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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Claim 1, applicant argues that the amendment clarifies that the claim is directed to the practical application of power station battery management. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendment of “wherein the lithium battery is a power station battery, subject to a non-constant current, or under frequency regulation,” merely further defines a component of the invention. The claim still fails to apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e). The examiner is still left to question the application’s practical applicability (what’s is it improving, what is the purpose of this method?). The specification in para. [0003] discloses to better manage batteries and prevent or avoid problems. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses “if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.” The claim, as written fails to do so. It is for this reason, the examiner maintains the rejection.
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 1-14 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.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A method for estimating an internal resistance of a lithium battery, comprising: S11: continuously sampling a current and a voltage of the lithium battery at a preset sampling interval, wherein the lithium battery is a power station battery, subject to a non-constant current, or under frequency regulation; S12: inputting the current and the voltage of the lithium battery to a previously constructed internal resistance estimation equivalent circuit model, determining to-be- estimated parameters of the internal resistance estimation equivalent circuit model, and determining expressions of an open circuit voltage and an internal resistance of the lithium battery comprising the to-be-estimated parameters; S13: obtaining a range of each of the to-be-estimated parameters of the internal resistance estimation equivalent circuit model based on an adaptively adjusted memory factor of the internal resistance estimation equivalent circuit model; and S14: S14A, inputting the range of each of the to-be-estimated parameters to an internal resistance distribution model to obtain a total internal resistance of the lithium battery, and S14B, determining a statistical distribution of the total internal resistance of the lithium battery by repeatedly running the internal resistance distribution model, with different numbers of single estimations carried out during each repetition of running the internal resistance distribution model, to obtain different estimated values of the total internal resistance of the lithium battery.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls 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 claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted 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 limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “determining to-be- estimated parameters of the internal resistance estimation equivalent circuit model, and determining expressions of an open circuit voltage and an internal resistance of the lithium battery comprising the to-be-estimated parameters; determining a statistical distribution of the total internal resistance of the lithium battery by repeatedly running the internal resistance distribution model, with different numbers of single estimations carried out during each repetition of running the internal resistance distribution model, to obtain different estimated values of the total internal resistance of the lithium battery. ” are treated as belonging to mental process grouping and/or mathematical concept grouping.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The additional element of “continuously sampling a current and a voltage of the lithium battery at a preset sampling interval; inputting the current and the voltage of the lithium battery to a previously constructed internal resistance estimation equivalent circuit model, determining to-be- estimated parameters of the internal resistance estimation equivalent circuit model; obtaining a range of each of the to-be-estimated parameters of the internal resistance estimation equivalent circuit model based on an adaptively adjusted memory factor of the internal resistance estimation equivalent circuit model; and inputting the range of each of the to-be-estimated parameters to an internal resistance distribution model to obtain a total internal resistance of the lithium battery” is mere data gathering/outputting and only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-14 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if written overcome the 101 rejection set forth in this office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, Yu et al. (CN115494414A) teaches monitoring system of internal resistance of a battery (Abstract) . He further teaches continuous sampling of current and voltage of the battery. Yu, along with all other references, either individually or in combination, fail to teach a method for estimating an internal resistance of a lithium battery, comprising:S11: continuously sampling a current and a voltage of the lithium battery at a preset sampling interval; wherein the lithium battery is a power station battery, subject to a non-constant current, or under frequency regulation;
S12: inputting the current and the voltage of the lithium battery to a previously constructed internal resistance estimation equivalent circuit model, determining to-be- estimated parameters of the internal resistance estimation equivalent circuit model, and determining expressions of an open circuit voltage and an internal resistance of the lithium battery comprising the to-be-estimated parameters;
S13: obtaining a range of each of the to-be-estimated parameters of the internal resistance estimation equivalent circuit model based on an adaptively adjusted memory factor of the internal resistance estimation equivalent circuit model; and
S14: S14A, inputting the range of each of the to-be-estimated parameters to an internal resistance distribution model to obtain a total internal resistance of the lithium battery, and S14B, determining a statistical distribution of the total internal resistance of the lithium battery by repeatedly running the internal resistance distribution model, with different numbers of single estimations carried out during each repetition of running the internal resistance distribution model, to obtain different estimated values of the total internal resistance of the lithium battery. It is for this reason, Claim 1 and all of its dependencies would be allowed.
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.
The prior art made record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Koo et al. (Method And Mobile Communication Terminal For Estimating Battery Consumption State, 2016-03-24) teaches a method for estimating a battery consumption state of a mobile communication terminal is provided. The method includes building a database with battery characteristic information changing according to at least one of a temperature and an aging characteristic of a battery supplying power to the mobile communication terminal, and estimating a power consumption of the mobile communication terminal and a battery drain rate based on the battery characteristic information and displaying estimated information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-4593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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 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.
/MICHAEL J SINGLETARY/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights