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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 12 line 1 to page 13 line 10, filed 06/30/2026, with respect to “Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f)” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The interpretation under 112(f) of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues (Page 12 lines 8-12):
“Claim 1 recites one or more processors and a memory storing program code that, when executed, causes the system to implement the recited acquisition unit, characteristic calculation unit, ratio calculation unit, and output unit. Each of the units is thus directly tied to processor-executed instructions, which provides clear definite structural context for the claimed functionality.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Applicant's remarks (under "Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)" page 12 lines 9-12) strengthen the interpretation of "unit" as generic computing elements.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 13 line 11 to page 15 line 10, filed 06/303/2026, with respect to “Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b)” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 112(b) of claims 1-6, and 8-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 18 line 7 to page 23 line 16, filed 06/303/2026, with respect to “Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 112(b) of claims 1-6, and 8-20 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 15 line 11 to page 16 line 10, filed 06/303/2026, with respect to “Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 16 lines 1-3):
“With respect to step 2A, Prong One, although the Examiner identifies certain calculations as “mathematical concepts,” claim 1 does not recite standalone mathematical relationships, but rather processes measured electrical signals obtained from a physical battery system.”
& (page 16 lines 6-8):
“Furthermore, claim 1 recites acquiring data that includes measured current of a rechargeable battery, which corresponds to physical data rather than an abstract mathematical calculation.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
At step 2A Prong One “a characteristic calculation unit configured to calculate a characteristic value” and other calculations are within the judicial exception abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. Determination at Prong One does not take into account whether a calculation is a ‘standalone mathematical relationships’; so the answer to Prong One is ‘yes’. At step 2A Prong Two, additional elements are not found which would be sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application; so the answer to Prong Two is ‘no’. At step 2B, any additional elements are not found to be significantly more than the judicial exception (in particular, elements are found to be well understood, routine conventional activity); so the answer to Step 2B is ‘no’. Therefore under the 101 analysis, there are judicial exceptions and they are not incorporated into a practical application.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 16 line 11 to page 16 line 21, filed 06/303/2026, with respect to “Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 16 lines 13-16):
“The acquisition of battery data, including current and voltage measurements over defined periods, is not incidental data gathering, as the subsequent filtering and calculation steps depend on the characteristics of real operating conditions of the battery.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
The judicial exception(s) are calculations based on current and voltage measurements, as such recitation of ‘current and voltage measurements’(extra solution activity-pre solution) without significantly more is not significantly more than the judicial exception(s). The recitation of a battery is not significantly more than a technological environment or field of use limitation (MPEP 2106.05(h)) corresponding to at least cpc symbol G01R31/3842: .. [arrangements for monitoring battery or accumulator variables, e.g. SoC] combining voltage and current measurements.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 17 line 1 to page 17 line 8, filed 06/303/2026, with respect to “Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 17 lines 2-6):
“However, the claims do not merely recite a generic computer implementation. Rather, they recite a specific combination of operations, including, for example, threshold-based filtering, moving-average-based selection of data, and calculation of degradation-indicative ratios, which, when taken together, provide a non-conventional approach to analyzing battery condition.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
This “specific combination of operations” is a series of calculations, and a combination of judicial exceptions is a more complex judicial exception. As such, at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims are not significantly more than a generic computer performing one or more judicial exceptions.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 17 line 9 to page 18 line 6, filed 06/303/2026, with respect to “Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 17 lines 13-18):
“These references address isolated, generic field-of-use elements and do not establish that the specifically recited claim language was well-understood, routine, and conventional . The recited features include, for example, filtering battery, filtering battery measurement data based on a moving-average current threshold to exclude idling-state intervals, computing a characteristic value from the filtered partial data, calculating a ratio relative to a reference characteristic value, and outputting the ratio.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
These limitations are directed towards judicial exceptions; the 101 analysis does not include a determination of whether judicial exceptions are conventional (the separate analyses regarding prior art rejections 102 & 103 are about whether prior art teaches the limitations, including limitations which are judicial exceptions). A judicial exception (without significantly more) even if it were original and could not have been anticipated, would still be a judicial exception. Judicial exceptions are about subject matter which is not patentable, and not about whether the material has already been invented. The Berkheimer requirements are about whether additional elements are conventional or not and therefore whether those additional elements could be the patentable subject matter which incorporate the judicial exception(s).
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, & 8-20 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.
Regarding “Failure to particularly point out & distinctly claim [indefinite]”:
Claims 1, 19, & 20 in lines 16-18, lines 11-13 & lines 10-12 (respectively) recites the limitation "wherein excluding the intervals corresponding to the idling state reduces calculation error based on the current measured in the idling state". This is a contradiction; if ‘excluding intervals corresponding to the idling state’ then it cannot be that there is ‘calculation error based on current in the idling state’. In other words, if the analysis is on data which does not include idling data then the analysis can’t have calculations based on the idling state. For the purposes of examination, it is assumed that ‘data corresponding to idling is not part of the analysis’.
Regarding ‘rejected for inheriting the rejected limitations of a parent claim without rectifying the issue(s) for which the parent claim(s) was rejected’:
Claims 2-6, & 8-18 in line 1 (all claims) recites the limitation "the battery management system according to claim 1[2][3][6][9][10][12][13][15][16]".
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Flow diagrams form MPEP 2106(III) & 2106.04(II)(A), respectively.
Note:
Applicant’s Arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation, and consultation with 35 U.S.C. 101 experts strengthens 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections; the different types of “unit” are not significantly more than generic computing elements.
Claims 1-6, & 8-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Claim 1:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a system which is a machine and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A - Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
“a characteristic calculation unit configured to: use a threshold for distinguishing whether the electric vehicle is in an idling state”
“exclude intervals corresponding to the idling state from reference data and the target data to select, for each of the reference data and the target data, partial data in which a moving average of the measured current is equal to or greater than the threshold, wherein excluding the intervals corresponding to the idling state reduces calculation error based on current measured in the idling state; and”
calculate a characteristic value corresponding to a state of charge of the rechargeable battery in the reference period as a reference characteristic value based on the partial data for the reference data, and calculate a characteristic value corresponding to a state of charge of the rechargeable battery in the target period as a target characteristic value based on the partial data for the target data;”
“a ratio calculation unit configured to calculate a ratio indicating a relationship between the reference characteristic value and the target characteristic value, as a reference value for predicting a lifespan of the rechargeable battery, wherein the ratio is indicative of battery degradation over time;”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
Analysis:
Limitations directed towards calculating or calculating units or to values (i.e., numerical values) are limitations directed towards mathematical concepts.
Conclusion:
The claim recites limitations directed towards the abstract idea grouping of “mathematical concepts”.
Revised Step 2A - Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim further recites the additional elements of (extra solution activity):
“an acquisition unit configured to acquire reference data indicating a state of a rechargeable battery in a reference period and target data indicating a state of the rechargeable battery in a target period that is after the reference period;”
“and an output unit configured to output the reference value for predicting the lifespan of the rechargeable battery.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process,”
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “For claim limitations that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, examiners should explain in an eligibility rejection why they do not meaningfully limit the claim. For example, an examiner could explain that employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more,”
See MPEP 2106.05(f): “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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.”
Analysis:
These limitations are directed towards the insignificant extra solution activity (pre-solution) of data gathering. Further, these limitations are no more specific than that which is necessarily implied by the judicial exception(s).
The element of “a rechargeable battery” is no more than a field of use limitation corresponding to at least the CPC symbol of G01R 31/3842: “. . [Arrangements for monitoring battery or accumulator variables, e.g. SoC] combining voltage and current measurements”. the judicial exception(s) in combination with this field of use limitation would monopolize the judicial exception(s) over the field of use.
Additionally, the elements of “one or more processors”, “a memory storing program code that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the battery management system to implement”, “acquisition unit”, “characteristic calculation unit”, “ratio calculation unit” are no more than a general purpose computer or computer components which is no more than a tool to implement the judicial exception(s).
Conclusion:
Therefore, the additional elements and limitations do not integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(I): “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself … Instead, an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.”
See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2): “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018).”
Analysis:
1)
US 11782096 B2 “Method And System For Improving State Of Health Of Rechargeable Batteries” (Guha)
2)
US 11342596 B2 “Method And System For Controlling A Rechargeable Battery” (Flueckiger)
Conclusion:
Therefore the claim does not recite elements which are significantly more than the judicial exception(s) at least because a ‘rechargeable battery’ is well known and conventional in the art.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”
Claim 2:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a system which is a machine and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A - Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 2 additionally recites:
“and wherein the characteristic calculation unit is configured to: calculate an I-V characteristic that is a relationship among the measured current, the measured voltage, and the state of charge in the reference period, based on the partial data for the reference data, and acquire the reference characteristic value based on the I-V characteristic;”
“and calculate the I-V characteristic in the target period based on the partial data for the target data, and acquire the target characteristic value based on the I-V characteristic.”
Explanation:
The claim is further directed towards judicial exceptions of the abstract idea grouping of ‘Mathematical concepts’.
Revised Step 2A - Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim further recites the additional elements of (extra solution activity):
“wherein the state of the rechargeable battery indicated by each of the reference data and the target data includes at least a measured voltage and a measured current of the rechargeable battery,”
Explanation:
This limitation is further directed towards the necessary data gathering addressed in claim 1 (measuring aging characteristics of a battery necessarily includes measuring voltage and current of a battery).
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Explanation:
The elements in Step 2A - Prong Two have been established as conventional in the claim 1 analysis.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”
Claim 3:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a system which is a machine and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A - Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 3 additionally recites:
“wherein the characteristic calculation unit is configured to calculate the I-V characteristic by the statistical approach, such that a mean square error between a theoretical voltage of the rechargeable battery acquired by the I-V characteristic based on an equivalent circuit of the rechargeable battery and the measured voltage is minimized.”
Explanation:
The claim is further directed towards judicial exceptions of the abstract idea grouping of ‘Mathematical concepts’.
Revised Step 2A - Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite further elements beyond those addressed in Revised Step 2A – Prong One
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite further elements beyond those addressed in Revised Step 2A – Prong One
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”
Claim 4:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a system which is a machine and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A - Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 3 and thereby from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 4 additionally recites:
“wherein the characteristic calculation unit is configured to use a Marquardt method or a multivariate analysis as the statistical approach to calculate the I-V characteristic.”
Explanation:
The claim is further directed towards judicial exceptions of the abstract idea grouping of ‘Mathematical concepts’.
Revised Step 2A - Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite further elements beyond those addressed in Revised Step 2A – Prong One
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite further elements beyond those addressed in Revised Step 2A – Prong One
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”
Claim 5:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a system which is a machine and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A - Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 5 additionally recites:
“wherein the characteristic calculation unit is configured to: calculate a moving average of the measured voltage and a moving average of the measured current based on the reference data, and calculate the I-V characteristic in the reference period based on these moving averages;”
“and calculate a moving average of the measured voltage and a moving average of the measured current based on the target data, and calculate the I-V characteristic in the target period based on these moving averages.”
Explanation:
The claim is further directed towards judicial exceptions of the abstract idea grouping of ‘Mathematical concepts’.
Revised Step 2A - Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite further elements beyond those addressed in Revised Step 2A – Prong One
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite further elements beyond those addressed in Revised Step 2A – Prong One
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”
Claim 6:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a system which is a machine and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A - Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
Revised Step 2A - Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 6 additionally recites:
“wherein the rechargeable battery is mounted on an electric vehicle.”
Explanation:
These claim limitations generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, corresponding to at least the CPC symbol of B60L 58/12: . “[Methods or circuit arrangements for monitoring or controlling batteries or fuel cells, specially adapted for electric vehicles] responding to state of charge [SoC]”
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2): “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018).”
Analysis:
1)
US 10666081 B2 “Battery Management System” (Irish) see Fig. 3 – 201 “Vehicle drive”
2)
US 11258113 B2 “Management Device, And Electricity Storage System” (Yamamoto) see Column 2 lines 55-58: “In an example shown in FIG. 1, electricity storage system 1 according to the present exemplary embodiment is mounted on a vehicle as a drive battery for the vehicle.”
Conclusion:
Therefore the claim does not recite elements which are significantly more than the judicial exception(s) at least because a “rechargeable battery is mounted on an electric vehicle” is well known and conventional in the art.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”
Claim 8:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a system which is a machine and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A - Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 6 and thereby from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
Revised Step 2A - Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 8 additionally recites:
“wherein the electric vehicle is a material handling vehicle to move cargo.”
Explanation:
This limitation is no more than a “field of use and technological environment” limitation (see MPEP 2106.05(h): “whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use."”).
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Claim 8 recites the additional element of:
“a material handling vehicle”
Explanation:
The specification states in page 5 lines 10-15: “An electric vehicle
refers to a vehicle that travels using electrical energy stored in a rechargeable battery as all or part of power. The electric vehicle may be a vehicle for carrying a person or a vehicle for moving a cargo. The electric vehicle may be a material handling vehicle for moving a cargo, for example a forklift.”
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation the “material handling vehicle” is no more than a vehicle which can move cargo.
Therefore the limitation (nor the element) does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”
Claim 9:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a system which is a machine and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A - Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 9 additionally recites:
“wherein the characteristic calculation unit is configured to calculate open circuit voltage and state of charge (OCV-SOC) parameter obtained from a relationship between the state of charge and an open-circuit voltage of the rechargeable battery, as the characteristic value corresponding to the state of charge of the rechargeable battery.”
Explanation:
These limitations are directed towards calculations based on values, where the values are no more than that which is implied by the field of art.
Revised Step 2A - Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”
Claim 10:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a system which is a machine and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A - Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 9 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 10 additionally recites:
“wherein the characteristic calculation unit is configured to calculate a slope of a linear equation indicating a relationship between the state of charge and the open-circuit voltage, as the OCV-SOC parameter.”
Explanation:
These limitations are directed towards calculations based on values, where the values are no more than that which is implied by the field of art.
Revised Step 2A - Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”
Claim 11:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a system which is a machine and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A - Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 10 and thereby from claim 9 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 11 additionally recites:
“wherein the characteristic calculation unit is configured to: calculate an inverse number of the slope in the reference period as the reference characteristic value; and calculate an inverse number of the slope in the target period as the target characteristic value, and the ratio calculation unit is configured to calculate a ratio of the target characteristic value to the reference characteristic value as the reference value.”
Explanation:
These limitations are directed towards calculations based on values, where the values are no more than that which is implied by the field of art.
Revised Step 2A - Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”
Claim 12:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a system which is a machine and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A - Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 12 additionally recites:
“wherein the characteristic calculation unit is configured to calculate a DCR-SOC parameter obtained from a relationship between the state of charge and a DC resistance of the rechargeable battery, as the characteristic value corresponding to the state of charge of the rechargeable battery.”
Explanation:
These limitations are directed towards calculations based on values, where the values are no more than that which is implied by the field of art.
Revised Step 2A - Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”
Claim 13:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a system which is a machine and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A - Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 12 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 13 additionally recites:
“wherein the characteristic calculation unit is configured to calculate the DC resistance when the state of charge is 50%, as the DCR-SOC parameter.”
Explanation:
These limitations are directed towards calculations based on values, where the values are no more than that which is implied by the field of art.
Revised Step 2A - Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”
Claim 14:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a system which is a machine and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A - Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 13 and thereby from claim 12 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 14 additionally recites:
“wherein the characteristic calculation unit is configured to: calculate the DC resistance when the state of charge is 50% in the reference period, as the reference characteristic value;”
“and calculate the DC resistance when the state of charge is 50% in the target period, as the target characteristic value, and the ratio calculation unit is configured to calculate a ratio of the target characteristic value to the reference characteristic value as the reference value.”
Explanation:
These limitations are directed towards calculations based on values, where the values are no more than that which is implied by the field of art.
Revised Step 2A - Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”
Claim 15:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a system which is a machine and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A - Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 15 additionally recites:
“further comprising a lifespan prediction unit configured to predict a battery life that is a lifespan of the rechargeable battery, based on the reference value.”
Explanation:
These limitations are directed towards calculations based on values, where the values are no more than that which is implied by the field of art.
Revised Step 2A - Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”
Claim 16:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a system which is a machine and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A - Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 15 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 16 additionally recites:
“further comprising a state prediction unit configured to predict a temporal change of the state of the rechargeable battery in a future time period, based on the battery life.”
Explanation:
These limitations are directed towards calculations based on values, where the values are no more than that which is implied by the field of art.
Revised Step 2A - Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”
Claim 17:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a system which is a machine and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A - Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 16 and thereby from claim 15 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 17 additionally recites:
“wherein the state prediction unit is configured to predict the temporal change using a plurality of classifications.”
Explanation:
These limitations are directed towards calculations based on values, where the values are no more than that which is implied by the field of art.
Revised Step 2A - Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”
Claim 18:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a system which is a machine and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A - Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Revised Step 2A - Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 18 additionally recites:
“wherein the rechargeable battery is a lead-acid battery.”
Explanation:
This limitation is no more than a “field of use and technological environment” limitation (see MPEP 2106.05(h): “whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use."”).
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Claim 18 recites the additional element of:
“a lead-acid battery”
Explanation:
The specification states in para 0002: “Patent Literature 1 describes a state monitoring system for a lead- acid battery. … JP 4353653 B”
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation the “lead-acid battery” is no more than a lead-acid battery which is well known in the art.
Therefore the limitation (nor the element) does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”
Claims 19-20 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 1-6, & 8-18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 7751994 B2 "Intelligent Battery Safety Management System Configured To Compare Collected Operational Data With Reference Operational Data" (Matsumura) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 2.
US 11815558 B2 "Apparatus And Method For Diagnosing Abnormal Degradated Battery Cell" (Lee) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 4.
US 10686229 B2 "Battery State Detection Device, Secondary Battery System, Program Product, And Battery State Detection Method" (Kawahara) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 3.
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 MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights