Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant' s amendment and response filed 1/5/2026 has been entered and made record. This application contains 16 pending claims.
Claims 1, 10, and 14-16 have been amended.
Claims 8 and 17 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/5/2026 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 in claim 1-6, 9-13, 16, and 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Claims 1, 10, and 16 have been amended and incorporated the claims limitations of claims 8, 15, and 17, respectively, which did not have prior arts rejection in the Non-final Office Action, and thus, overcome the 103 rejections. Therefore, the 103 claims rejections in claims 1-6, 9-13, 16, and 18 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/5/2026 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 in claim 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on pages 9-10 of the remark filed on 1/5/2026 that “… The amended claims do not merely recite a mathematical concept, and, instead, recite
specific steps or operations to control charging or discharging of each of batteries connected in a plurality of systems based on the predicted lifespan information by operations of a server communicatively connected to the plurality of systems via a network. … This operation goes beyond mathematical calculations and requires interaction with a battery management system of each of the plurality of systems to control charging or discharging of each battery. Applicant notes that "[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" (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I), citing Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States). Thus, Applicant submits that the amended claims do not recite a mathematical concept.”
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 amended claims, however, recite a specific technological feature that reinforces the practical implementation of the claimed method. For example, amended independent Claim 1 recites: "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." … The newly added limitation solves the technical problem that conventional battery systems merely diagnose or predict battery degradation without providing any mechanism to use the predicted lifespan to control charging or discharging behavior, by enabling a server to cause 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. Therefore, amended independent Claim 1 recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.”
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”, and “wherein when the system is a new system newly connected to the server” 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 12-14 of the remark filed that “… First, Applicant submits that individual claim limitations in amended claims do amount to "significantly more" on their own. Once again, Applicant uses the amended independent Claim 1 as an example. … This added feature is not a generic or routine analysis activity. Rather, it ties the claimed method to a battery control operation that involves automated charging and discharging of the battery, which is a non-conventional use of charging and discharging of the battery. … Second, amended Claim 1 and other amended claims also recite unique combinations of the features for the recited method for predicting a lifespan of each of batteries to provide additional important features of the claimed inventions for the "significantly more" consideration. This is illustrated in the following parts of amended Claim 1: … For at least the above reasons, amended independent Claim 1 and other amended claims add "significantly more" to those claims under Step 2B and thus are patentable under 35 U.S.C. §101.”
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”, and “wherein when the system is a new system newly connected to the server” 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 1-7, 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. ”
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.”
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.
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”, and “wherein when the system is a new system newly connected to the server” 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 2-7, 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 1-7, 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”, and “Knudson US 20210156926”.
As to claim 1, 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]); and
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]).
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]).
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 10, Song teaches a scenario generation model configured to classify the plurality of systems into a plurality of groups based on a usage pattern collected from each of the plurality of systems (Song, [0036], [0041], [0058], [0059] and [0060], FIG. 3); and generate a usage scenario of the battery according to a usage environment and a usage pattern of each of the plurality of groups (Song, [0036], [0041], [0058], [0059], [0060] and [0061]);
a lifespan prediction configured to predict an end-of-life time of the battery using the SOH of the battery estimated by the SOH estimation model and the usage scenario (Song, [0002], [0010] and [0014], [0036], [0041]);
a lifespan prediction configured to predict an end-of-life time of the battery using the SOH of the battery estimated by the SOH estimation and the usage scenario (Song, [0002], [0010] and [0014], [0036], [0041]).
Tenmyo teaches a state of health (SOH) estimation configured to estimate an SOH of a battery connected in one of the systems by integrating an amount of an electric current of the battery while an SOC of the battery changes (Tenmyo, [0064], [0066], Claim 3).
McLachlan teaches a state of health (SOH) estimation model (McLachlan, [0020], [0024]); a scenario generation model (McLachlan, [00024], [0028], [0035]); and a lifespan prediction model (McLachlan, [0002], [0024]).
Kudo teaches a controller configured to control charging or discharging of the battery based on the predicted end-of-life time of the battery (Kudo, FIG. 2., [0023], [0099], [0102]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “wherein the scenario generation model collects the usage pattern at every predetermined period, re-classifies the plurality of systems into the plurality of groups, and regenerates the usage scenario at the predetermined period, and
the lifespan prediction model predicts the end-of-life time at every predetermined period, based on the SOH of the battery estimated by the SOH estimation model during the predetermined period and the usage scenario regenerated by the scenario generation model.” 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]); and
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]), and
predicting, by the server, a remaining lifespan of the battery by inputting the usage scenario (Song, [0002], [0010] and [0014]).
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]).
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 1-7, 9-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:00-12:00, 1:00-5:00 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 2863