CTNF 18/426,182 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 § 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, claims 1-20 belong 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 recite(s) “determining, by a processor, first and second charge/discharge test environments providing complementary characteristics for performance degradation of the higher-level battery device exhibits by performing a charge/discharge test with respect to the higher-level battery device;” and “deriving, by the processor, optimal operating conditions of the battery system in which the complementary characteristics under the first and second charge/discharge test environments are removed, upon determining that the test result of the charge/discharge test with respect to the lower-level battery device matches the complementary characteristics under the first and second charge/discharge test environments” which are directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes see for example, applicant’s specification Par. 33 and 59. 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 “diagnosing a battery system having a hierarchical structure including a lower-level battery device and a higher-level battery device, the method comprising:” and “performing, by the processor, a charge/discharge test with respect to the lower-level battery device under the first and second charge/discharge test environments to determine whether a test result matches the complementary characteristics under the first and second charge/discharge test environments;” are considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The elements of “a processor” 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 “diagnosing a battery system having a hierarchical structure including a lower-level battery device and a higher-level battery device, the method comprising:” and “performing, by the processor, a charge/discharge test with respect to the lower-level battery device under the first and second charge/discharge test environments to determine whether a test result matches the complementary characteristics under the first and second charge/discharge test environments;” are considered to be merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself per MPEP 2106.05(h) and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see prior art of record). The elements of “a processor” are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 17 recite(s) “to determine first and second charge/discharge test environments providing complementary characteristics for performance degradation of the higher-level battery device exhibits,”, “to determine whether a test result matches the complementary characteristics under the first and second charge/discharge test environments” and “derive optimal operating conditions of the battery system in which the complementary characteristics under the first and second charge/discharge test environments are removed, upon determining that the test result of the charge/discharge test with respect to the lower-level battery device matches the complementary characteristics under the first and second charge/discharge test environments” which are directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes see for example, applicant’s specification Par. 33 and 59. 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 diagnosing a battery system having a hierarchical structure including a lower-level battery device and a higher-level battery device, the apparatus comprising”, “wherein the processor is configured to perform a charge/discharge test with respect to the higher-level battery device”, and “perform a charge/discharge test with respect to the lower-level battery device under the first and second charge/discharge test environments” are considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The elements of “a processor” 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 diagnosing a battery system having a hierarchical structure including a lower-level battery device and a higher-level battery device, the apparatus comprising”, “wherein the processor is configured to perform a charge/discharge test with respect to the higher-level battery device”, and “perform a charge/discharge test with respect to the lower-level battery device under the first and second charge/discharge test environments” are considered to be merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself per MPEP 2106.05(h) and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see prior art of record). The elements of “a processor” are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). In claims 2, 7, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application or does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they 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 and re considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)(see prior art of record). In claim 6 and similarly 18 the elements of “changing, by the processor, the charge/discharge test conditions based on a charge/discharge test environment of each of the first and second battery units identified in the course of the charge/discharge test with respect to the lower-level battery device,”, “determine first and second battery units exhibiting complementary characteristics for performance degradation among the plurality of battery units;” and “analyzing, by the processor, a degree of degradation of the higher-level battery device after performing the charge/discharge test again” are considered to further describe the abstract ideas cited above. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application or does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “wherein the lower-level battery device comprises a plurality of battery units,”, “when the test result of the charge/discharge test with respect to the lower-level battery device does not match the complementary characteristics under the first and second charge/discharge test environments: performing, by the processor, the charge/discharge test with respect to the lower-level battery device under charge/discharge test conditions defining electric current and temperature of each of the plurality of battery units to” and “followed by performing the charge/discharge test again with respect to the lower-level battery device under the changed charge/discharge test conditions;” are considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and are considered to be merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself per MPEP 2106.05(h) and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see prior art of record). In claims 3-5, 8-9, 11-14, 16 and 19-20 the limitations further describe the abstract ideas cited above and/or previously cited as not integrated into a practical application and not significantly more. In claims 10 and 15 the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application or does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and are considered to be merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself per MPEP 2106.05(h) and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see prior art of record). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim (s) 1-9, 11-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Moon (US 20200284841 A1) . In claim 1, Mood discloses a method for diagnosing a battery system (Fig. 1) having a hierarchical structure (Fig. 1, Bat 1 and Bat 2) including a lower-level battery device (Fig. 1 Bat 2) and a higher-level battery device (Fig. 1, Bat 1), the method comprising: determining, by a processor (Fig. 1, 100, Par. 47), first and second charge/discharge test environments providing complementary characteristics for performance degradation of the higher-level battery device exhibits (Par. 45, 50 “battery models”, Par. 52 “correct the battery parameter of the battery model 20 and calculate the calculation current I1 of the first battery BAT1”) by performing a charge/discharge test with respect to the higher-level battery device (Par. 82 “first charge mode” Par. 86 “discharge mode”, Par. 86 “discharge mode”, Fig. 11); performing, by the processor, a charge/discharge test with respect to the lower-level battery device under the first and second charge/discharge test environments (Par. 84 “second charge mode”, Fig. 11) to determine whether a test result matches the complementary characteristics under the first and second charge/discharge test environments (Par. 52 “calculation current I 2 b of the second battery BAT 2 is greater than or equal to the threshold value,”); and deriving, by the processor, optimal operating conditions of the battery system in which the complementary characteristics under the first and second charge/discharge test environments are removed, upon determining that the test result of the charge/discharge test with respect to the lower-level battery device matches the complementary characteristics under the first and second charge/discharge test environments (Par. 52 “calculate the calculation current I 1 of the first battery BAT 1 from the first terminal voltage V 1 of the first battery BAT 1 by using the corrected battery parameter”). In claim 2, Moon further discloses wherein, in the determining first and second charge/discharge test environments, the processor performs the charge/discharge test with respect to the higher-level battery device to collect resistance and capacity of the higher-level battery device (Par. 50-51 “internal resistance” Par. 59-61 “corrected Thevenin capacitance” Par. 86) and identifies the complementary characteristics for performance degradation of the higher-level battery device based on the collected resistance and capacity (Par. 61). In claim 3, Moon discloses all of claim 2. Moon further discloses wherein, in the determining first and second charge/discharge test environments, the processor determines the first and second charge/discharge test environments based on the complementary characteristics for performance degradation of the higher-level battery device (Par. 45, 50 “battery models”, Par. 52 “correct the battery parameter of the battery model 20 and calculate the calculation current I1 of the first battery BAT1”), and resistance and a degree of capacity degradation of the higher-level battery device under the first charge/discharge testing environment are higher than resistance and a degree of capacity degradation of the higher-level battery device under the second charge/discharge testing environment (Par. 46, 61, 97). In claim 4, Moon discloses all of claim 3. Moon further discloses wherein the first and second charge/discharge test environments comprise electric current and temperature of the higher-level battery device (Par. 41 “current” Par. 45 “temperature”) and, in the deriving optimal operating conditions, the processor derives the optimal operating conditions based on the electric current and temperature of the higher-level battery device under the second charge/discharge testing environment (Par. 45). In claim 5, Moon discloses all of claim 4. Moon further discloses wherein, in the deriving optimal operating conditions, the processor performs the charge/discharge test again with respect to the higher-level battery device plural times under the second charge/discharge test environment (See Fig. 13, the process iterates) and derives the electric current and temperature of the higher-level battery device under the second charge/discharge testing environment as the optimal operating conditions (Par. 45), when each test result meets a first allowable condition previously defined under consideration of performance degradation of the higher-level battery device (Par. 50 “less than a threshold value, the battery model 20 may be determined to be reliable”). In claim 6, Moon further discloses wherein the lower-level battery device comprises a plurality of battery units (Par. 38 “multiple battery cells”), the method further comprising, when the test result of the charge/discharge test with respect to the lower-level battery device does not match the complementary characteristics under the first and second charge/discharge test environments (Par. 50): performing, by the processor, the charge/discharge test with respect to the lower-level battery device under charge/discharge test conditions defining electric current and temperature of each of the plurality of battery units (Par. 41 “current” Par. 45 “temperature”) to determine first and second battery units exhibiting complementary characteristics for performance degradation among the plurality of battery units (Par. 52); changing, by the processor, the charge/discharge test conditions based on a charge/discharge test environment of each of the first and second battery units (Par. 82 “first charge mode” Par. 86 “discharge mode”, Par. 86 “discharge mode”, Fig. 11) identified in the course of the charge/discharge test with respect to the lower-level battery device, followed by performing the charge/discharge test again with respect to the lower-level battery device under the changed charge/discharge test conditions (Par. 52); and analyzing, by the processor, a degree of degradation of the higher-level battery device after performing the charge/discharge test again (Par. 52). In claim 7, Moon discloses all of claim 6. Moon further discloses wherein, in the determining first and second battery units, the processor performs the charge/discharge test with respect to the lower-level battery device to collect resistance and capacity of the lower-level battery device (Par. 56 “resistance” Par. 46, 86 “capacity”) and identifies complementary characteristics for performance degradation of the plurality of battery units based on the collected resistance and capacity (Par. 61). In claim 8, Moon discloses all of claim 7. Moon further discloses wherein, in the determining first and second battery units, the processor determines the first and second battery units exhibiting the complementary characteristics for performance degradation among the plurality of battery units (Par. 45, 50 “battery models”, Par. 52), and resistance and a degree of capacity degradation of the first battery unit are higher than resistance and a degree of capacity degradation of the second battery unit (Par. 46, 61, 97). In claim 9, Moon discloses all of claim 8. Moon further discloses wherein, in the performing the charge/discharge test again (See Fig. 13, the process iterates), the processor changes the charge/discharge test conditions by setting electric current and temperature of the first battery unit defined under the charge/discharge test conditions as electric current and temperature of the second battery unit (Par. 50-52 “using the corrected battery parameter”). In claim 11, Moon discloses all of claim 6. Moon further discloses wherein, when the degree of degradation of the higher-level battery device does not meet a predefined second allowable condition (Par. 52), the processor further performs again (i) the determining the first and second battery units (See Fig. 13, the process iterates), (ii) the performing the charge/discharge test again with respect to the lower-level battery device (See Fig. 13, the process iterates), and (iii) the analyzing the degree of degradation of the higher-level battery device (Par. 52). In claim 12, Moon discloses all of claim 6. Moon further discloses wherein, when the degree of degradation of the higher-level battery device meets a predefined second allowable condition (Par. 52), the processor derives optimal operating conditions of the battery system based on the changed charge/discharge test conditions and battery feature information collected with respect to each of the plurality of battery units in the course of the charge/discharge test with respect to the lower-level battery device (Par. 38). In claim 13, Moon discloses all of claim 12. Moon further discloses in the deriving optimal operating conditions, the processor corrects the electric current of each of the battery units defined under the changed charge/discharge test conditions based on the battery feature information and derives the corrected electric current of each of the battery units and the temperature of each of the battery units defined under the changed charge/discharge test conditions as the optimal operating conditions (Par. 50-52 “using the corrected battery parameter” Fig. 17 S370/S380). In claim 14, Moon discloses all of claim 13. Moon further discloses wherein the battery feature information comprises resistance of each of the battery units (Par. 38, 45) and, in the deriving optimal operating conditions, the processor corrects the electric current of each of the battery units defined under the changed charge/discharge test conditions such that the electric current of each of the battery units decreases with increasing resistance of each of the battery units (Par. 50-52 “using the corrected battery parameter” Fig. 17 S370/S380). In claim 16, Moon further discloses operating, by the processor, the battery system under the derived optimal operating conditions (Par. 70). In claim 17, Moon discloses an apparatus (Fig. 1) for diagnosing a battery system (Fig. 1, 200) having a hierarchical structure (Fig. 1, Bat 1 and Bat 2) including a lower-level battery device (Fig. 1 Bat 2) and a higher-level battery device (Fig. 1, Bat 1), the apparatus comprising a processor (Fig. 1, 100, Par. 47), wherein the processor is configured to perform a charge/discharge test with respect to the higher-level battery device (Par. 82 “first charge mode” Par. 86 “discharge mode”, Par. 86 “discharge mode”, Fig. 11) to determine first and second charge/discharge test environments providing complementary characteristics for performance degradation of the higher-level battery device exhibits (Par. 45, 50 “battery models”, Par. 52 “correct the battery parameter of the battery model 20 and calculate the calculation current I1 of the first battery BAT1”), perform a charge/discharge test with respect to the lower-level battery device under the first and second charge/discharge test environments (Par. 84 “second charge mode”, Fig. 11) to determine whether a test result matches the complementary characteristics under the first and second charge/discharge test environments (Par. 52 “calculation current I 2 b of the second battery BAT 2 is greater than or equal to the threshold value,”), and derive optimal operating conditions of the battery system in which the complementary characteristics under the first and second charge/discharge test environments are removed, upon determining that the test result of the charge/discharge test with respect to the lower-level battery device matches the complementary characteristics under the first and second charge/discharge test environments (Par. 52 “calculate the calculation current I 1 of the first battery BAT 1 from the first terminal voltage V 1 of the first battery BAT 1 by using the corrected battery parameter”). In claim 18, Moon further discloses wherein the lower-level battery device comprises a plurality of battery units (Par. 38 “multiple battery cells”), and when the test result of the charge/discharge test with respect to the lower-level battery device does not match the complementary characteristics under the first and second charge/discharge test environments (Par. 50), the processor performs the charge/discharge test with respect to the lower-level battery device under charge/discharge test conditions defining electric current and temperature (Par. 41 “current” Par. 45 “temperature”) of each of the plurality of battery units to determine first and second battery units exhibiting complementary characteristics for performance degradation among the plurality of battery units (Par. 52), changes the charge/discharge test conditions based on a charge/discharge test environment of each of the first and second battery units identified in the course of the charge/discharge test with respect to the lower-level battery device (Par. 82 “first charge mode” Par. 86 “discharge mode”, Par. 86 “discharge mode”, Fig. 11), followed by performing the charge/discharge test again with respect to the lower-level battery device under the changed charge/discharge test conditions (Par. 52), and analyzes a degree of degradation of the higher-level battery device after performing the charge/discharge test again (Par. 52). In claim 19, Moon discloses all of claim 18. Moon further discloses wherein, when the degree of degradation of the higher-level battery device does not meet a predefined second allowable condition (Par. 52), the processor further performs again (i) a process of determining the first and second battery units (See Fig. 13, the process iterates), (ii) a process of performing the charge/discharge test again with respect to the lower-level battery device (See Fig. 13, the process iterates), and (iii) a process of analyzing the degree of degradation of the higher-level battery device (Par. 52). In claim 20, Moon discloses all of claim 18. Moon further discloses wherein, when the degree of degradation of the higher-level battery device meets a predefined second allowable condition (Par. 52), the processor derives optimal operating conditions of the battery system based on the changed charge/discharge test conditions and battery feature information collected with respect to each of the plurality of battery units in the course of the charge/discharge test with respect to the lower-level battery device (Par. 38) . 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) 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon in further view of Jin (US 20130017419 A1) In claim10, Moon discloses all of claim 9. Moon does not explicitly disclose wherein, in the performing the charge/discharge test again, the processor regulates a temperature of each of the battery units to a temperature of the changed charge/discharge test conditions by controlling a temperature regulator allocated to each of the battery units . Jin teaches wherein, in the performing the charge/discharge test again, the processor regulates a temperature of each of the battery units to a temperature of the changed charge/discharge test conditions (Par. 59 “maintain an optimum temperature”) by controlling a temperature regulator allocated to each of the battery units (Par. 59 “adjusting to introduce an even greater amount of the cooling medium into the area”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to have wherein, in the performing the charge/discharge test again, the processor regulates a temperature of each of the battery units to a temperature of the changed charge/discharge test conditions by controlling a temperature regulator allocated to each of the battery units as taught by Jin in Moon in order to reduce adversely affect the safety and stability of the battery (Jin Par. 7), thus improving the reliability of the battery. In claim 15, Moon discloses all of claim 13. Moon further discloses wherein the battery feature information comprises swelling elongation of each of the battery units and, in the deriving optimal operating conditions, the processor corrects the electric current of each of the battery units defined under the changed charge/discharge test conditions so as to reduce the swelling elongation of each of the battery units. Jin teaches wherein the battery feature information comprises swelling elongation of each of the battery units (Par. 7 and 53) and, in the deriving optimal operating conditions, the processor corrects the electric current of each of the battery units defined under the changed charge/discharge test conditions so as to reduce the swelling elongation of each of the battery units (Par. 7 and 77). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to have wherein the battery feature information comprises swelling elongation of each of the battery units and, in the deriving optimal operating conditions, the processor corrects the electric current of each of the battery units defined under the changed charge/discharge test conditions so as to reduce the swelling elongation of each of the battery units as taught by Jin in Moon in order to reduce adversely affect the safety and stability of the battery (Jin Par. 7), thus improving the reliability of the battery . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : US 20190363407 A1, US 11658340 B2, US 20180219263 A1, US 20160226271 A1, US 20130110430 A1, US 20110066309 A1 . 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