DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status
2. Claims 1-15 are currently pending in this application.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/25/2024, 08/16/2024 and 02/02/2026 have been received. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The drawings submitted on 01/25/2024 are in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.81 and 37 CFR § 1.83 and have been accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Non-Statutory
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
An apparatus for diagnosing a battery, comprising:
a storage unit configured to store bank information about voltage and capacity of each of a plurality of battery banks included in a battery module; and
a control unit configured to generate a differential profile for each of the plurality of battery banks based on the bank information,
determine a target peak in each of the generated plurality of differential profiles, and
diagnose the state of the corresponding battery bank based on the determined target peak.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of claim 15.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a apparatus claim. Likewise, claim 15 is a process claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 is found to include at least one judicial exception, that being a mathematical concept and/or mental process. This can be seen in the claim limitation of “a control unit configured to generate a differential profile for each of the plurality of battery banks based on the bank information, determine a target peak in each of the generated plurality of differential profiles, and diagnose the state of the corresponding battery bank based on the determined target peak.…”, which is the judicial exception of a mental process and/or a mathematical concept because it is merely a data evaluation including calculations, and/or judgements capable of being performed mentally.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 15.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, the claimed method recites additional elements including “a storage unit configured to store bank information about voltage and capacity of each of a plurality of battery banks included in a battery module” (claims 1 and 15) which are merely data storing steps recited at a high level of generality and therefore merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,”.
The generic data gathering, storing, processing, and output steps, and other elements, are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, nothing is done with the output from the first model.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (claims 1 and 15). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claims 15, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-14, merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements therefore these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for independent claims 1 and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
9. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
10. Claims 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (USPN).
With regards to claim 1, Jee et al. US Pat # 12,469,891 teaches an apparatus for diagnosing a battery, comprising:
a storage unit configured to store bank information about voltage and capacity of each of a plurality of battery banks included in a battery module; (130; FIGURE 2) and
a control unit configured to generate a differential profile for each of the plurality of battery banks based on the bank information, (110, 120; FIGURE 2) (Col. 6, lines 53-59)
determine a target peak in each of the generated plurality of differential profiles,(Col. 6-7 lines 64-67 and 1-10) and
diagnose the state of the corresponding battery bank based on the determined target peak. (Col. 7, lines 12-15)
With regards to claim 2, Jee et al. US Pat # 12,469,891 teaches the control unit is configured to generate a differential profile representing the corresponding relationship between the voltage and a differential capacity of each of the plurality of battery banks, and determine the target peak included in a preset criterion voltage section in each of the generated plurality of differential profiles. (Col. 2, lines 14-28)
With regards to claim 3, Jee et al. US Pat # 12,469,891 teaches the control unit is configured to diagnose the state of a battery bank, where the number of the determined target peaks is less than or equal to the number of criterion peaks included in the criterion voltage section of a preset criterion differential profile, as a normal state, wherein the control unit is configured to diagnose the state of a battery bank, where the number of the determined target peaks exceeds the number of the criterion peaks, as an abnormal state, and wherein the criterion differential profile is preset to show the corresponding relationship between the voltage and the differential capacity of a criterion battery bank. (Col. 10, lines 41-52)
With regards to claim 4, Jee et al. US Pat # 12,469,891 teaches the control unit is configured to diagnose the state of the corresponding battery bank as an abnormal state, when the number of the determined target peaks exceeds the number of the criterion peaks and a voltage difference between the target peaks is greater than or equal to a preset threshold voltage. (Col. 19, lines 30-45)
With regards to claim 5, Jee et al. US Pat # 12,469,891 teaches the control unit is configured to generate a differential profile representing the corresponding relationship between the capacity and a differential voltage of each of the plurality of battery banks based on the bank information, and determine a target peak included in a preset criterion capacity section in each of the generated plurality of differential profiles. (Col. 19, lines 42-45)
With regards to claim 6, Jee et al. US Pat # 12,469,891 teaches the control unit is configured to diagnose the state of a battery bank, where the number of the determined target peaks is less than or equal to the number of criterion peaks included in the criterion capacity section of a preset criterion differential profile, as a normal state, wherein the control unit is configured to diagnose the state of a battery bank, where the number of the determined target peaks exceeds the number of the criterion peaks, as an abnormal state, and wherein the criterion differential profile is preset to show the corresponding relationship between the capacity and the differential voltage of a criterion battery bank. (Col. 19, lines 42-45)
With regards to claim 7, Jee et al. US Pat # 12,469,891 teaches the control unit is configured to diagnose the state of the corresponding battery bank as an abnormal state, when the number of the determined target peaks exceeds the number of the criterion peaks and a capacity difference between the target peaks is greater than or equal to a preset threshold value. (Col. 20, lines 3-10)
With regards to claim 8, Jee et al. US Pat # 12,469,891 teaches the control unit is configured to calculate an abnormal ratio representing a ratio of an abnormal state among the plurality of battery banks, and diagnose the state of the battery module as a normal state or an abnormal state based on the abnormal ratio. (Col. 17, lines 5-24)
With regards to claim 9, Jee et al. US Pat # 12,469,891 teaches the abnormal ratio is less than a preset threshold ratio, the control unit is configured to diagnose the state of the battery module as the normal state, and wherein when the abnormal ratio is greater than or equal to the threshold ratio, the control unit is configured to diagnose the state of the battery module as the abnormal state. (Col. 10, lines 53-63)
With regards to claim 10, Jee et al. US Pat # 12,469,891 teaches the control unit is configured to change a charging condition preset for the battery module, when the state of the battery module is diagnosed as an abnormal state. (Col. 11, lines 1-8)
With regards to claim 11, Jee et al. US Pat # 12,469,891 teaches the control unit is configured to alleviate a rapid charging condition of the battery module by reducing a maximum charging C-rate preset for the battery module, when the state of the battery module is diagnosed as an abnormal state. (Col. 3, lines 35-39)
With regards to claim 12, Jee et al. US Pat # 12,469,891 teaches the control unit is configured to select a criterion capacity in which the differential voltage corresponding to a reference differential profile preset for a criterion battery bank is minimum, select a criterion voltage corresponding to the criterion capacity in a criterion bank profile preset for the criterion battery bank, and set a voltage section less than or equal to the criterion voltage as the criterion voltage section, wherein the reference differential profile is preset to represent the corresponding relationship between the capacity and the differential voltage of the criterion battery bank, and wherein the criterion bank profile is preset to represent the corresponding relationship between the voltage and the capacity of the criterion battery bank. (Col. 2, lines 50-67)
With regards to claim 13, Jee et al. US Pat # 12,469,891 teaches the control unit is configured to select a criterion capacity in which the corresponding differential voltage in a preset criterion differential profile is minimum, and set a capacity section less than or equal to the criterion capacity as the criterion capacity section. (Col. 2, lines 43-49)
With regards to claim 14, Jee et al. US Pat # 12,469,891 teaches the apparatus for diagnosing a battery according to claim 1. (100; Col. 17, lines 58-60)
With regards to claim 15, Jee et al. US Pat # 12,469,891 teaches method for diagnosing a battery, comprising:
a storing step of storing bank information about voltage and capacity of each of a plurality of battery banks included in a battery module; (130; FIGURE 2)
a differential profile generating step of generating a differential profile for each of the plurality of battery banks based on the bank information; (110, 120; FIGURE 2) (Col. 6, lines 53-59)
a target peak determining step of determining a target peak in each of the generated plurality of differential profiles; (Col. 6-7 lines 64-67 and 1-10) and
a diagnosing step of diagnosing the state of the corresponding battery bank based on the determined target peak. (Col. 7, lines 12-15)
Examiner's Note:
10. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
11. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yoon et al. US 2023/0318057 teaches battery management apparatus and method.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA S BHAT whose telephone number is (571)272-2270. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am-6pm.
14. 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.
15. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
16. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADITYA S BHAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 June 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights