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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed with the Request for Continued Examination have been fully considered.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant argues that amended independent claims 1, 6, and 12 now incorporate the limitations previously recited in claims 4, 8, and 14, respectively, which were indicated as allowable subject matter in the Final Office Action. Applicant further canceled claims 4, 8, and 14.
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive with respect to the prior art rejection.
The previous Final Office Action expressly determined that the limitations of claims 4, 8, and 14 were not taught or suggested by the prior art of record, either alone or in combination. Those limitations are now incorporated into independent claims 1, 6, and 12. Accordingly, the amended independent claims include the previously identified allowable subject matter together with all limitations of their respective base claims.
As a result, the prior art combination applied in the previous rejection no longer teaches or suggests all limitations of amended independent claims 1, 6, and 12. The dependent claims likewise depend, directly or indirectly, from the amended independent claims and therefore include the same patentably distinguishing limitations.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections are persuasive, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, however, Applicant argues that incorporation of the previously allowable limitations into independent claims 1, 6, and 12 also overcomes the subject matter eligibility rejection. This argument is not persuasive.
The fact that the incorporated limitations were previously determined to distinguish over the prior art does not establish that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Patentability over the prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 is a separate inquiry from subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The newly incorporated limitations recite calculating a first balancing time by dividing a capacity deviation by a balancing capacity, calculating a second balancing time by multiplying a number of days of use by a value obtained by dividing a state of charge deviation by the balancing capacity, and calculating a first reference time based on the first and second balancing times. These limitations add further mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations to the claims.
Accordingly, the amendments do not remove the mathematical concepts previously identified under Step 2A, Prong One. Rather, the amended claims continue to recite mathematical calculations, numerical comparisons, statistical evaluation, and classification of battery conditions.
Applicant further argues that the claims integrate the mathematical concepts into a practical application because the calculations are applied to physical battery parameters and are used to diagnose an under-voltage battery cell. This argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
The claims do not recite a particular improvement to battery sensing hardware, balancing circuitry, battery-cell structure, processor operation, or another technological component. The claimed improvement remains in the mathematical processing and evaluation of battery-related information. The use of capacity deviation, balancing capacity, state of charge deviation, and number of days of use identifies the particular battery-related data to which the mathematical relationships are applied, but does not itself provide a specific technological implementation beyond the mathematical analysis.
The claims further recite restricting performance of the battery pack based on determining the battery pack is abnormal. However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality and does not specify the manner in which performance is restricted, the particular component used to implement the restriction, or the specific battery parameter that is controlled. Accordingly, the limitation represents a generic control response following the mathematical determination.
Under Step 2B, the incorporated mathematical limitations themselves form part of the identified judicial exception and are not treated as additional elements supplying significantly more. The remaining additional elements include generic processors, memory, battery-management components, restriction of battery-pack operation, and signal output.
As evidenced by Cabot et al. U.S. 2009/0123814 A1, battery-management systems were known to monitor battery operating conditions, evaluate whether cells or battery modules were operating abnormally, and restrict or control battery operation in response to detected fault conditions. Cabot discloses disconnecting cells upon detection of fault conditions, limiting power draw from affected battery regions, electrically isolating unhealthy battery modules, limiting system current, and transmitting battery status and control signals between processing units and battery pack-units.
Accordingly, the additional battery-management functions recited in the claims do not amount to significantly more than the mathematical concepts. The claims as a whole use conventional computing and battery-management functionality to implement the recited mathematical diagnostic process and perform a conventional protective control action in response to the result.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 are not persuasive. The rejection of claims 1–3, 5–7, 9–13, and 15–20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
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 1-3,5-7,9-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites a battery management apparatus comprising one or more processors configured to calculate a first balancing time by dividing a capacity deviation of the plurality of battery cells by a balancing capacity of the plurality of battery cells; calculate a second balancing time by multiplying a number of days of use of the battery pack by a value obtained by dividing a state of charge (SoC) deviation of the plurality of battery cells by the balancing capacity of the plurality of battery cells; calculate a first reference time by multiplying a first threshold value to a reference balancing time obtained by summing the first balancing time and the second balancing time; compare a median of a cumulative balancing time of each of a plurality of battery cells included in the battery pack to the first reference time; determine, based on the comparison, whether the battery pack is abnormal; identify at least one abnormal battery cell based on determining the cumulative balancing time of the at least one abnormal battery cell is less than a second reference time; and restrict performance of the battery pack based on determining the battery pack is abnormal.
The limitations directed to calculating the first balancing time, calculating the second balancing time, calculating the first reference time, comparing the median with the first reference time, determining whether the battery pack is abnormal, and identifying an abnormal battery cell based on comparison with the second reference time recite mathematical relationships, mathematical calculations, and evaluation of numerical data. These limitations collectively form the abstract idea. The remaining limitations, including the processor, battery pack, memory where recited, restriction of battery-pack performance, and output of diagnostic information where recited, are additional elements.
Step 1 - Statutory Category
Under Step 1, the claims fall within statutory categories. Claim 1 is directed to a machine in the form of a battery management apparatus. Claim 6 is directed to a process. Claim 12 is directed to a manufacture in the form of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The dependent claims fall within the statutory category of their respective independent claims.
Accordingly, the pending claims satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A Prong One - Judicial Exception
Under Step 2A Prong One, independent claims 1, 6, and 12 recite mathematical concepts.
The amended claims expressly require calculating a first balancing time by division, calculating a second balancing time using multiplication and division, calculating a first reference time using multiplication and summation, determining a median of cumulative balancing-time values, comparing numerical values with reference values, and classifying the battery pack or a battery cell based on the results of those comparisons.
These limitations therefore set forth mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations. The subsequent determinations of whether the battery pack is abnormal and which battery cell is abnormal constitute evaluation and classification based on the results of those mathematical operations.
The incorporation of limitations previously recited in canceled claims 4, 8, and 14 does not remove the judicial exception. Rather, those incorporated limitations expressly add further mathematical relationships defining how the first balancing time, second balancing time, and first reference time are calculated.
Accordingly, independent claims 1, 6, and 12 recite an abstract idea falling within the mathematical-concept grouping.
Step 2A Prong Two - Practical Application
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the claims are evaluated as a whole to determine whether the mathematical concepts are integrated into a practical application.
The additional elements of claim 1 include one or more processors, a battery pack comprising a plurality of battery cells, identification of an abnormal battery cell, and restricting performance of the battery pack based on determining the battery pack is abnormal.
These additional elements do not integrate the mathematical concepts into a practical application.
The processor is recited generically as the mechanism that performs the mathematical calculations, comparisons, and determinations. The claim does not recite an improvement to processor architecture, computing operation, battery sensing hardware, or balancing circuitry.
Although the numerical information analyzed by the processor concerns battery characteristics, including capacity deviation, balancing capacity, SoC deviation, cumulative balancing time, and number of days of battery-pack use, those limitations identify the particular data upon which the mathematical relationships operate. The claims do not recite a particular improvement to the physical manner in which those values are sensed or obtained.
The claimed calculations consequently derive numerical diagnostic information from battery-related numerical information. The processor calculates balancing times and reference values, compares the calculated or accumulated values, classifies the battery pack as abnormal, and identifies an abnormal battery cell from the numerical results.
The additional limitation of restricting performance of the battery pack based on determining the battery pack is abnormal does not provide a particular technological implementation of the mathematical determination. The claim does not specify what battery-pack performance is restricted, what parameter is modified, the magnitude or manner of the restriction, or a particular circuit or control structure through which the restriction is implemented.
Accordingly, the restriction is recited as a result that follows from the mathematical diagnosis rather than as a particular improved battery-control technique.
Applicant’s specification explains that cumulative balancing-time behavior may be useful for early diagnosis of an under-voltage battery cell. However, the claims do not recite an improvement in how a battery cell physically operates, how an electrical parameter is sensed, or how balancing hardware performs a balancing operation. Rather, the asserted improvement results principally from the particular mathematical evaluation applied to battery-related information.
Considering claim 1 as a whole, the recited processor applies mathematical relationships to battery-related data, determines an abnormal condition from the resulting values, identifies an abnormal cell, and then generically restricts battery-pack performance. This does not amount to a particular improvement to the functioning of the processor, battery pack, balancing circuit, or another specifically claimed technological component.
Claim 6 recites substantially the same mathematical process in method form. Retrieving cumulative balancing-time information from memory constitutes obtaining information for use in the mathematical analysis. The claim then performs the recited calculations and comparisons, identifies an abnormal battery cell, and generically restricts performance of the battery pack. The claim does not specify a particular improved manner of controlling the battery hardware.
Claim 12 recites substantially the same mathematical analysis as instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The storage medium and processors provide a generic computer implementation for the calculations and determinations and do not improve the functioning of the storage medium, processor, or battery hardware.
Accordingly, independent claims 1, 6, and 12 do not integrate the recited mathematical concepts into a practical application and are directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A.
Step 2B - Significantly More
The claims are next evaluated to determine whether the additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the identified mathematical concepts.
The mathematical limitations themselves, including calculating the first balancing time, calculating the second balancing time, calculating the first reference time, determining a median, calculating or using statistical reference values, comparing numerical values, and classifying a battery pack or battery cell based on those mathematical results, form part of the identified judicial exception. These limitations therefore are not relied upon as additional elements supplying significantly more.
The remaining additional elements include the processor and memory implementation, the battery-management environment, obtaining and storing battery-related data, restricting battery-pack performance based on a detected abnormal condition, and outputting a signal identifying an abnormal battery cell where recited.
The processor and memory perform their ordinary functions of processing numerical information, executing instructions, retrieving data, and storing data. The claims do not recite a specialized processor architecture or unconventional memory arrangement.
Furthermore, battery-management systems conventionally monitored physical battery-cell operating conditions and controlled or limited battery operation in response to detected fault or unhealthy conditions.
Cabot et al. U.S. 2009/0123814 A1 provides evidence of such conventional battery-management functionality. Cabot discloses a power source having multiple battery groups, processors, sensors, battery protection circuits, and multiple battery cells, with the processors managing battery operation based on sensed operating parameters.
Cabot discloses disconnecting individual battery cells or groups of cells when a fault condition is detected, including over-voltage, over-current, over-temperature, under-voltage, and other abnormal operating conditions ([0015]). Cabot further discloses controlling switches to electrically disconnect the affected cells from operation ([0015]).
Cabot also discloses a processing unit that evaluates real-time operating data from multiple battery modules and determines optimal pack-unit operation ([0022]). When excessive temperature is detected, the processing unit sends control signals to minimize power draw from the affected region ([0022]). Cabot further discloses detecting operating conditions associated with potential catastrophic failure and disconnecting affected battery modules to prevent failure ([0022]).
Cabot additionally discloses a CPU configured to control current and power output from the battery system based on device requirements and the operating state of the system ([0028]). Operating data are compared with predetermined thresholds to determine the health of the pack-unit ([0028]).
When an unhealthy pack-unit is detected, Cabot discloses electrically isolating the pack-unit from the system and rerouting power through another path ([0029]). Cabot further discloses limiting the total current of the system when necessary to reduce loading and wear on remaining battery units ([0029]). Thus, Cabot demonstrates that evaluating battery operating conditions and restricting, reducing, disconnecting, or otherwise controlling battery-system performance in response to an abnormal or unhealthy condition were established battery-management functions.
Accordingly, the additional limitation of restricting performance of the battery pack based on determining the battery pack is abnormal does not amount to an unconventional technological operation. It applies the result of the mathematical diagnosis to the type of protective battery-management action already employed in battery systems.
Cabot also demonstrates the conventional use of processors and communications to carry battery status information and control commands. Cabot discloses data buses carrying operating data and control signals between battery pack-units and a CPU, including commands to switch battery pack-units into or out of the system ([0030]).
Therefore, the additional battery-management functions recited at a high level of generality, including processing battery data, determining battery operating status, restricting battery performance in response to an abnormal condition, and communicating control or status information, do not provide significantly more than the recited mathematical concepts.
The claims differ from Cabot in the particular mathematical diagnostic model used to determine abnormality. However, those particular mathematical relationships form part of the judicial exception identified under Step 2A and are not themselves treated as the additional technological elements for purposes of Step 2B.
Applicant’s reliance on the previous finding that the subject matter of canceled claims 4, 8, and 14 was not taught or suggested by Hong et al. and Takada does not establish an inventive concept under Step 2B. Whether the particular mathematical relationships are novel or nonobvious over the cited prior art is a separate inquiry from whether the claims contain additional elements amounting to significantly more than the mathematical exception.
When the additional elements are considered as an ordered combination, the claims use processors and memory in a battery-management environment to obtain and store battery information, execute the recited mathematical diagnostic model, identify an abnormal condition based on the mathematical result, and perform a conventional protective control action by restricting battery-pack performance.
The interaction of these additional elements does not produce an unconventional arrangement or an improvement to processor operation, memory operation, sensing circuitry, battery balancing circuitry, or battery-cell structure. Rather, the mathematical diagnosis is implemented using conventional battery-management functionality and followed by conventional battery protection activity.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
Independent Claims 6 and 12
Claim 6 recites the same mathematical diagnostic relationships as claim 1 in method form. The additional limitations of retrieving information from memory and restricting battery-pack performance use conventional information retrieval and battery-control operations. Cabot demonstrates conventional monitoring of battery operating data, evaluation of battery conditions, and restriction or disconnection of battery operation in response to unhealthy conditions ([0015], [0022], [0028]–[0030]). Accordingly, claim 6 does not add significantly more than the recited mathematical concepts.
Claim 12 recites the mathematical diagnostic relationships as processor-executable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium. The processor and storage medium perform their ordinary computing functions. The resulting generic restriction of battery-pack performance corresponds to conventional battery-protection activity such as the power limitation, electrical isolation, and disconnection disclosed by Cabot ([0015], [0022], [0029]). Accordingly, claim 12 likewise does not recite significantly more than the identified mathematical concepts.
Dependent Claims
Claim 2 further recites calculating the cumulative balancing time of each of the plurality of battery cells. This adds another calculation of numerical battery-related information and therefore further defines the mathematical analysis without integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more.
Claim 3 further recites a memory and storing the cumulative balancing time in the memory by accumulating a balancing time of each battery cell. This constitutes storage of numerical information used in the mathematical analysis. Such storage does not provide an improvement to memory technology or battery hardware and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 5 further recites listing the plurality of battery cells based on cumulative balancing time, extracting battery cells within a threshold rank, calculating a standard deviation, and calculating a second reference time by subtracting from the median a value obtained by multiplying a second threshold value by the standard deviation. These limitations add further ranking and statistical calculations and therefore remain part of the mathematical concept.
Claim 7 further recites recording cumulative balancing time in memory by accumulating balancing time of each of the plurality of battery cells. This constitutes ordinary data storage associated with the mathematical analysis and does not provide a technological improvement.
Claim 9 further recites determining that the median exceeds the first reference time. This limitation is a numerical comparison and therefore further defines the mathematical concept.
Claim 10 further recites listing battery cells according to cumulative balancing time, extracting battery cells within a threshold rank, calculating a standard deviation, and calculating the second reference time from the median, threshold value, and standard deviation. These limitations constitute mathematical and statistical processing and do not add significantly more.
Claim 11 further recites diagnosing a first battery cell as abnormal when its cumulative balancing time is less than the second reference time. This is a classification based on the result of a numerical comparison and does not recite a particular technological implementation beyond the mathematical determination.
Claim 13 further recites calculating the cumulative balancing time of each of the plurality of battery cells. This adds another mathematical operation and does not provide significantly more.
Claim 15 further recites determining that the median exceeds the first reference time. This is a mathematical comparison and remains part of the identified judicial exception.
Claim 16 further recites listing battery cells based on cumulative balancing time, extracting cells within a threshold rank, calculating a standard deviation, and deriving the second reference time using the median, standard deviation, and threshold value. These limitations further define the statistical and mathematical analysis without adding a particular technological implementation.
Claim 17 further recites diagnosing a first battery cell as abnormal when its cumulative balancing time is less than the second reference time. This limitation classifies the battery cell based on the result of the mathematical comparison and does not add significantly more.
Claim 18 further recites recording the cumulative balancing time in memory by accumulating a balancing time of each of the plurality of battery cells. This constitutes ordinary storage of numerical information and does not meaningfully limit the mathematical exception.
Claim 19 further recites outputting a signal to a target device wherein the signal identifies the at least one abnormal battery cell. This limitation communicates the result of the mathematical diagnosis and does not recite a particular improved signaling mechanism. Cabot likewise demonstrates conventional transmission of battery operating information and control signals between battery-management processors and pack-units ([0028]–[0030]). The limitation therefore does not integrate the exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 20 similarly recites outputting a signal to a target device wherein the signal identifies the at least one abnormal battery cell. This communicates the result of the mathematical analysis using conventional battery-management signaling and does not provide a technological improvement or significantly more than the mathematical exception.
Accordingly, claims 1–3, 5–7, 9–13, and 15–20 recite mathematical concepts and do not include additional elements, individually or as an ordered combination, sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 1–3, 5–7, 9–13, and 15–20 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 4, 8, and 14 are canceled.
Examiner Note
All pending claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. However, because the previously allowable limitations of claims 4, 8, and 14 have been incorporated into independent claims 1, 6, and 12, respectively, the pending claims overcome the prior art rejections of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. 2011/0140650 A1 to Zhang et al. disclose a battery management system for a battery pack comprising multiple battery modules is disclosed. Each of the battery modules includes multiple battery cells. The battery management system includes multiple first balancing units, multiple first controllers, a second balancing unit including multiple second balancing circuits, and a second controller coupled to the battery modules and the second balancing circuits. The first controllers are operable for controlling the first balancing units to adjust voltages of battery cells in the battery module if an unbalance occurs between the battery cells. The second controller is operable for controlling said second balancing circuits to adjust voltages of said battery modules if an unbalance occurs between battery modules.
U.S. 2023/0039175 A1 to Tanaka discloses a battery management device manages a battery including a plurality of battery cells in which a change in OCV relative to a change in SOC is smaller in a first SOC range than in a second SOC range. The battery management device is configured to: accumulate a current flowing in each battery cell to calculate the SOC of the battery cell; when the calculated SOC has stayed in the first SOC range for a predetermined period or more, control the cell balancing circuits in such a way that the SOC of a target battery cell selected from the battery cell s falls within the second SOC range; and calculate the SOC of the target battery cell based on the relationship between the SOC and the OCV in the second SOC range and correct the SOC of each battery cell by the amount of correction obtained based on the calculated SOC.
U.S. 10,992,145 B2 to Wang et al. disclose a system comprises a processor, configured to perform balancing on a commanded cell referring to a reference cell, and responsive to detecting balancing time exceeding a threshold time and state of charge (SOC) difference being above a tolerance, abort the balancing, and generate an error message. The threshold time depends on an average balancing time calculated using the SOC difference, a predetermined commanded cell capacity, and a predetermined balancing current.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUNG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1966. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon- Friday 8AM - 4:00PM Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Phan can be reached on 571-272-7924. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Examiner: /Trung Q. Nguyen/- Art 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights