DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of claims
Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 6 and 13 are cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument found in last two paragraphs on page 7 and first two paragraphs on page 8 of applicant’s remarks, which argues that “measuring a second volage value of the battery pack” cannot be performed by a human mind (even with a pen and paper); therefore, the claims (claim 1 and claim 8) “are not directed to an abstract idea because they do not recite an abstract idea.
It is respectfully disagreed.
Although “measuring a second volage value of the battery pack” is not an abstract idea, the calculating steps, the determine step, the comparing step and diagnosing step of claim 1 are abstracts as explained in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection below; in particular, the “measuring a second voltage value of the battery pack” which do not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. It is because that “measuring a second voltage value of the battery pack” is merely generally insignificant measurement data collection which do not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application.
Although “measure a second voltage value of the battery pack” is not an abstract idea, calculate steps, the determine step, and the diagnose step of claim are abstracts as explained in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection below, and the recited “processor” is a generally insignificant computing processor recited at high level generality. Using the processor to perform calculations and process the collected measurement data which does not integrate such abstract ideas into a practical application; in particular, the “measure a second voltage value of the battery pack” which do not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. It is because that “measure a second voltage value of the battery pack” is merely generally insignificant measurement data collection which do not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application.
Applicant’s argument found last 5 paragraphs on page 8 of applicant’s remarks, which argues that claims 1 and 8 indues patentable subject matter by providing an improvement to technology/the technical field of diagnosing an assembly defect of a battery which integrate the alleged judicial exception into a patent eligible practical application.
It is respectfully disagreed.
Claim 1 recites the “diagnosing, based on the comparing, the assembly defect of the battery pack” may be performed by human mental process in particular performing diagnosing mentally through comparing process by a human; therefore, human mental process is abstract idea.
When considering claim 1 as a whole, the additional elements of “a battery module comprising battery cells in the battery pack”, “a battery control unit (BCU) in the battery pack”, “the second voltage value being a measured voltage value of the battery pack”, “configured to control charging/discharging of the battery module”, and “measuring a second voltage value of the battery pack” not amount to significantly more than judicial exception.
Claim 8 recite “to diagnose the assembly defect of the battery pack by comparing the first voltage value of the battery pack with the second voltage value of the battery pack” may be performed by human mental process in particular performing diagnosing mentally through comparing process by a human; therefore, human mental process is abstract idea.
When considering claim 8 as a whole, the additional elements of “a battery module in the battery pack and comprising battery cells”, “a battery control unit (BCU) in the battery pack”, “the second voltage value being a measured voltage value of the battery pack”, “configured to control charging/discharging of the battery module”, “a processor” and “to measure a second voltage value of the battery pack” do not amount to significantly more than judicial exception.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Republic of Korea on 08/18/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR 10-2023-0108262 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 1:
1. A method of diagnosing an assembly defect of a battery pack, the method comprising:
calculating an internal resistance value of a battery module comprising battery cells in the battery pack based on an estimated amount of change of the internal resistance value of the battery module;
calculating an internal resistance value of a battery control unit (BCU) in the battery pack based on at least on measurement point for components of the BCU, the BCU being configured to control charging/discharging of the battery module;
determining a first voltage value of the battery pack based on the internal resistance value of the battery module and the internal resistance value of the BCU;
measuring a second voltage value of the battery pack;
comparing the first voltage value of the battery pack with the second voltage value of the battery pack; and
diagnosing, based on the comparing, the assembly defect of the battery pack.
Analysis Steps for claim 1:
Step 1: Is claim 1 claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, claim 1 recites a method which is within one of the 4 statutory categories the process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Step 2a) Prong One: Does claim 1 recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, claim 1 recite “diagnosing an assembly defect of a battery pack” may be performed by human mental process in particular performing diagnosing mentally by a human; therefore, human mental process is abstract idea.
Yes, claim 1 recites “calculating an internal resistance value of a battery module comprising battery cells in the battery pack based on an estimated amount of change of the internal resistance value of the battery module” may be performed by human mental process in particular performing mathematical calculation in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper to perform mathematical calculation; therefore, mathematical calculation performed by human mental process is abstract idea; and an estimated amount itself may be a result of mental processing of estimating that maybe performed using mathematical calculation performed by human mental process which is abstract idea.
Yes, claim 1 recites “calculating an internal resistance value of a battery control unit (BCU) in the battery pack” may be performed by human mental process in particular performing mathematical calculation in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper to perform mathematical calculation; therefore, mathematical calculation performed by human mental process is abstract idea.
Yes, claim 1 recites “determining a first voltage value of the battery pack based on the internal resistance value of the battery module and the internal resistance value of the BCU” may be performed in human mind to make a determination of the first voltage value; therefore, human mental process is abstract idea.
Yes, claim 1 recites “comparing the first voltage value of the battery pack with the second voltage value of the battery pack” may be performed by human mental process on comparing; therefore, human mental comparing process is abstract idea.
Yes, claim 1 recite “diagnosing, based on the comparing, the assembly defect of the battery pack” may be performed by human mental process in particular performing diagnosing mentally through comparing process by a human; therefore, human mental process is abstract idea.
Step 2a) Prong Two: Does claim 1 recite additional element that integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application?
No, claim 1 recites additional elements “a battery module comprising battery cells in the battery pack” and “a battery control unit (BCU) in the battery pack” which do not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. It is because that “a battery module comprising battery cells in the battery pack” and “a battery control unit (BCU) in the battery pack” are being used and provided as objects to enable calculations of their corresponding internal resistances which are insignificant pre-solution activities; therefore, “a battery module comprising battery cells in the battery pack” and “a battery control unit (BCU) in the battery pack” are generally linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment which do not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application.
No, claim 1 recites additional element “based on at least on measurement point for components of the BCU” which do not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. It is because that the measurement point may be merely a result of insignificant data collecting process.
No, claim 1 recites additional element “the second voltage value being a measured voltage value of the battery pack” which do not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. It is because that “the second voltage value being a measured voltage value of the battery pack” is merely generally insignificant measurement data collection which do not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application.
No, claim 1 recites additional elements “configured to control charging/discharging of the battery module” that is insignificant general extra solution activity generally linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment which do not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application.
No, claim 1 recites additional element “measuring a second voltage value of the battery pack” which do not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. It is because that “measuring a second voltage value of the battery pack” is merely generally insignificant measurement data collection which do not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application.
Step 2b): Does claim 1 recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception?
No, when considering claim 1 as a whole, the additional elements of “a battery module comprising battery cells in the battery pack”, “a battery control unit (BCU) in the battery pack”, “the second voltage value being a measured voltage value of the battery pack”, “configured to control charging/discharging of the battery module”, and “measuring a second voltage value of the battery pack” not amount to significantly more than judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
PNG
media_image1.png
949
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
690
768
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 is analogously rejected as in claim 1, claim 2 recites “wherein the calculating of the internal resistance value of the battery module comprises using a first pair of ends of the battery module as one or more of the at least one measurement point” where “using a first pair of ends of the battery module as one or more of the at least one measurement point” is insignificant general extra solution activity in obtaining measurement points merely for measurement data collection.
Regarding claims 3-4, claims 3-4 are analogously rejected as in claim 1, where claims 3-4 recites corresponding calculations which may be performed by human mental process in particular performing mathematical calculation in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper to perform mathematical calculation; therefore, mathematical calculation performed by human mental process is abstract idea.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 is analogously rejected as in claim 1, claim 5 recites “determining the magnitude of the second voltage value is greater than the magnitude of the first voltage value” which may be performed by human mental process; therefore, human mental process is abstract idea.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites “A computer program stored on a recording medium to execute the method as claimed in claim 1 by using a computing device” is a computer program per se which fails step 1. It is because that a computer program per se is not a process, machine, manufacture nor composition of matter.
Regarding claim 8:
8. An apparatus for diagnosing an assembly defect of a battery pack, the apparatus comprising:
a battery module in the battery pack and comprising battery cells;
a battery control unit (BCU) in the battery pack, the BCU being configured to control charging/discharging of the battery module; and
a processor, wherein the processor is configured:
to calculate an internal resistance value of the battery module based on an estimated amount of change of the internal resistance value of the battery module,
to calculate an internal resistance value of the BCU based on at least one measurement point for components of BCU,
to determine a first voltage value based on the internal resistance value of the battery module and the internal resistance value of the BCU;
to measure a second voltage value of the battery pack, and
to diagnose the assembly defect of the battery pack by comparing the first voltage value of the battery pack with the second voltage value of the battery pack.
Analysis Steps for claim 8:
Step 1: Is claim 8 claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, claim 8 recites an apparatus which is within one of the 4 statutory categories the process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Step 2a) Prong One: Does claim 8 recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, claim 8 recite “diagnosing an assembly defect of a battery pack” may be performed by human mental process in particular performing diagnosing mentally by a human; therefore, human mental process is abstract idea.
Yes, claim 8 recites “calculate an internal resistance value of the battery module based on an estimated amount of change of the internal resistance value of the battery module” may be performed by human mental process in particular performing mathematical calculation in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper to perform mathematical calculation; therefore, mathematical calculation performed by human mental process is abstract idea; and an estimated amount itself may be a result of mental processing of estimating that maybe performed using mathematical calculation performed by human mental process which is abstract idea.
Yes, claim 8 recites “calculate an internal resistance value of the BCU based on at least one measurement point for components of BCU” may be performed by human mental process in particular performing mathematical calculation in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper to perform mathematical calculation; therefore, mathematical calculation performed by human mental process is abstract idea.
Yes, claim 8 recites “to determine a first voltage value based on the internal resistance value of the battery module and the internal resistance value of the BCU” may be performed in human mind to make a determination of the first voltage value; therefore, human mental process is abstract idea.
Yes, claim 8 recite “to diagnose the assembly defect of the battery pack by comparing the first voltage value of the battery pack with the second voltage value of the battery pack” may be performed by human mental process in particular performing diagnosing mentally through comparing process by a human; therefore, human mental process is abstract idea.
Step 2a) Prong Two: Does claim 8 recite additional element that integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application?
No, claim 8 recites additional elements “a battery module in the battery pack and comprising battery cells” and “a battery control unit (BCU) in the battery pack” which do not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. It is because that “a battery module in the battery pack and comprising battery cells” and “a battery control unit (BCU) in the battery pack” are being used and provided as objects to enable calculations of their corresponding internal resistances which are insignificant pre-solution activities; therefore, “a battery module in the battery pack and comprising battery cells” and “a battery control unit (BCU) in the battery pack” are generally linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment which do not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application.
No, claim 8 recites additional element “at least one measurement point for components of the BCU” which do not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. It is because that the measurement point may be merely a result of insignificant data collecting process.
No, claim 8 recites additional element “the second voltage value being a measured voltage value of the battery pack” which do not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. It is because that “the second voltage value being a measured voltage value of the battery pack” is merely generally insignificant measurement data collection which do not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application.
No, claim 8 recites additional elements “configured to control charging/discharging of the battery module” that is insignificant general extra solution activity generally linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment which do not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application.
No, claim 8 recites “a processor” is a generally insignificant computing processor recited at high level generality. Using the processor to perform calculations and process the collected measurement data which does not integrate such abstract ideas into a practical application.
No, claim 8 recites additional element “to measure a second voltage value of the battery pack” which do not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. It is because that “measure a second voltage value of the battery pack” is merely generally insignificant measurement data collection which do not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application.
Step 2b): Does claim 8 recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception?
No, when considering claim 8 as a whole, the additional elements of “a battery module in the battery pack and comprising battery cells”, “a battery control unit (BCU) in the battery pack”, “the second voltage value being a measured voltage value of the battery pack”, “configured to control charging/discharging of the battery module”, “a processor” and “to measure a second voltage value of the battery pack” do not amount to significantly more than judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 8 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
PNG
media_image1.png
949
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
690
768
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is analogously rejected as in claim 8, claim 9 recites “wherein the processor is further configured to use a first pair of ends of the battery module as one or more of the at least one measurement point” where “use a first pair of ends of the battery module as one or more of the measurement point” is insignificant general extra solution activity in obtaining measurement points merely for measurement data collection.
Regarding claim 10-12, claims 10-12 is analogously rejected as in claim 8, where claims 10-12 recites corresponding calculations which may be performed by human mental process in particular performing mathematical calculation in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper to perform mathematical calculation; therefore, mathematical calculation performed by human mental process is abstract idea.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ueda et al. (US 2009/0295399) teaches “the ECU 50 inputs detection results such as a voltage, a current, and a temperature of the battery 30 transferred from the voltage sensor 56, the current sensor 52, and the temperature sensor 54, and accumulates the current value of the battery 30, and detects a polarization state of the battery 30, a capacitance of the battery 30, a state of charge (SOC, charging state) of the battery 30, and a state of function (SOF, response voltage) of the battery 30 (step S001)” (e.g. fig. 3, [0045]).
Suzuki (US 2015/0111076) teaches “the current sensor 4 is connected to the battery management unit 2 by a current value detecting circuit 9. Information about a current value detected by the current sensor 4 is transferred to the battery management unit 2 through the current value detecting circuit 9. Also, a contactor 6 for switching a connection and disconnection state of the high-voltage circuit 5 is interposed in each of the minus side circuit 5A and the plus side circuit 5B. The contactor 6 is a relay unit of a normally open type, and changes to a connection state when an energization voltage from the vehicle side is inputted, and changes to a disconnection state when the energization voltage is not inputted” (e.g. fig. 2, [0043]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIDONG ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5815. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. 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.
/HAIDONG ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
