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 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 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Step 1 (MPEP 2106. 3, subsection II): The claims, after reviewing the entire application disclosure, considered as a whole, are determined to be directed to one of the statutory category (processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter): A method/apparatus/system.
Step 2A (MPEP 2106. 4, subsection II):
Prong One: The claims recite the limitations of calculating a correction value, estimating a first SOC and a second SOC, and integrating the measure values. These limitations are analyzed including concepts directed to “mathematical concepts” that falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a) Abstract Ideas: The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas: Mathematical concepts, Certain methods of organizing human activity, Mental processes). As a result, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Prong Two: The additional step/action/element recited in the claims:
- Correcting the measured value based on the calculated correction value (Insignificant post solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))
When viewed in combination of as a whole, the recited additional step/action/element does no more than add insignificant extra-solution to the judicial exception. As a result, this additional step/action/element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. These claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (MPEP 2106. 5: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more):
The additional step/action/element recited in the claims, correcting the measured value based on the calculated correction value, is well known in the field as evidenced by the cited prior art addressed in the rejection below, does not add an inventive concept to the claims because what it does is no more than adding insignificant post-solution activities to the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §
102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akabori et al. (US 2013/0090871).
Regarding to claims 1, 7-9:
Akabori et al. discloses a correction device that corrects a measured value of a current of an energy storage cell or an assembled battery in a vehicle (FIG. 1, element 2), wherein
the correction device (FIG. 1, element 16) is configured to calculate a correction value of the measured value of the current based on an SOC difference between a first SOC of the energy storage cell or the assembled battery estimated based on an integrated value of the measured values of the current (FIG. 1: The first estimating section 14 is based on the measured current from the current sensor 11. Abstract: The first estimating section calculates a remaining capacity of the battery based on an accumulated value of the current measured by the current sensor) and a second SOC of the energy storage cell or the assembled battery estimated based on a voltage of the energy storage cell or the assembled battery (FIG. 1: The second estimating section 15 is based on the measured voltage from the voltage sensor 12. Abstract: The second estimating section calculates the remaining capacity of the battery based on the voltage detected by the voltage sensor), and is configured to correct the measured value of the current based on the calculated correction value (Abstract: The difference between the first estimate value and the second estimate value is calculated to correct the accumulated value of the current values).
Regarding to claim 3: An energy storage apparatus comprising the correction device (FIG. 1, element 16); the energy storage cell or the assembled battery (FIG. 1, element 2); a current measurement unit (FIG. 1, element 11) that measures a current of the energy storage cell or the assembled battery; and an SOC estimation unit that estimates a first SOC of the energy storage cell or the assembled battery based on an integrated value of measured values of the currents after correction of the energy storage cell or the assembled battery (Abstract).
Regarding to claim 4: wherein the correction device corrects the measured value of the current in a case where the SOC difference exceeds a threshold (FIG. 2, step ST6).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akabori et al. (US 2013/0090871) in view of Fukushima (US 2020/0094707).
Akabori et al. discloses the claimed invention as discussed above except wherein the processing of estimating the second SOC is processing of estimating an SOC by charging the energy storage cell or the assembled battery to full charging.
Fukushima discloses a method for estimating the SOC of an energy storage device comprising a full charge detection for obtaining high SOC estimation accuracy (paragraph [0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Akabori’s estimation to perform the SOC estimation in the full charge mode to obtain high estimation accuracy as taught by Fukushima (paragraph [0068]).