DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas which amount to mental processes and
The Supreme Court’s Alice/Mayo test requires a two-part framework to determine whether a claim is eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. In the first step, it is determined whether the claim is to a “process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter”. Claim 1 is directed to a method for analyzing a state of the battery, which is a process and thus the test passes the first step.
Next, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (step 2A, prong 1, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 54-55 (Jan. 7, 2019)), and if so, whether that judicial exception is integrated into a practical application (step 2A, prong 2, see id. at 56).
Claim 1 is directed to a battery remaining lifetime calculating method which takes battery data (“SoC” and “SoH”) and converts it into another form of data “remaining lifetime”. This could be considered both a mental process, since the entire process of taking from one form of data and converting it to another form of data could be performed in one’s head, or with pen and paper.
Essentially, claim 1 describes a describes a method of gathering and manipulating data (determining values and calculating another value from those values) an idea that has been recognized by the courts as abstract in the similar cases of Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (data analysis steps recited at a level of generality that could be performed in the human mind) and Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (collecting and comparing known information).
Thus, claim 1, indeed discloses a judicial exception.
With respect to prong 2 of 2A, the claim must be considered as to whether it integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Again, though the claim recites the SoC value and SoH values are taken from a battery pack which is exchangeable, there is no physical transformation of the battery pack or limitations related to the “exchangeability”. The claim as recited does not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, is not applied with a particular type of machine or computer, and does not apply the judicial exception in a meaningful way besides a general link to battery packs. In fact, the claim is written in such a broad way so as to preempt all uses of the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2B, the claim must be considered as to whether the claim includes additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 1 fails to meet this test since the claim as a whole generally applies the concept of gathering and manipulating data. The inclusion of the battery pack being exchangeable amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-known (see the Mitsuda, Oshima and Lai references below, as well as all of CPC B60L53/80). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 9-15 recite insignificant extra-solution activity, such as communicating with a database or other source to receive data, which is also been held to not amount to more than the judicial exception in Electric Power Group. The use of the battery pack by a consumer is also insignificant extra-solution activity, and no meaningful limitations are placed on the abstract idea by these limitations.
Dependent claims 5-8 recite additional data gathering and manipulation steps and the same analysis as provided above with respect to claim 1 applies.
Looking at the dependent claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
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.
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites “wherein the consumer is an electric appliance, in particular a hand-held machine tool or an electric bicycle, and comprises a consumer control unit which at least partially forms the control environment, which in particular comprises a battery management system”. It is unclear whether the limitations after the words “in particular” are limiting or not. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is interpreting the words after “in particular” as not limiting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitsuda et al. US PGPUB 2012/0130655.
Regarding claim 1, Mitsuda discloses a method of analyzing a state of an exchangeable battery pack [figs. 1 & 7-8; the battery pack 16 is exchangeable; pars. 76-78], comprising:
determining a SoC value of the exchangeable battery pack [fig. 2; a SOC is determined and based on the SOC calculation, a cycle damage and calendar damage calculation is made, which is in turn used for the remaining life calculation (fig. 6); pars. 40-46];
determining a SoH value of the exchangeable battery pack [fig. 2; a state of health (calendar damage, cycle damage) is determined; pars. 10, 40-46 & 53-54]; and
calculating a remaining lifetime of the exchangeable battery pack taking into account the SoC value and the SoH value [pars. 40-41, 43-48 & 51-54; remaining life is calculated as a percentage based on the SOC (the damage calculations are derived from the SOC) and the SOH (the damage calculations)].
Regarding claim 3, Mitsuda discloses wherein determining the SoH value comprises: determining the SoH value based on data provided by the exchangeable battery pack using a consumer electrically connected to the exchangeable battery pack [figs. 1 & 4; pars. 67-68; the degradation monitoring device 1 (fig. 1) can be a component if a vehicle].
Regarding claim 4, Mitsuda discloses wherein determining the SoH value comprises: providing the SoH value with the exchangeable battery pack [par. 84; a preexisting SoH value can be included when the degradation monitoring device takes over].
Regarding claim 7, Mitsuda discloses measuring a current of the exchangeable battery pack to obtain a parameter of the current; and taking into account the parameter of the current when calculating the remaining lifetime [pars. 28-29; the charge/discharge current of the battery is monitored and is used to calculate the cycle damage which is used to calculate remaining life as indicated above with respect to claim 1 (pars. 40-46 & 53-54)].
Regarding claim 8, Mitsuda discloses measuring a voltage of the exchangeable battery pack to obtain a parameter of the voltage; and taking into account the parameter of the voltage when calculating the remaining lifetime [par. 40; the voltage can be used for calculating the SOC, which in turn is used for calculating the remaining life as indicated above with respect to claim 1 (pars. 40-46 & 53-54)].
Regarding claim 9, Mitsuda discloses outputting the remaining lifetime [par. 35; outputting the remaining lifetime to the display].
Regarding claim 10, Mitsuda discloses an exchangeable battery pack comprising at least one battery pack control unit configured to communicate with an analysis device [par. 35-36; fig. 4; the degradation monitoring device may be integrally connected to the battery and a conversion device], the analysis device configured to perform the method according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Mitsuda discloses further comprising: at least one output unit configured to output the calculated remaining lifetime [par. 35; outputting the remaining lifetime to the display].
Regarding claim 12, Mitsuda discloses a system, comprising: the exchangeable battery pack according to claim 11 [figs. 4 & 7; exchangeable battery pack 10; pars. 67 & 79]; and at least one consumer configured to be detachably connected to the exchangeable battery pack [fig. 4; par. 67 & 76-78; an electric vehicle 50 can be the consumer], wherein the at least one consumer includes (i) a remaining lifetime output configured to output the remaining lifetime, and (ii) the analysis device in the form of a control environment [fig. 4; par. 35-36; the battery unit includes the display and is included in the electric vehicle, along with the degradation monitoring device 1 and a power conversion device].
Regarding claim 13, Mitsuda discloses wherein the consumer is an electric appliance [fig. 4-5 & 7; par. 67 & 76-78; an electric vehicle 50 can be the consumer], in particular a hand-held machine tool or an electric bicycle, and comprises a consumer control unit which at least partially forms the control environment [fig. 4; par. 35-36; the battery unit includes the display and is included in the electric vehicle, along with the degradation monitoring device 1 and a power conversion device], which in particular comprises a battery management system.
Regarding claim 14, Mitsuda discloses wherein: the control environment comprises a battery management system; and the battery management system is fully integrated into the exchangeable battery pack [fig. 4; par. 35-36; the battery unit includes the display and is included in the electric vehicle, along with the degradation monitoring device 1 and a power conversion device].
Regarding claim 15, Mitsuda discloses a computer program comprising instructions that, when the computer program is executed by a computer [par. 34], prompt the computer to perform the method according to claim 1.
Examiner notes that since claim 15 is interpreted as a dependent claim, a separate 101 rejection for the lack of structure containing the computer instructions does not apply.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuda et al. US PGPUB 2012/0130655 in view of Oshima et al. US PGPUB 2020/0018800.
Regarding claim 2, Mitsuda does not explicitly disclose wherein determining the SoH value comprises: communicating, using a consumer, with at least one database environment to determine the SoH value.
However, Oshima discloses a battery exchange system [fig. 2] wherein determining the SoH value comprises: communicating, using a consumer, with at least one database environment to determine the SoH value [pars. 25-27, 30, 32, 36-7, 40, 42 ; communication can made between a consumer (fig. 2, phone 230) and a server regarding the state of health of the exchangeable batteries].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitsuda to further include wherein determining the SoH value comprises: communicating, using a consumer, with at least one database environment to determine the SoH value for the purpose of keeping track of information and providing it to requesters, as taught by Mitsuda (pars. 59, 61, 65, 72 and 75).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuda et al. US PGPUB 2012/0130655 in view of Lai et al. US PGPUB 2019/0207397.
Regarding claim 5, Mitsuda discloses wherein determining the SoH value comprises: determining the SoH value based on at least one collected resistance parameter of at least one battery cell of the exchangeable battery pack.
However, Lai discloses a battery exchange system [abs], wherein determining the SoH value comprises: determining the SoH value based on at least one collected resistance parameter of at least one battery cell of the exchangeable battery pack [par. 25].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitsuda to further include wherein determining the SoH value comprises: determining the SoH value based on at least one collected resistance parameter of at least one battery cell of the exchangeable battery pack
for the purpose of measuring the SoH via a reliable, known method , as taught by Lai (par. 25), and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuda et al. US PGPUB 2012/0130655 in view of Meissner et al. US PGPUB 2001/0033170.
Regarding claim 6, Mitsuda does not explicitly disclose wherein determining the SoH value comprises: estimating the SoH value based on at least a change of a measured voltage of at least one battery cell of the exchangeable battery pack over time at the same current flow.
However, Meissner discloses a state of health determining system which determines the SoH value by estimating the SoH value based on at least a change of a measured voltage of at least one battery cell of the exchangeable battery pack over time at the same current flow [abs; par. 11].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitsuda to further include wherein determining the SoH value comprises: estimating the SoH value based on at least a change of a measured voltage of at least one battery cell of the exchangeable battery pack over time at the same current flow for the purpose of determining the current loadability of batteries, as taught by Meissner (par. 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ing US PGPUB 2021/0367221 discloses a battery exchange system which determines the remaining useful lifetime of the battery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V HENZE whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/DAVID V HENZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights