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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 includes the limitations “first processing,” “second processing,” “third processing,” “fourth processing,” and “fifth processing,” which are grammatically unclear. To increase clarity they should read “a first process,” “a second process,” “a third process,” “a fourth process,” “a fifth process.”
Claims 2-4 include the processing steps which are grammatically unclear as pointed out in claim 1. The limitations should be changed to match the changes made to claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 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:
“first processing of estimating the residual electricity amount based on an integrated value of a current of the energy storage cell or the assembled battery;
second processing of estimating an accumulated error of the residual electricity amount based on an integrated value of a measurement error of the current;
third processing of estimating the residual electricity amount by a method that differs from the first processing;
fourth processing of calculating a residual electricity amount difference that is a difference between the residual electricity amount estimated in the first processing and the residual electricity amount estimated in the third processing;
and fifth processing of calculating a correction value of the measurement error based on the accumulated error and the residual electricity amount difference.”
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. 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
-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 2-5 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 error and comparing error 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 2-5 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takegami (US 20200033416 A1) as modified by Fukushima (US 20200094707 A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 6,
Takegami teaches,
first processing of estimating the residual electricity amount based on an integrated value of a current of the energy storage cell or the assembled battery; (Para. [0016] teaches “a current integration method parameter estimation unit which estimates a current integration method parameter including a capacity retention rate, based on the detected current” Para. [0002] teaches “a current integration method is known, which can estimate a present SOC, where measurement currents are integrated and divided by a full charge capacity (FCC: Full Charge Capacity).” (I.e. SOC is viewed as a residual electricity amount as seen in Para. [0055] of the instant application.)
third processing of estimating the residual electricity amount by a method that differs from the first processing; (Para. [0067] teaches “an OCV estimation method state of charge SOCv which the OCV estimation method SOC estimation unit 104 outputs,”
fourth processing of calculating a residual electricity amount difference that is a difference between the residual electricity amount estimated in the first processing and the residual electricity amount estimated in the third processing; (Para. [0071] teaches “The subtraction part 302 subtracts an amended current integration method state of charge SOCi, which the amended current integration method SOC estimation part 301 outputs, from an OCV estimation method state of charge SOCv, which the OCV estimation method SOC estimation unit 104 outputs, and outputs the value of the remainder.”
and fifth processing of calculating a correction value of the measurement error based on the accumulated error and the residual electricity amount difference. (Para. [0076] teaches “The amended current integration method state of charge SOCi includes initial state of charge estimation errors; high frequency errors, excluding the current offset which is contained in the detected current I; and almost constant low frequency errors, that are induced by the storage of small estimation errors and the like, which are included in the estimated current integration method parameters;” (i.e. accumulation errors) Para. [0075] teaches “The adder part 304 calculates an estimated state of charge SOCest, which is computed by adding an amended current integration method state of charge SOCi which the amended current integration method SOC estimation part 301 outputs, and a value which the low pass filter 303 outputs. Owing to the effects of the subtraction part 302, the low pass filter 303, and the adder part 304, the calculated estimated state of charge SOCest will become a state of charge estimate value, which has accuracy far higher than the amended current integration method state of charge SOCi.”
Takegami does not explicitly teach,
second processing of estimating an accumulated error of the residual electricity amount based on an integrated value of a measurement error of the current;
Fukushima teaches,
second processing of estimating an 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.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takegami with second processing of estimating an accumulated error of the residual electricity amount based on an integrated value of a measurement error of the current such as that of Fukushima.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Takegami, because as seen in Para. [0004] of Takegami “Especially, because the errors in the current offset have the tendency to be integrated, estimation errors of the SOC become larger with the passage of time.” Therefore, it would be obvious to estimate the accumulated error in order to keep track of it. Furthermore, Para. [0076] shows that errors are included in the integration measurement includes estimation errors and therefore they must have been calculated.
With respect to claim 2,
Takegami further teaches,
wherein the estimation device performs sixth processing of correcting the measurement error based on the correction value calculated in the fifth processing, (Abstract teaches “and correcting an error in the estimated SOC value, and the change unit changes the correction condition according to a state of the energy storage device.”)
and the estimation device performs, after performing the sixth processing, the second processing using the corrected measurement error. (Fig. 4 shows that the measurement is cyclic and after performing the correction the process restarts)
With respect to claim 3,
Takegami does not explicitly teach,
The estimation device according to claim 2, wherein the estimation device performs the sixth processing so as to correct the measurement error in a case where a difference between the accumulated error and the residual electricity amount difference exceeds a threshold.
Fukushima teaches,
wherein the estimation device performs the sixth processing so as to correct the measurement error in a case where 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 Takegami wherein the estimation device performs the sixth processing so as to correct the measurement error in a case where 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 Takegami, 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,
Takegami does not explicitly teach,
The estimation device according to claim 1, wherein in the third processing, the estimation device estimates the 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 in the third processing, the estimation device estimates the 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 Takegami wherein in the third processing, the estimation device estimates the 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 Takegami, 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,
Takegami 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 rechargeable battery and a current detecting unit as well as two estimation units.)
Conclusion
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
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857