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 .
The amendment filed on July 9, 2026 has been considered.
Specification
The substitute specification filed on July 9, 2026 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) because: a clean substitute specification and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter are missing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 10, “a transportation vehicle controller coupled to the apparatus and configured to control the transportation vehicle based on the determination of the state of charge of the battery cell” is not described in the original disclosure. For example, paragraph 0043 of the published application discloses “[he state of charge SOCi is, for example, supplied to a vehicle controller 53 and is used there, for example, to determine a remaining range of the transportation vehicle 50”. The paragraph discloses determining a remaining range of the transportation vehicle based on the state of charge but does not disclose controlling the transportation vehicle based on the determination of the state of charge of the battery cell. The determined remaining range of the transportation vehicle can merely be for driver’s knowledge.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claims 1 and 10 recite an abstract idea of
“estimates parameters of a battery cell model based on the measured
voltage and the measured current values” (mental process/mathematical concept),
estimates an open-circuit voltage of the battery cell based on the
estimated parameters and the battery cell model (mental process),
determines a first state of charge of the battery cell based on the
estimated open-circuit voltage value by using a predefined lookup table and/or a predefined characteristic curve (mental process/mathematical concept),
determines a second state of charge of the battery cell by charge
integration over time (mental process/mathematical concept), and
checks the determined first state of charge based on at least one
checking criterion (mental process),
a comparison of a charge state change, charge state change difference
and/or voltage difference to a predefined value (mental process),
the determined first state of charge is used as a basis for providing
the determination of the state of charge of the battery cell in response to the at least one checking criterion being met (mental process), and the determined second state of charge is used as a basis for providing the state of charge of the battery cell in response to the at least one checking criterion not being met (mental process/mathematical concept), determines a remaining range of the transportation vehicle as part of the control of the transportation vehicle (mental process, vehicle controller).
The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor (evaluation device) does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III)).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the claim limitations are not integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
“An input interface configured to receive a voltage measured across the battery cell and receipt of a current measured across the battery cell” and “receives the measured voltage and the measured current” are directed to insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claims recite that the vehicle controller is merely configured to control the transportation vehicle based on the determination of the state of charge of the battery cell. The claims do not recite the active step of controlling the transportation vehicle based on the determination of the state of charge of the battery cell. Thus, the abstract idea (i.e., the determination of the state of charge of the battery cell) is not applied/used in a meaningful way of controlling the transportation vehicle (see MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claims 2-9 and 11-17 do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claim 2 is a conventional and non-particular device feature
Claims 3-9 and 11-17 are directed to an abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 10 and their respective dependent claims 2-9 and 11-17 are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 10-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Debreceni et al. (US 2021/0215762) in view of Lee (US 2016/0001672), Hong et al. (US 2022/0146585), and Subbaraman et al. (US 2019/0036356).
Regarding claim 1, Debreceni et al. discloses an apparatus for providing a determination of a state of charge of a battery cell in a transportation vehicle (Abstract, lines 1-2; paragraph 0003), the apparatus comprising:
an input interface (201) configured to receive a voltage measured value detected at the battery cell and receipt of a measured current value detected at the battery cell (paragraph 0050, lines 1-3); an evaluation device (battery model; Abstract, lines 1-2),
wherein the evaluation device:
receives the measured voltage and the measured current values
(paragraph 0049, lines 2-5),
estimates an open-circuit voltage value of the battery cell based on the
estimated parameters and the battery cell model (paragraph 0049, lines 1-8),
determines a first state of charge of the battery cell based on the
estimated open-circuit voltage by using a predefined lookup table (paragraphs 0028,
0029) and/or a predefined characteristic curve (paragraphs 0028, 0029; Fig. 2),
determines a second state of charge of the battery cell by charge
integration over time (discharge/charge current values are integrated over time in order to determine the already used capacity of the battery, paragraph 0037, lines 4-9), and
checks the determined first state of charge based on at least one
checking criterion (correlation is met between open circuit voltage and soc, paragraph 0028, lines 1-3; paragraph 0012, lines 3-5, 11-13), wherein the determined first state of charge is used as a basis for providing the determination of the state of charge of the battery cell (paragraph 0012, lines 11-15) in response to the at least one checking criterion being met (correlation is met between voltage and soc, paragraph 0012, lines 12-13), and the wherein the determined second state of charge is used as a basis for providing determination of the state of charge of the battery cell in response to the at least one checking criterion not being met (apart from the model-based method shown above, further methods of estimating the state of charge of a battery are known in the art, where measurements of discharge and/or charge currents on the battery are integrated over time, paragraph 0037, i.e. no correlation is required to be met between open circuit voltage and soc).
While Debreceni et al. does not disclose the evaluation device estimates parameters of a battery cell model based on the measured voltage and current, Debreceni et al. discloses providing a battery cell model based on the battery (paragraph 0012, lines
2-3). Debreceni et al. further discloses the measured voltage and current are parameters of the battery (paragraph 0049, lines 2-4).
Lee discloses an evaluation device estimates parameters of a battery cell model based on the measured voltage and current (Abstract, 2-8)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Debreceni et al. with an evaluation device that estimates parameters of a battery cell model based on the measured voltage and current as disclosed by Lee for the purpose of controlling operation of the battery cell.
Debreceni et al. does not disclose the at least one checking criterion includes a comparison of a charge state change, charge state change difference and/or voltage difference to a predefined value,
Hong et al. discloses a comparison of a voltage difference to a predefined value (paragraph 0017, lines 1-7) for estimating state of health of a battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Debreceni et al. with a comparison of a voltage difference to a predefined value as disclosed by Hong et al. for the purpose of estimating state of health of a battery.
It is noted that comparison of a charge state change or charge state change difference to a predefined value are alternative limitations since they are recited in the alternative form.
Debreceni et al. does not disclose a transportation vehicle controller coupled to the apparatus and configured to control the transportation vehicle based on the determination of the state of charge of the battery cell, wherein the transportation vehicle controller determines a remaining range of the transportation vehicle as part of the control of the transportation vehicle.
Subbaraman et al. discloses a transportation vehicle controller (150 including 172) coupled to the apparatus (Fig. 1; paragraph 0007) and configured to control the transportation vehicle based on the determination of the state of charge of the battery cell (paragraph 0044, lines 16-21, controller 150 is a BMS controller, where the BMS controller controls the battery system of the vehicle, paragraph 0002, so controlling the battery system is controlling the vehicle), wherein the transportation vehicle controller determines a remaining range of the transportation vehicle (paragraph 0044, lines 16-21) as part of the control of the transportation vehicle (the estimated vehicle remaining range is used to alert the operator to control usage of the battery system, paragraph 0044, lines 16-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Debreceni et al. with determining a remaining range of the transportation vehicle as disclosed by Subbaraman et al. for the purpose of alerting operators to the remaining estimated vehicle range for battery/vehicle usage control purpose.
Regarding claim 2, Debreceni et al. discloses a battery system comprising at least one apparatus (apparatus for estimating a state of charge is part of a rechargeable battery, paragraph 0002) of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, it is noted that the at least one checking criterion includes a determination of whether a change in the determined first state of charge is below a predefined relative value and/or predefined absolute value over a predefined period is an alternative limitation since it is recited in the alternative form (see claim 1, lines 17-18)
Regarding claim 4, it is noted that the at least one checking criterion includes a determination of whether a difference between a change in the determined first state of charge and a change in the determined second state of charge is below a predefined absolute value is an alternative limitation since it is recited in the alternative form (see claim 1, line 18).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Debreceni et al. discloses, in response to at least one
selected checking criterion from among the at least one checking criterion not being met, the determination of the state of charge of the battery cell is not performed based on the estimated open-circuit voltage value (apart from the model-based method shown above, further methods of estimating the state of charge of a battery are known in the art, where measurements of discharge and/or charge currents on the battery are integrated over time, paragraph 0037, i.e., no estimated open-circuit voltage is required, paragraph 0037).
It is noted that the determination of the state of charge of the battery cell is not performed based on the estimated parameters and/or the determined first state of charge for a predefined duration are alternative limitations because they are recites in the alternative form.
Regarding claim 11, it is noted that the at least one checking criterion includes a determination of whether a change in the determined first state of charge is below a predefined relative value and/or predefined absolute value over a predefined period is an alternative limitation since it is recited in the alternative form (see claim 10, line 14)
Regarding claim 12, it is noted that the at least one checking criterion includes a determination of whether a difference between a change in the determined first state of charge and a change in the determined second state of charge is below a predefined absolute value is an alternative limitation since it is recited in the alternative form (see claim 10, line 15).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Debreceni et al. in view of Lee as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Lu et al. (CN 113030752).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Debreceni et al. as modified by Lee discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above except the parameters of the battery cell model are estimated using a variable-forgetting-factor recursive least-squares method.
Lu et al. discloses parameters of the battery cell model are estimated using a variable-forgetting-factor recursive least-squares method (Abstract, lines 9-11) for estimating SOC (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Debreceni et al. as modified with estimating parameters of the battery cell model using a variable-forgetting-factor recursive least-squares method as disclosed by Lu et al. for the purpose of estimating SOC.
Prior Art Note
Claims 5, 8, 9, 13, 16, and 17 do not have prior art rejections.
The combination as claimed wherein an apparatus and method for providing a state of charge of a battery cell comprising determining a state of charge based on the at least one checking criterion includes a determination of whether a difference between a measured voltage of the battery cell and the estimated open-circuit voltage is below a predefined absolute value (claims 5, 13) or determination of the state of charge of the battery cell is set to be equal to the determined first state of charge in response to a difference between the determined first state of charge and the determined second state of charge being less than a predefined relative value and/or absolute value (claims 8, 16) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 9, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Debreceni et al. in view of Lee, Hong et al., and Subbaraman et al., as discussed above. In particular, as discussed above,
Hong et al. discloses a comparison of a voltage difference to a predefined value (paragraph 0017, lines 1-7) for estimating state of health of a battery, while
Subbaraman et al. discloses a transportation vehicle controller (150 including 172) coupled to the apparatus (Fig. 1; paragraph 0007) and configured to control the transportation vehicle based on the determination of the state of charge of the battery cell (paragraph 0044, lines 16-21, controller 150 is a BMS controller, where the BMS controller controls the battery system of the vehicle, paragraph 0002, so controlling the battery system is controlling the vehicle), wherein the transportation vehicle controller determines a remaining range of the transportation vehicle (paragraph 0044, lines 16-21) as part of the control of the transportation vehicle (the estimated vehicle remaining range is used to alert the operator to control usage of the battery system, paragraph 0044, lines 16-21) for alerting operators to the remaining estimated vehicle range for battery/vehicle usage control purpose.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rupert et al. (DE 10017195) discloses a remaining playtime of a device (Abstract). Rupert et al. further discloses if a voltage difference (open-circuit voltage load voltage) is below a threshold value, then a battery is inserted, if above, batteries are inserted. (page 3, paragraph 8), but the criterion does not determine a state of charge.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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..
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 October 1, 2026
