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 .
This action is responsive to communication filed on 03/21/2024.
Claims 1-10 are pending.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1, belongs to a statutory category namely a device. Likely claim 10, belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a method.
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim(s) 1 and 10 recite(s) concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, highlighted in bold for “a first state of charge (SOC) calculator that calculates a first SOC using a first method that uses a battery model parameter of a battery; a second SOC calculator that calculates a second SOC using a second method different from the first method; an alternating-current (AC) impedance measurement unit that measures an AC impedance of the battery when an error between the first SOC and the second SOC is greater than a predetermined threshold; and a battery model parameter calculator that calculates a battery model parameter using the AC impedance measured, wherein the first SOC calculator recalculates the first SOC using the battery model parameter calculated” (claims 1); “calculating a first state of charge (SOC) using a first method that uses a battery model parameter of a battery; calculating a second SOC using a second method different from the first method; measuring an alternating-current (AC) impedance of the battery when an error between the first SOC and the second SOC is greater than a predetermined threshold; calculating a battery model parameter using the AC impedance measured; and recalculating the first SOC using the battery model parameter calculated” (claim 9), [emphasis added].
The concepts discussed above, highlighted in bold, can be considered to describe mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers. Although, the claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the “first state of charge (SOC) calculator”, “second state of charge (SOC) calculator”, and “battery model parameter calculator”, respectively recited by claims 1, amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; the recitation of “an alternating-current (AC) impedance measurement unit that measures an AC impedance of the battery”, recited by claim 1, “measuring an alternating-current (AC) impedance of the battery” (claim 10), is mere gathering recited at high level of generality and the results of the algorithm are merely output/stored as part of insignificant post-solution activity and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
Under Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, claims 1, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-9 merely expand on the abstract idea by appending additional steps to the mathematical algorithm on their respective independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-9 merely expands on the abstract idea by reciting additional steps related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and mere characterization of the data acquired and applied for performing the abstract idea i.e. “when the error between the first SOC and the second SOC is less than the predetermined threshold, updates a battery model parameter stored in a storage unit with the battery model parameter used for the calculation of the first SOC” (claim 2),
“wherein the first method is a Kalman filtering (KF) method” (claim 3), “wherein the second method is a Coulomb counting (CC) method” (claim 4), “wherein the second method is an open circuit voltage (OCV) method” (claim 5), “the server device estimates a state of degradation of the battery using the initial battery model parameter and the battery model parameter updated” (claim 9).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application in claims 2-9 because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the “battery state estimation device” recited in 2-8 and “battery state estimation system” and “server device” recited in claim 9, amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; and to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, the limitations merely add further details as to the type of data, the means of collecting data being received/input/stored (i.e. storage unit, in claims 8-9, communication unit that communicates with the server via communication network, in claim 8) and used with the mental process and/or math steps recited in the independent claims, also further calculations and math, so they are properly viewed as part of the recited abstract idea; and the results are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
The claim(s) claims 2-9 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Therefore claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Reasons for Overcoming the Prior Art
Regarding claims 1-10, the closest prior art of made of record, Mitsuyama et al. US 20130110429 A1, Matsukawa et al. US 20210109160 A1, and Brandon et al. S 20130229156 A1, either in singularly or in combination fails to teach, disclose or suggest the features set forth by independent claims 1 and 10, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Mitsuyama et al. US 20130110429 A1, disclose A battery internal state estimating apparatus, estimating an internal state of a battery based on a simulation model of the battery (see abstract). Mitsuyama disclose a technique with a Kalman filter being used to estimate a SOC (State of Charge) indicating a state of discharge of a battery (see para. 0004, 0013, 0092). Mitsuyama further disclose a second embodiment in which an observed value and a calculated value obtained by a simulation model in which a deviation is observed and estimating optimal parameters by an adaptive learning by an extended Kalman filter and using an Open circuit voltage into a predetermined equation (see para. 0117). In another embodiment an impedance value of a cable connected to the lead acid battery is determined (see para. 0120) and further disclose an internal resistance can be corrected to a reference state based on SOC and a lead-acid battery temperature (see para. 0125).
Matsukawa et al. US 20210109160 A1, disclose measuring and calculating an AC impedance of a battery (see para. 0004-0005), and determining based on AC impedances whether at least one of battery packs is below a predetermined criterion (see para. 0128). Matsukawa disclose Kalman filter unit being used to calculate low frequency impedance (para. 0062, 0071, 0101).
Brandon et al. S 20130229156 A1, disclose a method for monitoring the condition of at least one cell of a battery, calculating from a sensed voltage and current a complex impedance of the cell; and comparing the calculated complex impedance with information indicative of a correlation between (i) the complex impedance and (ii) information indicative of the condition of the cell, to give an indication of the condition of the cell (see abstract).
Brandon further disclose combining two methods to achieve an estimate of SOC by measuring the open circuit voltage and then consulting a look-up table or using a mathematical function to give the SOC from the measured open circuit voltage (OCV) have been existing methods used; and that also a method called “coulomb counting” (COC) used during operation to provide real-time estimate of the SOC have been an existing method used. Brandon discuss that that determining the processes is time consuming and it is not always possible to perform coulomb counting during vehicle operation and that the accuracy may decrease due to integration drift and that the initial estimation based on OCV-SOC look up tables can be lees accurate (see para. 0008-0013). Brandon further discusses that applying OCV and COC can be problematic since and that there is a need to provide an improved arrangement for monitoring conditions of batteries since OCV and coulomb counting will decrease accuracy of the determinations of SOC (see para. 0009-0014).
However the closest prior art of record either in singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of “an alternating-current (AC) impedance measurement unit that measures an AC impedance of the battery when an error between the first SOC and the second SOC is greater than a predetermined threshold; and a battery model parameter calculator that calculates a battery model parameter using the AC impedance measured, wherein the first SOC calculator recalculates the first SOC using the battery model parameter calculated” (claim 1), and “measuring an alternating-current (AC) impedance of the battery when an error between the first SOC and the second SOC is greater than a predetermined threshold; calculating a battery model parameter using the AC impedance measured; and recalculating the first SOC using the battery model parameter calculated” (claim 10) in combination with the limitations set forth by the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record cited in form PTOL-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YARITZA H PEREZ BERMUDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/YARITZA H. PEREZ BERMUDEZ/
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857