DETAILED ACTION
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.
2. Claims 1-15 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 being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two-step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to one of the four statutory class, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example), we recognize that the limitations “obtain information about a charge end voltage of a battery corresponding to a charge protocol; and predict a life of the battery corresponding to the charge protocol based on the information about the charge end voltage of the battery corresponding to the charge protocol,” are abstract ideas as they are directed to mental process. Similar rejections are made for other independent and dependent claims. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite “processor”, but said limitations are merely a recitation of general-purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea. The claims do not improve the functioning of processor and do not improve other technology. At most, the claims are an improvement in the abstract idea of predicting battery life. However, improved or new abstract ideas are still abstract ideas and not eligible. In short, the claims do not provide sufficient evidence to show that they are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite “processor”, but said limitations are merely a recitation of general-purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea, that are well-understood, routine and conventional. As such, the claims do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taniguchi et al., US-PGPUB 2009/0070052 (hereinafter Taniguchi)
Regarding Claims 1 and 11. Taniguchi discloses a battery life prediction (Abstract, battery life estimating), comprising:
a processor; and memory having programmed thereon instructions that, when executed, are configured to cause the processor to (Paragraph [0023], CPU and memory), obtain information about a charge end voltage of a battery corresponding to a charge protocol (Paragraph [0021], terminal voltage after fully charged); and predict a life of the battery corresponding to the charge protocol based on the information about the charge end voltage of the battery corresponding to the charge protocol (Paragraph [0022], Paragraph [0078], estimate residual life of battery based on terminal voltages; operation for charging, terminal voltages, and said estimation, described in detail in Paragraphs [0051]-[0070])
Regarding Claim 7. Taniguchi discloses predicting a number of cycles in which the battery is chargeable (Paragraph [0047])
Regarding Claim 10. Taniguchi discloses the charge protocol comprises information about a current charging the battery according to a step based on an amount of time required for charging the battery (Paragraphs [0095]-[0096])
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-6 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shin et al., US-PGPUB 2018/0351381 (hereinafter Shin).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11. Shin discloses a battery life prediction, comprising:
a processor, and memory having programmed thereon instructions that, when executed, are configured to cause the processor to (Paragraph [0114], computer):
obtain information about a charge end voltage of a battery corresponding to a charge protocol (Paragraphs [0065], [0069], charged to 4.2 V; [0071], Fig. 14; [0073]-[0075], linear fitting the terminal charge voltage, Fig. 10, 13, 16, 17, 19); and predict a life of the battery corresponding to the charge protocol based on the information about the charge end voltage of the battery corresponding to the charge protocol (Abstract, Paragraph [0087]-[0092], predicting effectiveness in slowing down the battery capacity is evaluated, estimating the fading rate; Figs. 24, 25).
Regarding Claims 2 and 12. Shin discloses linearly fitting the charge end voltage of the battery corresponding to the charge protocol in every charge cycle of the battery ([0073]-[0075], linear fitting the terminal charge voltage)
Regarding Claims 3 and 13. Shin discloses predicting the life of the battery as a cycle in which a drive end voltage is reached based on the linear fit (Fig. 24; Paragraphs [0069]; [0090]).
Regarding Claim 4. Shin discloses the drive end voltage is 4.2 V (Fig. 24, Paragraph [0069]).
Regarding Claims 5 and 14. Shin discloses selecting a section in the charge cycle of the battery and linearly fit the charge end voltage of the battery in the selected section ([0073]-[0075], linear fitting the terminal charge voltage, Figs. 16-17).
Regarding Claims 6 and 15. Shin discloses the selected section corresponds to between a 100th cycle of the battery and a 200th cycle of the battery (Paragraph [0090]).
Regarding Claim 8. Shin discloses comparing a plurality of predicted lifetimes of the battery when the battery is charged based on a plurality of charge protocols (Fig. 25, Paragraphs [0090]-[0092])
Regarding Claim 9. Shin discloses comparing the plurality of charge protocols based on the respective predicted lifetimes of the battery corresponding to each of the plurality of charge protocols (Fig. 25, Paragraphs [0090]-[0092])
Regarding Claim 10. Shin discloses the charge protocol comprises information about a current charging the battery according to a step based on an amount of time required for charging the battery (Paragraph [0082], charging time)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin, US-PGPUB 2018/0351381 in view of Bae et al., US Pat No. 11,536,775 (hereinafter Bae).
Regarding Claim 7. Shin discloses estimating the fading rate of the battery per cycle (Paragraph [0092]).
Shin does not explicitly discloses predicting a number of cycles in which the battery is chargeable.
Bae discloses predicting a number of cycles in which the battery is chargeable (Claim 1; Abstract; Figs. 3, 7 and 13; Col. 1, lines 55-67, Col. 2, lines 36).
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Bae in Shin and predict a number of cycles in which the battery is chargeable with accuracy
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hussain, US-PGPUB 2012/0277832
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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 Vazquez can be reached at 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 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857