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
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment, filed on December 18, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the respective claims under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph has been withdrawn. However, the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. §101 as the claimed invention being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) has been maintained for the reasons noted below. The Examiner acknowledges the amendment to claim 10 as the claimed invention is now one of the four categories of the subject matter for a patent. Claims 1-10 are pending in the application.
Explanation of Rejection
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C §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.
In reference to claims 1-10: the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The requirement for subject matter eligibility test for products and processes requires first, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. §101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define "things" or "products" while the first category defines "actions" (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed).
Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature).
In the first step, it is to be determined whether the patent claim under examination is directed to an abstract idea. If so, in the second step of analysis, it is to be determined whether the patent adds to the idea “something more” or "significantly more” that embodies an “inventive concept.”
In the instant case, claim 1 is representative and it is reproduced here with the limitations that are part of the abstract idea in bold:
A method for determining performance of a power battery, comprising the following steps:
acquiring historical data of the power battery in at least two charging processes;
determining, according to historical data in one charging process, a dQ/dV curve and a direct current internal resistance corresponding to said charging process, wherein dQ/dV represents a ratio of a change in electric quantity dQ to a change in voltage dV during charging, and wherein the direct current internal resistance is extracted by adopting a charging pulse mode;
calculating a relative change rate of internal resistance capacity in any two charging processes; wherein the relative change rate of internal resistance capacity is determined according to a difference between a first direct current internal resistance and a second direct current internal resistance and a difference between a target peak value of a first dQ/dV curve and a target peak value of a second dQ/dV curve, the first direct current internal resistance and the first dQ/dV curve corresponding to one charging process, the second direct current internal resistance and the second dQ/dV curve corresponding to the another charging process, and two peaks corresponding to the two target peak values being used for representing the same electrochemical reaction; and
determining the performance of the power battery according to the relative change rate of internal resistance capacity and a relative change rate of internal resistance capacity range corresponding to fault type.
Step 2A:
Prong I: The claim recites the steps of “determining a performance of a power battery; acquiring historical data of the power battery … a dQ/dv curve and direct current internal resistance corresponding to said charging process; calculating a relative charge rate of internal resistance capacity in any two charging processes…, and determining the performance of the power battery according to the relative charge rate of internal resistance capacity and a relative charge rate of internal resistance capacity range corresponding to fault type.” These limitations could be carried out as a purely mental process (at least in a some relatively simple situations) and/or they could amount to a mathematical calculation (for example, computing dQ/dv, as a function of current and slope of the voltage curve, i.e., dQ/dv = i* dt/dv ). Therefore, the recited method falls in the abstract idea grouping of mental processes and/or mathematical concepts at Prong 1 of the §101 analysis.
Prong II:
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application at Prong 2 of the §101 analysis because the claim does not recite sufficient additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. No other additional element is included to make the instant claim 1 for instance to be significantly more than the abstract idea, meaning, the claim only includes computational analysis and human thought process for all the variables and attributes gathered for the analysis.
The courts have found that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or make the claim qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
The claim does not recite applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine, nor does the claim affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claim amounts to manipulating data: “determining the performance of the power battery according to the relative charge rate of the internal resistance capacity and a relative charge rate of internal resistance capacity range corresponding to fault type.” The claim does not recite any particular real-world actions that are taken as a result of the computational analysis output. Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to be limited to the use of the mental process or math (i.e., a computational analysis) in a particular practical application, but instead the claim appears to monopolize the mental process or math itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used.
Step 2B:
Finally, at Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to Prong II. Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim 5 is analogous to claim 1, except that claim 5 additionally recites “a system for determining performance of a power battery” which does not explain or express what the system includes or any features of the system. The system reference noted in the preamble of claim 5 does not include sufficient features to among to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reason as discussed above with regard to Prong II.
Dependent claims 2 and 6: the instant claims are directed to the step of “determining the performance of the battery power according to the relative change rate of internal resistance capacity and the relative charge rate of the internal resistance capacity range corresponding to fault type,” which merely adds to the insignificant extra-solution activity being recited which is actually a mental process and/or computational analysis or mathematical algorithm.
Dependent claims 3 and 7 are directed to a second determination module for the purposes of determining performance abnormality through warning message, which merely adds to the insignificant extra-solution activity being recited which is actually a mental process and/or computational analysis or mathematical algorithm.
Dependent claims 4 and 8: directed to determining the target peak value of the first dQ/dv curve and the target peak value, which merely adds to the insignificant extra-solution activity being recited which is actually a mental process and/or computational analysis or mathematical algorithm.
Dependent claims 9 and 10: the instant claims are directed to a generic electronic device and a generic computer-readable storage medium with all the generic memory, computer processor and program; however, these are merely generic computer components that are invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments, see argument, filed on December 18, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. §101 as the claimed invention being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons noted above, and further explained below.
Step 2A, Prong I: (part A) Applicant(s) argued that “the claims are not directed to any judicial exception, [and] the examiner’s characterization overlooks the actual focus of the claims [including] …technical components (e.g., determination modules, data acquisition module….and technical transformation (e.g., deriving a DC internal resistance using charging pulse, extracting incremental capacity curve, and identifying electrochemical-reaction picks” (see argument, page 7/12, third paragraph).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reason. These modules, which are noted in claim 5 of the instant application are generic components to acquire data values, calculate the rate of change of voltage with respect to the charge and computes charge rate and analyze the performance relative the charge rate. These actions or ideas are computational analysis carried through or using a generic computer. The generic computers or computational process modules are simply an extension of a human thought process.
The claim does not recite applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine, nor does the claim affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claim amounts to manipulating data: “determining the performance of the power battery according to the relative charge rate of the internal resistance capacity and a relative charge rate of internal resistance capacity range corresponding to fault type.” The claim does not recite any particular real-world actions that are taken as a result of the computational analysis output. Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to be limited to the use of the mental process or math (i.e., a computational analysis) in a particular practical application, but instead the claim appears to monopolize the mental process or math itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used.
In part B of Prong, I, Applicant(s) argued that “the claims are directed to a technological process that improves battery safety diagnostics” (see page 7/12, last paragraph of the argument).
Again, “acquiring historical charging data” is simply a data gathering step at the higher level of generality. The following steps, such as determining dQ/dV is simple differential calculus method known in the academic or science discipline, and easily carried out manually or with the help of a generic computing means, so is deriving a relative charge rate of internal resistance capacity. Finally, determining battery performance based on these values would simply be a judgment call by an ordinary skill in the art and would not be a particular real-world action. As stated, the claim appears to monopolize the mental process or math itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used.
In part C of Prong, I, Applicant(s) argued that “the claim fall squarely into the “technological improvement” category recognized as eligible” see argument, page 8/12, second paragraph). The Applicant(s) further argued that the claimed invention being directed to “improved functioning of a machine or provide a practical application of a judicial exception [i.e., abstract idea]”. However, the Examiner respectfully disagreed for the following reason. First, there is no improvement of functioning of a machine because the steps are simply a computational analysis of some kind. They could improve the functioning of a system if implemented in such a way; but the claims in the current form actually reads on human thought process and/or a computational analysis.
Applicant(s) have listed some technical improvement using data derived calculation to address engineering problems, but the claims in their current form are simply geared towards abstract idea or a judicial exception.
In part D, Applicants argued that “nothing in the claims recites mental process or generic mathematical manipulation” and further argued that “the Examiner’s suggestion that the claims recite “mathematical concept” is misplaced” (see argument, page 8/12, last paragraph).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reason. The generic nature of the steps in the instant claim 1 for instance is attributed from the fact that dQ/dV is a generic computation known the electrical engineering field. These computations are literally carried out by ordinary skill in the art using a generic computer which would be considered an extension of a human thought process per se. In general calculation of be it the rate of charge or a simply mathematical concept is considered under a judicial exception of “abstract idea” because these are mathematical concepts or methods of organizing human activity. However, it is true the application of this judicial exception or computational analysis could become patent eligible if is drafted to show technical improvement, see for instance Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981).
Step 2A, Prong II, part A. Applicant(s) argued that “the claims apply calculation in a specific, structured technical work flow” (see argument, page 9/12, third paragraph). However, this technical work flow is a computational analysis that provides a profile of a relative charge rate, in other words it is a human thought process and/or mathematical or computational analysis.
In part B in prong II, Applicant(s) argued that “the invention yields a concrete, real-world improvement in battery-fault detection (see argument, page 9/12, last paragraph). However, the steps noted in claims 1 and 5 are rooted or based on a computational analysis and they do not provide a significantly more than the abstract idea or a judicial exception idea.
In part C, prong II. Applicant argued that “claims 5-10 contain explicit hardware recitations further confirming technical integration”. See argument, page 10/12, first paragraph). However, the instant claims are directed to a generic electronic device and a generic computer-readable storage medium with all the generic memory, computer processor and program; however, these are merely generic computer components that are invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2B: since those claims do not meet step 2A, Prong I and Prong II, as stated above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to Prong II. Claims 1 and 5 are rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101. The dependent claims as noted above also are ineligible for similar reasons.
Related Art
Chen et al. (ELSEVIER, “Rate dependency of incremental capacity analysis (dQ/dV) as a diagnostic tool for lithium-ion batteries”, hereon Chen) discloses an automated peak shift compensation method to the charge procedure to calculate the cell resistance using current interrupt and correct for voltage shift in the incremental capacity analysis (ICA). Permitting accurate ICA within charge times permissible for high power applications. Current interrupt is performed at the start of the constant current charge and the resistance calculated as the voltage change over a fixed time period divided by the change in charge current. At the end of charge, the calculation is repeated as the constant voltage charge current cut-off threshold is reached and the cell enters a rest period. Using this method, two resistances can be calculated, one at the start of charge and one at 100% SOC and the variation in resistance with SOC accounted for using a linear interpolation. Furthermore, this method requires no additional equipment to perform and adds no time to the charging of the battery beyond the measurement time constant after charging has completed since both resistance (see Chen, page 3, section 3.2, peak shift compensation).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Xi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,454,888) discloses system and method for detecting internal faults using online and real time sensing technique and providing accurate and reliable early warning for the incoming failure of battery cells hours or days prior to failure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ELIAS DESTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 to 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, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/ELIAS DESTA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights