CTNF 18/406,400 CTNF 92606 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 16-19 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. Claim 16 recites “a plurality of target SOCs and a plurality of target battery characteristic information” and claim 17 recites “a plurality of target powers”, however claim 13 already recites such elements, it is unclear if these are new or previous elements. For the purposes of examining, they are considered to be the same. Claims 18-19 are rejected based on their inherent issues. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 an abstract idea without significantly more. Under step 1, claim 1, 13 and 20 belongs to a statutory category. Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 1, and similarly 13 and 20 recite(s) “calculating battery energy” and “wherein the processor calculates: a plurality of target SOCs, each defined for a preset plurality of nodes; a plurality of target battery characteristic information, each defined for the plurality of nodes, based on the relationship information stored in the memory and the calculated plurality of target SOCs; a plurality of target powers, each defined for the plurality of nodes, from the calculated plurality of target battery characteristic information; and energy of the battery device using a weighted sum method with respect to the plurality of target powers calculated above” which are directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes per applicant’s specification see Par. 41, 46-48, 53, and 56. Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “an apparatus for” and “the apparatus comprising: a memory storing relationship information between a stepwise state of charge (SOC) of a battery device and a plurality of battery characteristic information corresponding to each stepwise SOC; and a processor operatively coupled to the memory” and in claim 20 “a computer program recorded in a non-transient computer-readable storage medium to execute, in combination with hardware, the computer program” are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “an apparatus for” and “the apparatus comprising: a memory storing relationship information between a stepwise state of charge (SOC) of a battery device and a plurality of battery characteristic information corresponding to each stepwise SOC; and a processor operatively coupled to the memory” and in claim 20 “a computer program recorded in a non-transient computer-readable storage medium to execute, in combination with hardware, the computer program” are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). Claims 2-12 and 14-19 further describe the abstract ideas cited above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-10, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dongsheng Ren “Battery remaining discharge energy estimation based on prediction of future operating conditions” hence forth NPL1 . In claim 1, NPL1 discloses an apparatus for calculating battery energy (Page 3, Section 2, “battery management system (BMS)”), the apparatus comprising: relationship information between a stepwise state of charge (SOC) (see Fig. 5, OCV-SOC and Rohm-SOC, i.e. stepwise relationship from HPPC tests, also see page 5, 3.2 “Dynamic loading profiles tests at different temperatures”) of a battery device (section page 5, 2.4 “battery”) and a plurality of battery characteristic information corresponding to each stepwise SOC (Fig. 5, OCV, R); and calculates: a plurality of target SOCs (See Fig. 2 and 3), each defined for a preset plurality of nodes (See Equation 14, “j”); a plurality of target battery characteristic information, each defined for the plurality of nodes, based on the relationship information stored in the memory and the calculated plurality of target SOCs (see equations 15-22); a plurality of target powers, each defined for the plurality of nodes, from the calculated plurality of target battery characteristic information (see equation 5 and 6); and energy of the battery device using a weighted sum method with respect to the plurality of target powers calculated above (see equation 23, weights are defined in equation 6 and predicted power in equations 20-22). NPL1 is not explicit in describing a memory storing, and a processor operatively coupled to the memory, wherein the processor calculates. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious based on the teachings of NPL1 to use a memory storing; and a processor operatively coupled to the memory, wherein the processor calculates based on page 3 section 2 and page 10 section 5, notably “accurate estimation of battery ERDE under dynamic current and temperature conditions and thus can be implemented to BMS, despite its relatively higher computational complexity”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize “higher computational complexity” calculations would be performed by a computer, which includes a processor and a memory. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one for ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to have a memory storing, and a processor operatively coupled to the memory, wherein the processor calculates based on the teachings of NPL1 per MPEP 2114: "When determining whether a computer-implemented functional claim would have been obvious, examiners should note that broadly claiming an automated means to replace a manual function to accomplish the same result does not distinguish over the prior art. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161, 82 USPQ2d 1687, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("Accommodating a prior art mechanical device that accomplishes [a desired] goal to modern electronics would have been reasonably obvious to one of ordinary skill in designing children’s learning devices. Applying modern electronics to older mechanical devices has been commonplace in recent years."); In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958); see also MPEP § 2144.04. Furthermore, implementing a known function on a computer has been deemed obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if the automation of the known function on a general purpose computer is nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); see also MPEP § 2143, Exemplary Rationales D and F. Likewise, it has been found to be obvious to adapt an existing process to incorporate Internet and Web browser technologies for communicating and displaying information because these technologies had become commonplace for those functions. Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318, 1326-27, 87 USPQ2d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2008)." and MPEP 2144.04: III. AUTOMATING A MANUAL ACTIVITY: In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Appellant argued that claims to a permanent mold casting apparatus for molding trunk pistons were allowable over the prior art because the claimed invention combined "old permanent-mold structures together with a timer and solenoid which automatically actuates the known pressure valve system to release the inner core after a predetermined time has elapsed." The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.). In claim 2, NPL1 further discloses wherein the battery characteristic information includes a stepwise open circuit voltage (OCV) (Fig. 5) and a stepwise resistance value corresponding to each stepwise SOC (Fig. 5); and the relationship information defines a relationship between the stepwise SOC, the stepwise OCV, and the stepwise resistance value (See Fig. 5). In claim 3, NPL1 discloses all of claim 2. NPL1 further discloses calculates the energy of the battery device by simulating a process of changing the SOC of the battery device from a first SOC to a second SOC (See Fig. 3, SOCpre1 to SOCprem). In claim 4, NPL1 discloses all of claim 3. NPL1 further discloses wherein each of the plurality of nodes is assigned a plurality of predefined setpoints (see fig. 3, points 1-m) to optimize the energy of the battery device calculated in a weighted sum method (see Eqn. 23). In claim 5, NPL1 discloses all of claim 4. NPL1 further discloses applies the plurality of setpoints (Fig. 3, points 1-m) to a function (see Fig. 2) with the first SOC (See Fig. 3, SOCpre1), the second SOC (See Fig. 3, SOCprem), and the nodes as arguments to calculate the plurality of target SOCs (See Fig. 5), and applies the calculated plurality of target SOCs to the relationship information to calculate a plurality of target OCVs (Fig. 5), each defined for the plurality of nodes, and a plurality of target resistance values, each defined for the plurality of nodes (Fig. 5). In claim 6, NPL1 discloses all of claim 5. NPL1 further discloses calculates the target resistance values based on the relationship information and a resistance degradation parameter indicating a degree of resistance degradation of the battery device (See Fig. 4, Section 2.3, examiner considers the change in resistance based on the variables to be said degradation). In claim 7, NPL1 discloses all of claim 5. NPL1 further discloses calculates the plurality of target powers, each defined for the plurality of nodes, based on the plurality of target OCVs, the plurality of target resistance values, and a current parameter applied to change the SOC of the battery device from the first SOC to the second SOC (See Eq. 20 page 4 Iprej). In claim 8, NPL1 discloses all of claim 5. NPL1 further discloses calculates a capacity of the battery device (Section 2 “Cbat”), a current parameter applied to change the SOC of the battery device from the first SOC to the second SOC (See Eq. 20 page 4 Iprej), a capacity degradation parameter indicating a degree of capacity degradation of the battery device (See Fig. 4, Section 2.3, examiner considers the change in resistance based on the variables to be said degradation), and a time-scale parameter applied to the weighted sum method based on the first and second SOCs (Page 3 section 2.1 “Future power output and future temperature prediction”). In claim 9, NPL1 discloses all of claim 8. NPL1 further calculates the energy of the battery device by applying the time-scale parameter to a result value obtained through application of the weighted sum method to the plurality of target powers (Page 3 section 2.1 “Future power output and future temperature prediction”, Eq. 23, 25 t). In claim 10, NPL1 further discloses wherein each of the plurality of nodes is assigned a plurality of predefined setpoints to optimize the energy of the battery device calculated in the weighted sum method, and the setpoints assigned to the nodes and weights applied to the weighted sum method have a relationship according to a predefined rule (as displayed in Fig. 3, see j 1-m). In claim 12, NPL1 further discloses wherein the relationship information is obtained based on a result of a test performed on the battery device at a particular temperature (Section 3.1, see reference performance tests, HPPC test carried out at a constant temperature, Table 3) and includes a plurality of relationship information based on results of a plurality of tests performed at a plurality of temperatures (Page 5 section 3.2 “dynamic loading profiles tests at different temperatures” Table 3), and the relationship information corresponding to a currently set temperature from the memory to calculate the energy of the battery device (Page 5 section 3.2). NPL1 is not explicit in describing “relationship information is… stored in the memory” and “the processor reads” However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious based on the teachings of NPL1 to have “relationship information is… stored in the memory” and “the processor reads” based on page 3 section 2 and page 10 section 5, notably “accurate estimation of battery ERDE under dynamic current and temperature conditions and thus can be implemented to BMS, despite its relatively higher computational complexity”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize “higher computational complexity” calculations would be performed by a computer, which includes a processor and a memory. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one for ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to have “relationship information is… stored in the memory” and “the processor reads” based on the teachings of NPL1 per MPEP 2114: "When determining whether a computer-implemented functional claim would have been obvious, examiners should note that broadly claiming an automated means to replace a manual function to accomplish the same result does not distinguish over the prior art. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161, 82 USPQ2d 1687, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("Accommodating a prior art mechanical device that accomplishes [a desired] goal to modern electronics would have been reasonably obvious to one of ordinary skill in designing children’s learning devices. Applying modern electronics to older mechanical devices has been commonplace in recent years."); In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958); see also MPEP § 2144.04. Furthermore, implementing a known function on a computer has been deemed obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if the automation of the known function on a general purpose computer is nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); see also MPEP § 2143, Exemplary Rationales D and F. Likewise, it has been found to be obvious to adapt an existing process to incorporate Internet and Web browser technologies for communicating and displaying information because these technologies had become commonplace for those functions. Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318, 1326-27, 87 USPQ2d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2008)." and MPEP 2144.04: III. AUTOMATING A MANUAL ACTIVITY: In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Appellant argued that claims to a permanent mold casting apparatus for molding trunk pistons were allowable over the prior art because the claimed invention combined "old permanent-mold structures together with a timer and solenoid which automatically actuates the known pressure valve system to release the inner core after a predetermined time has elapsed." The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.). In claim 13, NPL1 discloses a method of calculating battery energy (Page 3, Section 2, “battery management system (BMS)”), the method comprising: calculating, , a plurality of target SOCs (See Fig. 2 and 3), each defined for a preset plurality of nodes (See Equation 14, “j”), and a plurality of target battery characteristic information each defined for the plurality of nodes and based on the calculated plurality of target SOCs and relationship information (see equations 15-22), the relationship information defining a relationship between a stepwise state of charge (SOC) (see Fig. 5, OCV-SOC and Rohm-SOC, i.e. stepwise relationship from HPPC tests, also see page 5, 3.2 “Dynamic loading profiles tests at different temperatures”) of a battery device (section page 5, 2.4 “battery”) and a plurality of battery characteristic information corresponding to each stepwise SOC (Fig. 5, OCV, R); calculating, a plurality of target powers, each defined for the plurality of nodes, from the calculated plurality of target battery characteristic information (see equation 5 and 6); and calculating, energy of the battery device using a weighted sum method for the calculated plurality of target powers (see equation 23, weights are defined in equation 6 and predicted power in equations 20-22). NPL1 is not explicit in describing calculating, by a processor. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious based on the teachings of NPL1 to have “calculating, by a processor” based on page 3 section 2 and page 10 section 5, notably “accurate estimation of battery ERDE under dynamic current and temperature conditions and thus can be implemented to BMS, despite its relatively higher computational complexity”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize “higher computational complexity” calculations would be performed by a computer, which includes a processor and a memory. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one for ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to have “calculating, by a processor” based on the teachings of NPL1 per MPEP 2114: "When determining whether a computer-implemented functional claim would have been obvious, examiners should note that broadly claiming an automated means to replace a manual function to accomplish the same result does not distinguish over the prior art. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161, 82 USPQ2d 1687, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("Accommodating a prior art mechanical device that accomplishes [a desired] goal to modern electronics would have been reasonably obvious to one of ordinary skill in designing children’s learning devices. Applying modern electronics to older mechanical devices has been commonplace in recent years."); In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958); see also MPEP § 2144.04. Furthermore, implementing a known function on a computer has been deemed obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if the automation of the known function on a general purpose computer is nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); see also MPEP § 2143, Exemplary Rationales D and F. Likewise, it has been found to be obvious to adapt an existing process to incorporate Internet and Web browser technologies for communicating and displaying information because these technologies had become commonplace for those functions. Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318, 1326-27, 87 USPQ2d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2008)." and MPEP 2144.04: III. AUTOMATING A MANUAL ACTIVITY: In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Appellant argued that claims to a permanent mold casting apparatus for molding trunk pistons were allowable over the prior art because the claimed invention combined "old permanent-mold structures together with a timer and solenoid which automatically actuates the known pressure valve system to release the inner core after a predetermined time has elapsed." The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.). In claim 14, NPL1 further discloses wherein the battery characteristic information includes a stepwise open circuit voltage (OCV) (Fig. 5) and a stepwise resistance value corresponding to each stepwise SOC (Fig. 5); and the relationship information defines a relationship between the stepwise SOC, the stepwise OCV, and the stepwise resistance value (See Fig. 5). In claim 15, NPL1 discloses all of claim 14 including calculating by a processor as cited above. NPL1 further discloses calculates the energy of the battery device by simulating a process of changing the SOC of the battery device from a first SOC to a second SOC (See Fig. 3, SOCpre1 to SOCprem), and each of the plurality of nodes is assigned a plurality of predefined setpoints (see fig. 3, points 1-m) to optimize the energy of the battery device calculated as claimed in a weighted sum method (see Eqn. 23). In claim 16, NPL1 discloses all of claim 15 including calculating by a processor as cited above. NPL1 further discloses wherein, in calculating a plurality of target SOCs and a plurality of target battery characteristic information (as shown above), the processor applies the plurality of setpoints (Fig. 3, points 1-m) to a function (see Fig. 2) with the first SOC (See Fig. 3, SOCpre1), the second SOC (See Fig. 3, SOCprem), and the nodes as arguments to calculate the plurality of target SOCs (See Fig. 5), and applies the calculated plurality of target SOCs to the relationship information to calculate a plurality of target OCVs (Fig. 5), each defined for the plurality of nodes, and a plurality of target resistance values, each defined for the plurality of nodes (Fig. 5). In claim 17, NPL1 discloses all of claim 16 including calculating by a processor as cited above. NPL1 further discloses wherein, in calculating a plurality of target powers, the processor calculates the plurality of target powers, each defined for the plurality of nodes, based on the plurality of target OCVs, the plurality of target resistance values, and a current parameter applied to change the SOC of the battery device from the first SOC to the second SOC (See Eq. 20 page 4 Iprej). In claim 18, NPL1 teaches all of claim 16, including calculating by a processor as cited above. NPL1 further discloses calculating, by the processor, a capacity of the battery device (Section 2 “Cbat”), a current parameter applied to change the SOC of the battery device from the first SOC to the second SOC (See Eq. 20 page 4 Iprej), a capacity degradation parameter indicating a degree of capacity degradation of the battery device (See Fig. 4, Section 2.3, examiner considers the change in resistance based on the variables to be said degradation), and a time-scale parameter applied to the weighted sum method based on the first and second SOCs (Page 3 section 2.1 “Future power output and future temperature prediction”). In claim 19, NPL1 discloses all of claim 16. NPL1 further discloses wherein, in calculating energy of the battery device, the processor calculates the energy of the battery device by applying the time-scale parameter to a result value obtained through application of the weighted sum method to the plurality of target powers (Page 3 section 2.1 “Future power output and future temperature prediction”, Eq. 23, 25 t). In claim 20, NPL1 calculating a plurality of target SOCs (See Fig. 2 and 3), each defined for a preset plurality of nodes (See Equation 14, “j”), and a plurality of target battery characteristic information each defined for the plurality of nodes and based on the calculated plurality of target SOCs (see equations 15-22) and relationship information, the relationship information defining a relationship between a stepwise state of charge (SOC) (see Fig. 5, OCV-SOC and Rohm-SOC, i.e. stepwise relationship from HPPC tests, also see page 5, 3.2 “Dynamic loading profiles tests at different temperatures”) of a battery device (section page 5, 2.4 “battery”) and a plurality of battery characteristic information corresponding to each stepwise SOC (Fig. 5, OCV, R); calculating a plurality of target powers, each defined for the plurality of nodes, from the calculated plurality of target battery characteristic information (see equation 5 and 6); and calculating energy of the battery device using a weighted sum method for the calculated plurality of target powers (see equation 23, weights are defined in equation 6 and predicted power in equations 20-22). NPL1 is not explicit in describing discloses a computer program recorded in a non-transient computer-readable storage medium to execute, in combination with hardware, the computer program, comprising. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious based on the teachings of NPL1 to have a computer program recorded in a non-transient computer-readable storage medium to execute, in combination with hardware, the computer program, comprising based on page 3 section 2 and page 10 section 5, notably “accurate estimation of battery ERDE under dynamic current and temperature conditions and thus can be implemented to BMS, despite its relatively higher computational complexity”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize “higher computational complexity” calculations would be performed by a computer using computer programing, which includes a processor and a memory. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one for ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to have a computer program recorded in a non-transient computer-readable storage medium to execute, in combination with hardware, the computer program, comprising based on the teachings of NPL1 per MPEP 2114: "When determining whether a computer-implemented functional claim would have been obvious, examiners should note that broadly claiming an automated means to replace a manual function to accomplish the same result does not distinguish over the prior art. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161, 82 USPQ2d 1687, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("Accommodating a prior art mechanical device that accomplishes [a desired] goal to modern electronics would have been reasonably obvious to one of ordinary skill in designing children’s learning devices. Applying modern electronics to older mechanical devices has been commonplace in recent years."); In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958); see also MPEP § 2144.04. Furthermore, implementing a known function on a computer has been deemed obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if the automation of the known function on a general purpose computer is nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); see also MPEP § 2143, Exemplary Rationales D and F. Likewise, it has been found to be obvious to adapt an existing process to incorporate Internet and Web browser technologies for communicating and displaying information because these technologies had become commonplace for those functions. Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318, 1326-27, 87 USPQ2d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2008)." and MPEP 2144.04: III. AUTOMATING A MANUAL ACTIVITY: In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Appellant argued that claims to a permanent mold casting apparatus for molding trunk pistons were allowable over the prior art because the claimed invention combined "old permanent-mold structures together with a timer and solenoid which automatically actuates the known pressure valve system to release the inner core after a predetermined time has elapsed." The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL1 in view of Fassnacht (US 20150130420 A1) In claim 11, NPL1 further discloses wherein if the battery device is realized by a single battery cell (Page 10 “battery module/pack). NPL1 Does not explicitly disclose when a battery structure of nS battery cells connected in series or nP battery cells connected in parallel is defined as a battery system, nS and nP being natural numbers greater than or equal to 2, the processor applies at least one of nS and nP values to the calculated energy of the battery device to calculate a total energy of the battery system. Fassnacht teaches when a battery structure of nS battery cells connected in series or nP battery cells connected in parallel is defined as a battery system (Par. 10, 39), nS and nP being natural numbers greater than or equal to 2 (See Fig. 1), the processor applies at least one of nS and nP values to the calculated energy of the battery device to calculate a total energy of the battery system (Par. 39 see Eq.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to have when a battery structure of nS battery cells connected in series or nP battery cells connected in parallel is defined as a battery system, nS and nP being natural numbers greater than or equal to 2, the processor applies at least one of nS and nP values to the calculated energy of the battery device to calculate a total energy of the battery system as taught by Fassnacht in NPL1 in order to calculate the total energy in a number of energy storage cells (Fassnacht Par. 39), thus increasing the accuracy of the SOC calculation of NPL1 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20130164573 A1, RECHARGEABLE ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM THERMAL CONDITIONING USING RESS STATE OF CHARGE; US 20080054909 A1, Battery Control Device, Battery Control Method, Power Source Control Device And Electronic Apparatus; US 20170047603 A1, METHOD OF CONTROLLING FUEL CELL SYSTEM, METHOD OF CONTROLLING FUEL CELL AUTOMOBILE, AND FUEL CELL AUTOMOBILE; 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 Application/Control Number: 18/406,400 Page 2 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,400 Page 3 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,400 Page 4 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,400 Page 5 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,400 Page 6 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,400 Page 7 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,400 Page 8 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,400 Page 9 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,400 Page 10 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,400 Page 11 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,400 Page 12 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,400 Page 13 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,400 Page 14 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,400 Page 15 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,400 Page 16 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,400 Page 17 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,400 Page 18 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,400 Page 19 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,400 Page 20 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,400 Page 21 Art Unit: 2857
