DETAILED ACTION
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
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 12-13 are canceled.
Claims 2-11 and 14-17 are as previously presented.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-7 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 4 and 15 are previously presented but contain language that has been struck through and removed already. Claims 5-7 are objected based on their inherent issues. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The amended claims recite several “means for” but it is not clear by what means and what structures, materials or acts for performing the recited functions are being referred to as the specification does not recite “means for” or define the respective means. While the previous claims referred to the processor performing the steps, it is not clear by what individual means each step is performed.
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 1-11 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) 1 recite “determining a State of Health (SoH)”, and “identifying, at least a first voltage drop relative to said start voltage value by comparing consecutive readings of voltage files from the OS of the portable communication device; calculating, based on pairs of consecutive voltage readings a voltage change value; comparing, with the processor, said calculated voltage change value of said power source to threshold values stored in a database; and determining, said State of Health of said power source based on said comparison of said calculated voltage change value and said threshold values” are considered to be directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “means for”, “a power source of a communication device”, and “activating, software components installed on said communication device to electrically load hardware of said device;”, are considered to be generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The elements of “extracting, at least one device parameter from said portable communication device”; “obtaining from voltage files of an Operation System (OS) running on the communication device, a start voltage value of said power source and a time stamp indicative of the time said start voltage value is obtained;”, and “means for presenting an indication of the SoH of the power source the SoH of the power source to provide SoH information to a user of the communication device: and means for presenting information to take precautionary action prior to expiration of the power source when the comparison of said calculated voltage change value to said one or more threshold values SoH indicates a bad SoH” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “means for”, “a power source of a communication device”, “activating, software components installed on said portable communication device to electrically load hardware of said device;”, and are considered to be generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The elements of “extracting, the communication device, at least one device parameter from said portable communication device”; and “obtaining from voltage files of an Operation System (OS) running on the communication device, a start voltage value of said power source and a time stamp indicative of the time said start voltage value is obtained;” are considered to be well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). The elements of “extracting, at least one device parameter from said communication device”; “obtaining from voltage files of an Operation System (OS) running on the portable communication device, a start voltage value of said power source and a time stamp indicative of the time said start voltage value is obtained;” and “means for presenting an indication of the SoH of the power source the SoH of the power source to provide SoH information to a user of the communication device: and means for presenting information to take precautionary action prior to expiration of the power source when the comparison of said calculated voltage change value to said one or more threshold values SoH indicates a bad SoH” are considered to be mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea 2106.05(g) as well as well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d) (see US 20110316548 A1, US 20090109046 A1 US 20060181245 A1).
Claims 2 and 4-11 are considered to further describe the abstract ideas cited above.
Claims 3 and 14-17 are not integrated into a practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are considered to be generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d) (see US 20110316548 A1, US 20090109046, A1 US 20060181245 A1 and US 20130198541 A1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 and 14-17 would be allowable if the 101 rejections set forth in this Office action is overcome and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The claims differ from the prior art of record Rabii (US 20130198541) either singularly or in combination because they fail to anticipate or render obvious “wherein at least one of said one or more threshold values is calculated based on at least one of: a mean voltage drop rate of a first cluster of power sources known to have a good state of health, wherein the first cluster of the power sources has a good SoH based on SoH data for the first cluster of the power sources; and a mean voltage drop rate of a second cluster of power sources known to have a bad state of health, wherein the first cluster and the second cluster are determined by a clustering algorithm and the second cluster of the power sources has a bad SoH based on SoH data for the second cluster of the power sources” in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s 101 arguments the examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the claims being “integrated into a practical application”, the “how” applicant cites is by using an abstract idea without significantly more as cited in the rejection, which is not integrated into a practical application. Claim does not solve any technical problem as merely performing calculations does not “solve” anything but the calculations. No action is taken based on said calculations/determinations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20200264237 A1, APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR CALCULATING SOH OF BATTERY PACK; US 20180090948 A1, DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANAGING SOC AND SOH OF PARALLEL-CONNECTED BATTERY PACK.
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 BRANDON J BECKER whose telephone number is (571)431-0689. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/B.J.B/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights