DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 101 rejection, the amendments of a current and volage sampling circuit collecting and measure data does not overcome the 101 rejection, but rather add insignificant extra-solution activity/additional elements to the abstract idea. The additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, amounting to an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05). It is for this reason the examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 1-2, filed 04/07/2026, with respect to Claims 1-12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of 01/07/2026 has been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-12 are 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.
The term “low-current" charging mode in claims 1 through 4 are relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low-current” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “low current” could be any range and is therefore deemed indefinite. This rejection can be overcome by clearly defining or removing the term.
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 1-4 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A state of charge value estimation method for a lithium battery, comprising:
S1: determining an estimated state of charge value by using an ampere-hour integral method; and
S2: when estimating that the lithium battery enters a low-current charging mode, determining a reference cell voltage value corresponding to the estimated state of charge value, and comparing the reference cell voltage value and a measured real-time cell voltage value to determine a calibrated state of charge value.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “S1: determining an estimated state of charge value by using an ampere-hour integral method; and
S2: when estimating that the lithium battery enters a low-current charging mode, determining a reference cell voltage value corresponding to the estimated state of charge value, and comparing the reference cell voltage value and a measured real-time cell voltage value to determine a calibrated state of charge value” are treated as belonging to both a mental process grouping and mathematical concept grouping.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: lithium battery, current sampling circuit, voltage sampling circuit.
In Claim 4: lithium battery, current sampling circuit, voltage sampling circuit.
In Claim 11: a computer-readable storage medium, lithium battery.
In Claim 12: an electronic device, processor, memory, lithium battery.
The additional element a computer-readable storage medium, an electronic device, processor (generic processor), memory, lithium battery, current and voltage sampling circuit are generally recited and are not qualified as particular machines.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-3 and 612 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 6-12 would be allowable if written to overcome the 101 rejection set forth in this office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, Huang teaches a state of charge value estimation method for a lithium battery (Abstract; second page, first paragraph), comprising:
S1: determining an estimated state of charge value by using an ampere-hour integral method (sixth page, second to last paragraph); and
S2: when estimating that the lithium battery enters a low-current charging mode Huang doesn’t specifically state that the lithium battery enters low-current charging mode, however, it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that when the estimated state of charge value is greater than a predetermined threshold, it is estimated that the lithium battery enters the low-current charging mode), determining a reference cell voltage value corresponding to the estimated state of charge value (first SOC), and comparing the reference cell voltage value and a measured real-time cell voltage value (second SOC) to determine a calibrated state of charge value (current target SOC) (Claim 1).
Huang, along with all other prior art fail to teach wherein, in S1, the estimated state of charge value is determined by using a predetermined time period, and the estimated state of charge value determined in a previous time period is used as an initial state of charge value for a next time period. It is for this reason, Claim 1 and all of its dependencies would be allowed.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang, X.; Hou, J.; Wang, Z.; Jiang, Y. Study of SOC Estimation by the Ampere-Hour Integral Method with Capacity Correction Based on LSTM. Batteries 2022, 8, 170. https://doi.org/10.3390/batteries8100170.
Regarding Claim 4, , Huang teaches the state of charge value estimation method for a lithium battery according to Claim 1. Huang fails to specifically teach he state of charge value estimation method for a lithium battery according to Claim 1, wherein the ampere-hour integral method is based on the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
50
88
media_image1.png
Greyscale
SoC(t) = SoCO Idt wherein, SoC (t) represents the estimated state of charge value, SoCo represents an initial state of charge value, Crated represents the rated capacity of the lithium battery, rj represents the charging efficiency of the battery, and f Idt represents an integral value of a charging current I with respect to time t. However, in a related field, Zhang teaches he state of charge value estimation method for a lithium battery according to Claim 1, wherein the ampere-hour integral method is based on the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
50
88
media_image1.png
Greyscale
SoC(t) = SoCO Idt wherein, SoC (t) represents the estimated state of charge value, SoCo represents an initial state of charge value, Crated represents the rated capacity of the lithium battery, rj represents the charging efficiency of the battery, and f Idt represents an integral value of a charging current I with respect to time t (Equation 3, pg. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Huang to incorporate the teachings of Wang by including the limitation above to accurately estimate SOC.
No prior art teaches wherein, in S1, the estimated state of charge value is determined by using a predetermined time period, and the estimated state of charge value determined in a previous time period is used as an initial state of charge value for a next time period. It is for this reason, Claim 4 and all of its dependencies would be allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Wang, De-kui (Dynamic Calibration Method Of Storage Battery, Measuring Method And Intelligent Storage Battery Sensor, 2023-11-14) teaches a dynamic calibration method for charge state value of storage battery in driving process of vehicle, a metering method for charge state value of storage battery and an intelligent storage battery sensor for executing the metering method. wherein the dynamic calibration method comprises the following steps circularly executed in the driving process of the vehicle: an obtaining step: obtaining the parameter value of the storage battery at time t1; a judging step: judging whether the parameter value is equal to the corresponding pre-determined parameter threshold when the storage battery is fully charged; when the parameter value of the storage battery reaches the parameter threshold value, the charge state value is calibrated to 100 %, and the initial time t0 in the integral ampere time method in the metering method is updated to the time t1, and the initial charge state value SOCt0 is updated to the charge state value 100 % at the time t1. The invention avoids the accumulation of the error caused by using the integral time method for a long time, and improves the precision of the SOC measurement;
Ding et al. (METHODS AND DEVICES FOR ESTIMATING STATE OF CHARGE OF BATTERY, AND EXTRACTING CHARGING CURVE OF BATTERY, 2023-07-27) teaches methods, devices and non-transitory tangible computer-readable storage media for estimating a state of charge of a battery and extracting a charging curve of the battery. The method for estimating the state of charge of the battery includes estimating a first state of charge of the battery; determining a charging curve that conforms to the present charging scenario, wherein the present charging scenario is characterized by at least one of parameters including an ambient temperature, a charging rate, an internal resistance, a state of health, a lifespan, and an open circuit voltage of the battery; and correcting the first state of charge according to the charging curve to obtain a final state of charge of the battery;
Yu et al. (Correction Method And Storage Medium Of SOC During Charging Process Of Ferric Phosphate Lithium, CN116047316A, 2023-05-02) teaches a correction method and storage medium of ferric phosphate battery lithium in the charging process, belonging to the technical field of ferric lithium battery charging SOC. The correction method comprises the following steps: judging whether the iron phosphate lithium battery is in the 0.1C charging stage; judging the ferric phosphate battery lithium 0.1C charging stage, obtaining the highest monomer voltage set in the interval of each 1 % SOC. The invention judges whether the ferric phosphate battery lithium at the charging state of 0.1C multiplying power, if the ferric lithium battery is in the state, grabbing the highest value of the single voltage under each 1 %SOC interval namely the highest monomer voltage, and forming the highest monomer voltage set, according to the highest monomer voltage set for dynamic correction in the subsequent charging process, if the ferric phosphate lithium not in the charging stage, using ampere-time integral to calculate the ferric phosphate lithium SOC, improving the accuracy and precision of the ferric lithium battery SOC calculation, at the same time, it also satisfy the experience of the client;
Zhang, Caihui (CHARGING CONTROL METHOD, CHARGER, CHARGING SYSTEM, AND STORAGE MEDIUM, 2021-07-22) teaches a charging control method, said method comprising: performing constant-current charging on a battery (S101); obtaining charging parameters and/or battery parameters when the battery is charged with the constant current, and determining, according to the charging parameters and/or battery parameters, whether the battery ends the constant-current charging (S102); if the battery ends the constant-current charging, then charging the battery using a preset charging policy (S103).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-4593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/MICHAEL J SINGLETARY/Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
