DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-23 are pending and presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The representative claim 1 recites:
An abnormal cell detection device, comprising:
a storage device that stores cell voltage values detected for each rest period after discharge from a battery bank including a plurality of battery racks; and
a control device configured to: determine a maximum cell voltage value and a first minimum cell voltage value in each battery rack for each rest period;
determine a first difference value between the maximum cell voltage value and the first minimum cell voltage value in each battery rack for each rest period;
select a target battery rack by statistically analyzing a change in the first difference value during a predetermined period;
determine a second difference value between an average cell voltage and a second minimum cell voltage value in each battery module of the target battery rack for each rest period; and
determine a battery module including an abnormal cell in the target battery rack based on the second difference value.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
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. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Next, under 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations in the claim are only: a storage device that stores cell voltage values detected for each rest period after discharge from a battery bank including a plurality of battery racks; and a control device. The limitation “a storage device that stores cell voltage values detected for each rest period after discharge from a battery bank including a plurality of battery racks” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a computer structures performing a generic computer function of storing information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
Further, the limitation “a control device” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a computer structures or device performing a generic computer function of processing information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as storing and processing data using generic computer/computing components). Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, US 20220026499 (hereinafter, Zhang), (Abstract, [0069]), and Kamijio et al. US 20250180649 (hereinafter, Kamijio) ([0006]). Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-23, add further details of the identified abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 13, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1.
Claim Objection
5. Claims 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 language “average vale” should read “average value”. Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s Notes
6. Claims 1-23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, and claim objection, set forth in this Office action.
7. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang et al. (US 20220026499) discloses a method for monitoring the health condition of a battery pack. The method includes: obtaining data of voltage difference between the maximum and minimum voltages of the battery cells within a battery pack of an electric vehicle; determining an alert value based on the data of voltage difference, wherein the alert value is a combined value of the following factors: the slope of the mean battery cell voltage difference within a preset period of past time, the predicted mean battery cell voltage difference within a preset period of future time, and the minimum of battery cell voltage difference; generating a predictive maintenance notice for the battery pack of the electric vehicle when the alert value is larger than a threshold value. Kamijio et al. (US 20250180649) discloses a battery diagnosis system includes a controller that obtains operation data of a power storage device including a plurality of secondary battery cells, computes a battery state value on the basis of the obtained operation data, and diagnoses a state of the power storage device on the basis of the computed battery state value, and an output device that outputs a result of the diagnosis of the power storage device performed by the controller. The operation data includes a minimum value and a maximum value of cell voltages of the plurality of secondary battery cells constituting the power storage device. The controller computes a minimum cell capacity or a maximum cell resistance as the battery state value on the basis of the minimum value of the cell voltages measured when a charge/discharge state of the power storage device is a first state and the maximum value of the cell voltages measured when the charge/discharge state of the power storage device is a second state. Chen et al. (CN 116106757A) discloses a battery cell detection method. The method comprises the following steps: acquiring target voltage data of a battery cell, wherein the target voltage data of the battery cell are target voltage values of the battery cell at a plurality of moments; determining a voltage deviation value of each moment corresponding to the battery cell according to the target voltage data of the battery cell; and detecting whether the battery cell is abnormal or not according to the voltage deviation value. The prior art of record does not teach or make obvious the claim invention in claims 1 and 13 “determine a second difference value between an average cell voltage and a second minimum cell voltage value in each battery module of the target battery rack for each rest period; and determine a battery module including an abnormal cell in the target battery rack based on the second difference value” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYOB HAGOS whose telephone number is (571)272-3508. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. 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.
/Eyob Hagos/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights