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.
Response to Arguments
No response was provided with regard to the certified copy of the KR 10-2023-0108262 application has not been filed by applicant.
Applicant’s claim amendment overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-13 made previously.
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument found on pages 8 and first half of page 9 which argues that the claims 1 and 8 are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea because they result in a more accurate diagnosis of a battery detect.
It is respectfully disagreed.
Claim 1 does not claim a computer, improvement to computer functionality might not a subject matter of claim 1.
Claim 1 is directed to a method of diagnosing an assembly defect of a battery pack which may be perform by a human, and performing the calculating steps and comparing step may be performed using human mental processes with pen and page and measurement values are being used in the calculating steps and/or comparing step.
Although claim 8 recites a processor that forms the performing the calculating steps and comparing step as claimed, the processor is a generic component of a generic computer; therefore, the recites “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.
Applicant’s argument found on second half of page 9 which argues that the features recited in claims 1 and 8 which results a quick diagnosis of battery defect in advance of potential harmful effects caused by the battery defect, even with pen and paper, a human mind would be unable to perform any of the features of the claims with the corresponding practicality to prevent any harmful effects caused by a battery defect.
It is respectfully disagreed.
Claim 1 is directed with a method and there is no evident to show that claim 1 will be performed quicker, and performing the calculating steps and comparing step may be performed using human mental processes with pen and page and measurement values are being used in the calculating steps and/or comparing step.
Although claim 8 recites a processor to performing the calculating steps and comparing step which may be quicker than performing the calculating steps and comparing step with pen and paper, the recites “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.
The harmful effects are not taking into account into the calculating steps and comparing step; however, the harmful effects can be avoided such that data measurements may be taken first, and performing the calculating steps and comparing step may be done with pen and paper by a human at a safe location.
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 [[and]] configured to control charging/discharging of the battery module; and
comparing a first voltage value of the battery pack with a second voltage value of the battery pack, the first voltage value being calculated based on the internal resistance value of the battery module and the internal resistance value of the BCU, and the second voltage value being a measured voltage value 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 “comparing a first voltage value of the battery pack with a 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 recites “the first voltage value being calculated based on the internal resistance value of the battery module and the internal resistance value of the BCU” may be performed 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.
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.
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”, and “configured to control charging/discharging of the battery module” 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 both ends of the battery module as measurement points” where “using both ends of the battery module as measurement points” 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, [[and]]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, and
to diagnose the assembly defect of the battery pack by comparing a first voltage value of the battery pack with a second voltage value of the battery pack, the first voltage value being calculated based on the internal resistance value of the battery module and the internal resistance value of the BCU, and the second voltage value being a measured 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 recite “diagnose the assembly defect of the 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 “comparing a first voltage value of the battery pack with a 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 8 recites “the first voltage value being calculated based on the internal resistance value of the battery module and the internal resistance value of the BCU” may be performed 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.
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.
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”, and “a processor” 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 both ends of the battery module as measurement points” where “use both ends of the battery module as measurement points” 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.
Lim et al. (US 2007/0145948) teaches “battery 2 includes a plurality of sub-packs 2a through 2h having a plurality of battery cells coupled in series to each other, an output terminal 2_OUT1, an output terminal 2_OUT2, and a safety switch 2_SW provided between the sub-pack 2d and the sub-pack 2e. While eight sub-packs 2a through 2h are shown in the present embodiment, with each sub-pack comprising a plurality of battery unit cells, it is to be understood that the present invention is not limited thereto. The safety switch 2_SW may be manually turned on/off to provide safety to workers when performing repairs on the battery or when replacing the battery. In the embodiment of FIG. 1, the safety switch 2_SW is provided between the sub-pack 2d and the sub-pack 2e, but the location is not limited thereto. The output terminal 2_OUT1 and the output terminal 2_OUT2 are coupled to the inverter 8” (e.g. fig. 1, [0030]).
Li (US 2012/0004873) teaches “a battery pack includes multiple battery cells 102_1-102_N. In the battery management system 130, a set of temperature sensors, e.g., thermistors 104_1-104_N coupled to the battery cells 102_1-102_N, can sense temperatures of the battery cells 102_1-102_N respectively, and can generate monitoring signals corresponding to the temperatures of the battery cells 102_1-102_N to a multiplexer 110. Furthermore, a detector 108 coupled to the battery cells 102_1-102_N can detect cell voltages across the battery cells 102_1-102_N according to potential levels measured at two terminals of the battery cells 102_1-102_N, and can generate monitoring signals corresponding to the cell voltages of the battery cells 102_1-102_N to the multiplexer 110” (e.g. fig. 1, [0019]).
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 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
Prosecution Insights