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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed 06/23/2026, are accepted and appreciated by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 8 under 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. However, new issues have been introduced due to the amendments to claim 1. See the updated 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection below.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 9, and 10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The included alert operation is an additional element, but it does not integrate the claims into a practical application. Sending an alert is viewed as necessary data outputting, which as seen in MPEP 2106.05 is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Including that the data collected is from a battery that is attached to some apparatus that might be a vehicle also does not integrate the claim into a practical application. This just links the judicial exception to some general apparatus or vehicle as seen in MPEP 2106.05(h). The cited references in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are used to show that using a processor and sending an alert due to a detected deterioration in the battery are well-known. They are simply used to show that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 include the limitation “obtaining battery data of a secondary battery to be installed in an apparatus including a vehicle;” It is unclear and indefinite if the apparatus is a vehicle or not making it unclear what is being claimed. Furthermore, the claims include the limitation “issuing, to the apparatus with the secondary battery installed, an alert in response to determining that the sudden deterioration has occurred in the secondary battery.” Since the battery is not yet installed in the apparatus or vehicle when the data is obtained, it is unclear how the data is used to determine a sudden deterioration of the battery after it is installed. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as “obtaining battery data of a secondary battery installed in a vehicle;”
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1, 9, and 10, the following bold limitations are considered abstract:
“A deterioration determination system comprising a processor configured to perform the operations comprising:
obtaining battery data of a secondary battery to be installed on an apparatus including a vehicle;
identifying a state of health (SOH) of the secondary battery on the basis of the battery data;
generating a deterioration regression curve of the secondary battery by performing curve regression on a plurality of states of health (SOHs) of the secondary battery that have been identified in time series;
setting a reference point on the deterioration regression curve;
generating a deterioration regression line of the secondary battery by performing linear regression on the plurality of SOHs obtained after the reference point, the deterioration regression line following the reference point;
calculating a slope ratio between a slope of a tangent line to the deterioration regression curve at the reference point and a slope of the deterioration regression line following the reference point;
determining sudden deterioration of the secondary battery on the basis of the slope ratio,
and issuing, to the apparatus with the secondary battery installed, an alert in response to determining that the sudden deterioration has occurred in the secondary battery.”
The above bolded limitations are directed to abstract ideas and would fall within the “Mathematical Concept” and “Mental Process” groupings of abstract ideas. Identifying state of health, generating a regression curve, a regression line, and calculating slope are accomplished using mathematical concepts as seen in Para(s). [0046, 0052, and 0056-0059]. “According to MPEP 2106.04(C) “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 recites 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.” Determining deterioration on the secondary battery is determined by comparing the slope ratio to a threshold as seen in Para(s). [0079-0081]. Comparing a value to a threshold can be done in the human mind using observation, judgment, and opinion.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements –
“a processor configured to perform the operations comprising: obtaining battery data of a secondary battery to be installed on an apparatus including a vehicle; issuing, to the apparatus with the secondary battery installed, an alert in response to determining that the sudden deterioration has occurred in the secondary battery.”
Examiner views these limitations amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
As such Examiner does NOT view that the claims
-Improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP
2106.05(b)
-Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Moreover, Examiner views the claims to be merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a battery, a computer system, and generic data.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a processor configured to perform the operations comprising: obtaining battery data of a secondary battery to be installed on an apparatus including a vehicle; issuing, to the apparatus with the secondary battery installed, an alert in response to determining that the sudden deterioration has occurred in the secondary battery” amount to mere data gathering, as data regarding a battery is just obtained. Furthermore, a processor amounts to using a computer as a tool as it is just a generic processor used to perform calculations. Sending an alert is viewed as necessary data outputting as it amounts to outputting a finding of the abstract idea.
Examiner further notes that such additional elements are viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by Daniels (US 20200014238 A1) and Lai (US 20190207397 A1).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way. As currently claimed, Examiner views that the additional elements do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, because the claim fails to recite clearly how the judicial exception is applied in a manner that does not monopolize the exception because the limitations ““a processor configured to perform the operations comprising: obtaining battery data of a secondary battery to be installed on an apparatus including a vehicle; issuing, to the apparatus with the secondary battery installed, an alert in response to determining that the sudden deterioration has occurred in the secondary battery” just tie the claim to a generic computer monitoring a battery.
Dependent claims 2-8 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below:
The dependent claims are directed to further limit how the reference point is chosen, how regressions are obtained, and when a deterioration determination is made. All of which amount to mathematical concepts and mental processes.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-8 further limit the abstract idea with an abstract idea and thus the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Prior Art Analysis
Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b), however, none of the known prior art could be applied to the claims for the following reasons:
With respect to claims 1, 9, and 10,
Sugiyama (US 20250147105 A1) teaches,
Estimating a secondary battery state of health, by use of a Weibull law, the total capacity retention rate of the secondary battery, obtained from at least one of data on the secondary battery in operation and a cycle test, is separated into a float capacity retention rate ascribed to deterioration dependent on a use period, and a cycle capacity retention rate ascribed to deterioration dependent on the number of charges/discharges. (Abstract) They further teach generating a regression curve, performing a linear regression and determining if there is deterioration in the battery. (Para(s). [0136-0146 and 0226]) However, they do not explicitly teach determining sudden deterioration by using a ratio of the slope of the tangent of regression curve at a reference point and the slope of the regression line. They only determine deterioration by the square root of the flowing current amount which is the flowing current (current amount) of the secondary battery integrated over time. (Para. [0004]). Furthermore, the deterioration found is not sudden or rapid but dependent on a use period, charge/discharge cycles and float. (Para. [0012])
Uchino (WO 2017098686 A1) as seen in the IDS teaches,
A battery pack with a rapid deterioration assessing unit which assesses deterioration on the basis of a threshold assessment of the amount of variation calculated by the capacity variation amount calculating unit. (Abstract) Where a linear regression is performed on the history of the maintenance capacitance rate and a slope of the linear regression line is found to determine the change in capacity maintenance rate. (Pg. 7) They further teach a maintenance ratio which represents the ratio between initial capacity and current battery capacity. (Pg. 10) However, they determine rapid deterioration by comparing the amount of change determined from the slope to a threshold and not by using a ratio of the slope of the tangent of regression curve at a reference point and the slope of the regression line. (Pg. 7)
Schillheim (US 20170254801 A1) teaches,
A method for identifying substances which prime cells for a stress response by determining the respiration activity of the cells treated with a candidate substance in comparison to cells not treated with the candidate substance. (Abstract) They further teach calculating a linear regression and an exponential regression of a curve where they form a ratio of the slope of the tangent of the exponential regression to the slope of the linear regression to quantify a difference in respiration activity. (Para. [0036]) However, it would not be obvious to use this technique on battery capacity to determine a sudden deterioration of the battery as it is not from the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.
As seen above none of the known prior art explicitly teaches and it would be non-obvious to combine the known prior art to teach,
“calculating a slope ratio between a slope of a tangent line to the deterioration regression curve at the reference point and a slope of the deterioration regression line following the reference point;
and determining sudden deterioration of the secondary battery on the basis of the slope ratio.”
Therefore, prior art cannot be applied to claims 1, 9, and 10. Prior art cannot be applied to claims 2-8 because of their dependence upon claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOSHUA L FORRISTALL whose telephone number is 703-756-4554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM- 5 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 Schechter can be reached on 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.
/JOSHUA L FORRISTALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights