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 .
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-8 are directed to a battery anomaly detection device, claim 9 is directed to a battery anomaly detection method. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding claim 9:
A battery anomaly detection method comprising:
measuring an alternating-current (AC) impedance of a battery cell;
determining whether the AC impedance is within a reference range; and
when the AC impedance is not within the reference range, determining that the battery cell is an anomalous cell.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“measuring an alternating-current (AC) impedance of a battery cell” is directed to math because it relates to specifically complex numbers, trigonometry, and calculus. This technique, often called Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS), uses mathematical models to translate AC voltage and current measurements into data about a battery’s internal resistance, health, and state of charge.
“determining whether the AC impedance is within a reference range” is directed to math because it relates to specifically algebra, trigonometry, and complex numbers. It requires calculating total resistance (impedance, Z) from resistance and (reactance (X) using formulas like Z= sqrt {R2 + (XL – XC)2 and comparing these values to acceptable ranges (e.g. maximum or minimum thresholds) to determine if a circuit functioning correctly.
“when the AC impedance is not within the reference range, determining that the battery cell is an anomalous cell” is directed to math because this process involves mathematical modeling, data analysis, and statistical comparison.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “measurement” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of " measuring an alternating-current (AC) impedance of a battery cell; determining whether the AC impedance is within a reference range; when the AC impedance is not within the reference range, determining that the battery cell is an anomalous cell” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“measuring an alternating-current (AC) impedance of a battery cell” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining whether the AC impedance is within a reference range” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“when the AC impedance is not within the reference range, determining that the battery cell is an anomalous cell” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim is merely selecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and displaying the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“measuring an alternating-current (AC) impedance of a battery cell” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining whether the AC impedance is within a reference range” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“when the AC impedance is not within the reference range, determining that the battery cell is an anomalous cell” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 1 is similar to claim 9 but recites a battery anomaly detection device comprising: an alternating-current (AC) impedance measurer that measures an AC impedance of a battery cell; and an anomaly determiner that determines whether the AC impedance is within a reference range. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”).
On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 1 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, “wherein the AC impedance measurer measures an AC impedance of each of a plurality of battery cells that include the battery cell and are directly connected to each other, and the anomaly determiner: calculates the reference range from the AC impedances measured; and determines whether each of the AC impedances is within the reference range, and determines that the battery cell whose AC impedance is not within the reference range is an anomalous cell” is directed to math.
Regarding claim 3, “wherein the anomaly determiner: excludes a largest value and a smallest value from the AC impedances measured; calculates an average value of remaining AC impedances after the exclusion of the largest value and the smallest value; and calculates the reference range based on the average value” is directed to math.
Regarding claim 4, “storage that stores a previously-measured AC impedance, wherein the anomaly determiner determines the reference range based on the previously-measured AC impedance” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 5, “wherein the anomaly determiner determines, as the reference range, a range corresponding to a current first battery state of the battery cell among a plurality of ranges that are associated in advance with a plurality of first battery states, and the plurality of first battery states each include at least one of a temperature, a voltage, or a state of charge (SOC) of the battery cell” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 6, “a communicator that communicates with a server device via a communication network, wherein the reference range is obtained from the server device” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 7, “wherein the AC impedance measurer measures the AC impedance of the battery cell when the battery cell is in thermal equilibrium” is directed to math.
Regarding claim 8, “wherein the AC impedance measurer measures the AC impedance of the battery cell when the battery cell is in a second battery state that is predetermined, and the second battery state includes at least one of a temperature, a voltage, or a state of charge (SOC) of the battery cell” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Hence the claims 1-9 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Antoine et al. (WO 2014/128395 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Antoine et al. disclose a battery anomaly detection device (Fig.2) comprising:
an alternating-current impedance measurer that measures an AC impedance of a battery cell (Fig.2 Ref.12, Fig.4 Ref.41+44, para. [0094]-[0102]); and
an anomaly determiner (Fig.2 Ref.12) that determines whether the AC impedance is within a reference range, and when the AC impedance is not within the reference range, determines that the battery cell is an anomalous cell (Fig.4 Ref. 46, para. [0103]).
Regarding claim 2, Antoine et al. disclose wherein the AC impedance measurer measures an AC impedance of each of a plurality of battery cells that include the battery cell and are directly connected to each other, and the anomaly determiner: calculates the reference range from the AC impedances measured (para. [0094]-[0102]); and determines whether each of the AC impedances is within the reference range, and determines that the battery cell whose AC impedance is not within the reference range is an anomalous cell (Fig.4 Ref. 46, para. [0103]).
Regarding claim 3, Antoine et al. disclose wherein the anomaly determiner: excludes a largest value and a smallest value from the AC impedances measured; calculates an average value of remaining AC impedances after the exclusion of the largest value and the smallest value; and calculates the reference range based on the average value (para. [0094]-[0103]).
Regarding claim 4, Antoine et al. disclose storage that stores a previously-measured AC impedance, wherein the anomaly determiner determines the reference range based on the previously-measured AC impedance (para. [0094]-[0103]).
Regarding claim 5, Antoine et al. disclose wherein the anomaly determiner determines, as the reference range, a range corresponding to a current first battery state of the battery cell among a plurality of ranges that are associated in advance with a plurality of first battery states, and the plurality of first battery states each include at least one of a temperature, a voltage, or a state of charge (SOC) of the battery cell (par. [0043]).
Regarding claim 8, Antoine et al. wherein the AC impedance measurer measures the AC impedance of the battery cell when the battery cell is in a second battery state that is predetermined, and the second battery state includes at least one of a temperature, a voltage, or a state of charge (SOC) of the battery cell (par. [0043]).
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Youl (KR 20140066361 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Youl discloses a battery anomaly detection device (Fig.1) comprising:
an alternating-current impedance measurer (Fig.1 Ref.110+120+140; page 4, "The voltage/ current sensing part (120) senses the voltage or the current of each battery cell through the frequency response when the sine wave signal of the high frequency and low frequency and square wave signal was applied to the battery cell.") that measures an AC impedance of a battery cell (Fig.2 S220, page 5: "the SOC I impedance calculation unit (140) calculates impedance based on the voltage, applied the control unit the current, the voltage and the outputted current"); and
an anomaly determiner (Fig.1 Ref. 150+160) that determines whether the AC impedance is within a reference range (Fig.2 Ref. 240, page 5, "the measured impedance determines whether it is lower than that of 1.2 times of the reference impedance"), and when the AC impedance is not within the reference range, determines that the battery cell is an anomalous cell (Fig.2 S250, page 5: "it determines that there is a problem in the control unit (150) in the battery").
Regarding claim 4, Youl discloses storage that stores a previously-measured AC impedance, wherein the anomaly determiner determines the reference range based on the previously-measured AC impedance (Fig.2, ref.160, page 5).
Regarding claim 5, Youl discloses wherein the anomaly determiner determines, as the reference range, a range corresponding to a current first battery state of the battery cell among a plurality of ranges that are associated in advance with a plurality of first battery states, and the plurality of first battery states each include at least one of a temperature, a voltage, or a state of charge (SOC) of the battery cell (Fig.2, S230, page 5, "The reference impedance according to the temperature and SOC is extracted with reference to the lookup table").
Regarding claim 8, Youl discloses wherein the AC impedance measurer measures the AC impedance of the battery cell when the battery cell is in a second battery state that is predetermined, and the second battery state includes at least one of a temperature, a voltage, or a state of charge (SOC) of the battery cell (Fig.2, S230, page 5, "The reference impedance according to the temperature and SOC is extracted with reference to the lookup table").
Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fuji(JP 8-88941 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Fuji discloses a storage battery quality determination device for an uninterruptible power supply device that is capable of detecting a defective cell without loss of power to a load through continuous operation of the uninterruptible power supply device even in a case where there is a mixture of defective cells in a series storage battery for backup, comprising:
a series storage battery 6; a DC power source 21; an AC power source 22; an AC current detector 30; a series capacitor 31; an AC voltage detector 32; a filter 33; a filter 34; an impedance calculation circuit 35; and a defect determination circuit 36, wherein a cell changeover switch 41 is provided to enable individual detection of an AC voltage V AC of each cell constituting the series storage battery 6, and wherein an individual impedance calculation circuit 42 calculates an individual inner impedance of each cell by means of a calculation in which the AC voltage VAC of each cell by an AC current IAC (corresponds to measuring the AC impedance of the battery cell), and when this value exceeds a predetermined value (corresponds to determining whether or not the AC impedance falls within a reference range), the defect determination circuit 36 issues a warning (corresponds to determining that the battery cell is an abnormal cell) (paragraphs [0001], [0006]-[0017], fig. 2).
Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mazda (JP 2010-67502 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Mazda discloses a power storage device that enables a diagnosis of battery deterioration to be performed more simply and accurately, wherein an inner impedance is determined by means of an AC current of a predetermined frequency(corresponds to measuring the AC impedance of the battery cell), and a battery deterioration state is determined by means of a deterioration determination map for the inner impedance, wherein the deterioration determination map provides standard values, and deterioration determination threshold values, for the inner impedance by mapping said values to battery temperature and battery voltage in advance, wherein a threshold value T1 and a threshold value T2 (correspond to the reference range corresponding to a first battery state defined by a battery cell temperature) are inner impedances, of battery temperatures T1 and T2 respectively, in the event of deterioration to an extent requiring replacement of the battery 21, and wherein battery deterioration determining means determines that the battery 21 should be replaced when the calculated inner impedance is equal to or greater than the threshold value T1 or the threshold value T2 (corresponds to determining that the battery cell is an abnormal cell) (paragraphs [0001], [0009], [0028]-[0043], fig. 7, 8).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antoine et al. (WO 2014/128395 A1) in view of Nanba Atshushi et al. (JP 2006226788 A).
Regarding claim 6, Antoine et al. fail to disclose a communicator that communicates with a server device via a communication network, wherein the reference range is obtained from the server device.
Nanba Atshushi et al. teach a communicator that communicates with a server device via a communication network, wherein the reference range is obtained from the server device (page 4: the battery management system of this embodiment, information on the battery mounted on the vehicle is transmitted from the vehicle system 10 to the management server 100 via the wireless communication network, page 6: As the battery current and voltage in a constant load, the current value and voltage value when the following conditions are satisfied are acquired. That is, the condition that the battery current I is within the range between the lower limit set value −IBHZ and the upper limit set value IBHZ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate a communicator that communicates with a server device via a communication network, wherein the reference range is obtained from the server device of Nanba Atshushi et al. with the battery anomaly detection device of Antoine et al. for the purposes of providing a battery management system can be configured by a vehicle system and a management server connected to the vehicle system via wireless communication (Nanba Atshushi et al., page 3).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antoine et al. (WO 2014/128395 A1) in view of Gullapalli et al. (US 20220091062 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Antoine et al. fail to disclose wherein the AC impedance measurer measures the AC impedance of the battery cell when the battery cell is in thermal equilibrium.
Gullapalli et al. teach wherein the AC impedance measurer measures the AC impedance of the battery cell when the battery cell is in thermal equilibrium (para. [0038], [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate wherein the AC impedance measurer measures the AC impedance of the battery cell when the battery cell is in thermal equilibrium of Gullapalli et al. with the battery anomaly detection device of Antoine et al. for the purposes of providing a battery monitoring techniques for detection of battery anomalies or faults (Nanba Gullapalli et al., abstract).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/JOHN H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857