DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
Claims 1, 6-9, 14-16 are amended.
Claims 1-20are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, and similarly 7, 9 and 16 recite “generate, based on the determination, a control signal to adjust a current level supplied to or from the rechargeable battery.”, however the applicant’s specification does not describe a control signal to adjust a current level supplied to or from the rechargeable battery. While Par. 59, and 64-65 describe “outputted battery voltage dynamics can provide information as to whether the current level provided by the battery 206 is, or is not, to be adjusted, among other information”, “generate a signal that facilitates the current level of the user-identified state-of-charge (SOCu) being displayed on the display”, and “determine the user-identified state-of-charge (SOCu) that corresponds to the current level of the characterization state-of-charge (SOCc)” these do not provide support for a control signal to adjust a current level as they describe outputting information to be display or representing a current level, not a signal for controlling the current level. Further, Par. 69 describes “feedback controller can also determine an adjustment for the inputted current to at least attempt to avoid such an overvoltage or under-voltage condition” but this describes determining an adjustment for the current not generating a control signal to control the current level.
Claims 2-8 and 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected based on their inherited deficiencies.
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 7 is 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 7 recites “a control signal to adjust a current level” however claim 1 already recites said elements. It is unclear if this is referring to the same or different signals and levels. For the purpose of examining, they are considered to be the same.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under step 1, claims 1, and similarly 9, belong to a statutory category of an apparatus.
Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 1 and similarly 9 recite(s) “determining a characterization state-of-charge and a user-defined state-of-charge for a rechargeable battery” and “convert the initial user-defined state-of-charge to an initial characterization state-of-charge using results of characterization testing obtained for the characterization operating voltage range, and without use of results of characterization testing based on the user-defined operating voltage range; initialize, using the initial characterization state-of-charge, an equivalent circuit model; wherein initializing the equivalent circuit model comprises identifying, via a result of characterization testing obtained for the characterization operating voltage range and without characterization testing for the user-defined operating voltage range, a value for each of one or more parameters of the equivalent circuit model as a function of at least the initial characterization state-of-charge; generate, from operation of the equivalent circuit model, at least the updated characterization state-of-charge; convert, using information derived from the results of the characterization testing obtained for the characterization operating voltage range, the updated characterization state-of-charge to the updated user-defined state-of-charge; determine, via operation of the equivalent circuit model, whether the rechargeable battery is experiencing an overvoltage condition or an under-voltage condition;” which are directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes in view of applicant’s specification for example see Par. 24-25, 54-57, and 62-63.
Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “a state-of-charge remapping system for”, “a rechargeable battery” and “the state-of-charge remapping system comprising: at least one processor; a memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory including instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to:” are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The elements of “receive an initial user-defined state-of-charge, the initial user-defined state-of-charge corresponding to a user-defined operating voltage range, the user-defined operating voltage range being within, and a narrower range than, a characterization operating voltage range that corresponds to the characterization state-of-charge;” and “generate, based on the determination, a control signal to adjust a current level supplied to or from the rechargeable battery” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “a state-of-charge remapping system for”, “a rechargeable battery” and “the state-of-charge remapping system comprising: at least one processor; a memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory including instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to:” are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). The elements of “receive an initial user-defined state-of-charge, the initial user-defined state-of-charge corresponding to a user-defined operating voltage range, the user-defined operating voltage range being within, and a narrower range than, a characterization operating voltage range that corresponds to the characterization state-of-charge;” and “generate, based on the determination, a control signal to adjust a current level supplied to or from the rechargeable battery” are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)(see prior art of record).
Under step 1, claims 16, belong to a statutory category of a method.
Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 16 recite(s) “a method for online reconfiguration of a battery operating voltage range, the method comprising:” and “adjusting, in response to receiving the signal, the first user-defined operating voltage range to a second user-defined operating voltage range, the second user-defined operating voltage range being different than the first user-defined operating voltage; determining an initial user-defined state-of-charge corresponding to the second user-defined operating voltage range; converting the initial user-defined state-of-charge to an initial characterization state-of-charge using characterization testing obtained for a characterization operating voltage range, the characterization operating voltage range being different than the second user-defined operating voltage range; initializing an equivalent circuit model using the initial characterization state-of-charge, wherein initializing the equivalent circuit model comprises identifying, via results of characterization testing obtained for the characterization operating voltage range and without characterization testing for the second user-defined operating voltage range, a value for each of one or more parameters of the equivalent circuit model as a function of at least the initial characterization state-of-charge; generating, via operation of the equivalent circuit model, an updated characterization state-of-charge; and converting the updated characterization state-of-charge to an updated user-defined state-of-charge using results of characterization testing using an operating voltage range different than the second user-defined operating voltage range, determining, via operation of the equivalent circuit model, whether the rechargeable battery is experiencing an overvoltage condition or an under-voltage condition;” which are directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes in view of applicant’s specification for example see Par. 24-25, 54-57, and 62-63.
Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “receiving a signal in response to a change in a state of health condition of a rechargeable battery, the rechargeable battery being operated at a first user-defined operating voltage range, the first user-defined operating voltage range being different than, and within, a characterization operating voltage range of the rechargeable battery;” and “generating, based on the determination, a control signal to adjust a current level supplied to or from the rechargeable battery” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “receiving a signal in response to a change in a state of health condition of a rechargeable battery, the rechargeable battery being operated at a first user-defined operating voltage range, the first user-defined operating voltage range being different than, and within, a characterization operating voltage range of the rechargeable battery;” and “generating, based on the determination, a control signal to adjust a current level supplied to or from the rechargeable battery” are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)(see prior art of record).
Claims 2, 5, 10, 12-13, 17-20 are not integrated into a practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity and are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)(see prior art of record).
Claims 3-4, 6-8, 14-15 are considered to further describe the abstract ideas cited above.
Claim 11 “wherein the at least one processor is a processor of a battery management system” are not integrated into a practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are considered to be generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Ryu (US 12308676 B2) in view of Sato (US 20220237342 A1).
In claim 1, Sato discloses a state-of-charge remapping system (Fig. 2) for determining a characterization state-of-charge (Par. 32 “state of charge”) and a user-defined state-of-charge (Par. 44 “a battery table BT that stores information on the energy storage device (battery) in association with the user ID”, “the battery table BT may include a link that refers to information such as physical properties, an operation state, and a circuit configuration of the energy storage device” Par. 62 “The open-circuit voltage Vo(t) is given, for example, as a function of the SOC”) for a rechargeable battery (Par. 33 “rechargeable energy storage device”), the state-of-charge remapping system comprising: at least one processor (Fig. 2, 101); a memory coupled to the at least one processor (Fig. 2, 102), the memory including instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to: receive an initial user-defined state-of-charge (Par. 35 “receiving simulation conditions” Par. 44 “a battery table BT that stores information on the energy storage device (battery) in association with the user ID”, “the battery table BT may include a link that refers to information such as physical properties, an operation state, and a circuit configuration of the energy storage device”), the initial user-defined state-of-charge corresponding to a user-defined operating voltage range (Fig. 12, “actual measurement” examiner notes the voltage ranges from slightly less than 12 to about 17, Par. 79 “the current voltage range was set with reference to the test conditions of the SBA-IS test” Par. 89 “a charge voltage-polarization”), the user-defined operating voltage range being within, and a narrower range than (See Fig. 12), a characterization operating voltage range that corresponds to the characterization state-of-charge (Fig. 12, “present application” examiner notes the voltage ranges from slightly less than 12 to about 17.5); convert the initial user-defined state-of-charge to an initial characterization state-of-charge using results of characterization testing obtained for the characterization operating voltage range (Par. 65-66 “The SOC used in the equivalent circuit model ECM was calculated based on the battery capacity and the integrated amount of electricity at full charge”), and without use of results of characterization testing based on the user-defined operating voltage range (Par. 65-66 examiner notes that the calculations are done using the measurements but no “characterization testing” has been applied to said measurements); initialize, using the initial characterization state-of-charge, an equivalent circuit model (Par. 64 “equivalent circuit model ECM”), wherein initializing the equivalent circuit model comprises identifying, via a result of characterization testing obtained for the characterization operating voltage range and without characterization testing for the user-defined operating voltage range (Par. 68 “actual battery voltage is described as polarization. In the present embodiment, the polarization characteristic is simulated by combining the first RC parallel circuit and the second RC parallel circuit in the equivalent circuit model” examiner notes that the results are based on two models not the user defined operating voltage range), a value for each of one or more parameters of the equivalent circuit model as a function of at least the initial characterization state-of-charge (Par. 65-66 see equation 1); generate, from operation of the equivalent circuit model, at least the updated characterization state-of-charge (Par. 65-66, claim 8); convert, using information derived from the results of the characterization testing obtained for the characterization operating voltage range, the updated characterization state-of-charge to the updated user-defined state-of-charge (Claim 8 “the measured value as input information and estimating one or both of an optimal SOC”); determine, via operation of the equivalent circuit model, whether the rechargeable battery is experiencing an overvoltage condition or an under-voltage condition (Par. 28, 62-66 “an operating voltage with respect to an amount of change in an SOC is relatively lower than other regions”); and generate, based on the determination, a control signal representing the need to adjust a current level supplied to or from the rechargeable battery (Par. 87 “transmit the simulation to the client apparatus” examiner considers the simulation to indicate the need to adjust a current level supplied to or from the rechargeable battery).
Sato does not explicitly disclose generate, based on the determination, a control signal to adjust a current level supplied to or from the rechargeable battery.
Ryu teaches generate, based on the determination, a control signal to adjust a current level supplied to or from the rechargeable battery (Column 21 Lines 46-54, “reference current level may be set as a level used for the safety of the wireless charging with regard to a low-voltage or over-discharged battery”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to have generate, based on the determination, a control signal to adjust a current level supplied to or from the rechargeable battery as taught by Ryu to Sato in order to prevent accidents through a quick and efficient battery check (Ryu Column 22 Lines 35-40) thus leading to a safer system.
In claim 2, Sato further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: output the user-defined state-of-charge obtained from the conversion of the characterization state-of-charge to an external interface (Claim 8, Fig. 2, 105, Par. 37 “display a simulation result.”).
In claim 3, Sato further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to convert the characterization state-of-charge to the user-defined state-of-charge without use of results of characterization testing based on either the initial user-defined state-of-charge or the user-defined state-of-charge (Par. 65-66 examiner notes that the calculations are done using the measurements but no “characterization testing” has been applied to said measurements).
In claim 4, Sato further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to initialize the equivalent circuit model by determining, using the initial characterization state-of-charge, at least a first characterization state-of-charge, the characterization state-of-charge being a function of at least the initial characterization state-of-charge for a given current input at a select time (Par. 60 “current I(t)” 63-66, 72 see Eq. 2).
In claim 5, Sato discloses all of claim 4. Sato further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to receive a battery load profile comprising the given current input and the select time (Par. 79-80 “current behavior when a verification pattern is input is compared with the measured value”, “time”).
In claim 6, Sato further discloses wherein the one or more parameters comprises at least one of an internal resistance, a first resistor-capacitor pair resistance, a first resistor-capacitor pair capacitance, a second resistor-capacitor pair resistance, a second resistor-capacitor pair capacitance, or an open-circuit voltage (Par. 62-66 “open circuit voltage”).
In claim 7, Sato further discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to generate, via an operation of the equivalent circuit model, simulated battery voltage dynamics comprising a simulated voltage (Par. 62-66), and determine, using the simulated battery voltage dynamics, whether the inputted current is resulting in the rechargeable battery experiencing an overvoltage condition or an under-voltage condition of the rechargeable battery (Par. 28, 62-66 See claim 7 and 4) and generate a control signal to adjust a current level supplied to or from the rechargeable battery (Par. 87 “transmit the simulation to the client apparatus” examiner considers the simulation to indicate the need to adjust a current level supplied to or from the rechargeable battery).
Sato does not explicitly disclose generate a control signal to adjust a current level supplied to or from the rechargeable battery to avoid the overvoltage condition or the under-voltage condition.
Ryu teaches a control signal to adjust a current level supplied to or from the rechargeable battery to avoid the overvoltage condition or the under-voltage condition (Column 21 Lines 46-54, “reference current level may be set as a level used for the safety of the wireless charging with regard to a low-voltage or over-discharged battery”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to have a control signal to adjust a current level supplied to or from the rechargeable battery to avoid the overvoltage condition or the under-voltage condition as taught by Ryu to Sato in order to prevent accidents through a quick and efficient battery check (Ryu Column 22 Lines 35-40) thus leading to a safer system.
In claim 8, Sato further discloses wherein the characterization operating voltage range is an operating range is at least approximately a capacity of the rechargeable battery (Par. 66).
In claim 9, Sato discloses a state-of-charge remapping system (Fig. 2) for determining a characterization state-of-charge (Par. 32 “state of charge”) and a user-defined state-of-charge (Par. 44 “a battery table BT that stores information on the energy storage device (battery) in association with the user ID”, “the battery table BT may include a link that refers to information such as physical properties, an operation state, and a circuit configuration of the energy storage device” Par. 62 “The open-circuit voltage Vo(t) is given, for example, as a function of the SOC”) for a rechargeable battery (Par. 33 “rechargeable energy storage device”) using results of characterization testing obtained for a characterization operating voltage range that corresponds to the characterization state-of-charge (Fig. 12, “present application” examiner notes the voltage ranges from slightly less than 12 to about 17.5), the state-of-charge remapping system comprising: at least one processor (Fig. 2, 101); a memory coupled to the at least one processor (Fig. 2, 102), the memory including instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to: receive a first signal corresponding to a sensed battery voltage (Par. 35 “receiving simulation conditions” Par. 44 “a battery table BT that stores information on the energy storage device (battery) in association with the user ID”, “the battery table BT may include a link that refers to information such as physical properties, an operation state, and a circuit configuration of the energy storage device” Par. 79 “measured value” Claim 8 “current, a voltage, and a temperature each as the measured value as input information”); receive a second signal corresponding to a sensed battery load current (Claim 8 current, a voltage, and a temperature each as the measured value as input information); leverage an equivalent circuit model (Par. 64 “equivalent circuit model ECM”) to estimate, using at least the first and second signals, a characterization state-of-charge (Par. 65-66 examiner notes that the calculations are done using the measurements but no “characterization testing” has been applied to said measurements); wherein leveraging the equivalent circuit model comprises identifying, via results of characterization testing obtained for the characterization operating voltage range and without characterization testing for the user-defined operating voltage range (Par. 68 “actual battery voltage is described as polarization. In the present embodiment, the polarization characteristic is simulated by combining the first RC parallel circuit and the second RC parallel circuit in the equivalent circuit model” examiner notes that the results are based on two models not the user defined operating voltage range), a value for each of one or more parameters of the equivalent circuit model as a function of at least the characterization state-of-charge (Par. 65-66 see equation 1); determine, via operation of the equivalent circuit model and using the estimated characterization state-of-charge, whether the rechargeable battery is experiencing an overvoltage condition or an under-voltage condition (Par. 28, 62-66 “an operating voltage with respect to an amount of change in an SOC is relatively lower than other regions”); generate, based on the determination, a control signal representing the need to adjust a current level supplied to or from the rechargeable battery (Par. 87 “transmit the simulation to the client apparatus” examiner considers the simulation to indicate the need to adjust a current level supplied to or from the rechargeable battery); and convert the characterization state-of-charge to the user-defined state-of-charge using the results of characterization testing obtained for the characterization operating voltage range (Par. 65-66 “The SOC used in the equivalent circuit model ECM was calculated based on the battery capacity and the integrated amount of electricity at full charge”).
Sato does not explicitly disclose generate, based on the determination, a control signal to adjust a current level supplied to or from the rechargeable battery.
Ryu teaches generate, based on the determination, a control signal to adjust a current level supplied to or from the rechargeable battery (Column 21 Lines 46-54, “reference current level may be set as a level used for the safety of the wireless charging with regard to a low-voltage or over-discharged battery”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to have generate, based on the determination, a control signal to adjust a current level supplied to or from the rechargeable battery as taught by Ryu to Sato in order to prevent accidents through a quick and efficient battery check (Ryu Column 22 Lines 35-40) thus leading to a safer system.
In claim 10, Sato further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: output the user-defined state-of-charge obtained from the conversion of the characterization state-of-charge to an external interface (Claim 8, Fig. 2, 105, Par. 37 “display a simulation result.”).
In claim 11, Sato further discloses wherein the at least one processor is a processor of a battery management system (Fig. 2, 100).
In claim 12, Sato further discloses wherein the sensed battery voltage is a measured voltage (Claim 8 “current, a voltage, and a temperature each as the measured value as input information”).
In claim 13, Sato further discloses wherein the sensed battery voltage is a measured current (Claim 8 “current, a voltage, and a temperature each as the measured value as input information”).
In claim 14, Sato further wherein the one or more parameters comprises at least one of an internal resistance, a first resistor-capacitor pair resistance, a first resistor-capacitor pair capacitance, a second resistor-capacitor pair resistance, a second resistor-capacitor pair capacitance, or an open-circuit voltage (Par. 62-66 “open circuit voltage”).
In claim 15, Sato further discloses wherein the characterization operating voltage range is at least approximately a total capacity of the rechargeable battery (See Fig. 12).
In claim 16, Sato discloses a method for online reconfiguration of a battery operating voltage range (Fig. 2), the method comprising: receiving a signal in response to a change in a state of health condition of a rechargeable battery (Par. 35 “receiving simulation conditions” Par. 44 “a battery table BT that stores information on the energy storage device (battery) in association with the user ID”, “the battery table BT may include a link that refers to information such as physical properties, an operation state, and a circuit configuration of the energy storage device”), the rechargeable battery being operated at a first user-defined operating voltage range (Fig. 12, “actual measurement” examiner notes the voltage ranges from slightly less than 12 to about 17, Par. 79 “the current voltage range was set with reference to the test conditions of the SBA-IS test” Par. 89 “a charge voltage-polarization”), the first user-defined operating voltage range being different than, and within, a characterization operating voltage range of the rechargeable battery (Fig. 12, “present application” examiner notes the voltage ranges from slightly less than 12 to about 17.5); adjusting, in response to receiving the signal, the first user-defined operating voltage range to a second user-defined operating voltage range (see claim 8, Fig. 12), the second user-defined operating voltage range being different than the first user-defined operating voltage (See Fig. 12); determining an initial user-defined state-of-charge corresponding to the second user-defined operating voltage range (Par. 65-66 “The SOC used in the equivalent circuit model ECM was calculated based on the battery capacity and the integrated amount of electricity at full charge”); converting the initial user-defined state-of-charge to an initial characterization state-of-charge using characterization testing obtained for a characterization operating voltage range (Fig. 12, “present application” examiner notes the voltage ranges from slightly less than 12 to about 17.5), the characterization operating voltage range being different than the second user-defined operating voltage range (See Fig. 12); initializing an equivalent circuit model using the initial characterization state-of-charge,
wherein initializing the equivalent circuit model comprises identifying, via results of characterization testing obtained for the characterization operating voltage range and without characterization testing for the second user-defined operating voltage range (Par. 68 “actual battery voltage is described as polarization. In the present embodiment, the polarization characteristic is simulated by combining the first RC parallel circuit and the second RC parallel circuit in the equivalent circuit model” examiner notes that the results are based on two models not the user defined operating voltage range),
a value for each of one or more parameters of the equivalent circuit model (Par. 63-65 “ECM”) as a function of at least the initial characterization state-of-charge (Par. 65-66 see equation 1); generating, via operation of the equivalent circuit model, an updated characterization state-of-charge (Par. 65-66, claim 8); converting the updated characterization state-of-charge to an updated user-defined state-of-charge using results of characterization testing using an operating voltage range different than the second user-defined operating voltage range (Claim 8 “the measured value as input information and estimating one or both of an optimal SOC”), determining, via operation of the equivalent circuit model, whether the rechargeable battery is experiencing an overvoltage condition or an under-voltage condition (Par. 28, 62-66 “an operating voltage with respect to an amount of change in an SOC is relatively lower than other regions”); and generate, based on the determination, a control signal representing the need to adjust a current level supplied to or from the rechargeable battery (Par. 87 “transmit the simulation to the client apparatus” examiner considers the simulation to indicate the need to adjust a current level supplied to or from the rechargeable battery).
Sato does not explicitly disclose generate, based on the determination, a control signal to adjust a current level supplied to or from the rechargeable battery.
Ryu teaches generate, based on the determination, a control signal to adjust a current level supplied to or from the rechargeable battery (Column 21 Lines 46-54, “reference current level may be set as a level used for the safety of the wireless charging with regard to a low-voltage or over-discharged battery”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to have generate, based on the determination, a control signal to adjust a current level supplied to or from the rechargeable battery as taught by Ryu to Sato in order to prevent accidents through a quick and efficient battery check (Ryu Column 22 Lines 35-40) thus leading to a safer system.
In claim 17, Sato further discloses outputting the user-defined state-of-charge obtained from the conversion of the characterization state-of-charge to an external interface (Claim 8, Fig. 2, 105, Par. 37 “display a simulation result.”).
In claim 18, Sato further discloses determining, using information provided by at least an aging estimator, the second user-defined operating voltage range (Fig. 2 SP); and operating the rechargeable battery to avoid violating both an upper limit (Par. 89 “a charge voltage-polarization voltage (maximum value)”) and a lower limit of the second user-defined operating voltage range (Fig. 12, examiner considers the JSAE to be said lower limit).
In claim 19, Sato further discloses determining, using information provided by at least an aging estimator (Fig. 2 SP), a plurality of operating voltage ranges (Fig. 12); receiving a user selection of a selected operating voltage range from the plurality of operating voltage ranges, the selected operating voltage range being the second user-defined operating voltage range (Par. 44 “a battery table BT that stores information on the energy storage device (battery) in association with the user ID”, “the battery table BT may include a link that refers to information such as physical properties, an operation state, and a circuit configuration of the energy storage device” Par. 62 “The open-circuit voltage Vo(t) is given, for example, as a function of the SOC”); and operating the rechargeable battery to avoid violating both an upper limit (Par. 89 “a charge voltage-polarization voltage (maximum value)”) and a lower limit of the second user-defined operating voltage range (Fig. 12, examiner considers the JSAE to be said lower limit).
In claim 20, Sato further discloses wherein the state of health condition is an indication of aging of the rechargeable battery (Claim 8 “state of health (SOH)” Par. 4 “idling stop life test”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s 101 arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees. While applicant asserts the claims are directed to a “state of charge mapping system” it is implemented via mathematical functions implemented by a generic computer which as cited is not enough to be considered significantly more or a practical application. The claims make no mention of any vehicles nor as claim is it even applied, as generating a control signal “to adjust a current level supplied to or from the rechargeable battery” describes what the signals purpose is but does not require the adjusting to actually be implemented as recited assuming there is support for said limitations. Further regarding steps i, ii, and iii per MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” Thus, the claims are not considered to be an improvement.
Regarding applicant’s 102 arguments, they are considered moot in light of the new rejection of the amended claims. The examiner further notes that the claims do not claim a “2 range architecture” as the ranges listed are described in the alternative. The cited sections of Sato are within the BRI of cited i and ii.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20090212740 A1 On-board Battery Supervisor.
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 BRANDON J BECKER whose telephone number is (571)431-0689. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/B.J.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights