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
The amendments filed 06/24/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-5, 7-8, & 10 remain pending. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 6, & 9 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 5 line 8 to page 7 line 5, filed 06/24/2026, with respect to 35 USC 101 rejections of claims 1-5, 7-8, & 10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 5 lines 9-10):
“The claims are amended to explicitly integrate battery degradation estimation into a control process for a battery energy storage system (BESS).”
& (page 5 lines 23-25):
“Specifically, the claims recite that the BMS automatically issues control signals to the BESS’s power electronics to adjust charging current, discharging current or SoC setpoints based on the calculated wear index.”
&(page 6 lines 9-12):
“Put another way, the claimed BMS-driven control of charging/discharging based on the computed indices transforms any alleged mathematical calculation into a specific, technological method for operating an electrochemical battery system.”
& (page 6 lines 18-21):
“The claims now recite specific details of how the solution is achieved (real-time data acquisition from a BMS memory, computing indices using battery manufacturer parameters, and automatically adjusting battery control signals) rather than merely an abstract idea with “apply it” instructions.”
Claims have been amended with:
“acquiring from a battery management system (BMS) of the BESS,”
&
“automatically controlling operation of the BESS by outputting, from the BMS to power electronics of the BESS, one or more control signals to adjust at least one of a charging current, a discharging current, or a State of Charge setpoint of the battery base on the indicated degree of battery degradation to reduce battery wear.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(f): “When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following: (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.”
Analysis:
The amendment requires physical interaction with the environment (control of current or state of charge), but these are the intended purpose of the judicial exception(s), and so is not significantly more than stating ‘apply it’ with regard to the judicial exception. Additionally, this functionality of “adjust at least one of a charging current, a discharging current, or a State of Charge setpoint of the battery” is conventional as demonstrated by at least the references of
US 9176195 B2 “Method Of Detecting Battery Degradation Level” (Maeda) Fig. 1-14: “Control Circuit”,
US 9106104 B2 “Power Control Device, Power Control Method, And Power Supply System” (Kinjo) Fig. 2-105: “ECU (Electronic Control Unit)”
US 8598849 B2 “In-situ Battery Health Detector And End-of-life Indicator” (Bhardwaj) Fig. 3-308: “Use assessed health to manage use of battery in portable electronic device”
US 20230266399 A1 “Battery Management System, Calculation System, Battery degradation Prediction Method, and Battery Degradation Prediction Program” (Ishii) Fig. 3-46: “Battery Controller”
US 11059383 B2 “Battery Pack Wear Management” (Reeves) Fig. 1-210: “Current Control”
Conclusion:
The amended claim limitations are not significantly more than stating ‘apply it’ with regard to the judicial exception(s) using conventional teachings.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Flow diagrams from MPEP 2106(III) and 2106.04(II)(A)
Claims 1-5, 7-8, & 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Claim 1:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes; the claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
“a) acquiring from a battery management system (BMS) of the BESS, battery parameters of a battery, characteristics of calendar ageing wearing coefficient BWC1 and characteristics of cycle ageing wearing coefficient BWC2 wherein BWC1 is a function of State of Charge (SoC) and BWC2 is a function of charging/dis-charging rate (C-rate),”
“b) acquiring and/or calculating instantaneous values of SoC and C-rate of the battery in a defined period,”
“c) reading instantaneous values of calendar ageing wearing coefficient BWC1 and/or instantaneous values of cycle ageing wearing coefficient BWC2, corresponding to instantaneous values of SoC and C-rate of the battery acquired in step (b), using characteristics of ageing wearing coefficients acquired in (a) and”
“d) determining: a value of calendar ageing wearing index BWI1 by referring integrated instantaneous values of BWC1 determined in (c) to the integrated nominal values of BWC1 for a period of nominal operation time with maximum allowable value of the SoC, and/or values of cycle ageing wearing index BWI2 by referring integrated instantaneous values of BWC2 determined in (c) to the integrated nominal values of BWC2 for full battery charging (from SoCmin to SoCmax) or discharging (from SoCmax to SoCmin) with nominal C-rate, thereby indicating degree of battery degradation of the battery energy storage system (BESS).”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims these limitations amount to no more than mathematical processes which could be done by generic computing elements (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”)
Note: In this context “characteristics” are functions as demonstrated by Fig. 3 and para 0039: “Fig. 3 shows example characteristic of the battery wear coefficient BWC1 in function of SoC values in accordance with the disclosure.”
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No; the additional elements are:
“computer-“
“a battery energy storage system (BESS)”
“battery”
“battery management system (BMS)”
These limitations “amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” (see MPEP 2106.05(h): “As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.”)
Note: USPC 702/063 includes “This class provides for apparatus and corresponding methods wherein the data processing system or calculating computer” & “Subject matter wherein the measured electrical parameter is related to a condition or a state of charge (e.g., temperature, life-state, voltage, charging, or discharging current) of a battery or a series of batteries.”
Regarding the amended limitations (filed 03/19/2026) :
“wherein the characteristics of calendar ageing wearing coefficient BWC1 and characteristics of cycle ageing wearing coefficient BWC2 of the battery are determined based on battery parameters declared by battery manufacturer.”
“wherein the method is employed for estimating battery degradation of the battery energy storage system (BESS);”
Explanation:
The parts of these limitations which could be considered to be more than the judicial exception are not significantly more than extra solution activity or technological environment or field of use limitations or effectively stating ‘apply it’ with regard to the judicial exception(s), as explained below.
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(g):
“Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process,”
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.”
See MPEP 2106.05(f): “When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following: (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “When determining whether a claim recites a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), examiners should consider whether the claim recites a mathematical concept or merely limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept. A claim does not recite a mathematical concept (i.e., the claim limitations do not fall within the mathematical concept grouping), if it is only based on or involves a mathematical concept.”
Analysis:
The amended limitations are directed towards use of a judicial exception(s) in the field of at least CPC symbol G01R31/392: “Determining battery ageing or deterioration, e.g. state of health” using necessary extra solution activity which is not significantly more than that which is implied by the judicial exception.
Therefore, the amended limitations do not integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application nor amount to more than applying the judicial exception(s) within the field of use. The result of revised step 2A Prong Two is ‘No’.
Conclusion:
The additional elements and limitations do not integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application.
Regarding the amended limitations (filed 06/24/2026) :
“from a battery management system (BMS) of the BESS”
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation “from a battery management (BMS) of the BESS” is not significantly more than a field of art limitation corresponding to at least CPC symbol G01R31/392: “Determining battery ageing or deterioration, e.g. state of health”
“automatically controlling operation of the BESS by outputting, from the BMS to power electronics of the BESS, one or more control signals to adjust at least one of a charging current, discharging current or a State of Charge setpoint of the battery based on the indicated degree of battery degradation to reduce battery wear.”
This is what the judicial exception is for, therefore reciting “automatically controlling operation of the BESS … control signals to adjust … ” is not significantly more than stating ‘apply it’ with regard to the judicial exception.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No; the additional elements as listed in Revised Step 2A Prong 2 are generic elements.
These elements are no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity recited at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(d))
Evidentiary Requirements (see MPEP 2106.07(a)(III): “(C) A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)”):
US 20170115358 A1 (Kani, as cited in the Applicant’s specification para 0016) “Innovative Framework Combining Cycling and Calendar Aging Models” see Fig. 1 & 2
US 11239505 B2 (Seo) “Apparatus And Method For Estimating Capacity Retention Ratio Of Secondary Battery” see Fig. 2 & 3
Regarding the amended limitations (filed 03/19/2026)
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(I): “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself."
Analysis:
That one of a “mathematical relationship, mathematical formula or equation, and mathematical calculation” is useful does not remove that mathematical concept from the judicial exception abstract idea grouping of “mathematical concepts”. Additionally no inventive concept is found which is not within the judicial exception abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
Conclusion:
The additional elements and limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
Regarding the amended limitations (filed 06/24/2026):
“automatically controlling operation of the BESS … control signals to adjust … ”
Rule:
Evidentiary Requirements (see MPEP 2106.07(a)(III): “(C) A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)”):
Analysis:
This limitation(s) and its associated elements are conventional and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art as demonstrated by at least the references of:
US 9176195 B2 “Method Of Detecting Battery Degradation Level” (Maeda) Fig. 1-14: “Control Circuit”,
US 9106104 B2 “Power Control Device, Power Control Method, And Power Supply System” (Kinjo) Fig. 2-105: “ECU (Electronic Control Unit)”
US 8598849 B2 “In-situ Battery Health Detector And End-of-life Indicator” (Bhardwaj) Fig. 3-308: “Use assessed health to manage use of battery in portable electronic device”
US 20230266399 A1 “Battery Management System, Calculation System, Battery degradation Prediction Method, and Battery Degradation Prediction Program” (Ishii) Fig. 3-46: “Battery Controller”
US 11059383 B2 “Battery Pack Wear Management” (Reeves) Fig. 1-210: “Current Control”
Conclusion:
Therefore, the amendments do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 2:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes; the claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 2 additionally recites:
further comprising determining a total current value of battery wearing index BWI according to the following equation: BWI=[k∙BWI1]+[(1-k) ·BWI2] wherein: k is a weight of calendar ageing wearing index BWI1 (for 0 < k < 1 ); and (1-k) is a weight of calendar ageing wearing index BWI2.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims these limitations amount to no more than mathematical processes which could be done by generic computing elements (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No; there are no additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No; there are no additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 3:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes; the claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 3 additionally recites:
“wherein instantaneous values of SoC and C-rate of a battery are acquired from predicted SoC and C-rate profiles based on the historical data.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims these limitations amount to no more than mathematical processes which could be done by generic computing elements (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No; there are no additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No; there are no additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 4:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes; the claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 4 additionally recites:
“wherein characteristics of calendar ageing wearing coefficient BWC1 and/or characteristics of cycle ageing wearing coefficient BWC2 are frequently updated.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims these limitations amount to no more than mathematical processes which could be done by generic computing elements (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No; there are no additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No; there are no additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 5:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes; the claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 5 additionally recites:
“wherein characteristics of calendar ageing wearing coefficient BWC1 and/or characteristics of cycle ageing wearing coefficient BWC2 are tuned using ML algorithms, wherein historical data of the battery operation is used as input data for ML algorithms.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims these limitations amount to no more than mathematical processes which could be done by generic computing elements (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No; there are no additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No; there are no additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 7:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes; the claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 7 additionally recites:
“wherein the steps of the method are performed by a processing employing artificial intelligence and/or machine learning techniques and/or at least one trained algorithm.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims these limitations amount to no more than mathematical processes which could be done by generic computing elements (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No; there are no additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No; there are no additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 8:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes; the claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 8 additionally recites:
“wherein the method is employed for estimating battery degradation of a Li-Ion battery.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims these limitations amount to no more than mathematical processes which could be done by generic computing elements (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No; there are no additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No; there are no additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 10:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes; the claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 10 additionally recites:
“wherein acquiring battery parameters also includes acquiring operating parameters of the battery energy storage system (BESS).”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims these limitations amount to no more than mathematical processes which could be done by generic computing elements (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No; there are no additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No; there are no additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230095453 A1 “Method and Apparatus for Determining State of Charge of Battery, Management System and Storage Medium” (Du) is relevant to the Applicant’s disclosure, see Fig. 1
US 11391778 B2 "Category Specific Industrial Battery Optimization And Restoration Device, With Battery Diagnostics, Battery Life Prognostication, And An Artificial Intelligence Means" (Zeier) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1-9:Control Means.
US 10942223 B1 "Systems And Methods For Determining Vehicle Battery Health" (Malloy) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 4.
US 10746805 B2 "Control Method And System For Monitoring Deterioration Of Battery Of Vehicle" (Park) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 3.
US 11239505 B2 "Apparatus And Method For Estimating Capacity Retention Ratio Of Secondary Battery" (Seo) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 2-110: "Control Unit".
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 MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. 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.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights