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 1-20 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 1-20 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:
A method for providing an estimated present state of charge of a battery, comprising:
measuring a battery parameter including an open circuit voltage;
performing an estimation stage including:
a state prediction step including calculating a first state of charge of the battery utilizing an initial state of charge of the battery and the battery parameter; an error covariance step including calculating an error covariance prediction for the first state of charge of the battery; and
performing a correction stage including:
an observation matrix update step including mapping the open circuit voltage of the battery to the initial state of charge of the battery to obtain an open circuit voltage-initial state of charge confidence slope;
a Kalman gain step including calculating a Kalman gain of the error covariance prediction for the first state of charge of the battery utilizing the open circuit voltage-initial state of charge confidence slope;
an electromotive force mapping step including mapping the open circuit voltage including electromotive force to the first state of charge;
a measurement estimate update step including correcting the first state of charge utilizing the battery parameter, the Kalman gain of the error covariance prediction for the first state of charge of the battery, and the mapping the open circuit voltage to the first state of charge to provide the estimated present state of charge.
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 limitation in the claim is only: measuring a battery parameter including an open circuit voltage. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic data gathering or collecting step) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic electric circuit or sensor.
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 element is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic data gathering or collecting step). Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Lim US 11231466 (hereinafter, Lim), (Abstract, Fig. 2), and Rayappan et al. US 20230358810 (hereinafter, Rayappan), (see, Fig. 1). Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19, add further details of the identified abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 11, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1 as explained above.
Independent claim 20, recites the limitations “measuring electrical parameters of a plurality of battery cells of the battery pack, the electrical parameters of the plurality of battery cells including an open circuit voltage, an ohmic resistance, a RC pair resistance, a RC pair capacitance, a voltage across a RC pair, a terminal voltage, and a fuel cell output current; calculating a first state of charge for each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells utilizing an initial state of charge and the electrical parameters; calculating an error covariance prediction for the first state of charge of each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells; calculating an estimated present state of charge of each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells by: mapping the open circuit voltage to the initial state of charge to obtain an open circuit voltage-initial state of charge confidence slope, calculating a Kalman gain of the error covariance prediction utilizing the open circuit voltage-initial state of charge confidence slope, mapping the open circuit voltage (incorporating EMF) to the first state of charge, and correcting the first state of charge of each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells by utilizing selected ones of the electrical parameters, and the Kalman gain, and a mapping of a resulting voltage to the first state of charge to provide the estimated present state of charge of each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells; averaging the estimated present state of charge for each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells to provide an estimated present state of charge of the battery pack; updating the error covariance prediction for each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells utilizing the Kalman gain; and utilizing the estimated present state of charge of each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells as the initial state of charge in a subsequent iteration of the method to provide the estimated present state of charge for the battery pack.”
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 limitation in the claim is only: measuring electrical parameters of a plurality of battery cells of the battery pack. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., data gathering or collecting step) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic electric circuit and/or sensor.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 20 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the additional element is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., generic data gathering or collecting step). Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Lim US 11231466 (hereinafter, Lim), (Abstract, Fig. 2), and Rayappan et al. US 20230358810 (hereinafter, Rayappan), (see, Fig. 1). Therefore, claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Objection
5. Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 recites “Measuring electrical parameters of a plurality of battery cells….” should read “[[M]] measuring electrical parameters of a plurality of battery cells….” Appropriate correction is required.
Further, the limitation “mapping the open circuit voltage (incorporating EMF) to the first state of charge….” should read “mapping the open circuit voltage including electromotive force (EMF) to the first state of charge…” for clarity purpose. Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s Notes
6. Claims 1-20 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. Lim (US 11231466) discloses estimating a state of charge of a battery, including a sensing unit that measures each of a voltage and a current of the battery, a current integrating unit that calculates a current integration value for a predetermined period, based on the measured current, and adjusts a value of a process noise covariance used by an extended Kalmann filter according to operation characteristics of the battery and estimates a state of charge of the battery based on the adjusted value of the process noise covariance. Rayappan et al. (US 20230358810) discloses estimating a state-of-charge (SOC) of a battery includes: setting an initial SOC value and an initial Kalman error covariance value; receiving an estimated G parameter value, current values of voltage and current of the battery; updating a current SOC value and a current Kalman error covariance value of the battery by inputting the estimated G parameter value, current values of voltage and current to an extended Kalman filter; and outputting the current SOC value. Bergveld et al. (US 20100036627) discloses a method of deriving the state-of-charge (SoC) of a battery from EMF of the battery by using a predetermined relation between the EMF and the state-of-charge of the battery.
The prior art of record does not teach or make obvious the claim invention in claim 1 “an observation matrix update step including mapping the open circuit voltage of the battery to the initial state of charge of the battery to obtain an open circuit voltage-initial state of charge confidence slope; a Kalman gain step including calculating a Kalman gain of the error covariance prediction for the first state of charge of the battery utilizing the open circuit voltage-initial state of charge confidence slope; and a measurement estimate update step including correcting the first state of charge utilizing the battery parameter, the Kalman gain of the error covariance prediction for the first state of charge of the battery, and the mapping the open circuit voltage to the first state of charge to provide the estimated present state of charge” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Regarding claims 11 and 20, the claims are directed to a system and method claims, respectively, and include similar allowable subject matter as claim 1 as discussed above.
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