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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March, 23, 2026, has been entered.
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the amendments filed on March 23, 2026. Claims 1, and 6-8 are currently pending, with Claims 1 and 7-8 being amended, and Claims 2-5 being canceled.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments, filed March 23, 2026, the Examiner maintains the previous claim interpretation, maintains the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections, maintains the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, and withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, filed March 23, 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections (see page 8 of instant arguments), the Examiner is unpersuaded. The claim amendments fail to clarify the distinction between the notification unit or controller. Recommend amending the claim language for consistency and clarity of the record. As such, the Examiner maintains the corresponding rejections.
Regarding Applicant's arguments, filed March 23, 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections (see pages 8-9 of instant arguments), the Examiner is unpersuaded. The claims still currently recite only displaying the battery data, but none of the claim limitations take the idea out of an abstract idea. The limitations of “a display control unit that performs control” and “controlling a display color”, for example, amount to merely displaying the data. Incorporating the word “control” does not change that the claims only support performing data gathering and then displaying the results. A person can determine the status of a battery based on visual indicators or historical knowledge that a battery performance is degrading over time when compared to a current status of the battery. Displaying data amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, and as such the claims are not patent eligible, as they are currently written.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, filed March 23, 2026, pertaining to the “reliability level” (see pages 9-10 of instant arguments), the Examiner is unpersuaded. Uchida teaches that the system displays remaining capacity level (i.e. reliability levels) of the battery and uses the OCV-SOC curve to indicate a color change on a display when the capacity increases or decreases; and where if the OCV-SOV curve is flat in the intermediate SOC region, which may cause a large SOC error, and when the OCV-SOC curve is steep, a smaller SOC error is determined (i.e., a flat curve is less reliable than the steep curve) (see at least Paragraphs [0107] of Uchida). These error metrics are an indicator of how reliable the estimation is, based on the road profile. Asakura further teaches that the absolute value of the difference between the estimated capacity and the actual measurement of the capacity is obtained to determine how accurate the estimate is, such that the reliability of the estimation can be improved (see at least Paragraphs [0096], [0136], [0177], [0187] of Asakura).
The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for essentially the same reasons. Therefore, the corresponding rejections are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, 7, and 8 recite “the reliability level of the estimation indicating an extent of deviation between the estimated state of charge, which represents the remaining capacity of a secondary battery and is provided to the user, and an actual remaining capacity of the secondary battery …” and should read “the reliability level of the estimation indicating an extent of deviation between the estimated state of charge, which represents the remaining capacity of the secondary battery and an actual remaining capacity of the secondary battery, and is provided to the user …”.
Claim 1 and 7-8 recite “as the state of the charge increase …” and should read “as the state of the charge increases …”.
Claim 1 recites “such that … cause …”. Recommend changing the language to read “such that the remaining capacity of the secondary battery is caused to be …” or to read “display color of the remaining capacity of the secondary battery to … cause …”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 6.
“notification unit …” in Claims 1 and 7-8.
“a reliability level determination unit …” in Claims 1 and 7.
“a display control unit …” in Claims 1 and 7-8.
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 notification unit …”, while no support is provided in the instant specification for the term “notification unit”, the instant specification at least at Paragraph [0007] only states that “a notification control unit that performs control to cause the user to be notified …” and Figure 4 (reference numbers 313, 314) only shows the processing unit (310) comprising a display unit (313) and a speech synthesis unit (314). The structure of the notification unit is software or hardware capable of outputting to a display or interface or provide 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.
Regarding the limitation of “a display unit …” and “a display control unit …”, the instant specification at Paragraphs [0023] at least states that “Display unit 38 is a display on which text, video, and the like can be displayed; a liquid-crystal display, an organic electroluminescent display, a mini-light emitting diode (LED) display, or the like can be used as a display unit …”. The structure for the display unit is interface capable of displaying information through a screen.
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 and 7-8 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 7-8 state “a notification controller …” or “a notification unit …”, but neither term is defined within the instant specification. The Examiner is interpreting a notification controller and a notification unit to be the same as “a notification control unit” as provided in Paragraphs [0007] and [0098] of the instant specification, and that the notification controller/ notification unit is 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). The Examiner recommends incorporating language consistent with the disclosure in the written description into the instant claims.
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 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea, including determining the remaining capacity of a battery, which constitutes 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. Claim 6 is rejected due to its 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 comprising:
a processing unit configured to
control a notification unit to produce a notification notifying a user of a device of a remaining capacity of a secondary battery mounted in the device, wherein the remaining capacity is determined based on a state of charge subject to estimation, wherein the processing unit comprises: a reliability level determination unit configured to
determine a reliability level of the estimation of the 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, the slope corresponding to the state of charge, the reliability level of the estimation indicating an extent of deviation between the estimated state of charge, which represents the remaining capacity of a secondary battery and is provided to the user, and an actual remaining capacity of the secondary battery; and
a notification controller that performs control to cause the remaining capacity of the secondary battery to be displayed or audibly output more conspicuously as the determined reliability of the estimation of the state of the charge increase, wherein the reliability level determination unit evaluates the reliability level of the estimation of the state of charge as being higher, as the slope of the SOC-OCV curve increases, the notification controller includes a display control unit that performs control such that the remaining battery capacity is displayed on a display unit more conspicuously as the reliability level increases,
the display control unit performs control to control a display color of the remaining capacity of the secondary battery such that (i) cause the remaining capacity of the secondary battery to be displayed in a first color when the slope of the SOC-OCV curve is less than a low reliability level threshold value, (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, 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.
Regarding the limitation of “determine a reliability level …” and “evaluates the reliability level of the estimation … “, the Examiner submits that these limitations consist of using mathematical concepts as included in an abstract idea. This limitation recites using a generic computer to determine a state of charge of a battery based on the slope of the voltage curve, and for evaluating the relatability level, 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 “a processing unit …”, the Examiner submits that this limitation consists of using a generic computer to perform the process.
For the following reason(s), the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitation does not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations of “ the notification controller includes a display control unit …” and “the display control unit performs control to control a display color of the remaining capacity of the secondary battery …”, the Examiner submits that this limitation consists of insignificant extra-solution activity, consisting of providing an output to a display.
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
Analysis of Step 2B is performed to determine if the claim as whole, amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, and further analysis is required for all functions that are identified as well-understood, routine, and conventional.
The Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(III) indicate that merely displaying information is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function, when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The specification also demonstrates the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of these additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood, routine, or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Even when viewed as a combination, nothing in the claims amounts to significantly more, and as such, Claims 1 and 7-8 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claim 6 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitation of dependent claim is 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 claim 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 Claim 6 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claim 1.
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.
Claims 1 and 7-8 are 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; previously of record), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2001/0022518 A1, to Asakura, et al (hereinafter referred to as Asakura; newly of record).
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 processing unit (e.g. Paragraph [0068]; where the ECU (100) includes a central processing unit (CPU, 110), a memory (120), an input and output port, which stores program executed by the ECU (100) in memory) configured to control
a notification unit (e.g. Paragraphs [0008], [0016]; where the controller controls the display apparatus to notify the user) to
produce a notification notifying a user of a device of a remaining capacity of a secondary battery mounted in the device (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), wherein
the remaining capacity is determined based on a state of charge subject to estimation (e.g. Paragraphs [0064], [0093]; where the display section (78) shows an accuracy lamp for giving a notification about low accuracy in estimation of capacity retention (Q)), wherein the processing unit comprises:
a reliability level determination unit configured to determine a reliability level of the estimation of the state of charge (e.g. Paragraphs [0107]; Figure 10- see display (74) and display section (76); Figure 6; where the system displays remaining capacity level (i.e. reliability levels) of the battery; and changes in color when the capacity increases or decreases; and where if the OCV-SOV curve is flat in the intermediate SOC region, which may cause a large SOC error, and when the OCV-SOC curve is steep, a smaller SOC error is determined (i.e., a flat curve is less reliable than the steep curve)) 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),
the slope corresponding to the state of charge (e.g. Figure 6; where the curve has a slope indicating the state of charge), ‘…’
is provided to the user (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), and ‘…’
a notification controller (e.g. Paragraphs [0008], [0016]; where the controller controls the display apparatus to notify the user) that performs control to
cause the remaining capacity of the secondary battery to be displayed or audibly output more conspicuously as the determined reliability of the estimation of the state of the charge increase (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), wherein
the reliability level determination unit evaluates the reliability level of the estimation of the state of charge as being higher, as the slope of the SOC-OCV curve increases (e.g. Figures 2, 10; where the system displays that the remaining capacity is higher and the SOC is higher),
the notification controller includes a display control unit that performs control such that the remaining battery capacity is displayed on a display unit more conspicuously as the reliability level 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),
the display control unit performs control to control a display color of the remaining capacity of the secondary battery (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) such that
(i) cause the remaining capacity of the secondary battery to be displayed in a first color when the slope of the SOC-OCV curve 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).
Uchida fails to teach every feature of wherein the reliability level of the estimation indicating an extent of deviation between the estimated state of charge, which represents the remaining capacity of a secondary battery and ‘…’ an actual remaining capacity of the secondary battery.
However, Asakura, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a capacity estimation method for batteries, where the absolute value of the difference between the estimated capacity and the actual measurement of the capacity is obtained to determine how accurate the estimate is (e.g. Paragraphs [0096], [0177], [0411]-[0413], [0576]).
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 determining the reliability level of the estimated charge in the system of Asakura, in order to improve estimation of the cell degradation (see at least Paragraph [0009] of Asakura).
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) comprising:
controlling a notification unit (e.g. Paragraphs [0008], [0016]; where the controller controls the display apparatus to notify the user) to
produce a notification notifying a user of a device of a remaining capacity of a secondary battery mounted in the device (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), wherein
wherein the remaining capacity is determined based on a state of charge subject to estimation (e.g. Paragraphs [0064], [0093]; where the display section (78) shows an accuracy lamp for giving a notification about low accuracy in estimation of capacity retention (Q));
determining a reliability level of the estimation of the state of charge on the basis of a slope of a SOC-OCV curve of the secondary battery (e.g. Paragraphs [0107]; Figure 10- see display (74) and display section (76); Figure 6; where the system displays remaining capacity level (i.e. reliability levels) of the battery; and changes in color when the capacity increases or decreases; and where if the OCV-SOV curve is flat in the intermediate SOC region, which may cause a large SOC error, and when the OCV-SOC curve is steep, a smaller SOC error is determined (i.e., a flat curve is less reliable than the steep curve)),
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),
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
controlling, the notification unit to cause the remaining capacity of the secondary battery to be displayed or audibly output more conspicuously as the determined reliability of the estimation of the state of the charge increase (e.g. Paragraphs [0015]-[0016], [0120]; 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 second battery is equal to or lower than a threshold value), wherein
the reliability level determining evaluates the reliability level of the estimation of the state of charge as being higher, as the slope of the SOC-OCV curve increases (e.g. Figures 2, 10; where the system displays that the remaining capacity is higher and the SOC is higher),
the notification unit controlling includes controlling a display control unit that performs control such that the remaining battery capacity is displayed on a display unit more conspicuously as the reliability level 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),
controlling the display control unit to control a display color of the remaining capacity of the secondary battery (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) such that
(i) cause the remaining capacity of the secondary battery to be displayed in a first color when the slope of the SOC-OCV curve 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).
Uchida fails to teach every feature of wherein the reliability level of the estimation indicating an extent of deviation between the estimated state of charge, which represents the remaining capacity of a secondary battery and ‘…’ an actual remaining capacity of the secondary battery.
However, Asakura, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a capacity estimation method for batteries, where the absolute value of the difference between the estimated capacity and the actual measurement of the capacity is obtained to determine how accurate the estimate is (e.g. Paragraphs [0096], [0177], [0411]-[0413], [0576]).
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 determining the reliability level of the estimated charge in the system of Asakura, in order to improve estimation of the cell degradation (see at least Paragraph [0009] of Asakura).
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)), the remaining capacity notification program causing a computer to execute:
a processing of controlling a notification unit (e.g. Paragraphs [0008], [0016]; where the controller controls the display apparatus to notify the user) to
produce a notification notifying a user of a device of a remaining capacity of a secondary battery mounted in the device (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), wherein
the remaining capacity is determined based on a state of charge subject to estimation (e.g. Paragraphs [0064], [0093]; where the display section (78) shows an accuracy lamp for giving a notification about low accuracy in estimation of capacity retention (Q));
a process of determining a reliability level of the estimation of the state of charge on the basis of a slope of a SOC-OCV curve of the secondary battery (e.g. Paragraphs [0107]; Figure 10- see display (74) and display section (76); Figure 6; where the system displays remaining capacity level (i.e. reliability levels) of the battery; and changes in color when the capacity increases or decreases; and where if the OCV-SOV curve is flat in the intermediate SOC region, which may cause a large SOC error, and when the OCV-SOC curve is steep, a smaller SOC error is determined (i.e., a flat curve is less reliable than the steep curve)),
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)),
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 the process of controlling the notification unit, performs control to
cause the remaining capacity of the secondary battery to be displayed or audibly output more conspicuously as the determined reliability of the estimation of the state of the charge increase (e.g. Paragraphs [0015]-[0016], [0120]; 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 second battery is equal to or lower than a threshold value), wherein
the process of determining the reliability level evaluates the reliability level of the estimation of the state of charge as being higher, as the slope of the SOC-OCV curve increases (e.g. Figures 2, 10; where the system displays that the remaining capacity is higher and the SOC is higher),
the process of controlling a notification unit includes controlling a display control unit that performs control such that the remaining battery capacity is displayed on a display unit more conspicuously as the reliability level 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), and
a process of controlling the display control unit to control a display color of the remaining capacity of the secondary battery (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) such that
(i) cause the remaining capacity of the secondary battery to be displayed in a first color when the slope of the SOC-OCV curve 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).
Uchida fails to teach every feature of wherein the reliability level of the estimation indicating an extent of deviation between the estimated state of charge, which represents the remaining capacity of a secondary battery and ‘…’ an actual remaining capacity of the secondary battery.
However, Asakura, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a capacity estimation method for batteries, where the absolute value of the difference between the estimated capacity and the actual measurement of the capacity is obtained to determine how accurate the estimate is (e.g. Paragraphs [0096], [0177], [0411]-[0413], [0576]).
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 determining the reliability level of the estimated charge in the system of Asakura, in order to improve estimation of the cell degradation (see at least Paragraph [0009] of Asakura).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida, in view of Asakura, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Japanese Patent Publication No. 2014025739 A, to Yamada, et al (hereinafter referred to as Yamada; previously of record).
As per Claim 6, Uchida, in view of Asakura, teaches the features of Claim 1, but the combination of Uchida, in view of Asakura, fails to teach every feature of wherein after charging or discharging of the device stops, the state of charge is calculated by calculating a weighted average of a first state of charge calculated by a current integration method and a second 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 second state of charge 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 further modify the display system showing the state of the secondary battery in the system Uchida, in view of Asakura, 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MERRITT 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, Abby Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-9855. 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 LEVY/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/KYLE J KINGSLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights