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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/28/2023, 01/16/2025, 06/04/2025, & 10/01/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are:
“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;” in claim 1 lines 2-4.
"a characteristic calculation unit configured to 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 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 target data;" in claim 1 lines 5-9.
"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." in claim 1 lines 10-12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Three-Prong test for:
“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;”
Prong (A) (As above)
Yes;
“an acquisition unit” is a nonce with no specific structural meaning.
Prong (B) (As above)
Yes;
“configured to” is a linking word or phrase connecting the nonce to functional language.
Prong (C) (As above)
Yes;
It is unclear how “acquire reference data … reference data” is done by the nonce.
it is not clear what sort of sensor/detector is used.
It is not clear how “reference period” is different from “target period”.
Conclusion:
The limitation of:
“acquisition unit” for claim 1 and its dependents is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
Three-Prong test for:
"a characteristic calculation unit configured to 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 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 target data;"
Prong (A) (As above)
Yes;
“a characteristic calculation unit” is a nonce with no specific structural meaning.
Prong (B) (As above)
Yes;
“configured to” is a linking word or phrase connecting the nonce to functional language.
Prong (C) (As above)
Yes;
It is unclear how
1) ”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 reference data,”
2) “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 target data”
Is done by the nonce.
Conclusion:
The limitation of:
“a characteristic calculation unit” for claim 1 and its dependents is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
Three-Prong test for:
"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."
Prong (A) (As above)
Yes;
“ratio calculation unit” is a nonce with no specific structural meaning.
Prong (B) (As above)
Yes;
“configured to” is a linking word or phrase connecting the nonce to functional language.
Prong (C) (As above)
Yes;
It is unclear how “calculate a ratio indicating a relationship between the reference characteristic value and the target characteristic value” is done by the nonce.
Conclusion:
The limitation of:
“ratio calculation unit” for claim 1 and its dependents is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
Note: the initially filed specification (filed 11/21/2023) was searched for an interpretation of:
1) “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;”
2) "a characteristic calculation unit configured to 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 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 target data;"
3) "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."
The following evidence supporting an interpretation was found in para 0015:
“The server 10 is a computer that calculates the reference value based on the rechargeable battery data. The server 10 includes an acquisition unit 11, a calculation unit 12, and an output unit 13 as functional modules. The acquisition unit 11 is a functional module that acquires the rechargeable battery data from the database 20. The calculation unit 12 is a functional module that calculates the reference value based on the rechargeable battery data. The output unit 13 is a functional module that outputs the reference value.”
Therefore, for the purposes of examination these ‘units’ are interpreted as ‘no more than a general purpose computer or computer components’.
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 1-20 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 limitations which were interpreted under 35 USC 112(f):
Claim 1 in lines 2-4 recites the limitation "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". It is not clear what sensors/detectors would be used to acquire the data, and once the data has been collected how this data is manipulated so as to indicate a state of charge of the rechargeable battery.
Claim 1 in lines 5-9 recites the limitation "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 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 target data;". It is not clear how the data is used to calculate values such as “a reference characteristic value”, or “a target characteristic value.
Claim 1 in lines 10-12 recites the limitation "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.". It is unclear how ‘to calculate a ratio’ is done. For the purposes of examination, it is assumed that the ratio calculation unit is generic computer elements which takes as input characteristic values and divides one by the other.
Regarding “Failure to particularly point out & distinctly claim [indefinite]”:
Claim 2 in lines 9-10 recites the limitation "calculate, the statistical approach, the I-V characteristic in the target period based on the target data, and acquire the target characteristic value based on the I-V characteristic.". It is unclear what the statistical approach is and what the corresponding scope would be, and how this limitation is intended to limit the claim. A “statistical approach” might mean no more than ‘collecting data points used for making a determination’. For the purposes of examination the limitation is interpreted as ‘calculate the I-V characteristic in the target area based on the target data’.
Claim 8 in lines 1-2 recites the limitation "wherein the electric vehicle is a material handling vehicle.". It is unclear what the intended scope of this limitation is. At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation any vehicle which can move something which could be referred to as “material” (i.e., anything non-living) could be referred to as “material handling”. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not know if this is intended to necessarily mean that the vehicle is a fork lift (for example).
Claim 11 in lines 3-6 recites the limitation "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,". However, in the base claim 1 the “reference characteristic value” & the “target characteristic value” are apparently OCV voltages which are functions of the state of charge (SOC). “reference characteristic value” & “target characteristic value” in claim 1 are not slopes but in the dependent claim 11 they are described as inverses of slopes.
Claims 19 & 20 in lines 3- recites the limitation "acquiring 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;". It is unclear what sensors/detectors are used to acquire the data.
Claims 19 & 20 in lines 6-9 (each claim) recites the limitation "calculating 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 reference data, and calculating 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 target data;". It is not clear how the data is used to calculate values such as “a reference characteristic value”, or “a target characteristic value.
Claims 19 & 20 in lines 1 recites the limitation "calculating 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.". It is unclear how ‘to calculate a ratio’ is done.
Regarding ‘rejected for inheriting the rejected limitations of a base claim without rectifying the issue(s) for which the base claim was rejected’:
Claims 2-18 are rejected for inheriting the rejected limitations of the base claim 1 without rectifying the issues for which claim 1 was rejected.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 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 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 target data;”
“and 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.”
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;”
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 “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, by a statistical approach, 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 reference data, and acquire the reference characteristic value based on the I-V characteristic;”
“and calculate, the statistical approach, the I-V characteristic in the target period based on 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:
“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 7:
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.
Claim 7 additionally recites:
“wherein the characteristic calculation unit is configured to: use a threshold for distinguishing whether the electric vehicle is in an idling state 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;”
“calculate the reference characteristic value based on the selected partial data of the reference data;”
“and calculate the target characteristic value based on the selected partial data of the target data.”
Explanation:
These additional limitations are directed towards calculations. Calculations are within 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;
Claim 7 does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Claim 7 does not recite additional elements.
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.”
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 an 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 the future, 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 1-18.
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.
Claim(s) 1-17, & 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 12117499 B2 (Matthey) in view of US 11567137 B2 (Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Matthey teaches a battery management system comprising: an acquisition unit (Fig. 1-102: “Battery Management Apparatus”) configured to acquire reference data indicating a state of a rechargeable battery (Fig. 1-101: “battery”, column 3 lines 27-28: “The assembled battery 101 includes multiple chargeable and dischargeable battery cells”) in a reference period and target data indicating a state of the rechargeable battery in a target period that is after the reference period (Fig. 1-103: “current sensor” & Fig. 1-105: “voltage sensor”, system collects data about the battery and collects at different time periods because that is necessary to manage the battery); a characteristic calculation unit (Fig. 1-102: “Battery Management Apparatus”) configured to 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 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 target data (Fig.2: voltage vs SOC is a characteristic relating SOC to voltage);
Matthey does not as explicitly teach and 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.
Kim teaches and 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 (Fig. 3: OCV[V] vs SOC and “degradation”, Fig. 5-S520: “slope control value”, system takes into account ratio/slope in determining the lifespan/degradation of the battery).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Matthey with the teachings of Kim. One would have added to the “Battery Management Apparatus” of Matthey the “Battery Management System” with “slope control value” of Kim. The motivation would have been that the amount of charge which a battery can hold at some voltage is an indication of the health of the battery (see Kim column 3 lines 64-67:” it is possible to estimate the SOC of the battery with higher reliability by adjusting the maximum value of the reference range based on the maximum capacity associated with the degradation level of the battery.”).
Regarding claim 2, Matthey in view of Kim teaches the battery management system according to claim 1,
Matthey further teaches wherein the state of the rechargeable battery indicated by each of the reference data and the target data includes at least a measured voltage (Fig. 1-105: “voltage sensor”) and a measured current (Fig. 1-103: “current sensor”) of the rechargeable battery, and wherein the characteristic calculation unit (Fig. 1-102: “battery management apparatus”) is configured to: calculate, by a statistical approach, an I-V characteristic (Fig. 5-601: “battery model unit”, system takes as input current and voltage and determines state of charge (i.e., “SOC”) that is a relationship among the measured current, the measured voltage, and the state of charge in the reference period, based on the reference data, and acquire the reference characteristic value based on the I-V characteristic (Fig. 5-601: “SOC”, system determines a reference characteristic value/(“SOC”)); and calculate, the statistical approach, the I-V characteristic in the target period based on the target data, and acquire the target characteristic value based on the I-V characteristic (Fig. 4-503: “remaining capacity calculation unit”, target characteristic value/(“remaining capacity”)).
Regarding claim 3, Matthey in view of Kim teaches the battery management system according to claim 2,
Kim further teaches 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 (Fig. 4-S420: “Kalman filter”, column 3 lines 59-62: “Accordingly, it is possible to reduce the adverse influence of a rapid change in OCV due to the nonlinear characteristic of the battery on the accuracy of battery SOC estimation.”, system uses Kalman filter to determine an accurate (i.e., minimize mean square error) estimate of the SOC).
Regarding claim 4, Matthey in view of Kim teaches the battery management system according to claim 3,
Matthey further teaches 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 (Fig. 1-103: “current sensor” and Fig. 1-105: “voltage sensor” and Fig. 1-106: “temperature sensor”, system uses multiple variables corresponding to at least current, voltage, and temperature as inputs to the battery management apparatus).
Regarding claim 5, Matthey in view of Kim teaches the battery management system according to claim 2.
Matthey further teaches 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 (Fig. 1-103 and Fig. 1-105, column 6 lines 35-38: “Accordingly, the available energy of the assembled battery 101 is calculated in real time in the battery energy storage system 1, and charge and discharge control of the assembled battery 101 is performed.”, the system continuously collects reference data from current and voltage sensors); 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 (Fig. 1-102: “battery management apparatus”, data is continuously entered into the battery management apparatus).
Regarding claim 6, Matthey in view of Kim teaches the battery management system according to claim 2,
Matthey further teaches wherein the rechargeable battery is mounted on an electric vehicle (column 1 lines 65-67: “As a result, an upper level system (an electric vehicle, a hybrid vehicle, etc.) provided with the battery energy storage system 1 can be efficiently controlled.”).
Regarding claim 7, Matthey in view of Kim teaches the battery management system according to claim 6,
Matthey further teaches wherein the characteristic calculation unit is configured to: use a threshold for distinguishing whether the electric vehicle is in an idling state (Fig. 2-700: “SOC-OCV curve” and Fig. 2-701: “discharge curve”, system recognizes different thresholds as SOC-OCV is above a voltage threshold) 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 (Fig. 2-700: “SOC-OCV curve” & Fig. 2-701: “discharge curve”, column 4 lines 19-23: “In FIG. 2, a broken line indicated by a symbol 700 represents an SOC-OCV curve that indicates the relationship between the SOC and the open-circuit voltage (OCV) of each battery cell of the assembled battery 101.”, system uses an open circuit voltage OCV for determining state if the system is degrading and when the circuit is open the battery is not applying power to the engine/(“idling”); calculate the reference characteristic value based on the selected partial data of the reference data (Fig. 5-601: “SOC”, system determines a reference characteristic value/(“SOC”)); and calculate the target characteristic value based on the selected partial data of the target data(Fig. 4-503: “remaining capacity calculation unit”, target characteristic value/(“remaining capacity”)).
Regarding claim 8, Matthey in view of Kim teaches the battery management system according to claim 6,
Matthey further teaches wherein the electric vehicle is a material handling vehicle (column 3 lines 65-67: “As a result, an upper level system (an electric vehicle, a hybrid vehicle, etc.) provided with the battery energy storage system 1 can be efficiently controlled.”, an electric vehicle would be able to handle “material”).
Regarding claim 9, Matthey in view of Kim teaches the battery management system according to claim 1,
Matthey further teaches wherein the characteristic calculation unit is configured to calculate an 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 (Fig. 2-700: “SOC-OCV curve”, column 4 lines 19-23: “In FIG. 2, a broken line indicated by a symbol 700 represents an SOC-OCV curve that indicates the relationship between the SOC and the open-circuit voltage (OCV) of each battery cell of the assembled battery 101.”).
Regarding claim 10, Matthey in view of Kim teaches the battery management system according to claim 9,
Kim further teaches 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 (column 2 lines 46-50: “The OCV information may include a first OCV factor value. The control unit may be configured to determine the first OCV factor value to be equal to a predetermined first slope control value when the temporary estimate is outside of a reference range.”).
Regarding claim 11, Matthey in view of Kim teaches the battery management system according to claim 10,
Matthey further teaches 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 (Fig. 2: “cell voltage” vs “SOC”, system determines a cell voltage as a function of the state of charge (SOC)).
Regarding claim 12, Matthey in view of Kim teaches the battery management system according to claim 1,
Matthey further teaches 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 (Fig. 5-601: “battery model unit”, Fig. 6-604: “internal resistance” and Fig. 6-606: “polarization resistance”, column 6 lines 61-64: “The equivalent circuit of the battery cell shown in FIG. 6 includes an open voltage source 603 having a voltage value Voc, an internal resistance 604 having a resistance value R,”, an depleted battery can be modeled as an equivalent combination of capacitances and resistances where the resistance increases as the battery is depleted so the SOC can be determined from the internal resistance of the battery).
Regarding claim 13, Matthey in view of Kim teaches the battery management system according to claim 12,
Matthey further teaches wherein the characteristic calculation unit is configured to calculate the DC resistance when the state of charge is 50%, as the DCR-SOC parameter (Fig. 3-710: “mid voltage”, column 5 lines 22-24: “Note that in FIG. 3, a point 709 on the SOC-OCV curve 700 represents the OCV value (mid OCV) corresponding to the mid voltage 710.”).
Regarding claim 14, Matthey in view of Kim teaches the battery management system according to claim 13,
Matthey further teaches 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 (Fig. 3-710: “mid voltage”); 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 (Fig. 3 “cell voltage” vs “current SOC”).
Regarding claim 15, Matthey in view of Kim teaches the battery management system according to claim 1,
Matthey further teaches 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 (column 2 lines 15-18: “a remaining capacity calculation unit which calculates a remaining capacity or a chargeable capacity of the battery, based on the state of charge and the deterioration degree;”, system uses reference value/(“based on state of charge”) to determine lifespan/(“remaining capacity”)).
Regarding claim 16, Matthey in view of Kim teaches the battery management system according to claim 15,
Matthey further teaches further comprising a state prediction unit configured to predict a temporal change of the state of the rechargeable battery in the future, based on the battery life (Fig. 2: cell voltage vs SOC, column 4 lines 48-52: “In (Expression 1), CCV(t) represents the CCV of each battery cell at a time t, i.e., the value of a discharge voltage, t.sub.present represents the current time, and t.sub.end represents a time when the SOC of each battery cell reaches SOC.sub.min and discharge is finished.”, system has predict a temporal change/(“expression 1”) to calculate a time till the cell voltage has changed by some amount).
Regarding claim 17, Matthey in view of Kim teaches the battery management system according to claim 16,
Matthey further teaches wherein the state prediction unit is configured to predict the temporal change using a plurality of classifications (Fig. 5-602: “State-of-health detection unit”, the system outputs information regarding classification/(“state of health”)).
Regarding claim 19, Matthey teaches a battery management method executed by a battery management system comprising at least one processor, the method comprising: acquiring reference data indicating a state of a rechargeable battery (Fig. 1-101: “battery”, column 3 lines 27-28: “The assembled battery 101 includes multiple chargeable and dischargeable battery cells”) in a reference period and target data indicating a state of the rechargeable battery in a target period that is after the reference period (Fig. 1-103: “current sensor” & Fig. 1-105: “voltage sensor”, system collects data about the battery and collects at different time periods because that is necessary to manage the battery); calculating 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 reference data, and calculating 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 target data (Fig.2: voltage vs SOC is a characteristic relating SOC to voltage);
Matthey does not as explicitly teach and calculating 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.
Kim teaches and calculating 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 (Fig. 3: OCV[V] vs SOC and “degradation”, Fig. 5-S520: “slope control value”, system takes into account ratio/slope in determining the lifespan/degradation of the battery).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Matthey with the teachings of Kim. One would have added to the “Battery Management Apparatus” of Matthey the “Battery Management System” with “slope control value” of Kim. The motivation would have been that the amount of charge which a battery can hold at some voltage is an indication of the health of the battery (see Kim column 3 lines 64-67:” it is possible to estimate the SOC of the battery with higher reliability by adjusting the maximum value of the reference range based on the maximum capacity associated with the degradation level of the battery.”).
Regarding claim 20, Matthey teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a battery management program causing a computer to execute: acquiring reference data indicating a state of a rechargeable battery (Fig. 1-101: “battery”, column 3 lines 27-28: “The assembled battery 101 includes multiple chargeable and dischargeable battery cells”) in a reference period and target data indicating a state of the rechargeable battery in a target period that is after the reference period (Fig. 1-103: “current sensor” & Fig. 1-105: “voltage sensor”, system collects data about the battery and collects at different time periods because that is necessary to manage the battery); calculating 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 reference data (Fig.2: voltage vs SOC is a characteristic relating SOC to voltage),
Matthey does not as explicitly teach and calculating 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 target data; and calculating 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.
Kim teaches and calculating 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 target data; and calculating 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 (Fig. 3: OCV[V] vs SOC and “degradation”, Fig. 5-S520: “slope control value”, system takes into account ratio/slope in determining the lifespan/degradation of the battery).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium taught by Matthey with the teachings of Kim. One would have added to the “Battery Management Apparatus” of Matthey the “Battery Management System” with “slope control value” of Kim. The motivation would have been that the amount of charge which a battery can hold at some voltage is an indication of the health of the battery (see Kim column 3 lines 64-67:” it is possible to estimate the SOC of the battery with higher reliability by adjusting the maximum value of the reference range based on the maximum capacity associated with the degradation level of the battery.”).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 12117499 B2 (Matthey) in view of US 11567137 B2 (Kim) in further view of US 11782096 B2 (Guha).
Regarding claim 18, Matthey in view of Kim teaches the battery management system according to claim 1,
Neither Matthey nor Kim explicitly teach wherein the rechargeable battery is a lead-acid battery.
Guha teaches wherein the rechargeable battery is a lead-acid battery (column 4 lines 37-40: “The rechargeable battery 101 may include, but is not to be limited to, nickel cadmium battery, nickel-metal hydride battery, lead acid battery, lithium ion battery, and lithium ion polymer battery.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Matthey in view of Kim with the teachings of Guha. One would have added to the “Battery Management Apparatus” with “Battery Management System” with slope control of Matthey in view of Kim the “Method And System For Improving State Of Health Of Rechargeable Batteries” including lead batteries of Guha. The motivation would have been that lead-acid batteries also would benefit from a “measure of capacity retention power” (see Guha column 8 lines 29-32: “The estimation of SOH provides the useable battery capacity, which is a measure of capacity retention power of a battery and is, also, useful for accurate State of Charge (SoC) estimation of the battery.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9653759 B2 "Method And Apparatus For Optimized Battery Life Cycle Management" (Coates) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 2.
US 9846199 B2 "Health Management Of Rechargeable Batteries" (Vian) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 2.
US 20060113959 A1 "Rechargeable Battery Life Judging Method" (Honma) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1.
US 10969439 B2 "Diagnostic Device And Diagnostic Method For Battery" (Sun) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 3.
US 10916813 B2 "Battery Management Apparatus And Method For Calibrating A State Of Charge Of A Battery" (Cha) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 2.
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