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 2/19/2026 has been entered and made record. This application contains 15 pending claims.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 12, and 15 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/19/2025 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 in claim 1-15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on pages 9-11 of the remark filed on 2/19/2025 that “… The above-noted clarified claim features are believed to clearly set forth non-mathematical concepts, and to even further clarify features of the practical application realized with claimed features. First, applicant submits a "measurement circuit" and the operation thereof of measuring a current and voltage of the second battery are clearly directed to structural aspects and are not directed to mathematical concepts. Applicant submits those amendments alone address the outstanding rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims also clarify operations of a "calculation processor", which are also clearly not directed to a mathematical process but instead a structural element. Applicant submits each of those clarified claim features is directed to a structural element and not a mathematical concept, thereby addressing the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. The step of “calculating a relationship between the plurality of SOC values of the secondary battery and at least one of a charge transfer resistance and a vertex frequency of the second electrode by calculating at least one of the charge transfer resistance and the vertex frequency of the second electrode based on a measurement result of an impedance of the secondary battery for each of the plurality of SOC values of the secondary battery” is a mathematical concept, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The applicant argues on pages 10-11 of the remark filed that “… The above-noted clarified claim features are believed to clearly set forth non-mathematical concepts, and to even further clarify features of the practical application realized with claimed features. … Applicant submits the claims as currently written are also clearly directed to a practical application. … Applicant submits the claims clearly set forth a practical application of providing benefits in controlling charging and discharging of a battery and based on more effectively determining degradation of that battery based on the measurements and calculations performed in the clarified claims. Applicant submits the claims as currently written clearly set forth a practical application.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. Practical application can be demonstrated by additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional element “measuring, by a measurement circuit, a current and a voltage of the secondary battery at each of a plurality of SOC values of the secondary battery, and measuring a frequency characteristic of impedance of the secondary battery based on measurement result of the current and the voltage for each of the plurality of SOC values” is considered necessary data gathering and thus, not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e., receiving measured 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).
The additional element “outputting, by an operation condition processor, an operation command corresponding to the calculated relationship between the at least one of the charge transfer resistance and the vertex frequency of the second electrode and the plurality of SOC values of the secondary battery” is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the current claim does not recite additional elements that are indicative of integration of an abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent claims 12 and 15 recite subject matter that are similar or analogous to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claims are also patent ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-11, and 13-14 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 2-6 are also patent ineligible.
Hence, the Examiner submits that the rejections of Claims 1-15 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 1-15 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 significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “A diagnosis method of a secondary battery which includes a first electrode including a first electrode active material that performs a two phase coexistence reaction, and a second electrode including a second active material that performs a single-phase reaction and having a polarity opposite to a polarity of the first electrode, the method comprising:
measuring, by a measurement circuit, a current and a voltage of the secondary battery at each of a plurality of SOC values of the secondary battery, and measuring a frequency characteristic of impedance of the secondary battery based on measurement result of the current and the voltage for each of the plurality of SOC values;
calculating, by a calculation processor, a relationship between the plurality of SOC values of the secondary battery and at least one of a charge transfer resistance and a vertex frequency of the second electrode by calculating at least one of the charge transfer resistance and the vertex frequency of the second electrode based on a measurement result of an impedance of the secondary battery for each of the plurality of SOC values of the secondary battery, and
outputting, by an operation condition processor, an operation command corresponding to the calculated relationship between the at least one of the charge transfer resistance and the vertex frequency of the second electrode and the plurality of SOC values of the secondary battery.”
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 12 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).
In claim 1, the step identified in bold type is a mathematical concept, therefore, they are considered to be 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 a measurement circuit, a current and a voltage of the secondary battery at each of a plurality of SOC values of the secondary battery, and measuring a frequency characteristic of impedance of the secondary battery based on measurement result of the current and the voltage for each of the plurality of SOC values; and outputting, by an operation condition processor, an operation command corresponding to the calculated relationship between the at least one of the charge transfer resistance and the vertex frequency of the second electrode and the plurality of SOC values of the secondary battery.
The additional element “measuring, by a measurement circuit, a current and a voltage of the secondary battery at each of a plurality of SOC values of the secondary battery, and measuring a frequency characteristic of impedance of the secondary battery based on measurement result of the current and the voltage for each of the plurality of SOC values” represents necessary data gathering and does not integrate the limitation into a practical application. The additional element “outputting, by an operation condition processor, an operation command corresponding to the calculated relationship between the at least one of the charge transfer resistance and the vertex frequency of the second electrode and the plurality of SOC values of the secondary battery” is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. In addition, a generic processor is generally recited and therefore, not qualified as a particular machine.
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, by a measurement circuit, a current and a voltage of the secondary battery at each of a plurality of SOC values of the secondary battery, and measuring a frequency characteristic of impedance of the secondary battery based on measurement result of the current and the voltage for each of the plurality of SOC values” is considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e., 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, outputting, by an operation condition processor, an operation command corresponding to the calculated relationship between the at least one of the charge transfer resistance and the vertex frequency of the second electrode and the plurality of SOC values of the secondary battery is disclosed by “Howey US 20180198300”, [0045], [0138], [0137]); and “Kozlowski US 20030184307”, [0021].
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 12 and 15 recite subject matter that is similar or analogous to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claim is also patent ineligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-11 and 13-14 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 1-15, the most pertinent prior arts are “Ugaji JP 2000100479A”,
“Howey US 20180198300”, “Kume WO 2021191993A1”, “Yoshima US 20170358825”, “Yamamoto US 20180294514”, “Koba US 20140229130”, “Haga US 20190064282”, and “Kozlowski US 20030184307”.
As to claims 1, 12, and 15, Ugaji teaches a first electrode including a first electrode active material that performs a two-phase coexistence reaction (Ugaji, [0057]), and a second electrode including a second active material that performs a single-phase reaction and having a polarity opposite to a polarity of the first electrode (Ugaji, [0040], [0041], [0043]).
Haga teaches measuring, by a measurement circuit, a current and a voltage of the secondary battery at each of a plurality of SOC values of the secondary battery, and measuring a frequency characteristic of impedance of the secondary battery based on measurement result of the current and the voltage for each of the plurality of SOC values (Haga, [0009], [0010], [0012], [0080], [0101]).
Howey teaches calculating, by a calculation processor, at least one of the charge transfer resistance of the second electrode based on a measurement result of an impedance of the secondary battery for each of a plurality of SOC values of the secondary battery (Howey, [0024], [0135], [0137]);
outputting, by an operation condition processor, an operation command corresponding to the calculated relationship between the at least one of the charge transfer resistance and the vertex frequency of the second electrode and the plurality of SOC values of the secondary battery (Howey, [0045], [0138], [0137]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “calculating a relationship between the plurality of SOC values of the secondary battery and at least one of a charge transfer resistance and a vertex frequency of the second electrode by calculating at least one of the charge transfer resistance and the vertex frequency of the second electrode based on a measurement result of an impedance of the secondary battery for each of the plurality of SOC values of the secondary battery” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-14 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claims 1 and 12.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights