DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 02/26/2026. This action is made Final.
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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/26/2026 has been entered. Claim 1-20 remain pending in the application. The previous §101 rejections with respect to claims 15–20 have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments. The §101 rejections with respect to claims 1–14 are maintained for the reasons set forth below.
Response to Arguments
In the arguments/remarks, the Applicant argued as follows:
a. With respect to the §101 rejection of claims 1–14, the Applicant alleged that the claims recite a process performed by a battery management system of a vehicle to obtain capacity and physical condition data of a battery and generate a downstream handling classification for the battery. Therefore, Applicant contends that the claims recite vehicle-implemented operations that depend on subsystems within the vehicle. Further, Applicant asserts that the claims are directed to battery health determination processes and, therefore, are directed to a technological process for post-damage battery management in a vehicle rather than an abstract idea. Lastly, Applicant argues that the claims recite a process for downstream management of damaged vehicle batteries rather than relying on manual human inspection because the vehicle itself performs automated determination of the health and accessibility of the battery using onboard systems and communicates the determination for execution of downstream handling processes. Accordingly, Applicant contends that the claimed process cannot practically be performed by a human. (Remarks, page 10 – 11)
b. With respect to the previous §103 rejection, Applicant argued that the combination of Hedwig and Mehta fails to disclose or suggest: “determining, by the vehicle, a downstream handling classification of the battery based on the determined health and the determined accessibility; and transmitting a message with an identifier of the downstream handling classification to a server for execution of a corresponding downstream process.” (Remarks, page 12)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to point (a), the communication between the battery management system and the processor of the vehicle relating to battery capacity and physical condition data constitutes routine and conventional operation of vehicle components. Further, the determining steps using collected data to determine battery health recite an abstract idea because they encompass a person using observation, evaluation, and judgment to assess the health condition of a battery based on the received information. The recited communications between the processor and the battery management system merely utilize generic components to collect and process data for performing the abstract idea. Further, the limitation of “transmitting a message ...” merely recites the transmission of information over a network and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see at least receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362). It is noted that the recitation “for execution of a corresponding downstream process” constitutes intended use because the claim does not positively recite any actual control or execution of a downstream process based on the transmitted information. Moreover, the claims do not specify the nature or operation of the recited downstream process. The mere recitation of a generic downstream process does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to point (b), Applicant has introduced the terms “downstream handling classification” and “identifier of the downstream handling classification.” These terms do not appear to be supported by the originally filed specification and, therefore, constitute new matter. If Applicant intends for these terms to correspond to specific subject matter disclosed in the specification, such subject matter should be reflected in the claims to clarify the newly introduced terminology. Accordingly, a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) is established. Further, in the interest of compact prosecution, a new ground of rejection is necessitated based on the interpretation issues identified in the §112(a) rejection set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 5 – 6 should read “transmitting, by the vehicle, a notification to [[a]]the server remote from the vehicle, the notification including the data gathered from the battery.” because the limitation “server” was previously introduced in claim 1, line 10.
Claim 8, line 10 – 11 should read “determine, by the vehicle, a future use downstream handling classification of the battery, based on the determined health and the determined accessibility;”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 – 20 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.
Claim 1, line 7 – 10 recites “determining, by the vehicle, a downstream handling classification of the battery based on the determined health and the determined accessibility; and transmitting a message with an identifier of the downstream handling classification to a server for execution of a corresponding downstream process.” The terms “downstream handling classification” and “identifier of the downstream handling classification” do not appear to be supported by the originally filed specification and, therefore, constitute new matter. If Applicant intends for these terms to correspond to specific subject matter disclosed in the specification, such subject matter should be reflected in the claims to clarify the newly introduced terminology. For the purpose of compact prosecution and in light of the specification par. [0051], the examiner will interpret the “downstream handling classification” and the “identifier of the downstream process” as a “future use of the battery”.
Claims 2 – 7 are dependent on claim 1 but do not cure the deficiency thereof, thus being rejected to the same basis as claim 1 above.
Claims 8 recites the system with substantially same scope as claim 1, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 1 above.
Claims 9 – 14 are dependent on claim 8 but do not cure the deficiency thereof, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 8 above.
Claim 15 recites the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with substantially similar scope as claim 1, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 1 above.
Claims 16 - 20 are dependent on claim 15 but do not cure the deficiency thereof, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 8 above.
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 16 and 18 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.
Claim 16, line 5 – 6 recites “transmitting, by the vehicle to the server, a notification including a location of the vehicle”. There is lack of antecedent basis for the limitation “the server”.
Claim 18, line 5 – 6 recites “transmitting a notification indicative of the first recommended amount of time for recovering the battery to the server;” and line 9 – 11 recites “transmitting a notification indicative of the second recommended amount of time for recovering the battery to the server”. There is lack of antecedent basis for the limitation “the server”.
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 claims are directed to a
judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significant more.
Regarding to claim 1,
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method, comprising:
determining, by a vehicle, a health of a battery in the vehicle based on a communication received from a battery management system of the vehicle, wherein the communication comprises data identifying a capacity and a physical condition of the battery;
determining, by the vehicle, an accessibility of the battery;
determining, by the vehicle, a downstream handling classification of the battery based on the determined health and the determined accessibility; and
transmitting a message with an identifier of the downstream handling classification to a server for execution of a corresponding downstream process.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the limitation of “determining a health of a battery in the vehicle …” encompasses a person using evaluation and judgment to analyze collected data regarding the physical condition and capacity of the battery in order to determine the battery’s health. Similarly, the limitation of “determining an accessibility of the battery” encompasses a person using evaluation, observation, and judgment to determine whether the battery is accessible after the vehicle has been damaged. Lastly, the limitation of “determining a downstream handling classsification …” encompasses a person using evaluation and judgment to determine whether the battery can continue to be used based on the determined health and accessibility of the battery. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method, comprising:
determining, by a vehicle, a health of a battery in the vehicle based on a communication received from a battery management system of the vehicle, wherein the communication comprises data identifying a capacity and a physical condition of the battery;
determining, by the vehicle, an accessibility of the battery;
determining, by the vehicle, a downstream handling classification of the battery based on the determined health and the determined accessibility; and
transmitting a message with an identifier of the downstream handling classification to a server for execution of a corresponding downstream process.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “by a vehicle”, “battery management system of the vehicle”, the Examiner submits that these limitation is recited at a high level of generality and merely describes the context in which the abstract idea is performed. The additional limitation of “a communication from a battery management of the vehicle, wherein the communication comprises data identifying …” is related to data gathering, thus being directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The additional limitation of “transmitting a message ...” merely recites the transmission of information over a network and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see at least receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362). It is noted that the recitation “for execution of a corresponding downstream process” constitutes intended use because the claim does not positively recite any actual control or execution of a downstream process based on the transmitted information. Moreover, the claims do not specify the nature or operation of the recited downstream process. The mere recitation of a generic downstream process does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, this limitation does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation of “by a vehicle”, “battery management system of the vehicle”, the Examiner submits that these limitation is recited at a high level of generality and merely describes the context in which the abstract idea is performed. The additional limitation of “a communication from a battery management of the vehicle, wherein the communication comprises data identifying …” is related to data gathering, thus being directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The additional limitation of “transmitting a message ...” merely recites the transmission of information over a network and does not provide inventive concept (see at least receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362). It is noted that the recitation “for execution of a corresponding downstream process” constitutes intended use because the claim does not positively recite any actual control or execution of a downstream process based on the transmitted information. Moreover, the claims do not specify the nature or operation of the recited downstream process. The mere recitation of a generic downstream process does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, this limitation does not integrate the claim into a practical application. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2 – 7 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, claim 2 recites the limitation of “gathering … vehicle location data of the vehicle.” This limitation is directed to data gathering and therefore constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 2 further recites “transmitting …,” which is directed to the mere transmission of data over a network and thus constitutes insignificant post-solution activity. Claim 3 recites “determining …” steps that are directed to mental processes, as they encompass a person using evaluation and judgment to make determinations based on collected data. Similarly, claims 4–7 do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that amount to an inventive concept. Therefore, dependent claims 2 - 7 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
The analysis of claim 8 is similar to the analysis of claim 1 above. The recitation of “processor” and “memory” are directed to generic computer component performing the abstract ideas. Therefore, not integrate the claim into practical application or to provide inventive concept.
The analysis of claims 9 – 14 are similar to the analysis of claims 2 – 7 respectively above.
The analysis of claim 15 is similar to the analysis of claim 1 above.
The analysis of claims 16 – 20 are similar to the analysis of claims 2 – 7 respectively above.
Therefore, claim(s) 1 – 20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7 - 8, 12, 14 – 15, 19 -20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedwig et al. (English Translation of DE102022107485A1; hereinafter Hedwig) in view of Zhou et al. (Publication No. US 20250251460 A1; hereinafter Zhou) in view of Ropel et al. (Publication No. US 20240140265 A1; hereinafter Ropel).
Regarding to claim 1, Hedwig teaches A method, comprising:
determining, by a vehicle, a health of a battery in the vehicle, wherein the health is related to a physical condition of the battery;
([Par. 0010 – 0011], “It can be decided that the traction battery can be used to power the motor vehicle after the accident if both the amount of acceleration is less than the acceleration threshold and the speed is less than the speed threshold. [0011] According to one embodiment of the invention, it can be decided that the traction battery can no longer be used to drive the motor vehicle after the accident if the amount of acceleration is higher than the acceleration threshold and/or if the speed is higher than the speed threshold. It is also possible that it will be decided that the traction battery can no longer be used to power the motor vehicle after the accident if the magnitude of the acceleration is equal to the acceleration threshold and/or if the speed is equal to the speed threshold.”; [Par. 0027 – 0028], “In step S3, it is checked whether there is any damage to the housing of the traction battery. If these damages are present, proceed to step S5. If these damages are not present, spare parts are replaced and a functional test is carried out in step S4. If the functional test is OK, a decision is made in step S8 that the traction battery can continue to be used”
This is interpreted as the batter is evaluated to determine whether it remains usable after the accident in view of certain conditions.)
determining an accessibility of the battery; ([Par. 0027 – 0028], “In step S3, it is checked whether there is any damage to the housing of the traction battery. If these damages are present, proceed to step S5. If these damages are not present, spare parts are replaced and a functional test is carried out in step S4. If the functional test is OK, a decision is made in step S8 that the traction battery can continue to be used. If the functional test is not OK, proceed to step S5. [0028] In step S5, it is decided that the traction battery can no longer be used.”
Under BRI, “accessibility” would reasonably be interpreted as ‘safe to approach or service.’ In Hedwig, the system determines whether the traction battery housing is damaged; a battery with a damaged housing is effectively not accessible because it is not safe to touch, remove, or reuse.) and
determining a future use of the battery, based on the determined health and the determined accessibility. (the mapping is based on the 112a interpretation above)
([Par. 0021], “After a frontal collision, the condition of the vehicle's traction battery is now assessed exclusively on the basis of the data recorded during the frontal collision. If both the highest magnitude of the acceleration that occurred is less than acceleration threshold 4 and the speed at the time of the accident is less than speed threshold 3, the values for acceleration and speed are within the first range 1. In this case, it is decided that the traction battery can continue to be used even after the accident.”; [Par. 0027], “In step S3, it is checked whether there is any damage to the housing of the traction battery. If these damages are present, proceed to step S5. If these damages are not present, spare parts are replaced and a functional test is carried out in step S4. If the functional test is OK, a decision is made in step S8 that the traction battery can continue to be used. If the functional test is not OK, proceed to step S5.”)
Hedwig teaches determining whether a battery is usable based on health of the battery after an accident as described above but does not explicitly disclose determine a health of the battery in the vehicle based on a communication received from a battery management system of the vehicle, wherein the communication comprises data identifying a capacity of the battery;
However, Zhou teaches determine a health of the battery in the vehicle based on a communication received from a battery management system of the vehicle, wherein the communication comprises data identifying a capacity of the battery; ([Par. 0016], “a battery data acquisition module, for acquiring battery data related to a current cycle count, wherein the battery data comprise battery capacities and battery voltages of the battery; a capacity difference acquisition module, for acquiring capacity differences related to the battery voltages based on the battery capacities and the battery voltages; a surge set acquisition module, for acquiring a surge set of the capacity differences and a voltage set corresponding to the surge set, based on the battery voltages and the capacity differences; and a degree of battery degradation identification module, for identifying the degree of the battery degradation based on the surge set and the voltage set, wherein an identification result related to the current cycle count is acquired.”; [Par. 0018], “An electronic device is disclosed which includes a memory, wherein a computer program is stored in the memory; and a processor, communicatively connected to the memory, the processor is configured to call the computer program to perform the method for identifying the degree of the battery degradation.”; [Par. 0052], “acquiring the battery data related to the current cycle count may include: receiving an initial charge state of the battery, battery currents at different moments, and battery voltages at different moments, which are all collected by a corresponding battery management system; and acquiring the battery capacities based on the initial charge state and the battery currents at different moments. Battery capacity may refer to the amount of electricity dischargeable by a battery or may refer to a State of Charge (SOC) of the battery.”) and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Zhou’s onboard battery-health evaluation into Hedwig’s post-accident condition assessment so that the determination of whether the battery is usable for future use after the accident is performed by an onboard processor. Such a modification merely applies known onboard battery-health evaluation techniques to Hedwig’s known post-accident assessment process to provide a more convenient and efficient way for the user or other parties to determine whether the battery is suitable for continued use.
The combination of Hedwig and Zhou teaches determining the battery health as described above, but does not explicitly disclose transmitting a message with an identifier of the downstream handling classification to a server for execution of a corresponding downstream process.
However, Ropel teaches transmitting a message with an identifier of the downstream handling classification to a server for execution of a corresponding downstream process. (where the “identifier of the downstream handling classification” is interpreted as an indication of future use of the battery based on the 112a interpretation above.)
([Par. 0048], “the communication component 402 can, based on the degradation of the battery 132 and/or a traveling direction of a user 614 of the vehicle 102, external to the vehicle 102, transmit a message representative of the degradation of the battery 132 (e.g., to one or more external devices or entities) (e.g., via the communication unit 128).”; [Par. 0049], “ the message can be transmitted to a service center entity (e.g., to an external device 112 associated with the service center entity) associated with the vehicle 102.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the combination of Hedwig and Zhou to incorporate the teaching of Ropel. The modification would have been obvious because transmitting battery information to a remote server enables the remote server to utilize the battery information to perform appropriate actions for mitigating battery degradation of the vehicle.
Regarding to claim 5, the combination of Hedwig, Zhou, and Ropel teaches the method of claim 1.
Ropel further teaches comprising:
in response to the vehicle being damaged, gathering by the vehicle, data from the battery, the data comprising at least one of the capacity of the battery, an age of the battery, the accessibility of the battery and a charging history of the battery; ([Par. 0043], “The determination component 304 can thus utilize the degradation determination algorithm and one or more battery health metrics as inputs in order to determination the cause for the degradation of the battery 132. In an example, the cause for the degradation of the battery can be determined (e.g., via the determination component 304, A.I. component 302, and/or battery health component 202) to comprise overheating of the battery 132 (e.g., from exposure of the vehicle 102 to sunlight) (e.g., from sun 708 as illustrated in FIG. 7)… the cause for the degradation of the battery 132 can comprise overcharging of the battery 132 (e.g., from a charging station 704 as illustrated in FIG. 7) (e.g., as determined by the determination component 304, A.I. component 302, and/or battery health component 202).”; [Par. 0048], “the communication component 402 can, based on the degradation of the battery 132 and/or a traveling direction of a user 614 of the vehicle 102, external to the vehicle 102, transmit a message representative of the degradation of the battery 132 (e.g., to one or more external devices or entities) (e.g., via the communication unit 128).”; [Par. 0049], “ the message can be transmitted to a service center entity (e.g., to an external device 112 associated with the service center entity) associated with the vehicle 102.”)
and
transmitting, by the vehicle, a notification to a server remote from the vehicle, the notification including the data gathered from the battery. ([Par. 0048], “the communication component 402 can, based on the degradation of the battery 132 and/or a traveling direction of a user 614 of the vehicle 102, external to the vehicle 102, transmit a message representative of the degradation of the battery 132 (e.g., to one or more external devices or entities) (e.g., via the communication unit 128).”; [Par. 0049], “ the message can be transmitted to a service center entity (e.g., to an external device 112 associated with the service center entity) associated with the vehicle 102.”)
Regarding to claim 7, the combination of Hedwig, Zhou, and Ropel teaches the method of claim 1.
Hedwig further teaches receiving data from a telematics unit of the vehicle; ([Par. 0010 – 0011], “It can be decided that the traction battery can be used to power the motor vehicle after the accident if both the amount of acceleration is less than the acceleration threshold and the speed is less than the speed threshold. [0011] According to one embodiment of the invention, it can be decided that the traction battery can no longer be used to drive the motor vehicle after the accident if the amount of acceleration is higher than the acceleration threshold and/or if the speed is higher than the speed threshold. It is also possible that it will be decided that the traction battery can no longer be used to power the motor vehicle after the accident if the magnitude of the acceleration is equal to the acceleration threshold and/or if the speed is equal to the speed threshold.”; wherein the “acceleration” and the “speed” corresponds to the “received data”)
determining a probability of an accident for the vehicle by analyzing the received data; ([Par. 0010 – 0011], “It can be decided that the traction battery can be used to power the motor vehicle after the accident if both the amount of acceleration is less than the acceleration threshold and the speed is less than the speed threshold. [0011] According to one embodiment of the invention, it can be decided that the traction battery can no longer be used to drive the motor vehicle after the accident if the amount of acceleration is higher than the acceleration threshold and/or if the speed is higher than the speed threshold. It is also possible that it will be decided that the traction battery can no longer be used to power the motor vehicle after the accident if the magnitude of the acceleration is equal to the acceleration threshold and/or if the speed is equal to the speed threshold.” Wherein this implies that an accident is determined when the acceleration or speed exceeding a threshold.) and
determining the physical condition of the battery based upon the determined probability of the accident. [Par. 0027 – 0028], “In step S3, it is checked whether there is any damage to the housing of the traction battery. If these damages are present, proceed to step S5. If these damages are not present, spare parts are replaced and a functional test is carried out in step S4. If the functional test is OK, a decision is made in step S8 that the traction battery can continue to be used”
This is interpreted as the batter is evaluated to determine whether it remains usable after the accident in view of certain conditions.)
Regarding to claim 8, Hedwig teaches A system comprising:
determine, by a vehicle, a health of a battery in the vehicle, wherein the health is related to a physical condition of the battery;
([Par. 0010 – 0011], “It can be decided that the traction battery can be used to power the motor vehicle after the accident if both the amount of acceleration is less than the acceleration threshold and the speed is less than the speed threshold. [0011] According to one embodiment of the invention, it can be decided that the traction battery can no longer be used to drive the motor vehicle after the accident if the amount of acceleration is higher than the acceleration threshold and/or if the speed is higher than the speed threshold. It is also possible that it will be decided that the traction battery can no longer be used to power the motor vehicle after the accident if the magnitude of the acceleration is equal to the acceleration threshold and/or if the speed is equal to the speed threshold.”; [Par. 0027 – 0028], “In step S3, it is checked whether there is any damage to the housing of the traction battery. If these damages are present, proceed to step S5. If these damages are not present, spare parts are replaced and a functional test is carried out in step S4. If the functional test is OK, a decision is made in step S8 that the traction battery can continue to be used”
This is interpreted as the batter is evaluated to determine whether it remains usable after the accident in view of certain conditions.)
determine, by the vehicle, an accessibility of the battery; ([Par. 0027 – 0028], “In step S3, it is checked whether there is any damage to the housing of the traction battery. If these damages are present, proceed to step S5. If these damages are not present, spare parts are replaced and a functional test is carried out in step S4. If the functional test is OK, a decision is made in step S8 that the traction battery can continue to be used. If the functional test is not OK, proceed to step S5. [0028] In step S5, it is decided that the traction battery can no longer be used.”
Under BRI, “accessibility” would reasonably be interpreted as ‘safe to approach or service.’ In Hedwig, the system determines whether the traction battery housing is damaged; a battery with a damaged housing is effectively not accessible because it is not safe to touch, remove, or reuse.) and
determine, by the vehicle, a future use of the battery, based on the determined health and the determined accessibility. (the mapping is based on the interpretation in the 112a rejections above) ([Par. 0021], “After a frontal collision, the condition of the vehicle's traction battery is now assessed exclusively on the basis of the data recorded during the frontal collision. If both the highest magnitude of the acceleration that occurred is less than acceleration threshold 4 and the speed at the time of the accident is less than speed threshold 3, the values for acceleration and speed are within the first range 1. In this case, it is decided that the traction battery can continue to be used even after the accident.”; [Par. 0027], “In step S3, it is checked whether there is any damage to the housing of the traction battery. If these damages are present, proceed to step S5. If these damages are not present, spare parts are replaced and a functional test is carried out in step S4. If the functional test is OK, a decision is made in step S8 that the traction battery can continue to be used. If the functional test is not OK, proceed to step S5.”)
Hedwig teaches determining whether a battery is usable based on health of the battery after an accident as described above but does not explicitly disclose comprising: a processor; and a memory, wherein the processor and the memory are communicably coupled, wherein the processor is configured to: determine a health of the battery in the vehicle based on a communication received from a battery management system of the vehicle, wherein the communication comprises data identifying a capacity of the battery;
However, Zhou teaches comprising: a processor; and a memory, ([Par. 0018], “An electronic device is disclosed which includes a memory, wherein a computer program is stored in the memory; and a processor, communicatively connected to the memory, the processor is configured to call the computer program to perform the method for identifying the degree of the battery degradation”)
wherein the processor and the memory are communicably coupled, wherein the processor configured to: determine a health of the battery in the vehicle based on a communication received from a battery management system of the vehicle, wherein the communication comprises data identifying a capacity of the battery; ([Par. 0016], “a battery data acquisition module, for acquiring battery data related to a current cycle count, wherein the battery data comprise battery capacities and battery voltages of the battery; a capacity difference acquisition module, for acquiring capacity differences related to the battery voltages based on the battery capacities and the battery voltages; a surge set acquisition module, for acquiring a surge set of the capacity differences and a voltage set corresponding to the surge set, based on the battery voltages and the capacity differences; and a degree of battery degradation identification module, for identifying the degree of the battery degradation based on the surge set and the voltage set, wherein an identification result related to the current cycle count is acquired.”; [Par. 0018], “An electronic device is disclosed which includes a memory, wherein a computer program is stored in the memory; and a processor, communicatively connected to the memory, the processor is configured to call the computer program to perform the method for identifying the degree of the battery degradation.”; [Par. 0052], “acquiring the battery data related to the current cycle count may include: receiving an initial charge state of the battery, battery currents at different moments, and battery voltages at different moments, which are all collected by a corresponding battery management system; and acquiring the battery capacities based on the initial charge state and the battery currents at different moments. Battery capacity may refer to the amount of electricity dischargeable by a battery or may refer to a State of Charge (SOC) of the battery.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Zhou’s onboard battery-health evaluation into Hedwig’s post-accident condition assessment so that the determination of whether the battery is usable for future use after the accident is performed by an onboard processor. Such a modification merely applies known onboard battery-health evaluation techniques to Hedwig’s known post-accident assessment process to provide a more convenient and efficient way for the user or other parties to determine whether the battery is suitable for continued use.
The combination of Hedwig and Zhou teaches determining the battery health as described above, but does not explicitly disclose transmit a message with an identifier of the downstream handling classification to a server for execution of a corresponding downstream process.
However, Ropel teaches transmit a message with an identifier of the downstream handling classification to a server for execution of a corresponding downstream process. (where the “identifier of the downstream handling classification” is interpreted as an indication of future use of the battery based on the interpretation in the 112a rejections above.)
([Par. 0048], “the communication component 402 can, based on the degradation of the battery 132 and/or a traveling direction of a user 614 of the vehicle 102, external to the vehicle 102, transmit a message representative of the degradation of the battery 132 (e.g., to one or more external devices or entities) (e.g., via the communication unit 128).”; [Par. 0049], “ the message can be transmitted to a service center entity (e.g., to an external device 112 associated with the service center entity) associated with the vehicle 102.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the combination of Hedwig and Zhou to incorporate the teaching of Ropel. The modification would have been obvious because transmitting battery information to a remote server enables the remote server to utilize the battery information to perform appropriate actions for mitigating battery degradation of the vehicle.
Claim 12, 14 recite the computer-readable storage medium with substantially similar scope as claims 5, 7 respectively, thus being rejected for the same basis as claims 5, 7 respectively above.
Claims 15, 19 - 20 recite the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with substantially similar scope as claims 8, 12, 14 respectively thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 8, 12, 14 respectively above.
Claim(s) 2, 9, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hedwig, Zhou, and Ropel in further view of Kim, Jungwan (Publication No. US 20240208513 A1; hereinafter Kim).
Regarding to claim 2, the combination of Hedwig, Zhou, and Ropel teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination of Hedwig, Zhou, and Ropel teaches determining whether the battery is usable after an accident as described above, but does not explicitly disclose in response to the vehicle being damaged, gathering, by the vehicle, location data of the vehicle; and transmitting, by the vehicle to the server, a including a current location of the vehicle.
However, Kim teaches in response to the vehicle being damaged, gathering, by the vehicle, location data of the vehicle; ([Par. 0254], “when the processor 162 determines that the rate of change of the corrected error value is outside of the reference rate of change range e, the processor 162 determines that a potential for a roll-over accident exists and controls the vehicle 1 by stopping the vehicle 1 or causing the vehicle 1 to stop.”; [0264], “The processor162 may cause the vehicle to stop or exit autonomous driving mode and transmit accident information and current location information of the vehicle 1 to the server 2 or to an emergency medical center if the processor 162 determines that an injured passenger exists.”;) and
transmitting, by the vehicle to the server, a notification including a current location of the vehicle. ([Par. 0254], “when the processor 162 determines that the rate of change of the corrected error value is outside of the reference rate of change range e, the processor 162 determines that a potential for a roll-over accident exists and controls the vehicle 1 by stopping the vehicle 1 or causing the vehicle 1 to stop.”; [0264], “The processor162 may cause the vehicle to stop or exit autonomous driving mode and transmit accident information and current location information of the vehicle 1 to the server 2 or to an emergency medical center if the processor 162 determines that an injured passenger exists.”;)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the combination of Hedwig and Mehta to incorporate the teaching of Kim. The modification would have been obvious because transmitting the location of the vehicle when the vehicle is involved in an accident enables clear and timely communication to a server for initiating necessary assistance and rescue operations.
Claim 9 recites the system with substantially similar scope as claim 2, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 2 above.
Claim 16 recites the computer-readable storage medium with substantially similar scope as claim 9, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 9 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 – 4, 6, 10 – 11, 13, 17 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcome the 101 rejections above.
Claims 18 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcome the 101, 112b rejections above.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 11am - 7pm EST.
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, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/STEVEN VU NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights