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 to the claims, filed 07/09/2026, are accepted and appreciated by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/09/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1 and 6 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. There are no additional elements in the claim which reflect an improvement to the functioning of a technology or technical field. The improvement of increasing accuracy in determining the state of the battery is an improvement to the abstract idea of determining said state. Furthermore, determining the state of the battery is not found in the claim. The second improvement argued is also not reflected in the claim as the claim does not recite charging the battery. As seen in MPEP 2106.05 “the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” The fact patterns of Enfish and McCro are different than the instant application. In Enfish a specific improvement—a particular database technique—in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data was claimed. In the instant application no such technique was claimed. Lastly, the amendments of correcting the measurement error and estimating a second accumulated error are mathematical concepts as seen in Specification (Para(s). [0072-0076]). Therefore, the rejections stand as presented below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/09/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The combination of Takegami (US 20200033416 A1) and Fukushima (US 20200094707 A1) does not explicitly teach “calculating a correction value of the measurement error based on the first accumulated error and the residual electricity amount difference; correcting the measurement error based on the calculated correction value; and after correcting the measurement error, estimating a second accumulated error using the corrected measurement error.” Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Akabori (US 20130090871 A1) and Fukushima (US 20200094707 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1 and 6, the following bold limitations are considered abstract:
“estimating the residual electricity amount based on an integrated value of a current of the energy storage cell or the assembled battery;
estimating a first accumulated error of the residual electricity amount based on an integrated value of a measurement error of the current;
estimating a second residual electricity amount by a method that differs from estimating the first residual electricity amount;
calculating a residual electricity amount difference that is a difference between the first residual electricity amount estimated and the second residual electricity amount;
calculating a correction value of the measurement error based on the first accumulated error and the residual electricity amount difference;
correcting the measurement error based on the calculated correction value;
and after correcting the measurement error, estimating a second accumulated error using the corrected measurement error.”
The above bolded limitations are directed to abstract ideas and would fall within the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas. Estimating values from data through various methods as claimed amount to mathematical concepts as seen in para(s). [0051-0062] of the specification. Finding the difference between two methods is also just subtraction as seen in Para. [0069]. Furthermore, finding a correction value is also a mathematical concept as seen in Para. [0072] of the specification. Para(s). [0072-0076] show that correcting the measurement error using the correction value and estimating a second accumulated error are also mathematical concepts. According to MPEP 2106.04(C) “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements –
“based on an integrated value of a current of the energy storage cell or the assembled battery;”
Examiner views these limitations amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
As such Examiner does NOT view that the claims
-Improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field – see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP
2106.05(b)
-Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Moreover, Examiner views the claims to be merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to data from a battery.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “based on an integrated value of a current of the energy storage cell or the assembled battery;” amounts to generally linking the claim to a particular technological environment as seen in MPEP 2106.05(h).
Examiner further notes that such additional elements are viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by Takegami (US 20200033416 A1) and Fukushima (US 20200094707 A1).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way. As currently claimed, Examiner views that the additional elements do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, because the claim fails to recite clearly how the judicial exception is applied in a manner that does not monopolize the exception because the limitations “based on an integrated value of a current of the energy storage cell or the assembled battery;” just tie the claim to an assembled battery or energy storage cell.
Dependent claims 3-5 and 7-9 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below:
The dependent claims are directed to further calculation steps that involve correcting errors and comparing errors to a threshold which is viewed as a mathematical concept and a mental process respectively. Claim 4 includes estimating residual electricity amount by charging the battery which amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a well-known process. Claim 5 includes a measurement step which is viewed as mere data gathering.
Therefore, dependent claims 3-5 and 7-9 further limit the abstract idea with an abstract idea and thus the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akabori (US 20130090871 A1) as modified by Fukushima (US 20200094707 A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 6,
Akabori teaches,
estimating a residual electricity amount based on an integrated value of a current of the energy storage cell or the assembled battery; (Para. [0008] teaches “current-detecting section configured to detect a value of current flowing in the secondary battery;” Para. [0025] teaches “first estimating section 14 includes an accumulating circuit for accumulating or integrating current values obtained from a time of accumulation start. The first estimating section 14 reads the current-value detection signal of the current sensor 11, for example, with a predetermined period equal to 0.01 seconds” (i.e. SOC is viewed as a residual electricity amount as seen in Para. [0055] of the instant application.)
estimating the residual electricity amount by a method that differs from estimating the first residual amount; (Para. [0026] teaches “Then, the second estimating section 15 calculates a second estimate value SOC.sub.OCV, by using a previously-prepared control map between the open-circuit voltage and the second estimate value SOC.sub.OCV (see FIG. 4). Then, the second estimating section 15 outputs the calculated second estimate value SOC.sub.OCV to the selecting section 17.”
calculating a residual electricity amount difference that is a difference between the first residual electricity amount estimated and the second residual electricity amount estimated; (Para. [0008] teaches “wherein the first estimating section is configured to calculate a difference between the first estimate value and the second estimate value,”)
calculating a correction value of the measurement error based on the accumulated error and the residual electricity amount difference. (Para. [0035] teaches “in this embodiment is focused on a point that the first estimate value SOC.sub.I which is obtained by the current-accumulation method gradually stores (contains) its error due to the detection error of the current sensor 11.” (i.e. accumulation errors) Para. [0008] teaches “wherein the first estimating section is configured to calculate a difference between the first estimate value and the second estimate value, and to correct the first estimate value by correcting the accumulated value so as to gradually reduce the difference.” (i.e. accumulated value is measurement current.)
correcting the measurement error based on the calculated correction value; (Para. [0008] teaches “and correct the first estimate value by correcting the accumulated value so as to gradually reduce the difference.” (i.e. accumulated value is measurement current.))
Akabori does not explicitly teach,
estimating a first accumulated error of the residual electricity amount based on an integrated value of a measurement error of the current; after correcting the measurement error, estimating a second accumulated error using the corrected measurement error.
Fukushima teaches,
estimating a first accumulated error of the residual electricity amount based on an integrated value of a measurement error of the current; (Para. [0054] teaches “When the flow starts, the BM 50 calculates an SOC cumulative estimation error ε as determined by the current integration method (S10). The SOC cumulative estimation error ε can be calculated from the “measurement error” of the current sensor 41, the “energization time” of the battery 20, the “current value” of the battery 20, and the like.”)
after correcting the measurement error, estimating a second accumulated error using the corrected measurement error. (Fig. 6 shows that the accumulated error is calculated cyclically.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Akabori with estimating a first accumulated error of the residual electricity amount based on an integrated value of a measurement error of the current; after correcting the measurement error, estimating a second accumulated error using the corrected measurement error such as that of Fukushima.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Akabori, because as seen in Para. [0035] of Akabori the errors from the measurement sensor are stored in the accumulated values. Therefore, it would be obvious to estimate the accumulated error in order to keep track of it.
With respect to claim 3,
Akabori does not explicitly teach,
The estimation device according to claim 1, wherein the measurement error is corrected when a difference between the accumulated error and the residual electricity amount difference exceeds a threshold.
Fukushima teaches,
wherein the measurement error is corrected when a difference between the accumulated error and the residual electricity amount difference exceeds a threshold. (Para. [0059] teaches “The reset condition is a condition for determining whether or not to execute the reset process for resetting an error in the estimated SOC value as determined by the current integration method (S20). The reset condition is defined by the SOC cumulative estimation error ε as determined by the current integration method calculated in S10 and the threshold H, and the cumulative estimation error ε ≥ threshold H holds.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Akabori wherein the measurement error is corrected when a difference between the accumulated error and the residual electricity amount difference exceeds a threshold such as that of Fukushima.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Akabori, because only correcting the error after the error reaches some threshold would conserve computation power and as seen in para. [0073] of Fukushima “in this way, the execution frequency of the charge control performed for a reset process changes according to the required level of SOC estimation accuracy. Specifically, the lower the required level of SOC estimation accuracy, the lower the execution frequency. Therefore, it is possible to improve the fuel consumption of the vehicle while maintaining the required SOC estimation accuracy.”
With respect to claim 4,
Akabori does not explicitly teach,
The estimation device according to claim 1, wherein the estimation device estimates the second residual electricity amount of the energy storage cell or the assembled battery by a full charging detection method in which the energy storage cell or the assembled battery is fully charged.
Fukushima teaches,
wherein the estimation device estimates the second residual electricity amount of the energy storage cell or the assembled battery by a full charging detection method in which the energy storage cell or the assembled battery is fully charged. (Para. [0063] teaches “When the reset condition is reached, the BM 50 executes a reset process (S30) for resetting the error in the estimated SOC value as determined by the current integration method by the full charge detection method. The full charge detection method is a method in which the secondary battery 31 is charged to full charge, and the SOC of the secondary battery 31 when full charge is detected is estimated as “100%”.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Akabori wherein the estimation device estimates the second residual electricity amount of the energy storage cell or the assembled battery by a full charging detection method in which the energy storage cell or the assembled battery is fully charged such as that of Fukushima.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Akabori, because as seen in Para. [0068] of Fukushima “the full charge detection method has high SOC estimation accuracy.” Therefore, it would be obvious to use the full charge method in order to increase the accuracy of the SOC measurement.
With respect to claim 5,
Akabori further teaches,
An energy storage apparatus comprising: an energy storage cell or an assembled battery; and a current measurement unit that measures a current of the energy storage cell or the assembled battery; and the estimation device according to claim 1. (Fig. 1 shows a battery 2 and a current detecting unit as well as two estimation units.)
With respect to claims 7 and 8,
Akabori further teaches,
The estimation device according to claim 1 or the method according to claim 6, wherein the correction value of the measurement error is further calculated based on an accumulated elapsed time. (Para. [0064] teaches “Therefore, in order to bring the first estimate value SOC.sub.I close to the second estimate value SOC.sub.OCV (in order to gradually reduce the difference .DELTA.SOC therebetween) in the time period t5, the predetermined fixed value Z is added to the first estimate value SOC.sub.I calculated by the first estimating section 14, in cycles of predetermined duration” (i.e. duration is an elapsed time))
With respect to claim 9,
Akabori further teaches,
The estimation device according to claim 5, wherein the correction value of the measurement error is further calculated based on an accumulated elapsed time. (Para. [0064] teaches “Therefore, in order to bring the first estimate value SOC.sub.I close to the second estimate value SOC.sub.OCV (in order to gradually reduce the difference .DELTA.SOC therebetween) in the time period t5, the predetermined fixed value Z is added to the first estimate value SOC.sub.I calculated by the first estimating section 14, in cycles of predetermined duration” (i.e. duration is an elapsed time))
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA L FORRISTALL whose telephone number is 703-756-4554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM- 5 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, Andrew Schechter can be reached on 571-272-2302. 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.
/JOSHUA L FORRISTALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
