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
The Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed September 16, 2025. Upon review, the Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments persuasive, and the amendments successfully overcome the prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The prior rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) was based on a finding that the claims failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention due to functional ambiguity, unclear antecedent basis, and lack of objective boundaries for certain recited limitations.
Applicant has amended the claims in a manner that directly and substantively addresses each of these deficiencies, as explained below.
Amended claim 1 now explicitly recites “a controller configured to execute instructions to perform operations.” This amendment clarifies the structural nature of the previously ambiguous functional language and provides a definite nexus between the claimed operations and a tangible system component. The amendment removes uncertainty as to where and how the recited operations are performed and clearly ties the functional limitations to a controller executing stored instructions.
As amended, claim 1 now particularly points out and distinctly claims the subject matter regarded as the invention, thereby resolving the indefiniteness concern previously identified.
Amended claims 2 and 12 now recite “the number of DTC occurrences related to the overcharge.” This amendment provides a clear and objective metric for the claimed determination, eliminating ambiguity as to what is being evaluated and how the determination is quantified.
The revised language supplies a definite antecedent basis and removes subjective interpretation regarding the nature of the diagnostic data, thereby satisfying the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Amended claims 7–10 and 17–20 now recite “a predetermined first threshold range” and “a predetermined second threshold range.” These amendments establish objective boundaries for the claimed threshold conditions, which were previously indefinite due to the absence of defined limits or reference points.
By explicitly reciting predetermined threshold ranges, the claims now clearly delineate the scope of the invention and inform a person of ordinary skill in the art of the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter with reasonable certainty.
In view of the foregoing amendments, the Examiner finds that the claims now comply with the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The amended claim language clearly defines the claimed subject matter, resolves the previously noted ambiguities, and provides sufficient structural and objective limitations to inform the public of the scope of the invention. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
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 11–20 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.
Representative claim 11 recites: A method of determining a state of a battery, the method comprising: obtaining, by a controller, at least one of first state information including a first state of health (SOH) related to diagnosis of the battery, second state information including a second SOH related to diagnosis of the battery, or third state information including a third SOH related to diagnosis of the battery; and determining, by the controller, the state of the battery based on at least one of the first state information, the second state information, or the third state information,
wherein: the first state information further includes a first safety level derived from a number of occurrences of a diagnostic trouble code (DTC) related to overcharge and over discharge of the battery, the second state information further includes a second safety level derived from a resistance, a reactance, and a Warburg impedance of the battery, and the third state information further includes a third safety level derived from a voltage change of the battery based on the battery being charged.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above. The remaining limitations are treated as additional elements.
Step 1 Statutory Category
Under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are 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. Claim 11 is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Step 2A Prong One Judicial Exception
Under Step 2A Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In Claim 11, the highlighted portions constitute an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, they recite limitations that fall into the abstract idea groupings identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG on SME), including:
A. Mental processes concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and or opinion.
For example, the steps of obtaining at least one of first state information including a first SOH, second state information including a second SOH, or third state information including a third SOH and determining the state of the battery based on at least one of the first state information, the second state information, or the third state information are treated as belonging to the mental processes grouping, as they encompass evaluation of available diagnostic information and a resulting judgment regarding a battery state.
B. Mathematical concepts including mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships.
For example, the wherein clauses reciting a first safety level derived from a number of DTC occurrences, a second safety level derived from resistance, reactance, and Warburg impedance, and a third safety level derived from a voltage change during charging are treated as belonging to the mathematical concepts grouping because they involve calculations, derivations, and relationships used to produce safety level values from measured or counted parameters.
Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations cover performance of the limitation in the mind or through mathematical computations, with nothing in the claim precluding them from practically being performed mentally or with routine calculations.
Accordingly, Claim 11 recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong Two Practical Application
Under Step 2A Prong Two, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 11 comprises the following additional elements:
A. obtaining, by a controller
B. determining, by the controller
C. the data sources implied by the wherein clauses (for example DTC occurrences related to overcharge and over discharge, resistance, reactance, Warburg impedance, and voltage change during charging)
These additional elements represent mere data gathering and generic automation, which is insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. According to the October 2019 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility, such steps are performed in order to gather data for the mental analysis step and are a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception, and thus are extra solution activity and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, the controller is recited generically and does not qualify as a particular machine because it is a conventional component used for routine data processing. The claim does not recite a specific asserted improvement to computer functionality, nor does it recite a particular technological improvement that is implemented by the controller beyond performing the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claim 11 is directed to a judicial exception and requires further analysis under Step 2B.
Step 2B Significantly More
Under Step 2B, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant art. The use of a controller to obtain diagnostic information and determine a battery state based on electrical parameters and derived values is conventional, as evidenced by the prior art of record, Kackner et al. (U.S. 2019/0210472 A1).
Kackner et al. discloses determining battery performance information, including capacity information, using electrical parameters and impedance related measurements derived from an impressed AC current with a predetermined frequency, and performing such determinations using conventional onboard components. Similar to the present claims, Kackner automates battery condition evaluation using conventional electrical parameters and derived values without improving the underlying computing technology or reciting a specific technological improvement to battery hardware.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, amount to nothing more than applying abstract data analysis using conventional components in a battery related context.
Therefore, Claim 11 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims
Claims 12–20 recite limitations similar to Claim 11 and are therefore rejected on the same grounds for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With regard to the dependent claims, Claims 12–20 (dependent on Claim 11 or intervening dependents) provide additional features that are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claim and do not add meaningful limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 12–13 recite storing and obtaining data using lookup tables and obtaining DTC occurrences from a battery management system (BMS), which further elaborate on abstract data processing, data lookup, and evaluation, and constitute mere data gathering and conventional information retrieval.
Claims 14–15 recite obtaining a Nyquist plot from electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) equipment, determining resistance, reactance, and Warburg impedance based on the Nyquist plot, and obtaining SOH or safety levels using lookup tables. These limitations further elaborate on mathematical concepts and calculations applied to received measurement data and do not add an additional element that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 16 recites determining the state of the battery based on the SOH and safety levels, which continues the abstract evaluation and judgment of diagnostic values.
Claims 17–20 recite classifying the battery into reuse or waste classes based on threshold ranges, threshold values, or average values of SOH and safety levels. These limitations are abstract mathematical comparisons and decision making and do not recite additional elements beyond generic automation that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, Claims 12–20 do not recite additional elements that reflect a practical application or qualify as significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regard to Claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As amended, independent claim 1 now expressly recites a controller configured to execute instructions to perform operations, thereby clearly defining the structural component responsible for performing the claimed functionality. This amendment resolves the prior indefiniteness concern by providing a clear linkage between the claimed operations and a tangible system element, such that the scope of the claim is now reasonably certain to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Further, amended claim 2 now recite the number of diagnostic trouble code occurrences related to an overcharge, which provides an objective and quantifiable basis for the claimed determination. This clarification removes ambiguity regarding the nature of the diagnostic information being evaluated and distinctly defines the claimed subject matter.
Additionally, amended claims 7-10 now recite a predetermined first threshold range and a predetermined second threshold range, thereby establishing clear and objective boundaries for the claimed threshold conditions. These amendments define measurable limits and remove subjective interpretation of the threshold parameters, resulting in claims that distinctly claim the invention with reasonable certainty.
The dependent claims further limit the independent claims by reciting specific operational parameters, conditions, and relationships that are fully supported by the specification and clearly defined in scope.
In view of the foregoing amendments, the claims now particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention. The claims are clear, definite, and supported by the specification, and the prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been overcome.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance."
5. During an extensive search (see PE2E attached), the Examiner reviewed the following additional references relevant to the applicant's disclosure. However, these references do not anticipate the claims, nor do they, in combination, render the previously allowable limitations of claims 1-10 obvious
U.S. 2023/0133120 A1 to Jang et al. disclose a big-data-based battery diagnostic system that includes a first vehicle having a first battery module disposed therein, a battery data server having a processor configured to collect first state information related to the first battery module provided from the first vehicle, to learn the collected first state information, and to set a reference voltage for the first vehicle based on the learned first state information, and a second vehicle configured to receive the reference voltage from the battery data server and having a second battery module disposed therein. The second vehicle is configured to measure second state information related to the second battery module, compare the measured second state information with the reference voltage to analyze the same, and apply a result value of the comparison and analysis to a preset diagnostic level range to diagnose a current state of the second vehicle.
U.S. 2022/0158255 A1 to Choi et al. disclose a battery management apparatus and method, which may shorten a transmission time of a plurality of response information by flexibly selecting a communication channel. According to an aspect of the present disclosure, transmission efficiency for a plurality of response information may be improved because a communication channel may be flexibly selected according to a data amount of response information to be transmitted. In addition, according to an aspect of the present disclosure, there is an advantage that a communication channel may be flexibly selected according to a state of each of a plurality of communication channels as well as the data amount of response information.
U.S. 2019/0288520 A1 to Abdel-Monem et al. disclose a modular management system for balancing, testing and protecting rechargeable energy storage cells connected in series. Different energy storage cell technologies can be connected in the same battery pack and they can be completely balanced by using one or both of two balancing modes. In addition, the modular management system includes bidirectional and unidirectional switches optionally connected to a single ohmic device such as a resistor to efficiently execute a Dual Function Process (DFP) (i.e., passive/active balancing, and testing mode for SoH/SoC estimation) preferably without using any extra or external components (i.e., capacitor or inductor or DC/DC converter or power supply). The systems and methods decrease the balancing time, energy loss, heat loss and complexity needed to monitor, protect and balance energy storage cell systems such as battery systems, and thus decreasing the overall cost.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUNG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1966. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon- Friday 8AM - 4:00PM Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Phan can be reached on 571-272-7924. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Examiner: /Trung Q. Nguyen/- Art 2858
December 29, 2025
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858