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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant' s amendment and response filed 3/25/2026 has been entered and made record. This application contains 15 pending claims.
Claims 1, 10, 14, and 16 have been amended.
Claim 3 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/25/2026 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 in claim 1-7, 9-16, and 18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on pages 9-10 of the remark filed on 3/25/2026 that “… Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18 stand rejected as being directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection. … .”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. The steps of “estimating a state of health (SOH) of a battery in one of the plurality of systems by integrating an amount of an electric current of the battery while a state of charge (SOC) of the battery changes”; “dividing the plurality of systems into a plurality of groups according to a usage pattern collected by each of the plurality of systems at every predetermined period”; “generating a usage scenario of the battery in each of the plurality of systems, using a usage environment of each of the plurality of groups and the usage pattern”; “predicting for each of the plurality of systems, lifespan information of the battery using the usage scenario and the SOH of the battery”, and “wherein the plurality of systems divided into the plurality of groups are updated according to the usage pattern collected by each of the plurality of systems at every predetermined period” are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The applicant argues on pages 10-11 of the remark filed that “… the present invention transform charging pattern and the discharging pattern defined for the group to predict lifespan information of the battery and to control the charging and discharging of the battery. In doing so, the present invention transforms charging pattern and the discharging pattern defined for the group into a predicted life span, which constitute the charging pattern and the discharging pattern into a different state. Further, the predicted life span is used to control charging and discharging of the battery which is a specific practical application eligible for patenting.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. Practical application can be demonstrated by additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements “extracting characteristic information from the raw data”; “causing, by the server, the battery management system of each system to control charging or discharging of each battery based on the predicted remaining lifespan”, “wherein when the system is a new system newly connected to the server”; “wherein the generated usage scenario defines a charging pattern and a discharging pattern for each group of systems”, and “wherein the battery management system of each system controls charging and discharging of the battery in accordance with the charging pattern and the discharging pattern defined for the group to which each system belongs based on the predicted lifespan information” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. Additional element “receiving raw data collected from each of the plurality of systems by the battery management system for a predetermined period of time” is considered necessary data gathering, and thus, not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. 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).
Therefore, the current claims do not recite additional elements that are indicative of integration of an abstract idea into a practical application.
The applicant argues on pages 11-12 of the remark filed that “… Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18 stand rejected as being directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection … .”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. Significantly more can be demonstrated by additional elements that are not well-understood and conventional that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, the claims do not recite them. The additional elements “extracting characteristic information from the raw data”; “causing, by the server, the battery management system of each system to control charging or discharging of each battery based on the predicted remaining lifespan”, “wherein when the system is a new system newly connected to the server”; “wherein the generated usage scenario defines a charging pattern and a discharging pattern for each group of systems”, and “wherein the battery management system of each system controls charging and discharging of the battery in accordance with the charging pattern and the discharging pattern defined for the group to which each system belongs based on the predicted lifespan information” are well-understood and conventional, and controlling charging or discharging of each of batteries connected in a plurality of systems based on the predicted lifespan information is routine in monitoring and managing rechargeable secondary batteries. Therefore, the claims 1, 10, and 16 do not contain additional elements that are not well-understood and conventional that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Hence, the Examiner submits that the rejections of Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18 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 1-2, 4-7, 9-16, and 18 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 of predicting a lifespan of each of batteries respectively connected in a plurality of systems, the method being performed by a server communicatively connected to the plurality of systems via a network, the method comprising:
estimating, by the server, a state of health (SOH) of a battery in one of the plurality of systems by integrating an amount of an electric current of the battery while a state of charge (SOC) of the battery changes;
dividing, by the server, the plurality of systems into a plurality of groups according to a usage pattern collected by each of the plurality of systems at every predetermined period;
generating, by the server, a usage scenario of the battery in each of the plurality of systems, using a usage environment of each of the plurality of groups and the usage pattern;
predicting, by the server, for each of the plurality of systems, lifespan information of the battery using the usage scenario and the SOH of the battery; and
causing, by the server, a battery management system of each of the plurality of systems to control charging or discharging of each battery based on the predicted lifespan information,
wherein the plurality of systems divided into the plurality of groups are updated according to the usage pattern collected by each of the plurality of systems at every predetermined period,
wherein the generated usage scenario defines a charging pattern and a discharging pattern for each group of systems, and
wherein the battery management system of each system controls charging and discharging of the battery in accordance with the charging pattern and the discharging pattern defined for the group to which each system belongs based on the predicted lifespan information.”
As to claim 16, the claim recites “A battery management method executed in a server communicatively connected to a plurality of systems each including a battery and a battery management system via a network, the battery management method comprising:
receiving, by the server, raw data collected from each of the plurality of systems by the battery management system for a predetermined period of time;
extracting, by the server, characteristic information from the raw data;
grouping, by the server, the plurality of systems into a plurality of groups based on the characteristic information;
generating, by the server, a usage scenario to be applied to the group by inputting the characteristic information into a scenario generation model;
predicting, by the server, a remaining lifespan of the battery by inputting the usage scenario into a lifespan prediction model; and
causing, by the server, the battery management system of each system to control charging or discharging of each battery based on the predicted remaining lifespan,
wherein when the system is a new system newly connected to the server, the new system is grouped by comparing the characteristic information of an existing system already connected to the server with the characteristic information of the new system,
wherein the scenario generation model is further configured to define a charging pattern and a discharging pattern for each group of the plurality of systems, and
wherein the controller is configured to control charging and discharging of the battery in accordance with the charging pattern and the discharging pattern defined for the group to which each system belongs based on the predicted end-of-life time.”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are directed to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter fall 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 claims are considered to be in a statutory category (process for claims 1 and 16, and apparatus for claim 10).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claims recite a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claims, 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).
In claims 1 and 16, the steps identified in bold type are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claims that recite a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim 16 comprises the following additional elements:
receiving, by the server, raw data collected from each of the plurality of systems by the battery management system for a predetermined period of time; extracting, by the server, characteristic information from the raw data; causing, by the server, the battery management system of each system to control charging or discharging of each battery based on the predicted remaining lifespan; and wherein when the system is a new system newly connected to the server; wherein the scenario generation model is further configured to define a charging pattern and a discharging pattern for each group of the plurality of systems, and wherein the controller is configured to control charging and discharging of the battery in accordance with the charging pattern and the discharging pattern defined for the group to which each system belongs based on the predicted end-of-life time.
The additional element “receiving raw data collected from each of the plurality of systems by the battery management system for a predetermined period of time” represents necessary data gathering and does not integrate the limitation into a practical application. The additional elements “extracting characteristic information from the raw data”; “causing, by the server, the battery management system of each system to control charging or discharging of each battery based on the predicted remaining lifespan”, “wherein when the system is a new system newly connected to the server”; “wherein the scenario generation model is further configured to define a charging pattern and a discharging pattern for each group of the plurality of systems”, and “wherein the controller is configured to control charging and discharging of the battery in accordance with the charging pattern and the discharging pattern defined for the group to which each system belongs based on the predicted end-of-life time” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claims, do 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 raw data collected from each of the plurality of systems by the battery management system for a predetermined period of time 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, causing, by the server, the battery management system of each system to control charging or discharging of each battery based on the predicted remaining lifespan is disclosed by “Kudo US 20240369640”, [0099], [0102]; and “Knudson US 20210156926”, [0027].
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 10 recites subject matter that is similar or analogous to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claim is also patent ineligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11-15, and 18 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 1-2, 4-7, 9-16, and 18, the most pertinent prior arts are “Song KR 20210130875A”, “Tenmyo US 20150293183”, “McLachlan US 20230347776”, “Kawata US 20210276535”, “Waterford US 20160111901”, “Stanfield US 20130238167”, “Kudo US 20240369640”, “Knudson US 20210156926”, and “Lim US 20080090133”.
As to claims 1 and 10, Song teaches dividing the plurality of systems into a plurality of groups according to a usage pattern collected by each of the plurality of systems at every predetermined period (Song, [0036], [0041], [0058], [0059] and [0060], FIG. 3); and
generating, by the server, a usage scenario of the battery in each of the plurality of systems (Song, [0058] and [0061]), using a usage environment of each of the plurality of groups and the usage pattern (Song, [0036], [0041], [0059], [0060] and [0061]);
predicting, by the server, for each of the plurality of systems, lifespan information of the battery using the usage scenario and the SOH of the battery (Song, [0002], [0010] and [0014], [0036], [0041]); and
each group of the plurality of systems (Song, [0021]).
Tenmyo teaches estimating, by the server, a state of health (SOH) of a battery in one of the plurality of systems by integrating an amount of an electric current of the battery while a state of charge (SOC) of the battery changes (Tenmyo, [0049], [0064]).
Kudo teaches causing, by the server, a battery management system of each of the plurality of systems to control charging or discharging of each battery based on the predicted lifespan information (Kudo, [0099], [0102]).
Lim teaches wherein the generated usage scenario defines a charging pattern and a discharging pattern for each group of systems (Lim, [0031], [0032], [0033]), and
wherein the battery management system of each system controls charging and discharging of the battery in accordance with the charging pattern and the discharging pattern defined for the group to which each system belongs based on the predicted lifespan information (Lim, [0032], [0033]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “wherein the plurality of systems divided into the plurality of groups are updated according to the usage pattern collected by each of the plurality of systems at every predetermined period” including all limitations as claimed.
As to claim 16, Song teaches receiving, by the server, raw data collected from each of the plurality of systems by the battery management system for a predetermined period of time (Song, [0041], [0036] and [0061);
extracting, by the server, characteristic information from the raw data (Song, [0036], [0041], [0060]);
grouping, by the server, the system into a predetermined group based on the characteristic information (Song, [0058], [0059] and [0060]);
generating, by the server, a usage scenario to be applied to the group by inputting the characteristic information into a scenario generation (Song, [0058] and [0061]),
predicting, by the server, a remaining lifespan of the battery by inputting the usage scenario (Song, [0002], [0010] and [0014]), and
each group of the plurality of systems (Song, [0021]).
Kudo teaches causing, by the server, a battery management system of each of the plurality of systems to control charging or discharging of each battery based on the predicted lifespan information (Kudo, [0099], [0102]).
wherein the scenario generation model is further configured to define a charging pattern and a discharging pattern for each group of the plurality of systems (Lim, [0031], [0032], [0033]), and
wherein the con troller is configured to control charging and discharging of the battery in accordance with the charging pattern and the discharging pattern defined for the group to which each system belongs based on the predicted end-of-life time (Lim, [0032], [0033]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “wherein when the system is a new system newly connected to the server, the new system is grouped by comparing the characteristic information of an existing system already connected to the server with the characteristic information of the new system” including all limitations as claimed.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Heyne US 20200290472” teaches “A method for determining a maximum storage capacity of an energy store, in particular as a drive battery of a vehicle with an electrical drive, including the steps of determining a state of charge of the energy store of the vehicle, charging the energy store until it reaches its maximum amount of charge, completely discharging the energy store using a separate energy storage unit for receiving the charge of the energy store, wherein an amount of charge transferred from the energy store to the energy storage unit is captured, and outputting the transferred amount of charge upon complete discharging of the energy store as the maximum capacity of the energy store.”
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