DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The objection to the drawings set forth in the prior Office action with withdrawn.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/2026 pertaining to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections set forth in the prior Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With reference to claim 1 (and to claim 17 by analogy), the examiner maintains that the “obtaining” step has a scope that includes mental processes practically performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with pen/paper when given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Nothing in the claim appears to preclude this step from practically being performed in the human mind or with pen/paper (i.e., observing values and writing them down). As amended, the examiner maintains that the first “determining” step at least has a scope that includes mathematical calculation when given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. As amended, the examiner maintains that the second “determining” step has a scope that includes mental processes practically performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with pen/paper when given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Nothing in the claim appears to preclude this step from practically being performed in the human mind or with pen/paper. Additionally, or in the alternative, this language has a scope that includes mathematical calculation when given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. To the extent that “an electronic circuit” that is configured to perform the steps of the abstract idea could be regarded as an ”additional element”, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “electronic circuit” in light of the disclosure includes a processor/computer programmed to implement the abstract idea. See, e.g., paragraph 159 of specification, “A computer program with a program code for executing the method 700 can furthermore be provided on an electronic circuit 100 or a battery management system, as described above with regard to FIG. 1.”; also see paragraphs 162-164. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(f). This appears to be the case in claim 1, as the electronic circuit, construed as a computer/processor, is merely used in its ordinary capacity as a tool for implementing the steps of the abstract idea. This additional element, considered alone or in combination with the abstract idea, therefore does not represent integration of the abstract idea into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. To the extent that the “obtaining” step could be regarded as an “additional element” instead of an abstract idea, this step would appear to represent no more than insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering in conjunction with an abstract idea. Considered alone or in combination with the abstract idea and “electronic circuit” element discussed above, this step would not represent integration of the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 and 6-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more. In particular, analyzing these claims under 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance:
Claim 1 recites:
An electronic circuit for determining a charging state of a battery cell of a battery system, wherein the electronic circuit is configured for:
obtaining a plurality of measured values of an open-circuit voltage of the battery cell with corresponding time values for which the measured values of the open-circuit voltage have been detected;
determining a time up to which a charging state corresponding to an end point voltage of the battery cell is reached based on an analytical solution of a function that specifies a connection between the plurality of measured values of the open-circuit voltage and the charging state of the battery cell, wherein the function is based on an electrochemical model of the battery cell, the electrochemical model based on a Butler-Volmer equation that specifies a relationship of a current density of the battery cell in relation to a potential difference to an equilibrium potential of the battery cell, and in which a position dependence of the current density is replaced by an average current; and
determining the charging state of the battery cell based on a reverse function of the charging-state dependent time.
Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to an electronic circuit for determining a charging state of a battery cell of a battery system and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter (machine).
Step 2A, prong 1:
At least the highlighted recitations of claim 1 set forth above relate to abstract ideas in the form of mental processes practically performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with pen/paper and/or mathematical concepts, e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations. In particular:
The language “obtaining a plurality of measured values of an open-circuit voltage of the battery cell with corresponding time values for which the measured values of the open-circuit voltage have been detected” has a scope that includes mental processes practically performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with pen/paper when given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.1
The language “determining a time up to which a charging state corresponding to an end point voltage of the battery cell is reached based on an analytical solution of a function that specifies a connection between the plurality of measured values of the open-circuit voltage and the charging state of the battery cell, wherein the function is based on an electrochemical model of the battery cell, the electrochemical model based on a Butler-Volmer equation that specifies a relationship of a current density of the battery cell in relation to a potential difference to an equilibrium potential of the battery cell, and in which a position dependence of the current density is replaced by an average current” has a scope that includes mathematical calculation when given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
The language “determining the charging state of the battery cell based on a reverse function of the charging-state dependent time” has a scope that includes mental processes practically performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with pen/paper when given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Additionally, or in the alternative, this language has a scope that includes mathematical calculation when given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
Step 2A, prong 2:
Claim 1 recites as an additional element “an electronic circuit” that is configured to perform the steps of the abstract idea. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “electronic circuit” in light of the disclosure includes a processor/computer programmed to implement the abstract idea. See, e.g., paragraph 159 of specification, “A computer program with a program code for executing the method 700 can furthermore be provided on an electronic circuit 100 or a battery management system, as described above with regard to FIG. 1.”; also see paragraphs 162-164. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(f). This appears to be the case in claim 1, as the electronic circuit, construed as a computer/processor, is merely used in its ordinary capacity as a tool for implementing the steps of the abstract idea. This additional element, considered alone or in combination with the abstract idea, therefore does not represent integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
The examiner notes that even if the “obtaining” step could be regarded as an “additional element”, this step would appear to represent no more than insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering in conjunction with an abstract idea. Considered alone or in combination with the abstract idea and “electronic circuit” element discussed above, this step would not represent integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
The additional element “an electronic circuit” that is configured to perform the steps of the abstract idea does not represent significantly more than the abstract idea (see discussion above in connection with Step 2A, prong 2). The examiner notes that even if the “obtaining” step could be regarded as an “additional element”, this step would appear to represent no more than insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering in conjunction with an abstract idea and, therefore, would not represent significantly more than the abstract idea either when considered alone or in combination with the abstract idea.
Claim 1 is therefore not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Each of dependent claims 3 and 6-15 appear to further elaborate on the abstract ideas identified above in connection with claim 1 and/or recite additional abstract ideas in the form of mental processes practically performed in the human mind and/or mathematical calculations. None of dependent claims 3 and 6-15 appear to recite any additional element(s) that would serve to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under Step 2A, prong 2 or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas under Step 2B. Dependent claims 3 and 6-15 are therefore not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 16 is directed to a battery management system and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter (machine). Claim 16 recites, in combination with the electronic circuit of claim 1, “a controller for detecting a plurality of measured values of an open-circuit voltage of a battery cell of a battery system with corresponding time values for which the measured values of the open-circuit voltage have been measured”. This language is regarded as setting forth a further additional element in combination with the abstract idea of claim 1. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(f). This appears to be the case in claim 16, as the controller, construed as a computer/processor, is merely used in its ordinary capacity as a tool for receiving/acquiring data to be used in connection with the abstract idea. This additional element, considered alone or in combination with the abstract idea and “electronic circuit” element discussed above, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, prong 2 or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself under Step 2B.
Claim 17 is directed to a method for determining a charging state of a battery cell of a battery system and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter (process). The recited steps of claim 17 correspond exactly to the abstract idea highlighted above in connection with claim 1. No additional elements are recited. Claim 17 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, prong 1, with no additional element(s) being recited that could serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, prong 2 or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself under Step 2B.
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 DANIEL R MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1964. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Lee Rodak, can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/DANIEL R MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
1 To the extent that this language could be viewed as setting forth an “additional element” for purposes of the 101 analysis, it would not be sufficient to integrate of the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself; see Step 2A, prong 2 and Step 2B below.
Prosecution Insights