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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Amendment under 37 CFR 1.111 (“Response”) on 4 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The battery in the claim is not improved but the ability to predict the lifetime of the battery is improved, which is an improvement to the abstract idea. Moreover, each of the elements whether individually or in combination are no more than generic computer components (i.e. at least one processor and memory), and do not represent any computer functions (measuring capacity, trend analysis or lifetime predicting) beyond what processors typically perform and therefore do not provide significantly more, i.e., an inventive concept, to the claim. Even further, predicting the lifetime of the battery is not a practical application, but rather replacing the battery might be, however replacing the battery is not recited in the claims nor would the replacing be performed by the processor but rather probably by a human and therefore not part of the claimed system or method. For these reasons, the claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant makes arguments which seem to narrow the BRI of what “temporary capacity recovery” could be by adding terms of phenomenon and anomalous. While temporary could be a phenomenon or anomalous detection, temporary could be gradual or over a long period in time. However, to expedite prosecution, Examiner has proceeded to combine Fan with Kwon (as originally rejected to claims 4-5 and 10) to teach an ‘anomalous’ temporary capacity recovery as narrowly argued by the Applicant as teaching temporary capacity recovery. “Referring to Figure 3, the X-axis of the SOH data represents the charge/discharge cycle, and the Y-axis represents data indicating the relative ratio of the current remaining capacity to the maximum capacity of the battery” (Kwon: ¶ 0031).
PNG
media_image1.png
354
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The “preprocessing unit (30) can detect and correct outliers in SOH data. The preprocessing unit (30) can detect the point where the SOH value in the SOH data recovers after exceeding a preset slope and decreasing to less than 0.8 as an outlier. There is a point where the SOH value increases rapidly in an impulse format and then decreases again. The preprocessing unit (30) can detect this point as an outlier and correct the error” (Kwon: ¶ 0032). “The preprocessing unit (30) can correct the outlier using the average value of the SOH values of the cycles before and after the outlier. The preprocessing unit (30) can correct the SOH value of an outlier by replacing the average value of the previous and subsequent SOH values of a point determined to be an outlier with the SOH value of the outlier” (Kwon: ¶ 0033). Kwon clearly teaching an outlier in capacity or a temporary capacity recovery section and further creating alternative data based on test data before and after the outlier/temporary capacity recovery section. Applicant has already argued Kwon does not teach this limitation (Response: pg. 12), however Applicant’s arguments do not explain how the techniques described are any different than the claimed limitations. Removing noise or measurement errors as argued by the Applicant seems to be exactly what the claims are describing, especially when also considering the limitations of claims 4 and 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant has amended claims 1 and 7 to include a processor and claim 1 to include memory, but no such description was described in the specification as originally filed. Claims 2-6 and 8-10 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for being dependent on rejected claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 1-10 are directed to determining a temporary capacity recovery section by analyzing charge/discharge test data, creating alternative data based on test data and predicting lifetime of the battery based on data which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process and a machine.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Exemplary claim 1 (and similarly claim 7) recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A battery lifetime predicting apparatus, comprising:
At least one processor; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to implement:
a capacity recovery section-determining unit configured to determine a temporary capacity recovery section by analyzing charge/discharge test data of a battery;
a trend analysis unit configured to create alternative data based on test data before and after the temporary capacity recovery section determined by the capacity recovery section-determining unit, and analyzing a trend of the test data by reflecting the alternative data; and
a lifetime predicting unit configured to predict a lifetime of the battery based on the alternative data outputted from the trend analysis unit.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are mental processes performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “battery lifetime predicting apparatus”, “at least one processor”, “a memory”, “a battery”, “a capacity recovery section-determining unit”, “a trend analysis unit”, and “a lifetime predicting unit” (the units could simply represent software and are not necessarily hardware components) nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “battery lifetime predicting apparatus”, “at least one processor”, “memory”, “battery”, “capacity recovery section-determining unit”, “trend analysis unit”, and “lifetime predicting unit” language, “determine a temporary capacity recovery section by analyzing charge/discharge test data… create alternative data based on test data before and after the temporary capacity recovery section determined… analyzing a trend of the test data by reflecting the alternative data; and … predict a lifetime of the battery based on the alternative data outputted…,” in the context of this claim encompasses mental processes. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps which could be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement of opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites five additional elements – “battery lifetime predicting apparatus”, “at least one processor”, “a memory”, “a battery”, “a capacity recovery section-determining unit”, “a trend analysis unit”, and “a lifetime predicting unit”. The “battery lifetime predicting apparatus”, “processor”, “memory”, “battery”, “capacity recovery section-determining unit”, “trend analysis unit”, and “lifetime predicting unit” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
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 element of a “battery lifetime predicting apparatus”, “processor”, “memory”, “a battery”, “a capacity recovery section-determining unit”, “a trend analysis unit”, and “a lifetime predicting unit” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background does not provide any indication that the “battery lifetime predicting apparatus”, “processor”, “memory”, “battery”, “capacity recovery section-determining unit”, “trend analysis unit”, and “lifetime predicting unit” are anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Publication No. 110095721A to Fan et al. (“Fan”) in view of Korean Publication No. 10-2019-0043457 A to Kwon et al. (“Kwon”, originally cited in IDS filed 19 December 2023).
As per claims 1 and 7, the claimed subject matter that is met by Fan includes:
A battery lifetime predicting apparatus, comprising (Fan: Figs. 1-2):
at least one processor (Fan: ¶¶ 0083-0085); and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to implement (Fan: ¶¶ 0083-0085):
a capacity recovery section-determining unit configured to determine a temporary capacity recovery section by analyzing charge/discharge test data of a battery (Fan: ¶¶ 0015-0019, 0027, 0042, 0060-0061 “returned electric vehicle batteries, at room temperature (25±2℃), perform a preset number of charge-discharge cycles (e.g., 3-5 times) at regular intervals (e.g., 15 or 30 days), which is recorded as one cycle. Test the battery capacity, open circuit voltage, AC and DC internal resistance in each cycle, and calculate the battery capacity retention rate and capacity recovery rate”);
a trend analysis unit configured to create alternative data based on test data before and after the temporary capacity recovery section determined by the capacity recovery section-determining unit, and analyzing trend of the test data by reflecting the alternative data (Fan: ¶¶ 0027-0029, 0042-0044 and 0061-0064 “Charge the retired electric vehicle battery to full charge at a rate of 0.2-0.5C, then discharge the battery to 20-50% charge at a rate of 0.2-0.5C, and then discharge the battery for 10-30 seconds at a rate of 1.5-3.0C. Record the voltage at the beginning and end of the discharge and calculate the DC internal resistance of the battery”); and
a lifetime predicting unit configured to predict a lifetime of the battery based on the alternative data outputted from the trend analysis unit (Fan: ¶¶ 0033, 0045 and 0064-0066 “based on the charge/discharge cycle and the battery parameter values, the electric vehicle battery life is predicted”).
Fan fails to specifically teach an ‘anomalous’ temporary capacity recovery section. The Examiner provides Kwon to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Kwon includes:
a capacity recovery section-determining unit configured to determine a temporary capacity recovery section by analyzing charge/discharge test data of a battery (Kwon: ¶¶ 0031-0033 and Fig. 3)
a trend analysis unit configured to create alternative data based on test data before and after the temporary capacity recovery section determined by the capacity recovery section-determining unit, and analyzing trend of the test data by reflecting the alternative data (Kwon: ¶¶ 0032-0033)
a lifetime predicting unit configured to predict a lifetime of the battery based on the alternative data outputted from the trend analysis unit (Kwon: ¶¶ 0031-0033).
Fan teaches a system and method for predicting a lifetime of a battery. Kwon teaches a comparable system and method for predicting a lifetime of a battery that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Kwon offers the embodiment of ‘anomalous’ temporary capacity recovery section. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the ‘anomalous’ temporary capacity recovery section as disclosed by Kwon to the capacity data as taught by Fan for the predicted result of improved systems and methods for predicting a lifetime of a battery. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
As per claims 2 and 8, the claimed subject matter that is met by Fan and Kwon includes:
wherein the capacity recovery section-determining unit determines a section where the charge/discharge test data of the battery is changed by at least a certain value as a capacity recovery section (Fan: ¶¶ 0060-0066 “Charge and discharge the retired electric vehicle battery 3-5 times at a rate of 0.2-0.5C. Finally, charge the battery to full charge and record the charge and discharge capacity of the battery. Test and record the open circuit voltage of the battery”).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Fan and Kwon are discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 7, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 3 and 9, the claimed subject matter that is met by Fan and Kwon includes:
wherein the capacity recovery section-determining unit determines, as the temporary capacity recovery section, a section where change of the charge/discharge test data of the battery shows an increment by at least 0.2% compared to a previous capacity (Fan: ¶¶ 0060-0066 “Charge and discharge the retired electric vehicle battery 3-5 times at a rate of 0.2-0.5C. Finally, charge the battery to full charge and record the charge and discharge capacity of the battery. Test and record the open circuit voltage of the battery” and Kwon: ¶¶ 0032 and 0040).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Fan and Kwon are discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 7, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 4 and 10, the claimed subject matter that is met by Fan and Kwon includes:
wherein the creating of the alternative data by the trend analysis unit based on the test data before and after the temporary capacity recovery section is performed by one of methods of replacing the section with a previous trend line of the temporary capacity recovery section, replacing by applying a particle filter, and excluding the temporary capacity recovery section and shifting a section after the temporary capacity recovery section to be contiguous with a section before the temporary capacity recovery section (Kwon: ¶¶ 0032-0033)
The motivation for combining the teachings of Fan and Kwon are discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 7, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 5, the claimed subject matter that is met by Fan and Kwon includes:
wherein the trend analysis unit analyzes the trend of the test data by using one of methods of moving an average depending on increases of charge/discharge cycles, moving the average on differential data depending on increases of the charge/discharge cycles, or moving the average on log data depending on the increases of the charge/discharge cycles (Kwon: ¶ 0033-0034)
The motivation for combining the teachings of Fan and Kwon are discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 7, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 6, the claimed subject matter that is met by Fan and Kwon includes:
wherein the lifetime predicting unit predicts the lifetime of the battery based on a semi-empirical aging model (Fan: ¶ 0004).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Fan and Kwon are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
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 Hunter Wilder whose telephone number is (571)270-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights