DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the RCE filed on 08/28/2026.
Claims 1 – 20 remain pending for examination.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The previous 112a, 112b, and 101 rejections have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
With regard to the § 103 rejection, Applicant argues that Hedwig fails to describe or suggest “causing, by the vehicle, a server to execute a corresponding downstream process by transmitting an identifier of the future use to the server,” and that the combination of Zhou, Ropel, and Kim fails to cure the deficiency of Hedwig with respect to claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Hedwig expressly teaches assessing the condition of a vehicle traction battery following an accident and determining the future use of the battery based on the assessment. Specifically, Hedwig teaches that, based on accident data, a determination is made as to whether the traction battery can continue to be used after the accident (Hedwig, [0021]). Hedwig further teaches performing additional inspection and functional testing and, based on the results, determining whether the traction battery can continue to be used or cannot be reused (Hedwig, [0027]-[0028]). Thus, Hedwig expressly teaches determining a future use of the battery, i.e., whether the battery is suitable for continued use or is not to be reused. Hedwig further teaches that the accident detection and recording of data may be performed in the motor vehicle, while the assessment of the battery condition may be performed by a system external to and remotely located from the motor vehicle (Hedwig, [0015]). Therefore, Hedwig itself contemplates communicating vehicle-generated information to an external system for subsequent battery-condition assessment.
However, Hedwig does not expressly teach the claimed transmission of an identifier of the determined future use to a server for execution of a corresponding downstream process, Ropel provides the relevant teaching. Ropel teaches determining the degradation or health condition of a vehicle battery and transmitting a message representative of the determined battery degradation to an external device or entity (Ropel, [0048]). Ropel further teaches that responsive actions can be determined and executed based on the battery degradation information, including actions determined to mitigate further degradation of the battery (Ropel, [0042], [0048]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hedwig's system such that information identifying the determined future use of the battery—e.g., an indication that the battery can continue to be used or cannot be reused—is transmitted from the vehicle to an external server for execution of a corresponding downstream process. Such a modification would predictably enable an external system to receive the battery-use determination and initiate an appropriate subsequent process based on that determination, consistent with Hedwig's teaching of remotely performing battery assessment and Ropel's teaching of communicating battery-condition information to external entities for responsive action.
Therefore, the combination of Hedwig and Ropel teaches or suggests the disputed limitation.
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:
detecting, by a collision detection circuit of a vehicle, a collision of the vehicle based on sensor data received from a telematics unit of the vehicle; ([Par. 0006], “the accident is first detected. This can be done, for example, by detecting a high negative or positive acceleration that is greater than an accident detection threshold. Data is recorded during the accident.”)
determining, by the 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 based on the sensor data and damage to the vehicle as a result of the collision; ([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.
([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.”)
determining an identifier of the future use of the battery. ([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.”)
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.
Hedwig teaches to determine an identifier of future use of the batter as described above. Hedwig further teaches a communication between the vehicle and a server (par. 0015], but does not explicitly disclose causing, by the vehicle, a server to execute a corresponding downstream process by transmitting an identifier of the future use to the server.
However, Ropel teaches causing, by the vehicle, a server to execute a corresponding downstream process by transmitting battery status to the server.
([Par. 0048], [Par. 0047], “the vehicle electronic systems/devices 108 can comprise a battery sensor that can be utilized by the battery health component 202 to monitor and/or determine one or more battery health metrics represented in the battery health of the battery 132. In various embodiments, the battery health component 202 can determine a health of the battery 132 (e.g., such a state of age or degradation of the battery cell 132), according to one or more defined health metrics, based on an output of the battery sensor. In various embodiments, a defined health metric can comprise a difference between a previous impedance of the battery 132 and a current impedance of the battery 132. In further embodiments, the defined health metric can comprise a difference between an impedance of one cell of the battery 132 and a second cell of the battery 132 (e.g., of a common battery pack).”; [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. In this regard, the vehicle 102 can be registered with a service center (e.g., a repair center). The foregoing can provide the service center entity insight into the health of the battery 132 and/or actions taken to mitigate battery degradation in advance of service of the vehicle 102 at the service center entity. For example, a defined warranty algorithm can be utilized (e.g., by the system 100) in order to determine whether action(s) taken by the user 614 to mitigate battery 132 degradation (e.g., over a defined period of time) keep the vehicle 102 and/or battery 132 within warranty compliance, or outside of warranty compliance.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hedwig's system such that information identifying the determined future use of the battery—e.g., an indication that the battery can continue to be used or cannot be reused—is transmitted from the vehicle to an external server for execution of a corresponding downstream process in view of the teaching of Ropel. Such a modification would predictably enable an external system to receive the battery-use determination and initiate an appropriate subsequent process based on that determination, consistent with Hedwig's teaching of remotely performing battery assessment and Ropel's teaching of communicating battery-condition information to external entities for responsive action.
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 collision, 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 determining a probability of an accident between the vehicle and another vehicle by analyzing the received data; ([Par. 0006], “In the method according to claim 1, the accident is first detected. This can be done, for example, by detecting a high negative or positive acceleration that is greater than an accident detection threshold. Data is recorded during the accident.” and
determining the physical condition of the battery based upon the determined probability of the accident. ([Par. 0007], “The condition of the traction battery is then assessed solely on the basis of the data recorded during the accident. The end of the accident can be detected, for example, when the vehicle has come to a standstill. Therefore, no data recorded before the accident is used to assess the condition of the traction battery. This is particularly advantageous for carrying out the assessment solely on the basis of forces occurring during 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”)
Claim 8 recites a system with substantially similar scope to claim 1, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 1 above.
Zhou further 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”)
Claims 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 collision, 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 - 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 rejections above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gross et al. (Publication No. US 20230387480 A1) discloses computer-implemented methods of monitoring one or more batteries of an electric vehicle (EV) include (i) receiving, from an electronic device associated with the EV, telematics data generated by one or more sensors associated with the electronic device that is indicative of operation of the EV; (ii) determining a battery status of the one or more batteries based upon the telematics data; and (iii) mapping the battery status of the one more batteries to a digital record corresponding to the EV in a database.
Hust et al. (Publication No. DE102021005308A1) discloses a method for detecting an opening in a housing of a battery for a vehicle, with a battery management system depending on at least one light sensor arranged in a battery interior enclosed by the housing. the detection of a light incidence in the battery interior output sensor signal performs at least one action. The method according to the invention is characterized in that after the detection of the incident light, at least one component of the light sensor changes its status from an unexposed state to an exposed state and after the reconnection of a battery management system that has been separated from its power supply, the Battery management system checks the status of the component of the light sensor and an identity of the light sensor and which carries out at least one action when the battery management system reads the illuminated state and/or a change in the identity of the light sensor.
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