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 .
IDS
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on April 2, 2024 and October 1, 2025 are being considered by the Examiner.
Drawing
The drawing filed on April 2, 2024 is accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §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.
In reference claims 1-7, 9-14, and 18-19: the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The requirement for subject matter eligibility test for products and processes requires first, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. §101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define "things" or "products" while the first category defines "actions" (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed).
Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature).
In the first step, it is to be determined whether the patent claim under examination is directed to an abstract idea. If so, in the second step of analysis, it is to be determined whether the patent adds to the idea "something more" or "significantly more" that embodies an "inventive concept."
In the instant case, claim 1 is representative and it is reproduced here with the limitations that are part of the abstract idea in bold:
A method for determining battery cell state of charge (SOC), the method comprising:
determining a first battery cell effective capacity of a first battery cell;
determining a first battery cell SOC of the first battery cell based at least in part on the first battery cell effective capacity;
determining a second battery cell effective capacity of a second battery cell, wherein the second battery cell is electrically connected in series with the first battery cell; and
determining a second battery cell SOC of the second battery cell based at least in part on the first battery cell SOC, the first battery cell effective capacity, and the second battery cell effective capacity.
Step 2A:
Prong I: The claim recites the steps of " determining a first battery cell effective capacity of a first battery cell; determining a first battery cell SOC of the first battery cell based at least in part on the first battery cell effective capacity; determining a second battery cell effective capacity of a second battery cell, wherein the second battery cell is electrically connected in series with the first battery cell; and determining a second battery cell SOC of the second battery cell based at least in part on the first battery cell SOC, the first battery cell effective capacity, and the second battery cell effective capacity". These limitations could be carried out as a purely mental process (as a typical human activity by measuring the variables using test instrument, such as voltmeter, ammeter and multimeter. Using generic test instruments to collect parameter of values would amount to an extension of a human thought process) and/or they could amount to a mathematical calculation (for example, “determining a second battery cell SOC of the second battery cell” involves computational analysis using variables related to the first and second battery cells. Therefore, the recited method falls in the abstract idea grouping of mental processes and/or mathematical concepts at Prong 1 of the §101 analysis.
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application at Prong 2 of the §101 analysis because the claim does not recite sufficient additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The courts have found that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or make the claim qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
The claim does not recite applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine, nor does the claim affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claim amounts to manipulating data:” determining a second battery cell SOC of the second battery cell based at least in part on the first battery cell SOC, the first battery cell effective capacity, and the second battery cell effective capacity”. The claim does not recite any particular real-world actions that are taken as a result of those computational analysis. Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to be limited to the use of the mental process or math in a particular practical application, but instead the claim appears to monopolize the mental process or math itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used.
Step 2B:
Finally, at Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to Prong 2. Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claims 11 and 18 are analogous to claim 1, except that claim 11 additionally recites “a power electronics module …to measure voltage and current flow” in other words a voltage and current measurement device “a controller” or a microcontroller, or a microprocessor used for the purposes of “[determining] a second mattery cell SOC of the secondary battery cell” based on parameters of the first and secondary battery cells. These additional voltage and current meters; and a controller are additional elements separate from the abstract idea that need to be considered at Prong 2 of the §101 analysis. However, these additional elements are merely generic computer processing components that are invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea, namely measuring and processing of data which does not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Claims 11 and 18 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101 as well.
Dependent claims 2-6, 9, and 10: the instant claims are directed to a computational analysis which reads on a human thought process.
Dependent claim 7: the instant claim is directed to the idea of balancing the first and the second battery cell using an active balancing circuit; however, there is no logical relation between determining a second battery cell SOC of the second battery cell, and the balancing circuit, which does not transform the abstract idea into a significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 12-14: the instant claims are directed to a computational analysis which reads on a human thought process.
Dependent claim 19: the instant claim is directed to a computational analysis which reads on a human thought process.
Claim Objection
In reference to claims 8, 15-17 and 20: the instant claims include subject matter that would bring a significantly more than the abstract idea. The instant claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Art of Interest
Kalin et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,604,227, hereon Kalin) discloses a method for determining a state of charge of at least one battery cell. Further, the method enables an improved determination of the state of charge of a lithium iron phosphate cell by generating an alternating current pulse in a circuit connected to the at least one battery cell, determining an impedance of the at least one battery cell on the basis of the alternating current pulse and determining the state of charge by comparing the impedance to predefined map data. The relationship between the impedance and the state of charge of the at least one battery cell is determined from the predefined map data (see Kalin, Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nareid (U.S. PAP 2012/0271578) discloses a battery management system includes a neural network, for estimating an amount of charge stored in a battery following a recharging operation.
Ouyang et al. (IEEE Publication, “Optimal Multi-objective Charging for Lithium-ion Battery Packs: A Hierarchical Control Approach”) discloses a systematic investigation battery pack operation that blends control design with control implementation for battery charging specifically applies to rechargeable lithium-ion battery packs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS DESTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 to 5:00 pm.
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, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/ELIAS DESTA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights