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 .
The amendment filed on June 12, 2026 has been considered.
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, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claims 1 and 4 recite an abstract idea of “recognizing a measurement result of an impedance of the reference secondary battery” (mental step); “determining whether or not a designated condition is satisfied, the designated condition” (mental step), “a first arithmetic process performed based on a result of the condition determination process (mathematical concept), “in response to determining in the condition determination process that the designated condition is not satisfied, identifying, based on a measurement result of the impedance of the reference secondary battery recognized in the first recognition process, a value of each of a plurality of first model parameters to thereby establish a first battery model defined by the plurality of first model parameters” (mental process); “in response to determining in the condition determination process that the designated condition is satisfied, identifying a value of each of a plurality of second model parameters to thereby establish a second battery model defined by the plurality of second model parameters, a number of the plurality of second model parameters being fewer than a number of the plurality of first model parameters” (mental process), “recognizing an actually measured output voltage as a measurement result of a change form of a voltage output from the target secondary battery, which has the same characteristics as those of the reference secondary battery, at a time of input of a designated current to the target secondary battery” (mental process), “identifying a model output voltage as a change form of a voltage output from one of the first battery model or the second battery model at a time of input of the designated current to the one of the first battery model or the second battery model” (mental process), “evaluating the performance of the target secondary battery based on the basis of a result of a comparison between the actually measured output voltage recognized in the second recognition process and the model output voltage specified in the second arithmetic process” (mental process/ mathematical concept), “outputting performance evaluation information identifying measures to be taken with respect to the target secondary battery, based on a result of the battery performance evaluation process” (mental process).
Examiner’s Note:
Establishing the second battery model does not appear to be based on the reference secondary battery (the first battery model is based on the reference secondary battery)
The output process of outputting performance evaluation information does not appear to be based on the first recognition process, condition determination process, first arithmetic process, second recognition process, second arithmetic process, battery performance evaluation process.
The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor (processor/memory) does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III)).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the claim limitations are not integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
A computational load required for executing the first arithmetic process is reduced is not integrated with an abstract idea. Thus, an abstract idea is not used/applied in a meaningful way to reduce a computational load required for executing the first arithmetic process.
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(A)).
The remaining dependent claim 2 does not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1, 2, and 4 are paten ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Munakata et al. (JP 6842212) in view of Jiang et al. (US 2018/0088181).
Examiner’s note: Munakata et al. (US 2022/0317191) is a US equivalent of Munakata et al. (JP 6842212) and is used as an English translation of Munakata et al. (JP 6842212).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Munakata et al. discloses a battery performance evaluation device (100) and method (Fig. 1) operably coupled to a target device (200’s) having a target secondary battery (222) to evaluate a performance of the target secondary battery (Abstract, lines 1-3) using a model representing initial characteristics of a reference secondary battery (221, Abstract, lines 3-5) having same characteristics as the target secondary battery (paragraph 0070, lines 1-4), the performance evaluation device comprising:
a memory having a program stored thereon (paragraph 0029, lines 1-16); and
a hardware processor configured to, under control of the program stored in the memory, execute processes (paragraph 0029, lines 21-26) comprising:
a first recognition process (111) of recognizing a measurement result of
an impedance of the reference secondary battery (paragraph 0037, lines 1-5);
a condition determination process of determining whether or not a
designated condition is satisfied, the designated condition including at least one of (ii) a condition that an arithmetic processing load of the first arithmetic process is a reference value or more (parameter values identified by first calculation element, paragraph 0042, lines 1-3);
a first arithmetic process (121) performed based on a result of the
condition determination process (the first calculation element performs based on the identified parameter values, paragraph 0042, lines 1-3), whereby a computational load is required for executing the first arithmetic process (execution of 121),
the first arithmetic process (121) comprising identifying, based on a
measurement result of the impedance of the reference secondary battery recognized in the first recognition process, a value of each of a plurality of first model parameters to thereby establish a first battery model defined by the plurality of first model parameters (paragraph 0042, lines 1-6); and
a second recognition process (112) of recognizing an actually measured output
voltage as a measurement result of a change form of a voltage output from the target secondary battery (measured output voltage of rechargeable battery recognized by the second recognition element, paragraph 0013, lines 1-5), at a time of input of a designated current to the target secondary battery (paragraph 0043, lines 1-4);
a second arithmetic process (122) of identifying a model output voltage as a
change form of a voltage output from one of the first battery model or the second battery model (paragraph 0012, lines 1-3) at a time of input of the designated current to the one of the first battery model or the second battery model (paragraph 0012, line 1-6);
a battery performance evaluation process (130) of evaluating the performance of the target secondary battery based on the basis of a result of a comparison between the actually measured output voltage recognized in the second recognition process and the model output voltage specified in the second arithmetic process (paragraph 0013, lines 1-6); and
an output process of outputting performance evaluation information identifying measures to be taken with respect to the target secondary battery, based on a result of the battery performance evaluation process (paragraph 0067).
It is noted that the designated condition including at least one of (i) a condition that the designated current is composed of a low frequency current component having a frequency lower than a reference frequency is an alternative limitation since it is recited in the alternative form.
While Munakata et al. does not disclose expressly disclose reducing a computational load required for executing the first arithmetic process, it would have been obvious to reduce a computational load required for executing the first arithmetic process for saving energy.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Munakata et al. with reducing a computational load required for executing the first arithmetic process for the purpose of saving energy.
Munakata et al. does not disclose
in response to determining in the condition determination process
that the designated condition is not satisfied, establish a first battery model defined by the plurality of first model parameters; and
in response to determining in the condition determination process
that the designated condition is satisfied, thereby establish a second battery model defined by the plurality of second model parameters, a number of the plurality of second model parameters being fewer than a number of the plurality of first model parameters.
Jiang et al. discloses
in response to determining in the condition determination process that the designated condition is not satisfied (current value is greater than a preset value is not satisfied, S302-> S305), establish a first battery model defined by the plurality of first model parameters (parameters including resistance parameters R0-R2); and
in response to determining in the condition determination process that the designated condition is satisfied (S302-S304), identifying a value of each of a plurality of second model parameters (parameters including resistance parameters R0-R1, Fig. 4) to thereby establish (S303) a second battery model (Fig. 4) defined by the plurality of second model parameters (parameters including resistance parameters R0-R1), a number of the plurality of second model parameters being fewer than a number of the plurality of first model parameters (resistance parameters R0-R1, Fig. 4, are fewer than resistance parameters R0-R1, Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Munakata et al. with satisfying or not satisfying a designated condition as disclosed by Jiang et al. for the purpose of determining one of battery models.
Regarding claim 2, Munakata et al. discloses
the first recognition process (111) includes recognizing the measurement result of the impedance at each of different temperatures of the reference secondary battery (paragraph 0015, lines 1-8),
the first arithmetic process (121) comprises:
establishing the first battery model by specifying a temperature
dependence of the value of each of the plurality of first model parameters based on the measurement result of the impedance at each of the different temperatures of the reference secondary battery recognized in the first recognition process (paragraph 0015, lines 3-8, paragraph 0010, lines 1-2).
establishing the second battery model by specifying a temperature
dependence of the value of each of the plurality of second model parameters (paragraph 0015, lines 3-8, paragraph 0010, lines 1-2);
the second recognition process (112) includes recognizing a measurement result of a temperature of the target secondary battery in addition to the output voltage of the target secondary battery (paragraph 0016, lines 1-4), and
the second arithmetic process (122) includes identifying the model output voltage at a time of inputting, to the first battery model or the second battery model, the measurement result of the temperature of the target secondary battery recognized in the second recognition processing element in addition to the designated current (paragraph 0016, lines 1-9).
Munakata et al. does not disclose the first arithmetic process (121) comprises:
in response to determining in the condition determination process that the
designated condition is not satisfied, establishing the first battery model,
in response to determining in the condition determination process that the
designated condition is satisfied, establishing the second battery model.
Jiang et al. discloses
the first arithmetic process (Fig. 3A) comprises:
in response to determining in the condition determination process that
the designated condition is not satisfied (current value is greater than a preset value is not satisfied, S302 -> S305), establishing the first battery model (Fig. 5),
in response to determining in the condition determination process that
the designated condition is satisfied (current value is greater than a preset value is satisfied, S302 -> S304), establishing the second battery model (Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Munakata et al. with satisfying or not satisfying a designated condition as disclosed by Jiang et al. for the purpose of determining one of battery models.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on June 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the claim interpretations under 35 USC 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim interpretations under 35 USC 112(f) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicants argue “as discussed in the interview held on May 7, 2026, the features recited in amended independent claim 1 can no longer be interpreted as being performable solely "in the mind," and that amended claim 1 now more clearly recites statutory subject matter under 35 USC 101.”
Examiner’s position is that, first, the amended claim 1 is different from the proposed amended claim 1 discussed in the interview held Maty 7, 2026. Second, the abstract idea recited in the claims is not integrated into a practical application such that the abstract idea is used/applied in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)) (see interview summary filed on May 11, 2026). The claims recite a plurality of determining, analyzing, recognizing, identifying steps that fit in the groupings of abstract idea (e.g., observation, evaluation, mathematical concepts) and can be performed mentally.
The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor (processor/memory) does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III)).
Further, “an output process of outputting performance evaluation information identifying measures to be taken with respect to the target secondary battery, based on a result of the battery performance evaluation process” is interpreted as merely an abstract idea of “evaluating performance information identifying measures to be taken with respect to the target secondary battery, based on a result of the battery performance evaluation process”.
How is the abstract idea used/applied in a practical/meaning way? For example, how is the evaluated performance information used/applied in a practical/ meaningful way? Why is the performance information evaluated?
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicants argue “[a]s discussed in the telephone interview held on May 7, 2026, it is respectfully submitted that Munakata et al and Jiang et al, even in combination, fail to achieve or render obvious all of the features recited in amended independent claim 1, and also fail to achieve or render obvious the corresponding features recited in amended independent claim 4.”
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to claims 1 and 4 have been considered but are traversed in view of the grounds of rejection discussed above.
In particular, Applicants argue during the telephone interview that the cited prior arts are silent about the "determining whether a designated condition is satisfied/not satisfied condition" step (see interview summary filed on May 11, 2026).
Examiner’s position is that Jiang et al. discloses
determining in the condition determination process that the designated condition is not satisfied (Jiang et al. discloses current value is greater than a preset value is not satisfied, S302-> S305),
determining in the condition determination process that the designated condition is satisfied (S302-S304).
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are traversed in view of the grounds of rejection discussed above.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew 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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 August 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights