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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 29 June 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, however they are not persuasive. Applicant states that claim 1 recites a particular battery deterioration prediction process using current, voltage, and temperature histories of rechargeable batteries for traveling, first map data for storage deterioration, second map data for cycle deterioration, inactive current frequency, a weighting coefficient, and current integration acceleration. Applicant argues that these limitations limit the mathematical concept to a practical application for predicting overall deterioration of a rechargeable battery for travelling.
However, predicting deterioration of a rechargeable battery for travelling is not a practical application, and is instead, the informational output of the mathematical analysis. That is, the predicted deterioration is itself the result of the judicial exception, and not an additional element that applies the exception in a practical application to improve the technology. Applicant has not explained that this prediction constitutes an improvement in battery technology. The mathematical analysis is used to predict deterioration, without improving or modifying the battery or its’ operation.
With regards to claim 18, the sending of the predicted deterioration merely communicates the result of the analysis, rather than a practical application. The claim does not state that the recipient uses that information to perform any technological improvement that effects the battery, vehicle, etc.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims are directed to a statutory category of invention, namely an apparatus, and therefore satisfies Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis.
Step 2A, Prong One
The claims (and representative claim 1) recite a judicial exception in the form of a mathematical concept: classifying reference batteries into groups based on trends in historical operation data, determining for each group a coefficient representing a rate of change in deterioration, wherein each coefficient is defined as a slope of a regression line fitted to deterioration values and corresponding usage values, identifying a group corresponding to a target battery, and predicting a degree of deterioration of the target battery using the coefficient associated with the identified group. The claims further recite mathematical relationships and calculations involving classifying reference batteries into first groups based on trends of voltage and temperature and into second groups based on a trend of temperature; identifying first and second groups corresponding to the target battery based on such trends; extracting storage and cycle deterioration coefficients associated with the identified groups, calculating an inactive current frequency from a current history; obtaining a weighting coefficient corresponding to the inactive current frequency; obtaining a current integration acceleration from the current history; and calculating overall degree of deterioration using the coefficients, current integration acceleration, and use time of the target battery.
These limitations recite mathematical relationships and calculations, including regression analysis, determination of rates of change, classification based on numerical trends, selection and application of coefficients, weighting, and calculation of an overall deterioration value, which fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas under MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claims do not integrate the mathematical concept into a practical application. The additional elements include an obtaining unit, a controller, and the obtaining of histories of operation parameters and deterioration values for batteries in vehicles. The claims further specify the batteries are for traveling, and the operation parameters include current, voltage, and temperature. The obtaining of such histories constitutes data gathering for use in the mathematical analysis and is insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP §2106.05(g). The recited current, voltage, and temperature histories provide the data upon which the mathematical analysis operates, including the data used to classify the batteries, identify corresponding groups, select coefficients, and calculate the deterioration value. The controller is recited generically as a processor performing the recited classification, regression, and prediction. Limiting the data to batteries in vehicles, for travelling, and specifying current, voltage, and temperature, merely links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and does not impose a meaningful limitation under MPEP §2106.05(h).
The claims do not recite any control of battery operation, modification of charging or discharging behavior, or other application of the predicted deterioration that affects a physical system. The claim instead ends with predicting a value, which is an informational result. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The obtaining unit and controller are generic components performing conventional data acquisition and processing functions, and the obtaining unit and controller merely provide generic components for obtaining the information and carrying out the mathematical analysis. The regression analysis, classification, calculations, etc. are part of the mathematical concept itself, rather than additional elements that provide significantly more than the JE. The claim, considered as a whole, merely gathers data, applies a mathematical model, and outputs a predicted value, without reciting any specialized hardware or technological improvement. The newly recited limitations do not alter this conclusion and merely provide the environment and data used in performing the mathematical analysis, while the claimed result remains a value of battery deterioration, without a further practical application.
Claim 17 is analogous to claim 1, except that claim 17 additionally recites circuitry. This is an additional element separate from the abstract idea that needs to be considered at Prong 2 of the 101 analysis. However, this additional element is merely a generic computer component that is invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which does not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 17 is therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 as well.
Dependent claims 2-16 merely add to the abstract idea limitations discussed above. None of these dependent claims described above recite any further additional elements which would cause the claim as a whole to integrate the recited abstract idea into a particular practical application at Prong 2, or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea at Step 2B. Dependent claims 2-16 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 18 recites substantially the same abstract idea discussed above, including communicating the result of the analysis, which, for the reasons already discussed above, does not integrate into a practical application.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
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 Julian D Huffman whose telephone number is (571)272-2147. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Group Director Andrea Wellington can be reached at (571)272-4483. 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.
JULIAN D. HUFFMAN
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights