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 .
Priority
Current application, US Application No. 18/498,167 filed on 10/31/2023, claims foreign priority to KR 10-2022-0143905 filed on 11/01/2022.
Examiner acknowledges that the certified copy of foreign priority document has been received. However, the certified English translation copy of the original foreign document, which is not written in English, has not been received. There is no requirement to submit certified English translation copy at this stage according to 37 CFR 1.55(g)(3). However, should the need of certified English translated copy arise according to the cases mentioned in 37 CFR 1.55(g)(3), submission may be requested in the future.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the application filed on 10/31/2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The current application includes limitations in claims 1-11 that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because of the following reasons:
Claims 1-2 and 11 include a limitation/element that use generic placeholders, manager, controller, storage and interface, that are coupled with functional language, configured to “sense”, “manage”, “identify”, “predict”, “store”, “calculate”, “determine” or “output” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The physical structures of the “battery state manager”, “controller”, “storage” and “interface”, are interpreted as part of subcomponents of a general computer or computing system consisting of hardware and software (see specification – A battery management system 100 according to the present disclosure may be implemented in a form of an independent hardware device including a memory and a processor that processes each operation, or may be driven in a form of being included in another hardware device such as a microprocessor or a general-purpose computer system [0043], the battery management system 100 may include a controller 110, a battery state manager 120, storage 130, and an interface 140 [0045, Fig. 1], The controller 110 may be a hardware device such as a processor or a central processing unit (CPU), or a program implemented by the processor [0046])
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. As per claims 1 and 12, the limitations “identify a battery voltage reduction time from the state information of the battery when a voltage of the battery decreases by a predetermined value” and “predict a usable time of the battery based on a change in the battery voltage reduction time” are ambiguous because (1) when the voltage of the battery does not decrease by the predetermined value, the battery voltage reduction time cannot be identified as recited in the claims, thus the usable time of the battery cannot be predicted, either, based on the change in the battery voltage reduction time. Furthermore, (2) even when the battery decreases by the determined value, since there is no voltage monitoring start time has been specified, identifying the battery voltage reduction time would be indefinite.
For the sake of the examination, the limitations are interpreted as “identify a battery voltage reduction time from the current state information of the battery, which includes a current time and a current voltage of the battery, and a start time and a start voltage of the battery being monitored” and “predict a usable time of the battery based on a change in the battery voltage reduction time”.
As per claims 2-11 and 13-20, claims are also rejected because base claims 1 and 12 are rejected.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. 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 battery management system (1.A) comprising:
a battery state manager configured to sense and manage state information of a battery; (1.B)
and a controller configured to: (1.C.1)
identify a battery voltage reduction time from the state information of the battery when a voltage of the battery decreases by a predetermined value; (1.C.2)
and predict a usable time of the battery based on a change in the battery voltage reduction time”. (1.C.3)
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 (Machine - System).
Under the 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 exception. 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, highlighted limitations/steps (1.B) and (1.C.2) – (1.C.3) are treated by the Examiner as belonging to Mathematical Concept grouping or a combination of Mathematical Concept and Mental Processing groupings as the limitations show Mathematical Calculations or show Mathematical Relationships with optional Mental judgement/evaluation.
The highlighted limitation (1.B) shows a mathematical calculation/relationship of classifying the battery state or determining voltage value change (see specification – monitors the battery state information, for categorization as an example, determined whether the voltage of the battery 10 decreases by the predetermined value V1 [0090]]).
The highlighted limitation (1.C.2) shows a mathematical calculation of the voltage reduction time using mathematical voltage and time relationship on a time domain (see specification – first time point T1 and second time point T2 [0057, Fig. 2])
The highlighted limitation (1.C.3) shows mathematical calculation or relationship between the battery usable time and the battery voltage reduction time change. (see specification – calculating of the battery voltage reduction change … by dividing [0027], predicting of the usable time of the battery based on … the battery volage reduction change rate [0028]).
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: (Side Note: duplicated elements are not repeated)
In Claim 1: “A battery management system”, “a battery state manager configured to sense … state information of the battery” and “a controller”;
In Claim 2: “storage configured to store … state information”;
In Claim 11: “an interface configured to output information”;
In Claim 12: “A method for controlling a battery management system”;
As per claim 1, the additional element in the preamble “A battery management system”
is not a meaningful limitation because the limitation simply links the system with a standard operation in the art, i.e battery management, which is not significant.
The limitation “a battery state manager configured to sense … state information of the battery” represents a standard data/information collection step in the art using a general computing resource, e.g. managing software and/or hardware, and only adds insignificant extra solution to the judicial exception.
The limitations “a battery state manager” and “a controller” represent sub component of a general computer or computing system and they are not particular in the art.
As per claims 2, the limitation/step “storage configured to store information” represents a standard data storing step using a subcomponent of a general computer or computing system and only adds insignificant extra solution to the judicial exception.
As per claim 12, the additional element in the preamble “A method” is not a meaningful limitation because the limitation simply links the method with an intended purpose, i.e controlling the battery management system, which is interpreted as a general computer or computing system. Controlling the general computer or computing system is not particular in the art.
In conclusion, the above additional elements considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements as a whole do not reflect an improvement to the computer technology or other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. No particular machine or real-world transformation are claimed. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Under Step 2B analysis, the above claims fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as shown in the prior art of record.
The limitations/elements listed as additional elements above are well understood, routine and conventional steps/elements in the art according to the prior art of record. (See Um, Osa, Kang, Naka, Song and others in the list of prior art of record)
Claims 1-20, therefore, are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Um (US 20190113578 A1), hereinafter ‘Um’ best understood by the examiner.
As per claim 1, Um discloses
A battery management system (device for predicting battery life [Title, 0002], monitor … and control the battery [0018]) comprising:
a battery state manager configured to sense and manage state information of a battery; (an acquisition unit configured to obtain a time taken for a voltage level of a battery [abs, 0006], the acquisition unit ... divide the voltage level, divide the sections [0030])
and a controller (a prediction unit [abs, 0006]) configured to:
identify a battery voltage reduction time from the state information of the battery when a voltage of the battery decreases by a predetermined value; (based on the time taken for the voltage level of the battery in a discharge mode to change [abs, 0006], predetermined reference information, reference time, predetermined voltage intervals [0020], volage level of the battery, charging or discharging ‘e.g. the voltage level is increased or decreased’ into a predetermined … voltage section [0022] )
and predict a usable time of the battery based on a change in the battery voltage reduction time. (predicting the life of a battery based on time information that varies depending on a charging/discharging voltage section [0005], predict a state of Health ‘SOH’, corrects the predicted ‘SoH [abs, 0006], predicting the life of a battery [0005, 0012, 0014, Fig, 4 and 60021,0023, 0029, 0034, 0041], lifetime prediction of the battery [0049-0050, 0054-0055]).
As per claim 12, Um discloses
A method for controlling a battery management system, (method … for predicting battery life, correcting [Title, 0002, 0005, 0007], include a battery controller [0017-0024], monitor … and control the battery [0018]) the method comprising:
sensing state information of a battery; (a time taken for a voltage level of a battery [abs, 0006], predetermined reference information, reference time, predetermined voltage intervals [0020], volage level of the battery, charging or discharging ‘e.g. the voltage level is increased or decreased’ into a predetermined … voltage section [0022])
and identifying a battery voltage reduction time from the state information of the battery when a voltage of the battery decreases by a predetermined value, (the time taken for the voltage level of the battery in a discharge mode to change [abs, 0006])
and predicting a usable time of the battery based on a change in the battery voltage reduction time. (predicting the life of a battery based on time information that varies depending on a charging/discharging voltage section [0005], predict a state of Health ‘SOH’, corrects the predicted ‘SoH [abs, 0006], predicting the life of a battery [0005, 0012, 0014, Fig, 4 and 60021,0023, 0029, 0034, 0041], lifetime prediction of the battery [0049-0050, 0054-0055]).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Um in view of Osada (US 20250293324 A1), hereinafter “Osa’ best understood by the examiner.
As per claims 2 and 13, Um discloses claims 1 and 12 set forth above.
Um discloses a capability of storing the battery information in to one of storage devices (information may be … stored in the battery controller [0020], computer-readable recording medium includes all kinds of storage devices [0077]), but is not explicit on string current state information of at least one of the voltage, a current, and a state of charging of the battery sensed by the battery state manager.
Osa discloses storing a voltage data (function of storing … voltage data [abs, 0033]) and Osa is in the same battery management art as Um.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Um in view of Osa to use storage configured to store current state information of at least one of the voltage, a current, and a state of charging of the battery sensed by the battery state manager for accurate determination of useful life of the battery (Um – checking battery state more accurately, for proper capacity design, operation, maintenance/repair, and economical efficiency of a battery, necessary to predict the life of the battery [0003]).
Claims 3 and 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Um and Osa (optional) in view of Kang (US 20240103085 A1), hereinafter ‘Kang’, and Nakao (US 20250233440 A1), hereinafter ‘Naka’ best understood by the examiner.
As per claims 3 and 13, Um and Osa (optional) disclose(s) claims 2 and 12 set forth above.
Um or Osa is silent regarding storing, in the storage, the current state information of the battery about the battery voltage reduction time required for the voltage of the battery to decrease by the predetermined value, the current of the battery, and the state of charging of the battery when the voltage of the battery decreases by the predetermined value.
Kang discloses storing discharge time related to the voltage drop (data stored in the database unit … charge/discharge time … measured voltage, and measured voltage drop [0013]).
Kang is in the same battery status determining art as Um and/or Osa.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Um or Um and Osa in view of Kang to store the current state information of the battery about the battery voltage reduction time required for the voltage of the battery to decrease by the predetermined value for accurate determination of useful life of the battery.
However, the combined prior art is silent regarding storing the current of the battery, and the state of charging of the battery when the voltage of the battery decreases by the predetermined value.
Naka discloses storing the current and state of charge of the battery (the SOC, the SOHR, and the current stored in the storage unit 180 [0061, Fig. 3], storage unit [0166]).
Naka is in the same battery control art as the combined prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Naka to store the current of the battery, and the state of charging of the battery when the voltage of the battery decreases by the predetermined value for accurate determination of useful life of the battery.
Claims 4 and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Um, Osa (optional), Kang and Naka in view of Song (US 20250147113 A1), hereinafter ‘Song’ best understood by the examiner.
As per claims 4 and 14, Um, Osa (optional), Kang and Naka disclose claims 3 and 13 set forth above.
Um discloses using initial battery information and a capability to store the information in the storage devices (a need for a method of predicting the battery capacity in real time using the capacity of information of the initial battery [0021, 0035], Initial Ah [0029, 0064], computer-readable recording medium includes all kinds of storage devices [0077]), but is silent regarding storing initial state information of the battery recognized when the battery is mounted or replaced.
Song discloses obtaining an initial state of the battery when the battery is mounted (SoH, the initial state of the battery [0041], obtain battery data … including at least any one of voltage, current … of the battery … or state information of a battery pack having the battery mounted [0046], obtain driving information of a vehicle … having the battery pack … mounted [0057], generate a SoH deterioration graph of the battery reflecting the latest driving history of the vehicle by analyzing driving information of the vehicle having the battery mounted [0067], memory … may store operation data of the battery management apparatus [0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Song to store initial state information of the battery recognized when the battery is mounted or replaced for accurate determination of useful life of the battery.
Claims 5-11 and 15-20 are presented in a high level of ambiguities because calculating the battery voltage reduction change rate by comparing the current state information of the battery with the initial state information of the battery is infeasible without specifying the time values of both states. Without specifying how the time values are determined, it is not clear how the battery voltage reduction change rate can be calculated. Until further amendment clarifying on calculating the voltage reduction change rate, application of the prior art to the current claims are postponed.
Notes with regard to Prior Art
The prior arts made of record are provided as additional references relevant to the current claims.
Yamaguichi (US 20230010270 A1) discloses a software control of using a battery by detecting abnormal state and battery voltage drop is used to control the battery from charging or discharging (detects a predictive abnormal phenomenon in a battery pack and prevents the use of the battery pack before power is shut off [abs], voltage drop [0070, 0073-0074, Fig. 9-10]).
Naka also discloses storing the state of charge and the current of the battery (the SOC, the SOHR, and the current stored in the storage unit 180 [0061, Fig. 3], storage unit [0166]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS KAY, whose telephone number is (408) 918-7569. The examiner can normally be reached on M, Th & F 8-5, T 2-7, and W 8-1.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/DOUGLAS KAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857