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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant' s amendment and response filed 1/9/2026 has been entered and made record. This application contains 20 pending claims.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Claim 15 has been amended and the amended claim limitations overcome the claim objection. Therefore, claim objection in claim 15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/9/2026 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 in claim 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended, and the amended claims limitations overcome the 103 rejections. Therefore, the 103 rejections in claims 1-20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/9/2026 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 in claim 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on page 8 of the remark filed on 1/9/2026 that “Claims 1-20 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as allegedly being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections. By this Amendment, claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended to include something more. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejections is respectfully requested. ”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. The steps of “estimating at least one capacity value of the battery for subsequent charging cycles and subsequent discharging cycles using the at least one capacity value”; and “forecasting the RUL of the battery based on the at least one capacity value of the battery estimated” are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea. The step of “determining whether the at least one capacity value for the charging cycle and the discharging cycle is lower than the at least one capacity value estimated” is a combination of a mathematical concept and a mental process, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Therefore, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are also patent ineligible.
Hence, the Examiner submits that the rejections of Claims 1-20 are proper.
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 1-20 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 significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “A method for forecasting remaining useful life (RUL) of a battery, the method comprising:
measuring, by an electronic device, at least one capacity value of the battery
for each charging cycle of the battery and each discharging cycle of the battery;
estimating, by the electronic device, at least one capacity value of the battery for subsequent charging cycles and subsequent discharging cycles using the at least one capacity value, wherein the at least one capacity value is provided to at least one of a battery capacity estimation model or a data driven model after a predefined number of charging cycles and a predefined number of discharging cycles;
forecasting, by the electronic device, the RUL of the battery based on the at least one capacity value of the battery estimated by at least one of the battery capacity estimation model or the data driven model, the forecasting is performed using a last predefined number of charging cycles and a last predefined number of discharging cycles of measured capacity values of the battery for charging cycles of the battery and discharging cycles of the battery;
determining, by the electronic device, whether the at least one capacity value for the charging cycle and the discharging cycle is lower than the at least one capacity value estimated by at least one of the battery capacity estimation model or the data driven model; and
correcting, by the electronic device, the forecasting RUL of the battery by feeding back the at least one capacity value to at least one of the battery capacity estimation model or the data driven model.”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process for claim 1, and apparatus for claims 8 and 15).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions).
In claim 1, the steps of “estimating at least one capacity value of the battery for subsequent charging cycles and subsequent discharging cycles using the at least one capacity value”; and
“forecasting the RUL of the battery based on the at least one capacity value of the battery estimated” are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea.
The step of “determining whether the at least one capacity value for the charging cycle and the discharging cycle is lower than the at least one capacity value estimated” is a combination of a mathematical concept and a mental process, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim comprises the following additional elements:
measuring, by an electronic device, at least one capacity value of the battery for each charging cycle of the battery and each discharging cycle of the battery; the electronic device, wherein the at least one capacity value is provided to at least one of a battery capacity estimation model or a data driven model after a predefined number of charging cycles and a predefined number of discharging cycles; at least one of the battery capacity estimation model or the data driven model, the forecasting is performed using a last predefined number of charging cycles and a last predefined number of discharging cycles of measured capacity values of the battery for charging cycles of the battery and discharging cycles of the battery; and correcting, by the electronic device, the forecasting RUL of the battery by feeding back the at least one capacity value to at least one of the battery capacity estimation model or the data driven model.
The additional element “measuring, by an electronic device, at least one capacity value of the battery for each charging cycle of the battery and each discharging cycle of the battery” represents necessary data gathering and does not integrate the limitation into a practical application. The additional elements “wherein the at least one capacity value is provided to at least one of a battery capacity estimation model or a data driven model after a predefined number of charging cycles and a predefined number of discharging cycles”; “at least one of the battery capacity estimation model or the data driven model, the forecasting is performed using a last predefined number of charging cycles and a last predefined number of discharging cycles of measured capacity values of the battery for charging cycles of the battery and discharging cycles of the battery”; and “correcting, by the electronic device, the forecasting RUL of the battery by feeding back the at least one capacity value to at least one of the battery capacity estimation model or the data driven model” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception.
The additional elements “a battery capacity estimation model” and “a data driven model” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are considered a generic computer element. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, measuring at least one capacity value of the battery for each charging cycle of the battery and each discharging cycle of the battery by an electronic device is considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. measuring and receiving data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
For example, correcting the forecasting RUL of the battery, by the electronic device, by feeding back the at least one capacity value to at least one of the battery capacity estimation model or the data driven model is disclosed by “He US 20170205466”, [0037], [0080], [0084]; and “Chow US 20160209472”, [0053], [0075], [0078], [0110].
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite subject matter that are similar or analogous to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claims are also patent ineligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not patent eligible.
Examiner' s Note
Regarding Claims 1-20, the most pertinent prior arts are “He US 20170205466”, “Chow US 20160209472”, “Kong US 20230213586”, “Huseth US 20090018785”, “Bi US 20090167543”, and “Abiven US 4803416A”.
As to claims 1, 8, and 15, He teaches measuring at least one capacity value of the battery for each charging cycle of the battery and each discharging cycle of the battery (He, [0012], [0013]);
estimating at least one capacity value of the battery for subsequent charging cycles and subsequent discharging cycles using the at least one capacity value (He, [0009], [0012], [0013], [0044]), wherein the at least one capacity value is provided to at least one of a battery capacity estimation model or a data driven model after a predefined number of charging cycles and a predefined number of discharging cycles (He, [0080]);
forecasting the RUL of the battery based on the at least one capacity value of the battery estimated by at least one of the battery capacity estimation model or the data driven model (He, [0008], [0013], [0014], [0016]);
determining whether the at least one capacity value for the charging cycle and the discharging cycle is lower than the at least one capacity value estimated by at least one of the battery capacity estimation model or the data driven model (He, FIG. 7, [0080]); and
correcting the forecasting RUL of the battery by feeding back the at least one capacity value to at least one of the battery capacity estimation model or the data driven model (He, [0037], [0080]).
Chow teaches at least one processor (Chow, [0120]); a memory ([0121]); and a health, safety, and prognosis controller, coupled with the at least one processor ([0120], [0121]) and the memory measuring, by an electronic device, at least one capacity value of the battery (Chow, [0059], [0064]);
estimating, by the electronic device ([0057]), at least one capacity value of the battery (Chow, [0015], [0048]);
forecasting, by the electronic device ([0057]), the RUL of the battery (Chow, [0049]);
determining, by the electronic device ([0059]), whether the at least one capacity value for the charging cycle and the discharging cycle is lower than the at least one capacity value estimated by at least one of the battery capacity estimation model or the data driven model (Chow, [0017]); and
correcting, by the electronic device, the forecasting RUL of the battery by feeding back the at least one capacity value to at least one of the battery capacity estimation model or the data driven model (Chow, [0053]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “the forecasting is performed using a last predefined number of charging cycles and a last predefined number of discharging cycles of measured capacity values of the battery for charging cycles of the battery and discharging cycles of the battery” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claims 1, 8, and 15.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 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, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/LAL CE MANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857