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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
1. This office action is in response to the amendments/arguments submitted by the Applicant(s) on 03/02/2026.
Response to Arguments
I. Status of the Claims
2. Claims 1-12 are still pending.
3. Claims 12 is new.
4. Applicant's amendments to claims and new claim is accepted because does not introduce new matter pursuant to MPEP 2163.
II. Objections
5. Applicant's arguments with respect to the objections have been fully considered and found persuasive. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn.
II. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101
6. Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and found persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been maintained.
7. Page-8, the Applicant(s) argues that “The claims are expressly limited to an assembled battery in which a plurality of battery cells are serially connected and to storing and processing current and voltage values detected during operation of that assembled battery. The calculated ratio is defined as an index indicating a degree of collapse of a cell balance of the assembled battery. The degree of collapse of the cell balance directly relates to how the assembled battery operates within defined voltage limits of the battery cells. The claims therefore apply any alleged mathematical calculation to a specific assembled battery structure and to data measured from that assembled batte1y during charging or discharging. This imposes a meaningful limitation that confines the claims to a particular technological implementation in battery evaluation and management and does not preempt use of a mathematical concept in other contexts…”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim(s) are not patent eligible pursuant to the MPEP 2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception, and MPEP 2106.04(d) Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application.
7.1. Argument in support to response to number 7 above.
2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, I. TWO CRITERIA FOR SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY, First, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 ... See 35 U.S.C. 100(b) ("The term ‘process’ means process, art, or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material."). See MPEP §2106.03 for detailed information on the four categories … 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.
2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception, I. JUDICIAL EXCEPTIONS, Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not end the eligibility analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection … In addition to the terms "laws of nature," "natural phenomena," and "abstract ideas," judicially recognized exceptions have been described using various other terms, including "physical phenomena," "products of nature," "scientific principles," "systems that depend on human intelligence alone," "disembodied concepts," "mental processes," and "disembodied mathematical algorithms and formulas." It should be noted that there are no bright lines between the types of exceptions, and that many of the concepts identified by the courts as exceptions can fall under several exceptions. For example, mathematical formulas are considered to be a judicial exception as they express a scientific truth, but have been labelled by the courts as both abstract ideas and laws of nature.
2106.04(a)(2) Abstract Idea Groupings,
I. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS
The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within this grouping as abstract ideas … C. Mathematical calculations, A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recite a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation …
III. MENTAL PROCESSES
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea … Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions … C. A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer … 2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360 … Another example is Fair Warning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in Fair Warning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were "the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries." 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296.
2106.04(d) Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application, The Supreme Court has long distinguished between principles themselves (which are not patent eligible) and the integration of those principles into practical applications (which are patent eligible). See, e.g., Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 80, 84, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968-69 … but the Court in Gottschalk v. Benson ‘‘held that simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle’’) … A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception … Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include: … • Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b); … The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: • Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); • Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and • Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Step 2A Prong Two is similar to Step 2B in that both analyses involve evaluating a set of judicial considerations to determine if the claim is eligible. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) through (h) for the list of considerations that are evaluated at Step 2B. Although most of these considerations overlap (i.e., they are evaluated in both Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B), Step 2A specifically excludes consideration of whether the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Accordingly, in Step 2A Prong Two, examiners should ensure that they give weight to all additional elements, whether or not they are conventional, when evaluating whether a judicial exception has been integrated into a practical application. Additional elements that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity may integrate a recited judicial exception into a practical application.
It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point"). … Conversely, the presence of a non-physical or intangible additional element does not doom the claims, because tangibility is not necessary for eligibility under the Alice/Mayo test. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("that the improvement is not defined by reference to ‘physical’ components does not doom the claims"). See also McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2016), (holding that a process producing an intangible result (a sequence of synchronized, animated characters) was eligible because it improved an existing technological process).
In addition, a specific way of achieving a result is not a stand-alone consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. However, the specificity of the claim limitations is relevant to the evaluation of several considerations including the use of a particular machine, particular transformation and whether the limitations are mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(b), 2106.05(c), and 2106.05(f). For example, I Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 1978), the Supreme Court noted that the "patent application does not purport to explain how to select the appropriate margin of safety, the weighting factor, or any of the other variables" in the claimed mathematical formula, "[n]or does it purport to contain any disclosure relating to the chemical processes at work, the monitoring of process variables, or the means of setting off an alarm or adjusting an alarm system." 437 U.S. at 586, 198 USPQ at 195. The Court found this failure to explain any specifics of how to use the claimed formula informative when deciding that the additional elements in the claim were insignificant post-solution activity and thus not meaningful enough to render the claim eligible. 437 U.S. at 589-90, 198 USPQ at 197.
In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP and the court, 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. A judicial exception includes but is not limited to “mental process”, which that could be performed with the help of pen and paper despite claiming that such a process is performed by a computer, and “mathematical concepts” defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations that include but not limited to arithmetic operation, mathematical methods and/or performing mathematical operations regardless the claim use the word “calculating” or not when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.
Regarding step 2A Prong One, in the instant application, the amended independent claims recites the limitation(s) “… calculate a ratio between an assembled battery capacity of an assembled battery ... as an index indicating a degree of collapse of a cell balance of the assembled battery … calculate the cell capacity ...” (hereinafter collectively mentioned as the “Abstract-Idea”), which are directed to a judicial exception that falls into the categories of mathematical algorithms and formulas that involve mathematical calculations and/or equations in light of the specifications despite the fact that the word “calculation” is not present, which could also be performed with the help of a general computer, which is not a particular machine. Furthermore, the “ratio” of the two signal values is a basic arithmetic operation, as it is recited in independent claims. Furthermore, said limitations also could fall into mental-steps because the ratio could be performed with the help of pen and paper.
Regarding step 2A, Prong Two, the other elements of the claims related to the reference “an assembled battery in which a plurality of battery cells are serially connected and a cell capacity of a specific battery cell in the plurality of battery cells included in the assembled battery”, are not particular machines in which the Abstract-Idea is integrated but simply routine structure and previously known to the battery industry, and the battery with its battery-cells are not claimed with sufficient specificity to fall within the concept of a particular machine, and the calculations are performed by a general purpose computer processor. furthermore, the claims do not involve any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, said memory is used for the routine data gathering/storing of the necessary information/measurements in order to execute the Abstract-Idea, which are well-understood, routine, conventional activities, which do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception/Abstract-Idea. Therefore, at step 2A Prong Two, it is determined that the Abstract-Idea is not implemented into a practical application.
Furthermore, it is further argued that “The Office Action's assertion that the claims do not belong to a particular technological environment 1s incorrect”. The examiner further clarifies that the independent claims are simply linking the claim to a technological environment, industry or field of use but does not explain with sufficient details so one ordinary skilled in the art could determine an improvement in the battery management technology.
In light of the foregoing, the claims are not patent eligible because the Abstract-Idea involves mathematical algorithms, equations and/or formulas and is not implemented into a practical application.
8. Page-9, the Applicant(s) argues that “The independent claims require storing charging history including per cell current and voltage values detected during charging or discharging of a serially connected assembled battery, calculating cell capacities based on that stored charging history, and
calculating assembled battery capacity using those cell capacities ... the claims define a specific data acquisition, storage, and capacity estimation configuration tied to the operation of a
particular assembled battery ...”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the limitations relative to “… storing charging history including per cell current and voltage values detected during charging or discharging of a serially connected assembled battery, calculating cell capacities based on that stored charging history, and calculating assembled battery capacity using those cell capacities ... specific data acquisition, storage, and capacity estimation configuration tied to the operation of a particular assembled battery ...” are simply well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, therefore, do not amount to significantly more and fall in the concept of extra-solution activities and a field of use pursuant to the 2106.05(b) III. WHETHER ITS INVOLVEMENT IS EXTRA-SOLUTION ACTIVITY OR A FIELD-OF-USE; 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity; and 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
8.1. Argument in support to response to number 8 above.
2106.05(b) Particular Machine, … III. WHETHER ITS INVOLVEMENT IS EXTRA-SOLUTION ACTIVITY OR A FIELD-OF-USE, Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more ... Examiners may find it helpful to evaluate other considerations such as the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and the field of use and technological environment consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)), when making a determination of whether an element (or combination of elements) is a particular machine …
When determining whether a machine recited in a claim provides significantly more, the following factors are relevant.
I. THE PARTICULARITY OR GENERALITY OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE MACHINE OR APPARATUS
The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, i.e., the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines). One example of applying a judicial exception with a particular machine is Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 40 USPQ 199 (1939). In this case, a mathematical formula was employed to use standing wave phenomena in an antenna system. The claim recited the particular type of antenna and included details as to the shape of the antenna and the conductors, particularly the length and angle at which they were arranged. 306 U.S. at 95-96; 40 USPQ at 203. Another example is Eibel Process, in which gravity (a law of nature or natural phenomenon) was applied by a Fourdrinier machine (which was understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web. Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923).
2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high
level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility …
III. WHETHER ITS INVOLVEMENT IS EXTRA-SOLUTION ACTIVITY OR A FIELD-OF-USE, Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility ...
2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process ... An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent … As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional …
In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP and the court, the analysis and test to determine add to significantly more than the abstract-idea by whether the additional elements are claiming a specifically identified particular device with sufficient particular structure (i.e. dimensions, shape, length, angles of arrangements, etc.) and not the general and basic structure of any and all machines, and/or, whether said additional elements fall into the concept of insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception either pre-solution or post-solution activities, which includes that such additional elements to be recited at a high level of generality that are no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, or, if the additional elements.
With regards to the particularity of a machine, the instant application does not claim a particular machine, it simply claims a memory, battery, battery-cells in a serial connection and processor with a high degree of generality. For example, most batteries include a plurality of cells connected in series (see TANAKA Pub. No.: US 2023/0039175, abstract and paragraph [0031], which was provided in the previous office action), memory and processor(s) (see TANAKA Pub. No.: US 2023/0039175, paragraph [0033]).
With regards to the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity that includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity, the instant application, the independent claims simply recites the additional claim elements “storing charging history including per cell current and voltage values detected during charging or discharging of a serially connected assembled battery, calculating cell capacities based on that stored charging history, and calculating assembled battery capacity using those cell capacities ... specific data acquisition, storage, and capacity estimation configuration tied to the operation of a particular assembled battery” (hereinafter mentioned as the “Routine-Devices-Activities-Of-The-Industry”, which are insignificant extra-solution activities that fall into the category of well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known to the systems and methods for calculation the state of charge in the battery industry (see TANAKA Pub. No.: US 2023/0039175, abstract and paragraph [0031]), (see TsutsuiPub. No.: US 2014/0354242, abstract and paragraph [0053]-[0033], which was provided in the previous office action), (see ASHIDA. No.: US 2011/0311850, abstract and paragraph [0032], [0014], which was provided in the previous office action).
Therefore, the independent claims simply recite the insignificant extra-solution activity related to battery management, which is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity to the battery industry that is performed using well well-understood and routine structure to said industry such as sensors, processors/microprocessors, data collection, etc., which do not amount to an inventive concept.
In light of the foregoing, the claims are not patent eligible because in summary the additional element or combination of elements fall into the concept(s) of “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity” to the judicial-exception/Abstract-idea and “well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry”, which do not amount to an inventive concept.
9. Page 9, the Applicant(s) argues that “This reflects an improvement in evaluating cell balance of assembled batteries, not the mere implementation of a mathematical formula on a generic computer”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim(s) are not patent eligible pursuant to the MPEP 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field, and MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment.
9.1. FIRST Argument in support to response to number 9 above.
2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment, Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The courts often cite to Parker v. Flook as providing a classic example of a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token post solution components did not make the concept patentable") (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978)). In Flook, the claim recited steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm limit (a numerical limit on a process variable such as temperature, pressure or flow rate) according to a mathematical formula "in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons." … Although the applicant argued that limiting the use of the formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields should make the claim eligible because this limitation ensured that the claim did not preempt all uses of the formula, the Supreme Court disagreed. 437 U.S. at 588-90, 198 USPQ at 197-98 … Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include: … vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) …
In summary, the MPEP and the courts have found that simply linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not sufficient for the claims to be eligible.
In the instant application, the abstract-idea/judicial exception above mentioned is simply linked to the battery management field. Thus, the limitations amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment, which is similar to the claim recited steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm limit in Parker v. Flook, where the court found the claims ineligibles under 101.
Furthermore, the claims as a whole do not amount to more than estimating the result of an endurance test using conditions that are algorithms/equations themselves, using a general purpose processor that performs machine learning tasks such as executing said abstract-idea/judicial exception.
In light of the foregoing, the claims are not patent eligible because the abstract-idea/judicial are mathematical algorithms and formulas and is not implemented into a practical application but simply linking it to a particular technological environment or field of use.
9.2. FIRST Argument in support to response to number 9 above.
2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field, In determining patent eligibility, examiners should consider whether the claim "purport(s) to improve the
functioning of the computer itself" or "any other technology or technical field." … Thus, an examiner
should evaluate whether a claim contains an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other
technology or technical field at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, as well as when considering whether the
claim has such self-evident eligibility that it qualifies for the streamlined analysis …
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01.
After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. However, the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"). The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification). In making this determination, it is critical that examiners look at the claim "as a whole," in other words, the claim should be evaluated "as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps." When performing this evaluation, examiners should be "careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims" by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1100.
An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
During examination, the examiner should analyze the "improvements" consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement. Generally, examiners are not expected to make a qualitative judgement on the merits of the asserted improvement. If the examiner concludes the disclosed invention does not improve technology, the burden shifts to applicant to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology. Any such evidence submitted under 37 CFR 1.132 must establish what the specification would convey to one of ordinary skill in the art and cannot be used to supplement the specification. See, e.g. MPEP § 716.09 on 37 CFR 1.132 practice with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). For example, in response to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, an applicant could submit a declaration under § 1.132 providing testimony on how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the disclosed invention as improving technology and the underlying factual basis for that conclusion.
II. IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD
The courts have also found that improvements in technology beyond computer functionality may demonstrate patent eligibility. In McRO, the Federal Circuit held claimed methods of automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation using computer-implemented rules to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, because they were not directed to an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316, 120 USPQ2d at 1103. The basis for the McRO court's decision was that the claims were directed to an improvement in computer animation and thus did not recite a concept similar to previously identified abstract ideas. Id. The court relied on the specification's explanation of how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated. 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1101. The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process. 837 F.3d at 1314, 120 USPQ2d at 1102. The McRO court also noted that the claims at issue described a specific way (use of particular rules to set morph weights and transitions through phonemes) to solve the problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters, rather than merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, and thus were not directed to an abstract idea. 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1101. …
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about mere instructions to apply an exception.
Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include:
i. A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334,115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
ii. Using well-known standard laboratory techniques to detect enzyme levels in a bodily sample such as blood or plasma, Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1355, 1362, 123 USPQ2d 1081, 1082-83, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48;
iv. Delivering broadcast content to a portable electronic device such as a cellular telephone, when claimed at a high level of generality, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. Amazon.com, 838 F.3d 1266, 1270, 120 USPQ2d 1210, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
v. A general method of screening emails on a generic computer, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1315-16, 120 USPQ2d at 1358-59;
vi. An advance in the informational content of a download for streaming, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1263, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and
vii. Selecting one type of content (e.g., FM radio content) from within a range of existing broadcast content types, or selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform (e.g., buffering content) from within a range of well-known, routine, conventional functions performed by the hardware, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2016). …
In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP and the court, the analysis and test to determine that an invention is actually an improvement to an existing technology requires to meet two steps. The first-step is determining whether or not “a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification” (hereinafter mentioned as the “First-Step”) regardless the word “improvement” is explicitly set forth. The second-step is determining whether or not “the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology” (hereinafter mentioned as the “Second-Step”), which is done by evaluating the full scope of the claim under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) where the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.
Regarding to the First-Step, the specification by the Applicant(s) appears to contain a technical explanation describing with sufficient detail how to implement the invention such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the improvements. Specifically, the method/process of Fig. 4 in combination with Figs. 1-4 accompany with their respective description paragraphs. Furthermore, it appears to set forth an indication of improvement that includes a discussion that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional, or identifies technical improvements over the prior art as established by the courts and set forth in the MPEP.
Regarding to the Second-Step, the full scope of the claim does not reflect the disclosed improvement in technology because independent claims lack of detail description such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the improvements. Furthermore, the claim neither express any unconventional technical solution, nor identifies any realized technical improvements over the prior art, which needs to be included from the discussion of the specification in order for an ordinary skilled in the art would recognize such improvement.
Furthermore, in order for an invention to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery, and the claim(s) at issue does not include anything more than just instructions to be performed by the general computer in which a computer software executes the Judicial-Exception/Abstract-idea indicated the rejection below of the instant application.
Furthermore, the claims at issue as whole are simply directed to gathering, storing and analyzing collected information about a signal with conventional techniques, which has similarities with the case of TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48 where the courts have indicated that “Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result” are not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology.
In light of the foregoing, the claims are not patent eligible because the Examiner has concluded that the disclosed invention does not improve technology.
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.
10. Claim 1-11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
11. Claim 1 is directed to “calculate a ratio between an assembled battery capacity of an assembled battery in which a plurality of battery cells are serially connected and a cell capacity of a specific battery cell in the plurality of battery cells included in the assembled battery, as an index indicating a degree of collapse of a cell balance of the assembled battery ... calculate the cell capacity based on the charging history stored in the memory: and calculate the assembled battery capacity by using the cell capacity”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a processor. The additional elements “An information processing device comprising: a memory; and one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to … store, in the memory, a charging history including a current of each of the assembled battery and the plurality of battery cells and a voltage of each of the assembled battery and the plurality of the battery cells that are detected when charging or discharging the assembled battery ...” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Dependent claim 1 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
11.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 1 is directed to a information processing device, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (Step 1: YES).
11.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 1 recites: “calculate a ratio between an assembled battery capacity of an assembled battery in which a plurality of battery cells are serially connected and a cell capacity of a specific battery cell in the plurality of battery cells included in the assembled battery, as an index indicating a degree of collapse of a cell balance of the assembled battery ... calculate the cell capacity based on the charging history stored in the memory: and calculate the assembled battery capacity by using the cell capacity”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
11.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 1 does not claim a particular machine, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, the battery management context, is simply linking the claim to a technological environment, industry or field of use but does not explain with sufficient details so one ordinary skilled in the art could determine an improvement in the battery management technology. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies including but not limited to battery, hybrid vehicles and all industries where battery management is implemented, etc. (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application).
11.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 1 recites the additional element(s) “An information processing device comprising: a memory; and one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to …”, which are/is simply routine and conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references made of record below). Therefore, the claim limitations individually and as whole do not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
12. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
13. Claim 3 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
14. Claim 4 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
15. Claim 5 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
16. Claim 6 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
17. Claim 7 depends on claim 6 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
18. Claim 8 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
19. Claim 9 is directed to “calculating a ratio between an assembled battery capacity of an assembled battery in which a plurality of battery cells are serially connected and a cell capacity of a specific battery cell in the plurality of battery cells included in the assembled battery, as an index indicating a degree of collapse of a cell balance of the assembled battery”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a processor. The additional elements “An information processing method executed by an information processing device …” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Dependent claim 9 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
19.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 9 is directed to an information processing method executed by an information processing device, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a process (Step 1: YES).
19.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 9 recites: “calculating a ratio between an assembled battery capacity of an assembled battery in which a plurality of battery cells are serially connected and a cell capacity of a specific battery cell in the plurality of battery cells included in the assembled battery, as an index indicating a degree of collapse of a cell balance of the assembled battery”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
19.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 9 does not claim a particular machine, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, the battery management context, is simply linking the claim to a technological environment, industry or field of use but does not explain with sufficient details so one ordinary skilled in the art could determine an improvement in the battery management technology. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies including but not limited to battery, hybrid vehicles and all industries where battery management is implemented, etc. (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application).
19.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 9 recites the additional element(s) “An information processing method executed by an information processing device …”, which are/is simply routine and conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references made of record below). Therefore, the claim limitations individually and as whole do not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
20. Claim 10 is further directed to “calculating a ratio between an assembled battery capacity of an assembled battery in which a plurality of battery cells are serially connected and a cell capacity of a specific battery cell in the plurality of battery cells included in the assembled battery, as an index indicating a degree of collapse of a cell balance of the assembled battery”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a processor. The additional elements “A computer program product comprising a computer readable medium including programmed instructions …” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Dependent claim 10 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
20.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 10 is directed to a computer program product, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (Step 1: YES).
20.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 10 recites: “calculating a ratio between an assembled battery capacity of an assembled battery in which a plurality of battery cells are serially connected and a cell capacity of a specific battery cell in the plurality of battery cells included in the assembled battery, as an index indicating a degree of collapse of a cell balance of the assembled battery”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
20.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 10 does not claim a particular machine, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, the battery management context, is simply linking the claim to a technological environment, industry or field of use but does not explain with sufficient details so one ordinary skilled in the art could determine an improvement in the battery management technology. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies including but not limited to battery, hybrid vehicles and all industries where battery management is implemented, etc. (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application).
20.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 10 recites the additional element(s) “A computer program product comprising a computer readable medium including programmed instructions …”, which are/is simply routine and conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references made of record below). Therefore, the claim limitations individually and as whole do not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
21. Claim 11 is directed to “calculate a ratio between an assembled battery capacity of the assembled battery and a cell capacity of a specific battery cell in the plurality of battery cells included in the assembled battery, as an index indicating a degree of collapse of a cell balance of the assembled battery”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a processor. The additional elements “An information processing system comprising: an assembled battery including a plurality of battery cells connected serially …” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Dependent claim 11 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
21.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 11 is directed to an information processing system, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (Step 1: YES).
21.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 11 recites: “calculate a ratio between an assembled battery capacity of the assembled battery and a cell capacity of a specific battery cell in the plurality of battery cells included in the assembled battery, as an index indicating a degree of collapse of a cell balance of the assembled battery”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
21.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 11 does not claim a particular machine, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, the battery management context, is simply linking the claim to a technological environment, industry or field of use but does not explain with sufficient details so one ordinary skilled in the art could determine an improvement in the battery management technology. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies including but not limited to battery, hybrid vehicles and all industries where battery management is implemented, etc. (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application).
21.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 11 recites the additional element(s) “An information processing system comprising: an assembled battery including a plurality of battery cells connected serially …”, which are/is simply routine and conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references made of record below). Therefore, the claim limitations individually and as whole do not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
22. Claim 12 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 12 is further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
23. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) TANAKA (Pub. No.: US 2023/0039175, which was submitted in the previous office action) teaches that “A battery management device manages a battery including a plurality of battery cells in which a change in OCV relative to a change in SOC is smaller in a first SOC range than in a second SOC range. The battery management device is configured to: accumulate a current flowing in each battery cell to calculate the SOC of the battery cell; when the calculated SOC has stayed in the first SOC range for a predetermined period or more, control the cell balancing circuits in such a way that the SOC of a target battery cell selected from the battery cells falls within the second SOC range; and calculate the SOC of the target battery cell based on the relationship between the SOC and the OCV in the second SOC range and correct the SOC of each battery cell by the amount of correction obtained based on the calculated SOC” (Abstract).
b) LEE (Pub. No.: US 2020/0235588, which was submitted in the previous office action) teaches that “An apparatus for balancing a battery according to the present disclosure includes: a voltage measuring unit configured to measure a voltage of each of a plurality of battery cells connected to each other; and a control unit configured to calculate a state of charge (SOC) of each of the battery cells from the voltage measured by the voltage measuring unit, select a standard cell and a target group on the basis of the calculated SOCs of the battery cells, choose one battery cell among battery cells belonging to the selected target group as a target cell, calculate a balancing time according to a difference between the SOC of the standard cell and the SOC of the target cell, and perform balancing to the battery cells belonging to the target group during the calculated balancing time” (Abstract).
c) Tsutsui (Pub. No.: US 2014/0354242, which was submitted in the previous office action) teaches that “an electronic device includes a controller and a charging circuit. The controller is configured to perform power management of the electronic device. The controller is configured to detect that a battery is in an overvoltage state if conditions that the battery is being charged, a charging current value of the battery acquired from a first IC is not greater than a first threshold, and power usable by the charging circuit to charge the battery is unrestricted are satisfied, and to stop charging of the battery by a charging circuit in response to detection of the overvoltage state of the battery” (Abstract).
d) ASHIDA (Pub. No.: US 2011/0311850, which was submitted in the previous office action) teaches that “circuit which measures potential differences of the cells, a current detector which detects a value of a current in the assembled battery, a determination module including a first reference and a second reference which determines whether the potential difference is higher than the first reference and is lower than the second reference, and a module which calculates a charge/discharge capacity, based on a current integration value which is detected by the current detector, when the determination module determines that the potential difference is higher than the first voltage reference and is lower than the second reference, and calculates the charge/discharge capacity, based on a state of charge corresponding to the potential difference, when the determination module determines that the potential difference is not higher than the first reference or is not lower than the second reference” (Abstract).
e) Shibata (Pub. No.: US 2024/0055671, which was submitted in the previous office action) teaches that “A bipolar lead-acid storage battery has both life performance to withstand long-term operation and high capacity performance. Positive electrode current collector plates include a lead alloy sheet, a mass loss per total surface area of a test piece is 100 mg/cm2 or less when measured after the test piece is placed in sulfuric acid at a concentration of38 mass % maintained at a temperature of 60° C., and a continuous anodization performed at a constant potential of 1,350 Mv on a reference electrode for 28 days” (Abstract).
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 ALVARO E. FORTICH whose telephone number is (571) 272-0944. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon thru Fri from 8:00am to 5pm.
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.
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights