CTNF 18/293,992 CTNF 84809 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Response to Amendment In the preliminary amendment filed January 31, 2024, claims 1-14 are amended and claims 1-14 are pending. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “measuring device”, for consistency with the specification, Examiner recommends “measuring unit” . Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 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. 07-30-06 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: “measuring device” in 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 § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 is an apparatus that recites calculate resistance values of the battery based on the measured voltage values of the battery, determine a resistance change pattern by comparing the calculated resistance values with a criterion profile, and determine a state of the battery based on the determined resistance change pattern . In the context of the claims, the limitation of calculate resistance values encompasses the use of mathematical relationships or equation and thus falls within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)I. The limitations of determine a resistance change pattern and determine a state of the battery encompasses reviewing and analyzing data and making a decision which cover concepts performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. Thus, the limitations fall within the Mental Processes concepts of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III. The claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional claim elements of a measuring device configured to measure a voltage value of the battery at each predetermined cycle during a battery charging process; and a processor. The limitation of measure a voltage is recited at a high level of generality without imposing any meaningful limitations to practicing the claim and thus, amount to no more than gathering the necessary data to implement the abstract idea. As such the claim limitation amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation of measuring device and processor are recited at high level of generality without imposing any meaning limitations to practicing the claim and thus, amounts to no more than a computer that is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of a battery in the preamble does not add any meaningful limitations but merely generally links the judicial exception to a technical field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional claim elements amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity, a computer used as tool to implement an abstract idea or generally links the judicial exception to a technical field of use. Additionally, with respect to the insignificant extra-solution activity, the limitation of measure a voltage only describes collection of voltage by methods known in the art (see e.g. reference to Honma). Thus, the limitation is well- understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The claim is not patent eligible. Claims 2-13 depend from claim 1 and recite the same abstract idea as claim 1. The additional claim limitations recited merely add additional steps or details to the abstract idea (claims 2-11) or add additional insignificant extra-solution activity (claims 3 and 7) or add additional limitations that merely links the judicial exception to a technical field of use (claims 12-13). As disclosed above, the limitations of determining and calculating fall within either Mathematical Concepts or Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. The additional limitations of generate a resistance profile and o generate a state of charge (SOC)-resistance profile are recited with a high level of generality and amounts to merely necessary data gathering and outputting with use of the abstract idea. As such the claim limitations amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, the limitations describe the generation of profiles that are known in the art (see e.g. reference to Honma). Thus, the limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Finally, the recitation of battery pack and vehicle do not add any meaningful limitations but merely generally link the judicial exception to a technical field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The additional claim limitations neither integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible. Claim 14 is a method that recites calculating resistance values of the battery based on the measured voltage values of the battery; determining step of determining a resistance change pattern by comparing the calculated resistance values with a criterion profile; and determining a state of the battery based on the determined resistance change pattern . In the context of the claims, the limitation of calculating resistance values encompasses the use of mathematical relationships or equation and thus falls within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)I. The limitations of determining a resistance change pattern and determining a state of the battery encompasses reviewing and analyzing data and making a decision which cover concepts performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. Thus, the limitations fall within the Mental Processes concepts of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III. The claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional claim elements of a measuring a voltage value of the battery at each predetermined cycle during a battery charging process. The limitation of measuring a voltage is recited at a high level of generality without imposing any meaningful limitations to practicing the claim and thus, amount to no more than gathering the necessary data to implement the abstract idea. As such the claim limitation amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The recitation of a battery in the preamble does not add any meaningful limitations but merely generally links the judicial exception to a technical field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional claim elements amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity or generally links the judicial exception to a technical field of use. Additionally, with respect to the insignificant extra-solution activity, the limitation of measuring a voltage only describes collection of voltage by methods known in the art (see e.g. reference to Honma). Thus, the limitation is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The claim is not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-3, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Honma in U.S. Patent Publication 20060113959 (see IDS filed 2025 Mar 17) . Regarding claim 1 , Honma teaches: a measuring device configured to measure a voltage value of the battery at each predetermined cycle during a battery charging process (see “a terminal voltage (measured at a node d) V of the rechargeable battery 1”, [0021]; see “…charging current I…Von(measured voltage)…Voff(measured voltage)…”, [0029]-[0030]; Figs. 1-2 the means for measuring the measured voltage is understood to be a measuring device ; [0009]); and a processor (see “computer”, [0019]-[0020]; see “MPU”, [0020]-[0021], Fig. 1) configured to calculate resistance values of the battery based on the measured voltage values of the battery (see “internal resistance arithmetic operation portion”, [0025]-[0027], Fig. 1; see “calculate internal resistance”, [0025], Fig. 3), determine a resistance change pattern by comparing the calculated resistance values with a criterion profile (see “compares the value of the internal resistance R at a time point of use of the rechargeable battery 1 with the internal resistance value as a comparative reference obtained from the history”, [0034] internal reference obtained from history is understood to be a criterion profile ; [0035]), and determine a state of the battery based on the determined resistance change pattern (see “the change of the value of the internal resistance R with passage of time is examined to judge the life of the rechargeable battery”, [0028], [0034], Fig. 3). Regarding claim 2 , Honma teaches wherein the criterion profile is a profile that represents a change in resistance values calculated in a charging process of a criterion battery at each predetermined cycle (see “the values of the internal resistance R successively obtained in the manner as described above as a history of the internal resistance R”, [0034]). Regarding claim 3 , Honma teaches wherein the processor is configured to generate a resistance profile representing one or more changes in the calculated resistance values (see “showing changes in values of the internal resistances R ”, [0015]-[0016], Figs. 4-5; [0036]-[0037]; see “the values of the internal resistance R successively obtained in the manner as described above as a history of the internal resistance R”, [0034]), and compare the resistance profile with the criterion profile to determine the resistance change pattern as a first resistance change pattern or a second resistance change pattern (see “compares the value of the internal resistance R at a time point of use of the rechargeable battery 1 with the internal resistance value as a comparative reference obtained from the history”, [0034] internal reference obtained from history is understood to be a criterion profile ; [0035]). Regarding claim 12 , Honma teaches A battery pack, comprising the apparatus for diagnosing the battery according to claim 1 (see “battery pack”, [0012], Fig. 1). Regarding claim 14 , Honma teaches: measuring a voltage value of the battery at each predetermined cycle during a battery charging process (see “a terminal voltage (measured at a node d) V of the rechargeable battery 1”, [0021]; see “…charging current I…Von(measured voltage)…Voff(measured voltage)…”, [0029]-[0030]; Figs. 1-2, [0009]); calculating resistance values of the battery based on the measured voltage values of the battery (see “internal resistance arithmetic operation portion”, [0025]-[0027], Fig. 1; see “calculate internal resistance”, [0025], Fig. 3); determining step of determining a resistance change pattern by comparing the calculated resistance values with a criterion profile (see “compares the value of the internal resistance R at a time point of use of the rechargeable battery 1 with the internal resistance value as a comparative reference obtained from the history”, [0034] internal reference obtained from history is understood to be a criterion profile ; [0035]); and determining a state of the battery based on the determined resistance change pattern (see “the change of the value of the internal resistance R with passage of time is examined to judge the life of the rechargeable battery”, [0028], [0034], Fig. 3) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honma in U.S. Patent Publication 20060113959 (see IDS filed 2025 Mar 17) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bae et al. in U.S. Patent Publication 20220231515 (see IDS 2024 Jan 31) . Regarding claim 11 , Honma teaches the limitations as indicated above. Honma differs from the claimed invention in that it is silent regarding repeatedly changing a charging current value of the battery at every predetermined cycle, and calculate the resistance values based on one or more changes in the measured voltage values while the charging current value of the battery corresponds to a predetermined value. Bae et al. teaches “controlling an operation of a secondary battery using a relative deterioration degree of an electrode. The method includes determining a SOC of the secondary battery whenever a pulse current flows through the secondary battery; determining an electrochemical reaction resistance from a voltage change amount measured during a preset initial time in each pulse current section and determining a lithium ion diffusion resistance from a voltage change amount measured during a remaining time except for the initial time” (Abstract). Further, Bae et al. teaches repeatedly changing a charging current value of the battery at every predetermined cycle (see “The pulse current is a charging current in which a charging section where a DC current is applied to the secondary battery 20 and a rest section where a DC current is not applied to the secondary battery 20 are repeated”, [0062]; see “repeats the process of applying a charging pulse current again (S70), calculating the electrochemical reaction resistance R.sub.t1,k…steps S70 to S90 are continuously repeated whenever a charging pulse current”, [0162]), and calculate the resistance values based on one or more changes in the measured voltage values while the charging current value of the battery corresponds to a predetermined value (see “calculating the electrochemical reaction resistance R.sub.t1,k ”, [0162]). Bae et al. discloses “adaptively controlling the charging/discharging operation conditions according to the type of an electrode having a relatively large deterioration degree” ([0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined the techniques taught in Bae et al. with Honma to improve Honma with a reasonable expectation that it would improve the accuracy of charging operations to determine the state of the battery . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honma in U.S. Patent Publication 20060113959 (see IDS filed 2025 Mar 17) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee in U.S. Patent Publication 20220155378 (see IDS 2024 Jan 31) . Regarding claim 13 , Honma teaches the limitations as indicated above. Honma differs from the claimed invention in that it is silent regarding a vehicle. Lee teaches “A battery resistance diagnosis device includes a current supply unit configured to supply a preset fixed current to a battery cell, a voltage measurement unit configured to measure an open circuit voltage of the battery cell while the fixed current is supplied, an external resistance calculation unit configured to calculate an external resistance value of the battery based on the fixed current and the open circuit voltage of the battery cell, and an abnormality diagnosis unit configured to diagnose a battery abnormality due to a voltage drop by comparing the calculated external resistance value with a preset external resistance value” (Abstract) comprising “a battery control system including a battery pack 1” ([0036]) wherein “a battery pack used for…a vehicle.” ([0041]). Lee discloses “accurately diagnose the sudden change in resistance of the battery cell” ([0023]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined the techniques taught in Lee with Honma to improve Honma with a reasonable expectation that it would improve the accuracy of using change in resistance to determine the state of the battery . Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-02 Claims 4-10 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. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the battery according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to calculate a first slope from the resistance profile, calculate a second slope from the criterion profile, and determine the resistance change pattern according to a result of comparing the first slope and the second slope , in combination with all other limitations as claimed by Applicant. Claims 5-10 depend from claim 4 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Bae et al. in U.S. Patent Publication 20210318388 teaches “A battery management apparatus for changing a control condition according to a degradation pattern in a charge situation of a battery cell. Since not only the degradation degree of the battery cell but also the degradation acceleration degree of the battery cell is estimated, the present degradation state of the battery cell may be more accurately estimated, and the future degradation state of the battery cell may also be predicted more accurately.” (Abstract). Lacey et al. in Non-Patent Literature “Analysis of Thermal Degradation of Batteries to Aid Temperature Control and Optimise Life” teaches “An analysis of the electrochemistry of the cell shows that the cell capacity depends on four characteristics – diffusion impedance, charge transfer impedance, loss of lithium and ohmic or internal resistance. The effect of temperature on each characteristic is analysed, extensive battery testing is described and shown to support the analysis” (Abstract). Yoshioka et al. in U.S. Patent 8975897 teaches “The deterioration-amount calculating unit 35 shown in FIG. 8-1 includes, as main components, the voltage simulation unit 231 and the resistance/capacity calculating unit 232. The deterioration-amount calculating unit 35 estimates a deterioration state of a battery from current and voltage data in a fixed time according to changes in the resistance 15, the resistance 16, and the capacitance 18. Specifically, the deterioration-amount calculating unit 35 sequentially calculates a resistance component and a capacitance component of a capacitor in an assumed control mode to thereby estimate a degree of worsening of a battery deterioration state.” (column 9 line 65 – column 10 line 12). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MISCHITA HENSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3944. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-6pm EST. 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. /MI'SCHITA' HENSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/293,992 Page 2 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/293,992 Page 3 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/293,992 Page 4 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/293,992 Page 5 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/293,992 Page 6 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/293,992 Page 7 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/293,992 Page 8 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/293,992 Page 9 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/293,992 Page 10 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/293,992 Page 11 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/293,992 Page 12 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/293,992 Page 13 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/293,992 Page 14 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/293,992 Page 15 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/293,992 Page 16 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/293,992 Page 17 Art Unit: 2857
Prosecution Insights