Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 5/31/2026. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8 and 16 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of Claims 9 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are rendered moot due to cancellation.
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 1-3, 5-6, 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the Claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter?
Claims 1 recites a method. Thus, the claims are to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A: Prong One: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea?
Independent claim 1 recites:
A method for calculating a state of charge of a battery, comprising:
estimating a first state of charge of the battery by using a first state of charge estimation algorithm [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and a mental process because they can be performed by a human using pen and paper];
estimating a second state of charge of the battery by using a second state of charge estimation algorithm [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and a mental process because they can be performed by a human using pen and paper];
determining a first weight corresponding to the first state of charge and a second weight corresponding to the second state of charge based on state data of the battery [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and a mental process because they can be performed by a human using pen and paper]; and
calculating the state of charge of the battery based on the first state of charge and the first weight, and the second state of charge and the second weight [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and a mental process because they can be performed by a human using pen and paper];
wherein the estimating a first state of charge of the battery by using a first state of charge estimation algorithm comprises:
establishing a state of charge model of the battery based on historical charging and discharging data of the battery [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and a mental process because they can be performed by a human using pen and paper];;
sensing current charging and discharging data of the battery; and
estimating the first state of charge by using the state of charge model based on the current charging and discharging data [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and a mental process because they can be performed by a human using pen and paper];;
wherein the determining a first weight corresponding to the first state of charge and a second weight corresponding to the second state of charge based on state data of the battery comprises:
determining a current state of the battery based on the historical charging and discharging data and the current charging and discharging data [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and a mental process because they can be performed by a human using pen and paper];;
determining whether the battery enters a hysteresis state [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites a mental process , i.e., making a judgement based on received data];
after determining that the battery enters the hysteresis state, reducing the first weight and/or increasing the second weight [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and a mental process because they can be performed by a human using pen and paper]; and
adjusting the first weight and/or increasing the second weight based on a time period in which the battery operates in the hysteresis state [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and a mental process because they can be performed by a human using pen and paper].
Step 2A: Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application?
The claim recites the following additional element: “sensing current charging and discharging data of the battery”. However, this is mere gathering of data for use in the abstract idea.
Thus, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount to Significantly More Than the Abstract Idea?
The examiner submits that the additional elements identified in Step 2A do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements identified in Step 2A are not unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field; and simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Dependent Claims 2-3, 5-6, 8 and 16 are also not patent eligible. Claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8 merely recite further details of the mathematical concepts and/or mental process, and/or gathering of data for use in in the abstract idea. Claim 16 merely recites application of the abstract idea to common, generically recited types of batteries.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1 and 8 is/are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0143257, hereinafter “Garcia”) in view of Takahashi (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0313905).
Regarding Claim 1, Garcia teaches a method for calculating a state of charge of a battery (Fig. 7), comprising: estimating a first state of charge of the battery by using a first state of charge estimation algorithm (PF+NN 712); estimating a second state of charge of the battery by using a second state of charge estimation algorithm (ARMA 716); determining a first weight corresponding to the first state of charge and a second weight corresponding to the second state of charge based on state data of the battery (decision fusion 740, paragraph [0113]); and calculating the state of charge of the battery based on the first state of charge and the first weight, and the second state of charge and the second weight (decision fusion 740; outputs 195, SOC(k), paragraph [0113]); wherein the estimating a first state of charge of the battery by using a first state of charge estimation algorithm comprises: establishing a state of charge model of the battery based on historical charging and discharging data of the battery (paragraph [0051], training of models based on charge/discharge profiles); sensing current charging and discharging data of the battery (paragraph [0035], monitoring system collects data while in charging and discharging conditions); and estimating the first state of charge by using the state of charge model based on the current charging and discharging data (Fig. 7, trained models 712, 714, and 716 use inputs 102 from monitoring system, see Fig. 1); wherein the determining a first weight corresponding to the first state of charge and a second weight corresponding to the second state of charge based on state data of the battery comprises: determining a current state of the battery based on the historical charging and discharging data and the current charging and discharging data (paragraph [0113], weights for each SOC estimation value can depend on current SOC of the battery, which is equated to current state).
Garcia does not specifically teach determining whether the battery enters a hysteresis state; after determining that the battery enters the hysteresis state, reducing the first weight and/or increasing the second weight; and adjusting the first weight and/or increasing the second weight based on a time period in which the battery operates in the hysteresis state. However, Takahashi teaches determining whether the battery enters a hysteresis state (paragraph [0020], charge level ranges where significant hysteresis occurs are identified; Fig. 3, hysteresis and non-hysteresis regions, it is noted that recited time period may be equated to determining that the battery is currently in the hysteresis region); after determining that the battery enters the hysteresis state, reducing the first weight and/or increasing the second weight; and adjusting the first weight and/or increasing the second weight based on a time period in which the battery operates in the hysteresis state (paragraph [0016], first state of charge and second state of charge are weighed and added to determine third state of charge; the addition ratio of first state of charge is larger than addition ratio of second state of charge when the state of charge is in the hysteresis region; addition ratio of first state of charge is equated to the claimed second weight, and addition ratio of the second state of charge is equated to the claimed first weight). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the hysteresis identification and weight adjustment of Takahashi in the system of Garcia, in order to improve the estimation accuracy of the state of charge (see Takahashi, paragraph [0007]).
Regarding Claim 8, Garcia in view of Takahashi teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Garcia does not specifically teach wherein the determining a current state comprises: after determining that the battery enters the hysteresis state, determining a time period in which the battery operates in the hysteresis state. However, Takahashi teaches determining whether the battery enters a hysteresis state; and after determining that the battery enters the hysteresis state, determining a time period in which the battery operates in the hysteresis state (paragraph [0020], charge level ranges where significant hysteresis occurs are identified; Fig. 3, hysteresis and non-hysteresis regions, it is noted that recited time period may be equated to determining that the battery is currently in the hysteresis region). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the hysteresis identification of Takahashi in the system of Garcia, in order to improve the estimation accuracy of the state of charge (see Takahashi, paragraph [0007]).
Claim(s) 2, 5-6, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia in view of Takahashi and Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and Huang (CN-109870655-A).
Regarding Claim 2, Garcia in view of Takahashi teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Garcia does not specifically teach wherein the first state of charge estimation algorithm is an open circuit voltage algorithm, and the second state of charge estimation algorithm is an ampere hour integration algorithm. However, AAPA teaches, in paragraph [0040] of Applicant’s specification as filed, that the open circuit voltage algorithm is known to those skilled in the art. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the open circuit voltage algorithm in the system of Garcia, because the open circuit voltage algorithm is known to those skilled in the art (see AAPA, paragraph [0040]).
Garcia in view of Takahashi and AAPA does not specifically teach the second state of charge estimation algorithm is an ampere hour integration algorithm. However, Huang teaches on page 2, in the third paragraph of the Background section, that the ampere-hour integration method can be applied to both charging and discharging mode to calculate SOC for a battery. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include ampere hour integration as taught in Huang in the system of Garcia, because ampere-hour integration can be applied to charging and discharging mode and has a good universality (see Huang, page 2, second full paragraph), and is traditional (see Huang, page 4, last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 5, Garcia in view of Takahashi teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Garcia further teaches wherein the state of charge model is a charging and discharging curve fitted based on the historical charging and discharging data (paragraph [0091], curve fitting techniques) or a lookup table formed based on the historical charging and discharging data (no patentable weight due to “or”).
Regarding Claim 6, Garcia in view of Takahashi teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Garcia further teaches wherein the historical charging and discharging data and the current charging and discharging data comprise a current and/or a voltage of the battery (paragraph [0035]; paragraph [0051], Fig. 1, block 102, inputs include voltages and currents, see paragraph [0024]).
Regarding Claim 16, Garcia in view of Takahashi teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Garcia does not specifically teach wherein the battery is a lithium ion battery or a Sodium-ion battery. However, Huang teaches in the first paragraph on page 2 determining SoC of lithium ion batteries. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a lithium ion battery, such as is taught in Huang, in the system of Garcia, because a lithium ion battery has high energy, high battery voltage, wide working temperature range, and long storage life (see Huang, page 2, first paragraph of the Background section).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia in view of Takahashi and Tan (CN-111896875-A).
Regarding Claim 3, Garcia in view of Takahashi teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Garcia does not specifically teach wherein the first state of charge estimation algorithm is a battery equivalent circuit model-based algorithm based on at least one of an R-int equivalent circuit model of the battery, a first-order RC equivalent circuit model of the battery, and a second-order RC equivalent circuit model of the battery. However, Garcia does teach in Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0094] use of an electrical equivalent circuit model in determining SoC. Further, Tan teaches in the Abstract use of a first-order RC equivalent circuit model to determine an SoC. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the first-order RC equivalent circuit model of Tan in the system of Garcia, in order to improve the estimation performance of the SoC (see Tan, Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 101 rejection, Applicant argues on pages 6-7 of the Remarks that Claim 1 is not an abstract idea. The Examiner disagrees. Claim 1 merely recites receiving data from a battery, and then performing mathematical operations and making judgements based on the data, which absolutely could be performed by a human using pen and paper. The Examiner recommends amending Claim 1 to recite managing the battery by a battery management system based the calculated state of charge.
Regarding the prior art rejections, Applicant argues on pages 9 of the Remarks that Takahashi does not teach adjusting weights as a function of how long the battery has remained in hysteresis. However, this is not what is recited in the Claims. Claim 1 merely recites performing the adjusting based on a time period in which the battery operates in the hysteresis state. The claimed adjusting is satisfied by merely recognizing that the hysteresis time period has occurred, and performing the adjusting based on that recognition, and does not necessarily include any adjusting based on any length of any time period. It is recommended that Applicant amend the claims to explicitly recite performing the adjusting based on the length of the time period in which the battery is in the hysteresis state.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA L DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am to 3pm.
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 A 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.
/CYNTHIA L DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights