DETAILED ACTION
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment to application 18/268,684 filed on July 21, 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are still pending, with claims 1, 3-7 and 10 being currently amended.
Response to Arguments
On pages 6-7 of the remarks filed July 21, 2026, Applicant argues:
Without acceding to the basis for this rejection, claim 1 is being amended herewith to recite that the apparatus is configured to "diagnose a state of the battery as an unusable state or a usable state" based on a result of comparing a differential value of the criterion peak and a differential value of the target peak, and "in a case where the state of the battery is diagnosed as the unusable state, block charginig and discharging of the battery, and/or label the battery as in the unusable state in battery information about the battery" (emphasis added) and thus these claims as amended are believed to be in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 101, because the claims include the practical application of blocking charging and discharging of the battery, or labeling the battery as in an unusable state, in relation to a diagnosis result that the battery is in an unusable state. Blocking the charging or discharging of the battery, for example by controlling a relay connected to the positive electrode terminal and/or the negative electrode terminal of the second battery to place it in a turn-off state (see, e.g., paragraph [0076] of the6
'995 Publication of the instant application), for example so that batteries that are at the end of their life are not used, and unexpected accidents can be avoided (see, e.g., paragraph [0007] of the '995 Publication of the instant application). For at least this reason, claim 1 and the claims depending therefrom, are in compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 10 recites a method corresponding to the battery management apparatus of claim 1, and is being amended similarly thereto, and thus this claim is also believed to be in compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Furthermore, the battery management apparatus as recited in claim 1 that has the ability to diagnose the state of the battery and then block charging or discharging of a battery, or otherwise label a battery as unusable, when the state is determined to be unusable, provides a significant technological advancement that is more than mere routine and conventional extra- solution activity. As described in the instant application, there is a need to identify the end of life of batteries, to avoid unexpected accidents (see, e.g., paragraph [0007] of the '995 Publication of the instant application), and embodiments of the apparatus as claimed provide that "the state of the battery may be diagnosed in a non-destructive manner through differential profile analysis. In particular, whether the state of the battery is an unusable state may be specifically diagnosed" (paragraph [0022] of the '995 Publication of the instant application). Accordingly, by diagnosing the state of the battery using the differential profile analysis as recited in the claim, the battery may be more accurately diagnosed to enhance the safety of the battery, without requiring destruction of batteries to determine a battery state.
Accordingly, the battery management apparatus as recited in claim 1 is more than a mere abstract idea, but is instead directed to a significant technological improvement with a practical application that corresponds to statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 10 is directed to a method corresponding to the battery information generating apparatus of claim 1, and thus ais also in compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same and/or similar reasons. Accordingly, claims 1 and 10 , and the claims depending therefrom, are in compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the claims have been amended to specify that charging and discharging of the battery can be blocked in response to the unusable diagnosis or the battery can be labeled as unusable. While the blocking of charging and discharging may be a physical transformation, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is still a mental process since the blocking is only an alternative limitation to the “labeling”. Thus, in their current state the claims are still direction to the judicial exception of a mental process.
On pages 8-9 of the remarks filed July 21, 2026, Applicant argues:
Specifically, the battery management apparatus as claimed is capable of diagnosing a state of a battery as being a usable or unusable state based on a comparison of differential values of criterion and target peaks, which is not taught by Torai. Instead, Torai discloses determining maximum and minimum values in a derivative profile for purposes of determining whether or not a SOC and capacity estimation can be made (See e.g. Fig. 7 of Torai). However Torai does not disclose using any of the information for purposes of diagnosing the state of the battery as usable or unusable. Furthermore, as Torai does not disclose diagnosing whether a battery is in a usable or unusable state based on this information, it follows that Torai also does not disclose taking action to prevent the battery from being used when it is diagnosed as in the unusable state, such as by blocking charging and discharging of the battery, or labeling it as unusable in battery state information, in contrast to the apparatus as claimed.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Torai discloses determining the SOC, based on determining the SOC is calculable, stores it in memory and further discloses determining whether or not the battery is usable based on the SOC (see updated claim rejections below).
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas which amount to mental processes and organizing human activity.
The Supreme Court’s Alice/Mayo test requires a two-part framework to determine whether a claim is eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. In the first step, it is determined whether the claim is to a “process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter”. Claim 1 is directed to a battery management system, which is a machine and thus the test passes the first step.
Next, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (step 2A, prong 1, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 54-55 (Jan. 7, 2019)), and if so, whether that judicial exception is integrated into a practical application (step 2A, prong 2, see id. at 56).
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claim 1 recites:
a battery management apparatus, comprising:
a processor [generic computer component]; and
memory having programmed thereon instructions [generic computer component] that, when executed, are configured to cause the processor to:
generate a differential profile for a battery profile representing a corresponding relationship between voltage and capacity of a battery [data gathering/manipulation]; and
determine a criterion peak and a target peak in the differential profile [data manipulation]; and
diagnose a state of the battery based on a result of comparing a differential value of the criterion peak and a differential value of the target peak [data manipulation].
Thus, claim 1 is directed to a battery management apparatus which uses generic computer components (processor/memory) to perform data gathering and manipulation (generating a differential profile for a battery, determining peaks based on the differential profile and diagnosing a state). This could be considered both a mental process, since the entire process of taking data from one form of data, using it to relate to other types of data, making a comparison and outputting the result could be performed in one’s head or on pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), as well as a mathematical concept, since generating a differential profile based on a relationship between voltage and capacity of a battery is a mathematical operation, as well as the determination of peaks and comparing the peaks (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)(iv), “organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations”; paragraph [0042-0047 & 0071-0072], the peaks are determined via the expression of the derivatives in a two-dimensional X-Y graph and/or via comparing differential voltages in regions of the graph, which corresponds to the mathematical concepts of geometry and inequalities, and the peaks are compared via their magnitudes, which corresponds to the mathematical concept on inequalities).
Essentially, claim 1 describes a computer implementation (a battery management apparatus which uses generic computer components) of gathering and manipulating data, an idea that has been recognized by the courts as abstract in the similar cases of Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (data analysis steps recited at a level of generality that could be performed in the human mind) and In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902, 903, 214 USPQ 682, 683-84 (CCPA 1982) (calculating differences between local and average values, similar to Applicant’s concept of comparing various peaks in a differential profile)
Thus, claim 1, indeed discloses a judicial exception (a mental process or mathematical relationship/calculation).
The amendments to the claims in the amendment filed July 21, 2026 add that the battery is diagnosed as usable or unusable (an additional data analysis step) and then labeling the battery as unusable in the battery information (an additional data step), according to the broadest reasonable interpretation (the blocking of charging/discharging is only an alternative limitation). The limitations are additional data manipulation steps that do not make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong 2
With respect to prong 2 of 2A, the claim must be considered as to whether it integrates the abstract idea into a practical application by identifying additional elements beyond the judicial exception and evaluating those elements individually and in combination. Beyond the abstract idea of a mental process and/or mathematical calculation, the claims recites that the differential profile is generated based on a relationship of a voltage and capacity of a battery. This generation step is essentially a data gathering step (the voltage and capacity being data gathered from a battery), which has been held to be insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.06(g)).
The “determine” and “diagnosing” steps are part of the judicial exception, amounting to basic data analysis using generic computer components. In all, the elements do not comprise an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology, the use of a particular machine or effecting a transformation of material to a different state of thing. At most, the steps provide a general link to the technology of battery analysis.
Step 2B
With respect to Step 2B, the claim must be considered as to whether the claim includes additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 1 fails to meet this test since the claim as a whole generally applies the concept of gathering, analyzing, and manipulating data in a computer environment, essentially taking a mental process or mathematical calculation “applying it” using a computer. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Claims 9 and 10 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected as ineligible for the same reasons.
Dependent claims 2-8 recite basic additional analysis and/or data manipulation steps all representing steps of a mental process or mathematical calculation that could be performed on a generic computer. In particular, claim 2 recites data manipulation (using gathered data to make a differential profile, as in claim 1; generating a differential profile of a variable is a mathematical operation, par. [0043]). Claims 3-4 and 6 also recite data manipulation steps (analysis of the data to determine peaks, as in claim 1, which is a mathematical operation, see the explanation above with respect to claim 1). Claims 5 and 7 recite data analysis steps (making a diagnosis based on mathematical or mental steps).
Looking at the dependent claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Torai et al. European Publication EP2990818A2.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Torai discloses a battery management apparatus [fig. 1 & 3-5], comprising:
a processor [fig. 3, controller 17/1]; and
memory having programmed thereon instructions [fig. 3, storage 19-1/19-2/19-3; par. 63] that, when executed, are configured to cause the processor to:
generate a differential profile for a battery profile representing a corresponding relationship between voltage and capacity of a battery [figs. 1-2; par. 66-67; generating a profile of the battery showing dQ/dV vs V]; and
determine a criterion peak and a target peak in the differential profile; and diagnose a state of the battery as an unusable state or a usable state based on a result of comparing a differential value of the criterion peak and a differential value of the target peak [fig. 7-9; par. 7-8, 10, 84, 88-92,104, 106-107, 109, 129-130 & 141-142; a peak in a region below the first threshold and a peak in a region above the first threshold are determined, and a difference between the two peaks are determined to make a judgement about whether an SOC of the battery is calculable (with accuracy), this is a state of the battery, furthermore the SOC is calculated based on the determined information (pars. 141-142); the SOC is used to limit charging and discharging in certain regions, thus the determination of the SOC is a determination of the battery as usable (par. 7, if the SOC is “within a prescribed SOC range”), furthermore the SOC is stored (par. 76 & 143)
wherein the instructions are configured to cause the processor to, in a case where the state of the battery is diagnosed as the unusable state, block charging and discharging of the battery, and/or label the battery as the unusable state in battery information about the battery [pars. 7, 76 & 143; a prescribed SOC range, an SOC outside of the range is not usable for some purposes, the SOC is stored in memory (par. 76)]
Regarding claim 10, the method steps disclosed therein would have been are deemed as being inherent in the assembly and operation of the prior based on the teachings of the prior art reference(s) applied above, since the prior art of record herein is construed as teaching or suggesting all of the elements recited in the method claim, as pointed out in the above rejection of claim 1. The claim is accordingly rejected.
Regarding claim 2, Torai discloses wherein the instructions are configured to cause the processor to generate at least one of (i)_a differential voltage profile representing a corresponding relationship between the capacity and a differential voltage for the capacity [figs. 1-2; v vs dq/dv profiles are developed and stored in 19-1 via a portion of controller 1 ; pars. 70-77] and (ii a differential capacity profile representing a corresponding relationship between the voltage and a differential capacity for the voltage, as the differential profile.
Regarding claim 3, Torai discloses wherein instructions are configured to cause the processor to determine a type of the differential profile, and determine the criterion peak and the target peak in the differential profile according to a rule preset to correspond to the determined type of the differential profile [fig. 7-9; par. 84, 88-92,104, 106-107, 109 & 129-130; based on the derived curves (type of profile) the peaks are determined based on instructions (rules) pertaining to the curves].
Regarding claim 9, Torai discloses a battery pack, comprising the battery management apparatus according to claim 1 [par. 112].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torai et al. European Publication EP2990818A2.
Regarding claim 8, Torai disclose wherein the target peak is configured to appear in a differential profile for a battery [fig. 7-9; par. 84, 88-92,104, 106-107, 109 & 129-130].
Torai does not explicitly disclose the battery is a high nickel-based battery containing a predetermined amount of nickel or more.
However, Admitted Prior Art discloses using a high nickel-based battery containing a predetermined amount of nickel or more. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Torai to further include wherein the battery is a high nickel-based battery containing a predetermined amount of nickel or more since nickel-rich batteries have high energy density and robustness, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
NB: Examiner took Official Notice with respect to the above limitation of claim 8 in the Non-Final Rejection mailed July 21, 2026. Applicant did not traverse or did not adequately traverse. Thus, the limitation is being treated as taught by admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 4, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “wherein when the differential voltage profile is received, the instructions are configured to cause the processor to classify the differential voltage profile into a criterion region and a target region according to the capacity, determine a first peak with a smallest differential voltage in the criterion region as the criterion peak, and determine a second peak with the a smallest differential voltage in the target region as the target peak” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 4.
Claim 5, being dependent on claim 4, would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 5.
With respect to claim 6, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “wherein when the differential capacity profile is received, the instructions are configured to cause the processor to classify the differential capacity profile into a criterion region and a target region according to the voltage, determine a first peak with a first greatest differential capacity in the criterion region as the criterion peak, and determine a second peak with a second greatest differential capacity in the target region as the target peak” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 6.
Claim 7, being dependent on claim 6, would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 7.
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 DAVID V HENZE whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/DAVID V HENZE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights