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 amendment and response filed 7/19/2026 has been entered and made record. This application contains 13 pending claims.
Claims 1, 3, 8-9, and 13 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 12 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Claim 9 has been amended, and the amended claim limitations overcome the claim objection in claim 9. Thus, the claim objection in claim 9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/19/2026 regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 in claims 1-9, and 12-17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Independent claims 1 and 8-9 have been amended and incorporated aspects of allowable claims 2 and 12, and thus, overcome the 103 rejections. Therefore, the 103 claims rejections in claims 1-9, and 12-17 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/19/2026 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 in claim 1-9, and 12-17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on page 8 of the remark filed on 7/19/2026 that “… In the Claim 1, as amended, the steps of determining the battery health state are not merely "mathematical concepts" or "mental processes" performed in isolation. Instead, the method is strictly applied to a charging device and involves acquiring specific vehicle information (e.g., VIN code) in response to a physical event (a charging start operation), and dynamically calculating the state of health based on tangible charging parameters.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. The steps of “determining a target battery capacity of the vehicle to be charged according to the vehicle information”; “determining a battery health state of the vehicle to be charged according to the charging parameter, the SOC information, and the target battery capacity”; “determining manufacturer information, vehicle type information, and production time of the vehicle to be charged according to the VIN code”; “determining an initial battery capacity of the vehicle to be charged according to the manufacturer information, vehicle type information, and production time”; “determining a time interval between the production time and time of the charging start operation”; and “determining the target battery capacity according to the time interval, vehicle information, and initial battery capacity” are a combination of a mathematical concept and a mental process, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The applicant argues on page 8 of the remark filed that “… By combining the specific steps of determining manufacturer information, vehicle type information, and production time from the VIN code, and calculating the target battery capacity based on the time interval elapsed (as now incorporated into the independent claims), the claim recites a specific, concrete technical improvement in vehicle battery management. It improves the determination efficiency and accuracy of the battery health state within the specialized technical field of electric vehicle charging technology. Therefore, the amended Claim 1 as a whole reflects an integration of any alleged abstract mathematical idea into a practical application, satisfying Step 2A, Prong Two of the Eligibility Guidance.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. Practical application can be demonstrated by additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements “acquiring vehicle information of a vehicle to be charged in response to a charging start operation”, and “acquiring, in response to a charging end operation, a charging parameter of the charging device and SOC information of the vehicle to be charged within a target charging period” are considered necessary data gathering and thus, not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e., retrieving the … data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional elements “the target charging period comprising a time period between the charging start operation and the charging end operation”, and “wherein the vehicle information comprises a VIN code, and the determining a target battery capacity of the vehicle to be charged according to the vehicle information” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The alleged improvement in the determination efficiency and accuracy of the battery health state within the specialized technical field of electric vehicle charging technology relates to improvement to the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the current claims do not recite additional elements that are indicative of integration of an abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 8 and 9 recite subject matter that are similar to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claims are also patent ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, and 12-17 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Therefore, claims 2-7, and 12-17 are also patent ineligible.
Hence, the Examiner submits that the rejections of Claims 1, 2-9, and 12-17 are proper.
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, 3-9, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “A battery health state calculation method applied to a charging device, the method comprising:
acquiring vehicle information of a vehicle to be charged in response to a charging start operation;
determining a target battery capacity of the vehicle to be charged according to the vehicle information;
acquiring, in response to a charging end operation, a charging parameter of the charging device and SOC information of the vehicle to be charged within a target charging period, the target charging period comprising a time period between the charging start operation and the charging end operation; and
determining a battery health state of the vehicle to be charged according to the charging parameter, the SOC information, and the target battery capacity;
wherein the vehicle information comprises a VIN code, and the determining a target battery capacity of the vehicle to be charged according to the vehicle information comprises:
determining manufacturer information, vehicle type information, and production time of the vehicle to be charged according to the VIN code;
determining an initial battery capacity of the vehicle to be charged according to the manufacturer information, vehicle type information, and production time;
determining a time interval between the production time and time of the charging start operation; and
determining the target battery capacity according to the time interval, vehicle information, and initial battery capacity.”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process for claim 1).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions).
In claim 1, the steps identified in bold type are a combination of a mathematical concept and a mental processes, therefore, they are considered to be abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim comprises the following additional elements:
acquiring vehicle information of a vehicle to be charged in response to a charging start operation: acquiring, in response to a charging end operation, a charging parameter of the charging device and SOC information of the vehicle to be charged within a target charging period, the target charging period comprising a time period between the charging start operation and the charging end operation; wherein the vehicle information comprises a VIN code, and the determining a target battery capacity of the vehicle to be charged according to the vehicle information.
The additional elements “acquiring vehicle information of a vehicle to be charged in response to a charging start operation”, and “acquiring, in response to a charging end operation, a charging parameter of the charging device and SOC information of the vehicle to be charged within a target charging period” represent necessary data gathering and do not integrate the limitations into a practical application. The additional elements “the target charging period comprising a time period between the charging start operation and the charging end operation”, and “wherein the vehicle information comprises a VIN code, and the determining a target battery capacity of the vehicle to be charged according to the vehicle information” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, “acquiring vehicle information of a vehicle to be charged in response to a charging start operation”, and “acquiring, in response to a charging end operation, a charging parameter of the charging device and SOC information of the vehicle to be charged within a target charging period” are considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e., acquiring data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
For example, the target charging period comprising a time period between the charging start operation and the charging end operation is disclosed by “Wang CN 109917303A”, [0053], [0078], [0098]; and “Niu CN112782601A”, [0016], [0017], [0018], [0037].
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 8 and 9 recite subject matter that is similar or analogous to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claims are also patent ineligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 3-7, and 13-17 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not patent eligible.
Examiner' s Note
Regarding claims 1, 3-9, and 13-17, the most pertinent prior arts are “Wang CN 109917303A”, “Saito US 20190009683”, “Ikui US 20220045546”, “Niu CN 112782601A“, “Ko US 20180118049”, “Wang CN 109298348A, hereinafter as Wang 2”, and “Arai US 2004008031”.
As to claims 1, 8, and 9, Wang teaches a processor, a memory, a communication interface, and a communication bus, the processor, the memory, and the communication interface completing communication with each other through the communication bus (Wang, FIGs. 11 and 12); and
the memory being used for storing at least one executable instruction that causes the processor to execute a method (Wang, [0154]);
acquiring vehicle information of a vehicle to be charged in response to a charging start operation (Wang, [0053] discloses a vehicle can send an estimation request to a charging station at any time before, during (i.e., a charging start operation - emphasis added by Examiner), or after charging is completed, and the battery-related data can be obtained from the vehicle in real time, and vehicle information includes data such as the vehicle's brand and model):
determining a target battery capacity of the vehicle to be charged (Wang, [0019] discloses “Calculate SOH to estimate the charging capacity Qch of the charging segment”);
acquiring, in response to a charging end operation, a charging parameter of the charging device and SOC information of the vehicle to be charged within a target charging period (Wang, [0053] and [0078] disclose a vehicle can send an estimation request to a charging station at any time before, during, or after charging is completed (i.e., a charging end operation - emphasis added by Examiner), and the battery-related data such as battery temperature, state of charge, and individual cell voltage can be obtained from the vehicle in real time; and estimate the charging capacity Qch of the charging segment, Qch = QN * ΔSOC, where ΔSOC is the SOC difference between the beginning and end of the charging period),
the target charging period comprising a time period between the charging start operation and the charging end operation (Wang, [0078] discloses calculate the SOH to estimate the charging capacity Qch of the charging segment, Qch = QN * ΔSOC, where QN represents the initial capacity of the battery life, and ΔSOC is the SOC difference between the beginning and end of the charging period, ΔSOC = SOC end - SOC beginning); and
determining a battery health state of the vehicle to be charged according to the charging parameter, the SOC information, and the target battery capacity (Wang, [0053] and [0077] disclose the battery-related data such as state of charge, individual cell voltage, and battery temperature are used to estimate the battery's SOH, and include state of charge, individual cell voltage, and battery temperature. Estimating SOH when the charging segment is located within the linear segment of the standard curve based on the charging voltage (i.e., the charging parameter - emphasis added by Examiner); the charging capacity of the battery is not less than a certain set value, for example: the charging capacity of the battery is not less than 15% (i.e., the target battery capacity - emphasis added by Examiner) of the initial capacity. This setting is to ensure the accuracy of the battery capacity estimation; the charging current in the charging segment is a constant value (i.e., the charging parameter - emphasis added by Examiner), and the current magnitude is consistent with the current of the standard curve).
Saito teaches determining a target battery capacity of the vehicle to be charged according to the vehicle information (Saito, [0042] discloses each time the charging of an electric vehicle 1 is executed at the charging station 2, information on the rated capacity of the battery (i.e., the target battery capacity - emphasis added by Examiner) of the electric vehicle 1 is stored in the information storage unit 23 in addition to the above charged capacity information so as to be associated with the identification information of the electric vehicle 1, and the information on the rated capacity of the battery can be acquired by crosschecking the car registration information therewith battery (i.e., the rated or target battery capacity to be charged can be determined according to the car registration information or the vehicle information - emphasis added by Examiner)).
Ikui teaches determining a time interval between the production time and time of the charging start operation (Ikui, [0064]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “wherein the vehicle information comprises a VIN code, and the determining a target battery capacity of the vehicle to be charged according to the vehicle information comprises: determining manufacturer information, vehicle type information, and production time of the vehicle to be charged according to the VIN code”,
“determining an initial battery capacity of the vehicle to be charged according to the manufacturer information, vehicle type information, and production time”, and
“determining a time interval between the production time and time of the charging start operation”; and
“determining the target battery capacity according to the time interval, vehicle information, and initial battery capacity” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 3-7, and 13-17 are also distinguished over the prior art for at least the same reason as claims 1, 8, and 9.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1, 3-9, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101; and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 EST.
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, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/LAL CE MANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights