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 .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the amendments filed on September 21, 2023. Claims 1-8 are currently pending, with Claims 1-8 being amended.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application JP2021-055410 filed on March 29, 2021. Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to the declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. No action by the applicant is required at this time.
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for priority to the PCT filing of Application No. PCT/JP2022/005380 filed on February 10, 2022. No action by the applicant is required at this time.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on October 17, 2023 and November 11, 2024, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a remaining capacity notification device …” in Claims 1-6.
“a reliability level determination unit …” in Claims 1-2.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof:
Regarding the limitation of “a remaining capacity notification device …”, the instant specification at least at Paragraphs [0046], [0052] states that “Vehicle control unit 30 includes processing unit 310 and storage unit 322. Processing unit 310 includes display control unit 313 …” and “Display control unit 313 performs control such that the remaining battery capacity is displayed on display unit 38 in a display mode based on the reliability level …”. The structure of a remaining capacity notification device is software or hardware capable of displaying or providing notifications about remaining capacity.
Regarding the limitation of “a reliability level determination unit …”, the instant specification at Paragraphs [0046] and [0059] at least states that “Vehicle control unit 30 includes processing unit 310, and storage unit 3222. Processing unit 310 includes … reliability determination unit 312 …” and “Reliability level determination unit 312 calculates a remaining battery capacity reliability level …”. The structure for a reliability level determination unit is a computer or computer equivalent, or sub-module capable of performing battery calculation estimations and sending the information to the user.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-5 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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 state “a notification controller …” but is not defined in the specification. The Examiner is interpreting a notification controller to be the hardware and/or software capable of sending signals to the remaining capacity notification device (as interpreted under previous 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation above).
Claims 1-4 recite “a reliability level …”, but the terminology does not appear to refer to reliability. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “reliability level” in Claims 1-4 is used by the claim to mean “remaining capacity status indicator” or “battery state of health” (as seen in Figures 5, 7A-C, and 12), where the “reliability level” is associated with a color scale to indicate the current state of charge, while the accepted meaning is “the reliability of the battery or operate without interruptions or failures”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The Examiner is interpreting “reliability level” to mean battery capacity status indicators.
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.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea, such as a mathematical concept. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims only require performing calculations steps for determining a battery capacity.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1 and 7 are directed to a method for notifying a user of the remaining capacity of a battery, and Claim 8 is directed to a method and apparatus for notifying a user of the remaining capacity of a battery. Therefore, Claims 1 and 7-8 are within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claims 2-6 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 1.
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 following groups of a) an abstract idea, b) a law of nature, or c) a natural phenomenon.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the noted abstract ideas are as follows (where the bolded portions represent an “abstract idea”; and where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations”):
Claim 1 recites the following:
A remaining capacity notification device for
notifying a user of a device of a remaining capacity of a secondary battery mounted in the device, the remaining capacity notification device comprising:
a reliability level determination unit that determines a reliability level of a state of charge on the basis of a slope of a SOC-OCV curve of the secondary battery, the OCV as open circuit voltage, the SOC as state of charge indicating the remaining capacity of the secondary battery that the user is to be notified of, the slope corresponding to the state of charge; and
a notification controller that performs control to cause the user to be notified of the remaining capacity of the secondary battery in a form of notification based on the reliability level of the state of charge that has been determined.
Regarding the limitation of “determines a reliability level …” the Examiner submits that these limitations consist of using mathematical concepts as included in an abstract idea. These limitations recite using a computer to determine a state of charge of a battery based on the slope of the voltage curve, which comprises a mathematical concept.
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.”
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 limitations of “notifying …” and “cause the user to be notified …”, the Examiner submits that these limitations consist of insignificant extra-solution activity, which is performed by a generic computer to perform the process.
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, implement/ use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, 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 limitations 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 2019 PEG, 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, the additional limitations of “notifying …” and “cause the user to be notified …”, the Examiner submits that these limitations consists of insignificant post-solution activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-6 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims 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, because the claims involve implementing mathematical concepts by calculating the predicted state of charge using a weighted average method and displaying the results to the user. Therefore, dependent Claims 2-6 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0061101 A1, to Uchida, et al (hereinafter referred to as Uchida).
As per Claim 1, Uchida discloses the features of a remaining capacity notification device (e.g. Paragraphs [0010], [0057]; where the controller controls a display apparatus to notify a user that the full charge of the secondary battery is equal to or lower than the threshold value; and where a remaining capacity on the battery is shown to a user; and where secondary battery is mounted on a vehicle) for
notifying a user of a device of a remaining capacity of a secondary battery mounted in the device (e.g. Paragraphs [0010], [0047]; where the controller controls a display apparatus to notify a user that the full charge of the secondary battery is equal to or lower than the threshold value; where secondary battery is mounted on a vehicle), the remaining capacity notification device comprising:
a reliability level determination unit that determines a reliability level of a state of charge (e.g. Figure 10- see display (74) and display section (76); where the system displays remaining capacity level (i.e. reliability levels) of the battery; and changes in color when the capacity increases or decreases) on the basis of
a slope of a SOC-OCV SOC-open circuit voltage (OCV) curve of the secondary battery (e.g. Paragraphs [0099], [0107]; where the ECU (100) calculates an SOC of the battery based on an OCV by referring to an OCV-SOV curve of the battery (50)),
the OCV as open circuit voltage (e.g. Paragraphs [0099], [0107]; where the ECU (100) calculates an SOC of the battery based on an OCV by referring to an OCV-SOV curve of the battery (50)),
the SOC as state of charge indicating the remaining capacity of the secondary battery (e.g. Paragraph [0057]; where the remaining power (remaining capacity) is shown on a display section (73), where the SOC is an indicator of remaining power of the battery on the display section) that the user is to be notified of (e.g. Paragraphs [0008], [0057]; where the remaining power (remaining capacity) is shown on a display section (73), where the SOC is an indicator of remaining power of the battery on the display section to notify a user when a full charge capacity is equal to or lower than a threshold value (i.e. when the user is to be notified)),
the slope corresponding to the state of charge (e.g. Figure 6; where the curve has a slope indicating the state of charge); and
a notification controller that performs control (e.g. Paragraph [0057]; where the remaining power (remaining capacity) is shown on a display section (73), where the SOC is an indicator of remaining power of the battery on the display section) to
cause the user to be notified of the remaining capacity of the secondary battery in a form of notification based on the reliability level of the state of charge that has been determined (e.g. Paragraphs [0008], [0057]; where the remaining power (remaining capacity) is shown on a display section (73), where the SOC is an indicator of remaining power of the battery on the display section to notify a user when a full charge capacity is equal to or lower than a threshold value (i.e. when the user is to be notified)).
As per Claim 7, Uchida discloses the features of a remaining capacity notification method (e.g. Paragraphs [0010], [0057]; where the controller controls a display apparatus to notify a user that the full charge of the secondary battery is equal to or lower than the threshold value; and where a remaining capacity on the battery is shown to a user; and where secondary battery is mounted on a vehicle) for
notifying a user of a device of a remaining capacity of a secondary battery mounted in the device (e.g. Paragraphs [0010], [0047]; where the controller controls a display apparatus to notify a user that the full charge of the secondary battery is equal to or lower than the threshold value; where secondary battery is mounted on a vehicle), the remaining capacity notification method comprising:
determining a reliability level of a state of charge on the basis of a slope of a SOC-OCV curve of the secondary battery (e.g. Figure 10- see display (74) and display section (76); where the system displays remaining capacity level (i.e. reliability levels) of the battery; and changes in color when the capacity increases or decreases),
the SOC representing a state of charge and indicating the remaining capacity of the secondary battery (e.g. Paragraph [0057]; where the remaining power (remaining capacity) is shown on a display section (73), where the SOC is an indicator of remaining power of the battery on the display section) that the user is to be notified of (e.g. Paragraphs [0008], [0057]; where the remaining power (remaining capacity) is shown on a display section (73), where the SOC is an indicator of remaining power of the battery on the display section to notify a user when a full charge capacity is equal to or lower than a threshold value (i.e. when the user is to be notified)),
the slope corresponding to the state of charge (e.g. Figure 6; where the curve has a slope indicating the state of charge),
the OCV representing an open circuit voltage (e.g. Paragraphs [0099], [0107]; where the ECU (100) calculates an SOC of the battery based on an OCV by referring to an OCV-SOV curve of the battery (50)); and
performing control to cause the user to be notified of the remaining capacity of the secondary battery in a form of notification based on the reliability level of the state of charge that has been determined (e.g. Paragraphs [0008], [0057]; where the remaining power (remaining capacity) is shown on a display section (73), where the SOC is an indicator of remaining power of the battery on the display section to notify a user when a full charge capacity is equal to or lower than a threshold value (i.e. when the user is to be notified)).
As per Claim 8, Uchida discloses the features of a non-transitory machine-readable recording medium that stores a remaining capacity notification program (e.g. Paragraph [0068]; where the ECU (100) includes a central processing unit (CPU, 110), a memory (120), which stores a program executed by the ECU (100)) for
notifying a user of a device of a remaining capacity of a secondary battery mounted in the device (e.g. Paragraphs [0010], [0047]; where the controller controls a display apparatus to notify a user that the full charge of the secondary battery is equal to or lower than the threshold value; where secondary battery is mounted on a vehicle), the remaining capacity notification program causing a computer to execute:
a process of determining a reliability level of a state of charge on the basis of a slope of a SOC-OCV curve of the secondary battery (e.g. Figure 10- see display (74) and display section (76); where the system displays remaining capacity level (i.e. reliability levels) of the battery; and changes in color when the capacity increases or decreases),
the SOC representing a state of charge and indicating the remaining capacity of the secondary battery (e.g. Paragraphs [0099], [0107]; where the ECU (100) calculates an SOC of the battery based on an OCV by referring to an OCV-SOV curve of the battery (50)) that the user is to be notified of (e.g. Paragraphs [0008], [0057]; where the remaining power (remaining capacity) is shown on a display section (73), where the SOC is an indicator of remaining power of the battery on the display section to notify a user when a full charge capacity is equal to or lower than a threshold value (i.e. when the user is to be notified)),
the slope corresponding to the state of charge (e.g. Figure 6; where the curve has a slope indicating the state of charge),
the OCV representing an open circuit voltage (e.g. Paragraphs [0099], [0107]; where the ECU (100) calculates an SOC of the battery based on an OCV by referring to an OCV-SOV curve of the battery (50)); and
a process of performing control to cause the user to be notified of the remaining capacity of the secondary battery in a form of notification based on the reliability level of the state of charge that has been determined (e.g. Paragraphs [0008], [0057]; where the remaining power (remaining capacity) is shown on a display section (73), where the SOC is an indicator of remaining power of the battery on the display section to notify a user when a full charge capacity is equal to or lower than a threshold value (i.e. when the user is to be notified)).
As per Claim 2, Uchida discloses the features of Claim 1, and Uchida further discloses the features of wherein the reliability level determination unit evaluates the reliability level of the state of charge indicating the remaining capacity that the user is to be notified of, as being higher, as the slope of the SOC-OCV curve that corresponds to the state of charge indicating the remaining capacity that the user is to be notified of increases (e.g. Figures 2, 10; where the system displays that the remaining capacity is higher and the SOC is higher).
As per Claim 3, Uchida discloses the features of Claim 2, and Uchida further discloses the features of wherein the notification controller performs control to cause the remaining capacity of the secondary battery to be displayed or audibly output more conspicuously as the reliability level of the state of charge that has been determined increases. (e.g. Paragraphs [0075], [0087]-[0089]; Figure 4;where the controller controls the display apparatus to vary a color of at least one of the segments when the full charge capacity of the secondary battery is equal to or lower than the threshold value, where the colors are varied, such as from blue to red; where the color red can indicate that the capacity retention value of the battery is less than a threshold).
As per Claim 4, Uchida discloses the features of Claim 2, and Uchida further discloses the features of wherein the notification controller performs control to
(i) cause the remaining capacity of the secondary battery to be displayed in a first color when the slope of the SOC-OCV curve that corresponds to the state of charge indicating the remaining capacity that the user is to be notified of is less than a low reliability level threshold value (e.g. Paragraphs [0016], [0087]-[0089]; where the controller controls the display apparatus to vary a color of at least one of the segments when the full charge capacity of the secondary battery is equal to or lower than the threshold value, where the colors are varied, such as from blue to red),
(ii) cause the remaining capacity of the secondary battery to be displayed in a second color when the slope of the SOC-OCV curve is greater than or equal to a high reliability level threshold value, the high reliability level threshold value being higher than the low reliability level threshold value (e.g. Paragraphs [0016], [0087]-[0089]; where the controller controls the display apparatus to vary a color of at least one of the segments when the full charge capacity of the secondary battery is greater than the threshold value, where the colors are varied, such as from blue to red, where the color blue can indicate the capacity is above the threshold), and
(iii) cause the remaining capacity of the secondary battery to be displayed in a color at a gradation level between the first color and the second color when the slope of the SOC-OCV curve is greater than or equal to the low reliability level threshold value, but less than the high reliability level threshold value (e.g. Paragraphs [0016], [0087]-[0089]; Figure 10; where the controller controls the display apparatus to vary a color of at least one of the segments when the full charge capacity of the secondary battery is equal to or lower than the threshold value, where the colors are varied, such as from blue to red (i.e. first and second color); and where when the capacity is between the low and high threshold, the system displays gradation color levels).
As per Claim 5, Uchida discloses the features of Claim 2, and Uchida further discloses the features of wherein the notification controller performs control to
(i) cause the remaining capacity of the secondary battery to be displayed in a first color when the slope of the SOC-OCV curve that corresponds to the state of charge indicating the remaining capacity that the user is to be notified of is less than a threshold value (e.g. Paragraphs [0075], [0087]-[0089]; Figure 4;where the controller controls the display apparatus to vary a color of at least one of the segments when the full charge capacity of the secondary battery is equal to or lower than the threshold value, where the colors are varied, such as from blue to red (i.e. first and second color); where the color red can indicate that the capacity retention value of the battery is less than a threshold), and
(ii) cause the remaining capacity of the secondary battery to be displayed in a second color when the slope of the SOC-OCV curve is greater than or equal to the threshold value (e.g. Paragraphs [0075], [0087]-[0089]; Figure 3; where the controller controls the display apparatus to vary a color of at least one of the segments when the full charge capacity of the secondary battery is equal to or lower than the threshold value, where the colors are varied, such as from blue to red (i.e. first and second color); where when the capacity retention value is above a threshold, the color can be indicated as blue).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0061101 A1, to Uchida, et al (hereinafter referred to as Uchida), in view of Japanese Patent Publication No. 2014025739 A, to Yamada, et al (hereinafter referred to as Yamada).
As per Claim 6, Uchida discloses the features of Claim 1, but Uchida fails to disclose every feature of wherein after charging or discharging of the device stops, the state of charge indicating the remaining capacity that the user is to be notified of is calculated by calculating a weighted average of a state of charge calculated by a current integration method and a state of charge calculated by an OCV method, and as time elapses after the charging or the discharging of the device stops, a contribution of the state of charge calculated by the OCV method increases.
However, Yamada in a similar field of endeavor, a battery state estimation apparatus, where the current integration unit (61) integrates the measures current value to obtain the total amount of energy (total amount of current) flowing to the battery module (110) between times (tA1 and tC1), and the SOC calculating unit (101) derives and outputs the estimated remining capacity data (SOCI) based on an output of the current integration unit (61); and where the SOC calculating unit (102) derives and outputs estimated remaining capacity based on open circuit voltage (OCV) estimations; and where a weighted average of the open voltage value (VA) and the measured current value (VB) is used to determine an SOC value; and where the weighted average may be adjusted according to the elapsed time from the discharge stop (e.g. Page 11, Paragraph beginning with “The current integration unit 61 integrates …”; Page 13, Paragraph beginning with “SOC calculating unit 101 derives …”; Page 10, Paragraph beginning with “Further, the open-circuit voltage …”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the display system showing the state of the secondary battery in the system Uchida, with the feature of using a weighted average in the system of Yamada, in order to improve the accuracy of the open-circuit voltage estimation (see at least Page 10, Paragraph beginning with “Further, the open-circuit voltage …” of Yamada).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Itabashi (JP 2009208484 A), which teaches a method for determining the state of charge and health of a secondary battery, and displaying the information to a user.
Mikuteit, et al (U.S. 2013/0275067 A1), which teaches a method for determining a state of charge of a battery, where an estimated open circuit voltage for the battery is calculated, and a corrected state of charge value is generated using the estimated open circuit voltage.
Nakao, et al (U.S. 2015/0357852 A1), which teaches a method for detecting a state of charge of a battery based on OCV and SOC outputs according to the amount of elapsed time.
Ozkan, et al (U.S. 11,977,126 B1), which teaches a method for determining the state of health of a battery using Coulomb counting.
Seo, et al (U.S. 2007/0024242 A1), which teaches a battery management system for managing the capacity of a secondary battery, using a controller OCV calculator and SOC determination unit.
Shiraishi, et al (JP 2015038437 A), which teaches a method for determining the reliability of an estimated value of SOC based on the SOC and OCV correlations.
Yoshida, et al (U.S. 2012/0166116 A1), which teaches a method for calculating residual capacity of a secondary battery, and weights the charge/ discharge voltage according to the discharge rate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MERRITT E LEVY whose telephone number is (571)270-5595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0630-1600.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/MERRITT E LEVY/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666