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 .
Priority
Current application, US Application No. 18/265,725 filed on 06/07/2023, claims foreign priority to KR 10-2021-0067882 filed on 05/26/2021.
Examiner acknowledges that the certified copy of foreign priority document has been received. However, the certified English translation copy of the original foreign document, which is not written in English, has not been received. There is no requirement to submit certified English translation copy at this stage according to 37 CFR 1.55(g)(3). However, should the need of certified English translated copy arise according to the cases mentioned in 37 CFR 1.55(g)(3), submission may be requested in the future.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/06/2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 04/06/2026. Claims 1-16 are currently pending. Claims 14-16 are added new per applicant’s request.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment is entered into further examination and appreciated by the examiner.
Upon further examination, the newly added limitation “control operation of the battery to prevent occurrence of an internal short circuit in response to the determination of occurrence of lithium precipitation” in independent claims 1 and 13, has introduced a new matter because of following observations by the examiner.
According to the explanation of the amendment in the applicant’s remarks (see pg. 6 line 13 - 21), applicant argues that the description support can be found in (1) the PG-Pub par. [0005], which describes terminating the operation of the battery upon detection of a risk of short circuit, and in (2) Par. [0112], which describes a battery monitoring apparatus 100 applied to a BMS (Battery Management System) and capable of implementing functions of a conventional BMS, for which it is well established among those skilled in the art that a BMS includes both battery state monitoring functions as well as battery charging and discharging control operations.
However, the alleged description support from (1) par. [0005] fails to disclose terminating the operation of the battery upon detection of a risk of short circuit because the paragraph merely shows the internal short circuit may occur. (2) Par. [0112] fails to recite “terminating the operation of the battery”. The arguments that the monitoring apparatus 100 conventional BMS is capable of including implementing functions of a conventional BMS, implying a function of “terminating the operation of the battery” can be included in the BMS is unpersuasive because (a) being capable of including a function is different from actually including and executing a function, and (b) the limitation “operation of battery” is not clear as the specification recites operation or function only once (see specification - the storage unit 130 may store data necessary for operation and function of each component of the battery monitoring apparatus 100, data generated in the process of performing the operation or function [0068]) and fails to articulate the limitation further.
Examiner could interpret the limitation “control operation of battery” as “calculating”, “comparing”, “determining”, or “generate and output a diagnosis code” in light of the specification (see original claims and specification – generate and output a diagnosis code [0018, 0107, 0110-0111, claim 9], may output information representing that lithium is precipitated in the battery by outputting the diagnosis code, may output battery identification information or the like along with the diagnosis code to specify a battery in which lithium is precipitated [0109])
Although specification recites charging/discharging, it is in the context of measurement or monitoring of the battery during charging/discharging (see specification – [0003-0004, 0071, 0087, 0117, 0119, 0124]) and
fails to positively recite the charging or discharging operation of the battery. And the specification is also silent regarding the terminating the operation of the battery.
Therefore, the limitation “control operation of the battery to prevent occurrence of an internal short circuit in response to the determination of occurrence of lithium precipitation” lacks the description support from the specification under 35 USC 112(a).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Regarding remarks on the rejections under 35 USC 101 towards the claim 1-13, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive because of following reasons.
Applicant argues (see pg. 6 line 13 - 21) that the amended claim 1 recites that the control circuit is configured to control operation of the battery to prevent occurrence of an internal short circuit in response to determination of occurrence of lithium precipitation, and further argues (see pg. 6 line 14-20) that the amended claim 1 and 13 amount to significantly more than an abstract idea at step 2B prong two of the eligibility analysis.
Examiner respectfully submits that (1) the newly added limitation lacks the description support from the specification as a new matter as pointed out above in the response to the amendment, and (2) even if the amended limitation is assumed supported by the specification, the terminating (stopping) the operation of battery is recited in a high level of generality lacking specific details, e.g. how to terminate or stop the operation of the battery, so only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, Thus, the claims fails to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea at step 2A
Therefore, the arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are maintained. Please see the update office action below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As per claims 1 and 13, the newly added limitation “control operation of the battery to prevent occurrence of an internal short circuit in response to determination of occurrence of lithium precipitation” lacks the description support from the specification as explained above in the response to the amendment above.
As per claim 14, the limitation “automatically” in “automatically output from the electric apparatus a diagnosis code” lacks the description support from the specification because no word “automatic(ally)” can be found in the specification and it is not clear what the limitation “automatically” means.
As per claims 2-12, claims are also rejected because base claim 1 is rejected.
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 nonstatutory subject matter. 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 battery monitoring apparatus, comprising a control circuit (1.A) configured to:
calculate a curvature corresponding to a preset state of charge (SOC) region in a differential profile representing a relationship between a differential voltage of a battery and the SOC of the battery, wherein the differential voltage represents a rate of change of a voltage of the battery relative to the SOC of the battery; (1.B)
compare the calculated curvature with a preset threshold curvature for the battery; (1.C.1)
and determine occurrence of lithium precipitation in the battery based on the comparison; (1.C.2)
and control operation of the battery to prevent occurrence of an internal short circuit in response to determination of occurrence of lithium precipitation. (1.D)”.
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 (Machine - Apparatus).
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 exception. 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, highlighted limitations/steps (1.B), (1.C.1) and (1.C.2) are treated by the Examiner as belonging to Mathematical Concept grouping or a combination of Mathematical Concept and Mental Process groupings as the limitations include Mathematical Calculations, or show Mathematical Relationship combined with optional Mental evaluations/judgements.
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 above claims comprise the following additional elements: (Side Note: duplicated elements are not repeated)
In Claim 1: “A battery monitoring apparatus”, “a control circuit” and “control operation of the battery to prevent occurrence of an internal short circuit in response to determination of occurrence of lithium precipitation”;
In Claim 13: “A battery monitoring method”;
In Claim 14: “An electric apparatus”, “a battery”, “a load”, “a battery management system” and “automatically output from the electric apparatus a diagnosis code related to lithium precipitation based on the determined occurrence of lithium precipitation in the battery”;
As per claim 1, the additional element in the preamble “A battery monitoring apparatus” is not a meaningful limitation because the preamble simply links the apparatus with an abstract idea, i.e. monitoring battery. The limitation/element “a control circuit” is not particular in the art.
The limitation/step “control operation of the battery” is recited in a high level of generality and only adds insignificant extra solution to the judicial exception. The limitation “to prevent occurrence of an internal short circuit in response to determination of occurrence of lithium precipitation” is an intended purpose and cannot be given much weight to the claim.
As per claim 13, the additional element in the preamble “A battery monitoring method” is not a meaningful limitation because the preamble simply links the method with an abstract idea, i.e. monitoring battery.
As per claim 14, the additional element in the preamble “An electric apparatus” is not qualified as a meaningful limitation because the preamble even fails to link the electric apparatus with a particular operation or field of use.
The limitations/elements “a battery”, “a load”, “a battery management system” are standard elements in the art and they are not particular.
The limitation/step “automatically output from the electric apparatus a diagnosis code related to lithium precipitation based on the determined occurrence of lithium precipitation in the battery represents a standard result report step in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution to the judicial exception.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements as a whole do not reflect an improvement to the computer technology or other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. No particular machine or real-world transformation are claimed. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Under Step 2B analysis, the above claims fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as shown in the prior art of record.
The limitations/elements listed as additional elements above are well understood, routine and conventional steps/elements in the art according to the prior art of record. (See Isihbash, Chickkannanavar, Kumashiro, and others in the list of prior art cited for the application)
Claims 1-14, therefore, are not patent eligible.
However, claims 15-16 are patent eligible as the claims include limitations/elements “wherein the electric apparatus is an electric vehicle, and wherein the load is a motor or a charging/discharging device of the electric vehicle” or “wherein the electric apparatus is an energy storage system (ESS), and wherein the load is a charging/discharging device of the ESS”, which are interpreted as integration of a practical application to the judicial exception at step 2A prong 2. Please amend further to overcome outstanding rejections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 13 and 14 recite subject matter which is allowable over the prior art, and would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome current rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As per claims 1, 13 and 14, the closest prior art of record, Ishibashi (US 20170279171 A1), Chickkannanavar (US 20170259687 A1) and Kumashiro (US 20120226455 A1), either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious limitation “calculate (or calculating) a curvature corresponding to a preset state of charge (SOC) region in a differential profile representing a relationship between a differential voltage of a battery and the SOC of the battery,
wherein the differential voltage represents a rate of change of a voltage of the battery relative to the SOC of the battery;
compare (or comparing) the calculated curvature with a preset threshold curvature for the battery;
and determine (or determining) occurrence of lithium precipitation in the battery based on the comparison” in combination with other limitations. (side note: curvature has a special in the current application. See specification - a circle of curvature inscribed in the determined target peak, and calculate the inverse of the curvature radius ‘the radius of the calculated circle of curvature’ as a curvature corresponding to the target peak [pg. 10 line 14-16, Fig. 2])
As per claim 1, Ishibashi discloses
A battery management device includes an SOC estimation unit, a storage unit, and a lithium deposition determination unit. The lithium deposition determination unit compares a differential coefficient of a battery voltage with respect to an SOC estimated by the SOC estimation unit and a differential coefficient of a battery voltage with respect to a reference SOC read from the storage unit, and determines that, if a difference is observed between the differential coefficients, lithium is deposited in a lithium ion secondary battery (see [abs]) and shows a graph illustrating a relationship between SOC and voltage of a lithium ion secondary battery, which is dVc(SOC)/dSOC (see - [0056-0061, Fig. 7]), but is silent regarding a curvature of the dV/dSOC curve representing a relationship between a differential voltage of a battery and the SOC of the battery. (see application – [pg. 10 line 14-16.Fig. 2])
Chickkannanavar discloses a battery management system for a vehicle includes a controller configured to, in response to a rate of change of voltage during discharge of a battery cell exceeding a first threshold more than a predetermined number of times over a predefined duration, output an error signal, and in response to the rate of change exceeding a second threshold greater than the first, output the error signal (see – [abs]), but is silent regarding the above limitations.
Kumashiro discloses an anomalously charged state detection device which includes: a voltage detection unit; a current detection unit; a calculation unit that calculates the electricity amount Q charged into or discharged from the lithium secondary cell and a differential value dV/dQ for each predetermined time period t, and that obtains a Q-dV/dQ curve; a measured data storage unit that stores the Q-dV/dQ curve; a cell data storage unit that stores a Q-dV/dQ curve during normal conditions; and a control unit that decides that the lithium secondary cell is in an anomalously charged state if, in the Q-dV/dQ curve stored by the measured data storage unit, a peak is present that is different from a peak that appears in the Q-dV/dQ curve during normal conditions (see – [abs]), but is silent regarding the above limitations.
As per claims 2-16, claims would be allowable because base and representative claim 1 would be allowable.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS KAY whose telephone number is (408) 918-7569. The examiner can normally be reached on M, Th & F 8-5, T 2-7, and W 8-1.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOUGLAS KAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights