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 preliminary amendment filed on November 9, 2023 has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
- claim 1, should delete “in the case” (lines 8, 11); should delete “same” (line 14); “on the basis of” (line 23) should be – based on --.
- claim 2, should delete “in the case” (line 11); “on the basis of” (line 7) should be – based on --.
- claim 3, “on the basis of” (line 4) should be – based on --.
- claim 4, should delete “in the case” (lines 8, 11); should delete “same” (line 15); “on the basis of” (line 23) should be – based on --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: first recognition processing element (e.g., claim 1), first arithmetic processing element (e.g., claim 1), second recognition processing element (e.g., claim 1), second arithmetic processing element (e.g., claim 1), battery performance evaluation element (e.g., claim 1).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, “at the time of” (line 15) lacks antecedent basis. Examiner interprets the limitation to read – at a time of --; “specifies” (line 17) is unclear. Examiner interprets it to read – recognizes --; the difference between the target secondary battery and the reference secondary battery is unclear. The instant disclosure discloses them to be the same battery 220 (see specification, paragraphs 0010, 0019).
Claim 2, “specifies” (line 16) is unclear. Examiner interprets it to read – recognizes --; “at the time of” (lines 16-17) lacks antecedent basis. Examiner interprets the limitation to read – at a time of --.
Claim 3, “a low frequency current component that is lower than a reference frequency” is indefinite since “current component” is not comparable with “frequency”. Examiner interprets the limitation to read -- “a low frequency current component that has a frequency [[is]] lower than a reference frequency”.
Claim 4, “at the time of” (line 16) lacks antecedent basis. Examiner interprets the limitation to read – at a time of --; “specifying” (line 18) is unclear. Examiner interprets it to read – recognizing --.
The remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 1-4 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 “recognizes a measurement result of an impedance of a reference secondary battery” (mental process), “identifies, on the basis of a measurement result of the impedance of the reference secondary battery recognized by the first recognition processing element, a value of each of a plurality of first model parameters thereby to determine a first battery model defined by the plurality of first model parameters in the case where a designated condition is not satisfied” (mental process/mathematical concept), “identifies a value of each of a plurality of second model parameters, which are fewer than the plurality of first model parameters, thereby to determine a second battery model defined by the plurality of second model parameters in the case where the designated condition is satisfied” (mental process/mathematical concept), “recognizes an actually measured output voltage as a measurement result of a change form of a voltage output from a target secondary battery, which has the same characteristics as those of the reference secondary battery, at the time of input of a designated current to the target secondary battery” (mental process/mathematical concept), “specifies a model output voltage as a change form of a voltage output from the first battery model or the second battery model at the time of input of the designated current to the first battery model or the second battery model determined by the first arithmetic processing element” (mental process/mathematical concept), “evaluates performance of the target secondary battery on the basis of a result of comparison between the actually measured output voltage recognized by the second recognition processing element and the model output voltage specified by the second arithmetic processing element” (mental process/mathematical concept).
The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor (element(s)) 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)).
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 claims do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claims 2-3 are directed to an abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-4 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 1-4 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) comprising:
a first recognition processing element (111) that recognizes a measurement result of an impedance of a reference secondary battery (paragraph 0037, lines 1-5);
a first arithmetic processing element (121) that identifies, on the basis of a measurement result of the impedance of the reference secondary battery recognized by the first recognition processing element, a value of each of a plurality of first model parameters (paragraph 0042, lines 1-6),
a second recognition processing element (112) that recognizes an actually measured output voltage as a measurement result of a change form of a voltage output from a target secondary battery, which has the same characteristics as those of the reference secondary battery (measured output voltage of rechargeable battery recognized by the second recognition element, paragraph 0013, lines 1-5), at the time of input of a designated current to the target secondary battery (paragraph 0043, lines 1-4);
a second arithmetic processing element (122) that specifies a model output voltage as a change form of a voltage output from the first battery model or the second battery model (paragraph 0012, lines 1-3) at the time of input of the designated current to the first battery model or the second battery model determined by the first arithmetic processing element (paragraph 0012, lines 1-6); and
a battery performance evaluation element (130) that evaluates performance of the target secondary battery on the basis of a result of comparison between the actually measured output voltage recognized by the second recognition processing element and the model output voltage specified by the second arithmetic processing element (paragraph 0013, lines 1-6).
Munakata et al. does not disclose determining a first battery model defined by the plurality of first model parameters in the case where a designated condition is not satisfied, and identifies a value of each of a plurality of second model parameters, which are fewer than the plurality of first model parameters, thereby to determine a second battery model defined by the plurality of second model parameters in the case where the designated condition is satisfied.
Jiang et al. discloses determining (S305, Fig. 3A) a first battery model (Fig. 5) defined by the plurality of first model parameters (parameters including resistance parameters R0-R2) in the case where a designated condition is not satisfied (current value is greater than a preset value is not satisfied, S302 -> S305), and identifies a value of each of a plurality of second model parameters (parameters including resistance parameters R0-R1, Fig. 4), which are fewer than the plurality of first model parameters (resistance parameters R0-R1, Fig. 4 are fewer than resistance parameters R0-R2, Fig. 5), thereby to determine (S303) a second battery model (Fig. 4) defined by the plurality of second model parameters (parameters including resistance parameters R0-R1) in the case where the designated condition is satisfied (S302 -> S304).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made 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 processing element (111) recognizes a measurement result of an impedance at each of different temperatures of the reference secondary battery (paragraph 0015, lines 1-8),
the first arithmetic processing element (121) determines the [first] battery model by specifying temperature dependence of a value of each of the plurality of [first] model parameters on the basis of the measurement result of the impedance at each of the different temperatures of the reference secondary battery recognized by the first recognition processing element (paragraph 0015, lines 3-8; paragraph 0010, lines 1-2),
the second recognition processing element (112) recognizes 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 processing element (122) specifies the model output voltage at the time of inputting, to the first battery model or the second battery model determined by the first arithmetic processing element, the measurement result of the temperature of the target secondary battery recognized by 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 processing element determines the first battery model in the case where the designated condition is not satisfied, and
determines the second battery model in the case where the designated condition is satisfied.
Jiang et al. discloses
the first arithmetic processing element (Fig. 3A) determines the first battery model (Fig. 5) in the case where the designated condition is not satisfied (current value is greater than a preset value is not satisfied, S302 -> S305), and
determines the second battery model (Fig. 4) in the case where the designated condition is satisfied (current value is greater than a preset value is satisfied, S302 -> S304).
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 3, Munakata et al. discloses the first arithmetic processing element (121) establishes the first battery model or the second battery model (paragraph 0010, lines 1-2) on the basis of at least one of the designated conditions including a condition that an arithmetic processing load of the first arithmetic processing element is a reference value or more (parameter values identified by first calculation element, paragraph 0042, lines 1-3).
It is noted that the limitation of the first arithmetic processing element establishes the first battery model or the second battery model on the basis of at least one of the designated conditions including a condition that the designated current is composed of a low frequency current component that is lower than a reference frequency is an alternative limitation since the limitation is recited in the alternative form.
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 February 28, 2027
Prosecution Insights