters of the battery pack; and
wherein the G parameter indicates a degree of sensitivity of voltage with respect to a change of current, and the H parameter indicates a valid potential determined based on a local equilibrium potential distribution and resistance distribution in the battery pack or the battery cell."
Dependent claims 3-16 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claim 1.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1, and 3-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
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 LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 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
Prosecution Insights