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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/23/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
1) Claim 1 in lines 2-3: “an acquisition unit configured to acquire time series data including a current, a voltage, and a temperature of a battery;”.
2) Claim 1 in lines 4-5: “an open circuit voltage estimating unit configured to estimate an open circuit voltage of the battery;”.
3) Claim 1 in lines 6-9: “an overvoltage estimating unit configured to estimate an overvoltage from the open circuit voltage of the battery by inputting a desired current and a desired temperature to a learned model that has learned using at least the current and the temperature of the time series data as input data;”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Three-Prong test for:
1) Claim 1 in lines 2-3: “an acquisition unit configured to acquire time series data including a current, a voltage, and a temperature of a battery;”.
Prong (A) (As above)
Yes;
“an acquisition unit” is a nonce with no specific structural meaning.
Prong (B) (As above)
Yes;
“configured to” is a linking word or phrase connecting the nonce to functional language.
Prong (C) (As above)
Yes;
It is unclear how to “acquire time series data …”
Conclusion:
The limitation of:
“an acquisition unit” for claim 1 and its dependents is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Three-Prong test for:
2) Claim 1 in lines 4-5: “an open circuit voltage estimating unit configured to estimate an open circuit voltage of the battery;”.
Prong (A) (As above)
Yes;
“an open circuit voltage estimating unit” is a nonce with no specific structural meaning.
Prong (B) (As above)
Yes;
“configured to” is a linking word or phrase connecting the nonce to functional language.
Prong (C) (As above)
Yes;
It is unclear how to “estimate an open circuit voltage of the battery;””
Conclusion:
The limitation of:
“an open circuit voltage estimating unit” for claim 1 and its dependents is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Three-Prong test for:
3) Claim 1 in lines 6-9: “an overvoltage estimating unit configured to estimate an overvoltage from the open circuit voltage of the battery by inputting a desired current and a desired temperature to a learned model that has learned using at least the current and the temperature of the time series data as input data;”.
Prong (A) (As above)
Yes;
“an overvoltage estimating unit” is a nonce with no specific structural meaning.
Prong (B) (As above)
Yes;
“configured to” is a linking word or phrase connecting the nonce to functional language.
Prong (C) (As above)
Yes;
It is unclear how to “estimate an overvoltage from the open circuit voltage of the battery by inputting a desired current and a desired temperature to a learned model that has learned using at least the current and the temperature of the time series data as input data;”
Conclusion:
The limitation of:
“an overvoltage estimating unit” for claim 1 and its dependents is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Note: the initially filed specifications (filed 02/23/2024) was searched for an interpretation of:
Claim 1 in lines 2-3: “an acquisition unit configured to acquire time series data including a current, a voltage, and a temperature of a battery;”.
Claim 1 in lines 4-5: “an open circuit voltage estimating unit configured to estimate an open circuit voltage of the battery;”.
Claim 1 in lines 6-9: “an overvoltage estimating unit configured to estimate an overvoltage from the open circuit voltage of the battery by inputting a desired current and a desired temperature to a learned model that has learned using at least the current and the temperature of the time series data as input data;”.
General support for an interpretation of these ‘units’ was found in para 0033:
“The acquisition unit 110, the data filtering unit 120, the open circuit voltage estimating unit 130, the overvoltage estimating unit 140, and the closed circuit voltage estimating unit 150, for example, are realized by a hardware processor such as central processing unit (CPU) executing a program (software).”
Specific support for 1) was found in para 0034:
“The acquisition unit 110 acquires time series data of a current value, a voltage value, a temperature, and the like of the battery 40 from the communication device 50 using a communication interface, which is not illustrated, mounted in the battery”
Specific support for 2) was found in para 0007:
“the open circuit voltage estimating unit estimates the open circuit voltage on the basis of a curve representing a relation between a discharge capacity and the open circuit voltage that is calculated such that error for a voltage that can be regarded as the open circuit voltage out of the time series data is minimized.”
Specific support for 3) was found in para 0006:
“an open circuit voltage estimating unit configured to estimate an open circuit voltage of the battery; an overvoltage estimating unit configured to estimate an overvoltage from the open circuit voltage of the battery by inputting a desired current and a desired temperature to a learned model that has learned using at least the current and the temperature of the time series data as input data;”
For the purposes of Examination, “an acquisition unit”, “an open circuit voltage estimating unit”, & “an overvoltage estimating unit” are interpreted as:
Generic computing elements which receive data and perform mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) or mental processes (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)) on that data.
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 1-8 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.
Regarding “Failure to particularly point out & distinctly claim [indefinite]”:
Claim 1, 7, & 8 in lines 6-9, 6-8, & 6-8 (respectively) recites the limitation "estimate[ing] an overvoltage from the open circuit voltage of the battery by inputting a desired current and a desired temperature to a learned model that has learned using at least the current and the temperature of the time series data as input data". It is unclear how an overvoltage is determined by an algorithm at least because, the overvoltage is the difference between a predicted output voltage of a model and a desired voltage, where the desired voltage (and “desired current and a desired temperature”) could be different depending on the user and the circumstance (see instant application para 0010: “the overvoltage estimating unit estimates the overvoltage of the device by correcting an output value acquired by inputting a desired current and a desired voltage relating to the battery mounted in the device to the learned model on the basis of a correction value that is unique to the device.”). For the purposes of examination, ‘desired’ values are interpreted as values which are determined to be optimum (learned) for the functioning of the device.
Claim 7 in lines 6- recites the limitation "estimating an overvoltage from the open circuit voltage of the battery by inputting a desired current and a desired temperature to a learned model that has learned using at least the current and the temperature of the time series data as input data;". It is unclear how the “learned model” was developed; at this level of generality it is not significantly more than a black box which takes inputs of current and temperature and returns “estimate an overvoltage”. (see MPEP 2181(II)(B): “In addition, merely referencing a specialized computer (e.g., a "bank computer"), some undefined component of a computer system (e.g., "access control manager"), "logic," "code," or elements that are essentially a black box designed to perform the recited function, will not be sufficient because there must be some explanation of how the computer or the computer component performs the claimed function. Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc.,”)
Claim 8 in lines 6-8 recites the limitation "estimate an overvoltage from the open circuit voltage of the battery by inputting a desired current and a desired temperature to a learned model that has learned using at least the current and the temperature of the time series data as input data;". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear how the “learned model” was developed; at this level of generality it is not significantly more than a black box which takes inputs of current and temperature and returns “estimate an overvoltage”. (see MPEP 2181(II)(B): “In addition, merely referencing a specialized computer (e.g., a "bank computer"), some undefined component of a computer system (e.g., "access control manager"), "logic," "code," or elements that are essentially a black box designed to perform the recited function, will not be sufficient because there must be some explanation of how the computer or the computer component performs the claimed function. Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc.,”)
Regarding “Lack of antecedent basis in the claims”:
Claim 4 in line 2 recites the limitation "wherein the battery is mounted in a device using electric power". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Recitation of “a device” suggests that this is not the same device as recited in the parent claim 1; if it is meant to be the same device as in the parent claim then it should be ‘the device’.
Note: the first instance of an element should be in the form “a [unique descriptive terminology]” and successive references to that element should be in the form “the [unique descriptive terminology]” where [unique descriptive terminology] is the same throughout the claims. This is necessary because similarly phrased elements can be patentably distinct.
Regarding “Claim Limitation Interpreted under 112(f) or pre-AIA 112, 6th Para., but Disclosure of Structure, Material, or Acts for Performing Function in a Claim Lacking, Insufficient, or Not Clearly Linked”:
Claim 1 limitation:
“an overvoltage estimating unit configured to estimate an overvoltage from the open circuit voltage of the battery by inputting a desired current and a desired temperature to a learned model that has learned using at least the current and the temperature of the time series data as input data;”
invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Claim 1 in lines 6-9 recites the limitation "an overvoltage estimating unit configured to estimate an overvoltage from the open circuit voltage of the battery by inputting a desired current and a desired temperature to a learned model that has learned using at least the current and the temperature of the time series data as input data;". It is unclear how the “learned model” was developed; at this level of generality it is not significantly more than a black box which takes inputs of current and temperature and returns “estimate an overvoltage”. (see MPEP 2181(II)(B): “In addition, merely referencing a specialized computer (e.g., a "bank computer"), some undefined component of a computer system (e.g., "access control manager"), "logic," "code," or elements that are essentially a black box designed to perform the recited function, will not be sufficient because there must be some explanation of how the computer or the computer component performs the claimed function. Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc.,”)
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding ‘rejected for inheriting the rejected limitation(s) of a parent claim without rectifying the issue(s) for which the parent claim(s) were rejected’:
Claims 2-6 are rejected for inheriting the rejected limitations of parent claim 1.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Flow diagrams from MPEP 2106(III) & 2106.04(II)(A), respectively.
Claims 1-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Claim 1:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A battery characteristic estimating device” which is a machine and within one of the four patentable categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
“an open circuit voltage estimating unit configured to estimate an open circuit voltage of the battery;”
“an overvoltage estimating unit configured to estimate an overvoltage from the open circuit voltage of the battery by inputting a desired current and a desired temperature to a learned model that has learned using at least the current and the temperature of the time series data as input data;”
“and a closed circuit voltage estimating unit configured to estimate a closed circuit voltage of the battery by summing the open circuit voltage estimated by the open circuit voltage estimating unit and the overvoltage estimated by the overvoltage estimating unit.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the ‘estimating’ is either a mathematical concept done by generic computing elements or a mental process done by generic computing elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception abstract idea grouping.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim recites the additional elements of:
“device”, “an acquisition unit”, “a battery”, “an open circuit voltage estimating unit”, “an overvoltage estimating unit”, “a closed circuit voltage estimating unit”,
The claim recites the additional limitation of:
“an acquisition unit configured to acquire time series data including a current, a voltage, and a temperature of a battery;”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “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,”
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “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,”
Analysis:
The elements which are a “device” or “units” are not significantly more than generic computing elements for doing to judicial exception(s) or extra solution activity for doing the judicial exception(s).
The element of “a battery” is a field of art limitation corresponding to at least the CPC symbol G01R 31/36: . Arrangements for testing, measuring or monitoring the electrical condition of accumulators or electric batteries, e.g. capacity or state of charge [SoC].
The limitation is directed towards extra solution activity (pre-solution data gathering) and is not significantly more than that which the judicial exception(s) necessarily require.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim recites the additional elements of:
“device”, “an acquisition unit”, “a battery”, “an open circuit voltage estimating unit”, “an overvoltage estimating unit”, “a closed circuit voltage estimating unit”,
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(I): “An inventive concept “cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.”
See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I): “When making a determination whether the additional elements in a claim amount to significantly more than a judicial exception, the examiner should evaluate whether the elements define only well-understood, routine, conventional activity. In this respect, the well-understood, routine, conventional consideration overlaps with other Step 2B considerations, particularly the improvement consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).”
&
“2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc”
Analysis:
The “device”, “an acquisition unit”, “an open circuit voltage estimating unit”, “an overvoltage estimating unit”, “a closed circuit voltage estimating unit”, & “a battery”, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity, as demonstrated by at least the references of:
US 12222396 B2 “Battery Internal Temperature Information Processing Method, Computer Device, And Storage Medium” (Deng) teaches the “units” which are computing elements see Fig. 8 and also teaches the “a battery” see Fig. 1-S10: “testing data of battery”
US 12566216 B2 “Battery Apparatus And Method For Estimating Resistance State” (Yun) teaches the “units” which are computing elements see Fig. 1-150: “Processor” and also teaches the “a battery” see Fig. 1-110: “Battery”
US 9910100 B2 “Battery Characteristic Determining Device For A Vehicle” (Hwang) teaches the “units” which are computing elements see Fig. 1-12: “Processing Module” and also teaches the “a battery” see Fig. 1-21: “battery module”
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 2:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A battery characteristic estimating device” which is a machine and within one of the four patentable categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 2 additionally recites:
“wherein the open circuit voltage estimating unit estimates the open circuit voltage on the basis of a curve representing a relation between a discharge capacity and the open circuit voltage that is calculated such that error for a voltage that can be regarded as the open circuit voltage out of the time series data is minimized.”
Explanation:
This limitation is further directed toward either mathematical concepts done by generic computing elements or mental processes done by generic computing elements.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 3:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A battery characteristic estimating device” which is a machine and within one of the four patentable categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 3 additionally recites:
“wherein the learned model has learned using a difference between the open circuit voltage of a predetermined time estimated by the open circuit voltage estimating unit and a voltage value of the time series data as output data for learning and at least the current and the temperature out of the time series data before the predetermined time as input data for learning.”
Explanation:
This limitation is further directed toward either mathematical concepts done by generic computing elements or mental processes done by generic computing elements.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 4:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A battery characteristic estimating device” which is a machine and within one of the four patentable categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 3 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 4 additionally recites:
“wherein the battery is mounted in a device using electric power, and wherein the overvoltage estimating unit performs learning by collecting the output data for learning and the input data for learning from the device.”
Explanation:
This limitation is further directed toward either mathematical concepts done by generic computing elements or mental processes done by generic computing elements.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 5:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A battery characteristic estimating device” which is a machine and within one of the four patentable categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 4 and thereby from claim 3 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 5 additionally recites:
“wherein the overvoltage estimating unit estimates the overvoltage of the device by correcting an output value acquired by inputting a desired current and a desired voltage relating to the battery mounted in the device to the learned model on the basis of a correction value that is unique to the device.”
Explanation:
This limitation is further directed toward either mathematical concepts done by generic computing elements or mental processes done by generic computing elements.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 6:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A battery characteristic estimating device” which is a machine and within one of the four patentable categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 5 and thereby from claim 4 and thereby from claim 3 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 6 additionally recites:
“wherein the correction value is calculated on the basis of an actually-measured value of the overvoltage of the battery mounted in the device and the overvoltage estimated using the learned model.”
Explanation:
This limitation is further directed toward either mathematical concepts done by generic computing elements or mental processes done by generic computing elements.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claims 7 & 8 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 1-6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10564222 B2 (Pajovic) in view of US 10809303 B2 (Lee).
Regarding claim 1, Pajovic teaches a battery characteristic estimating device comprising: an acquisition unit configured to acquire time series data including a current, a voltage, and a temperature of a battery (Fig. 1C-105: “Sensors (V,I,T)”, column 9 lines 63-65: “FIG. 1C illustrates a set of sensors 107, connected 113 to the battery 105, measure a variety of physical quantities such as battery voltage, current, temperature, etc.”); … ; an overvoltage estimating unit configured to estimate an overvoltage (Fig. 2-250: “Predicted Voltage”) from the open circuit voltage of the battery by inputting a desired current and a desired temperature to a learned model that has learned using at least the current and the temperature of the time series data as input data (Fig. 2-220: “Training stage”, column 5 lines 13-15: “FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating training and prediction stage of the algorithms, according to embodiments of the present disclosure”, learned model/(“training … algorithms”); and a closed circuit voltage estimating unit configured to estimate a closed circuit voltage of the battery by summing the open circuit voltage estimated by the open circuit voltage estimating unit and the overvoltage estimated by the overvoltage estimating unit (Fig. 1D-173: “Voltage Prediction”, column 10 lines 16-19: “FIG. 1D illustrates for example, some embodiments that allow a driver of the vehicle 160 to manage the battery system 100B to ensure enough power is available for operation at some period of time.”, system can make predictions about the voltage of a battery in a closed circuit).
Pajovic does not as explicitly teach an open circuit voltage estimating unit configured to estimate an open circuit voltage of the battery.
Lee teaches an open circuit voltage estimating unit configured to estimate an open circuit voltage of the battery (Fig. 3-110: “OCV measuring unit”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device taught by Pajovic with the teachings of Lee. One would have added to the “Methods And Systems For Battery State Of Power Prediction” of Pajovic the “Device And Method For Estimating State Of Battery” with of OCV measuring unit of Lee. The motivation would have been that the OCV measuring unit would improve the accuracy of the measurements of the battery parameters (See Lee Column 3 lines 56-59: “the error is not reflected to reestimation of the second SOC after the error occurs in the current measurement value, thereby enhancing accuracies of the SOC and the SOH of the battery.”).
Regarding claim 2, Pajovic in view of Lee teaches the battery characteristic estimating device according to claim 1.
Lee further teaches wherein the open circuit voltage estimating unit estimates the open circuit voltage on the basis of a curve representing a relation between a discharge capacity and the open circuit voltage that is calculated such that error for a voltage that can be regarded as the open circuit voltage out of the time series data is minimized (Fig. 3-110: “OCV measuring Unit” & Fig. 3-180: “Charging/Discharging Voltage Measuring Unit”, system determines relations between open circuit voltage and measurements relating to the discharge capacity).
Regarding claim 3, Pajovic in view of Lee teaches the battery characteristic estimating device according to claim 1,
Pajovic teaches wherein the learned model has learned using a difference between the open circuit voltage of a predetermined time estimated by the open circuit voltage estimating unit and a voltage value of the time series data as output data for learning (Fig. 1B-113: “Training”, Fig. 2-220: “Training stage”, there is a learned model/algorithm for open circuit voltages based on time series data for training) and at least the current and the temperature out of the time series data before the predetermined time as input data for learning (Fig. 1C-105: “Sensors(V,I,T)” & Fig. 1C-139: “Algorithm”, column 10 lines 10-13: “Wherein the algorithm 139 takes as an input the sensor measurements 107 and the given future current profile, and predicts the corresponding voltage 151.”, the learned model/algorithm is trained on voltage(V) and current (I) and temperature (T)).
Regarding claim 4, Pajovic in view of Lee teaches the battery characteristic estimating device according to claim 3.
Pajovic teaches wherein the battery is mounted in a device using electric power (Fig. 1D: Electric vehicle, column 9 lines 59-62: “Referring to FIG. 1C and FIG. 1D shows an application 160 such as an electric vehicle of the method 100B that includes the electric vehicle that obtains electric power from a battery 105”), and wherein the overvoltage estimating unit performs learning by collecting the output data for learning and the input data for learning from the device (Fig. 2-210: “Training data input” & Fig. 2-212: “Training data output”, & Fig. 2-220: “Training stage”, model/algorithm is learned from both inputs and outputs).
Regarding claim 5, Pajovic in view of Lee teaches the battery characteristic estimating device according to claim 4,
Pajovic teaches wherein the overvoltage estimating unit estimates the overvoltage of the device by correcting an output value acquired by inputting a desired current and a desired voltage relating to the battery mounted in the device to the learned model on the basis of a correction value that is unique to the device (Fig. 1D-173: “Voltage Prediction”, voltage prediction is within and trained on data to and from the device/(electric vehicle) and therefore the model and corresponding correction values are unique to the device/(electric vehicle)).
Regarding claim 6, Pajovic in view of Lee teaches the battery characteristic estimating device according to claim 5,
Pajovic teaches wherein the correction value is calculated on the basis of an actually-measured value of the overvoltage of the battery mounted in the device (Fig. 1D-173: mounted in the device ) and the overvoltage estimated using the learned model (Fig. 2-250: “Predicted Voltage”, Fig. 1C-105: “Sensors(V,I,T)”, actually measured values are inputs to the trained model/algorithm).
Regarding claim 7, Pajovic teaches a battery characteristic estimating method using a computer (Fig. 10-1011: “computer/controller”, column 21 lines 18-22: “A computer/controller and the like 1011 can include or be in communication with a processor 1040, computer readable memory 1012, storage 1058 and user interface 1049 with display 1052 and keyboard 1051, which are connected through bus 1056.”), the battery characteristic estimating method comprising: acquiring time series data including a current, a voltage, and a temperature of a battery (Fig. 1C-105: “Sensors (V,I,T)”, column 9 lines 63-65: “FIG. 1C illustrates a set of sensors 107, connected 113 to the battery 105, measure a variety of physical quantities such as battery voltage, current, temperature, etc.”); … ; estimating an overvoltage from the open circuit voltage of the battery by inputting a desired current and a desired temperature to a learned model that has learned using at least the current and the temperature of the time series data as input data (Fig. 2-220: “Training stage”, column 5 lines 13-15: “FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating training and prediction stage of the algorithms, according to embodiments of the present disclosure”, learned model/(“training … algorithms”); and estimating a closed circuit voltage of the battery by summing the estimated open circuit voltage and the estimated overvoltage(Fig. 1D-173: “Voltage Prediction”, column 10 lines 16-19: “FIG. 1D illustrates for example, some embodiments that allow a driver of the vehicle 160 to manage the battery system 100B to ensure enough power is available for operation at some period of time.”, system can make predictions about the voltage of a battery in a closed circuit).
Pajovic does not as explicitly teach estimating an open circuit voltage of the battery.
Lee teaches estimating an open circuit voltage of the battery (Fig. 3-110: “OCV measuring unit”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Pajovic with the teachings of Lee. One would have added to the “Methods And Systems For Battery State Of Power Prediction” of Pajovic the “Device And Method For Estimating State Of Battery” with of OCV measuring unit of Lee. The motivation would have been that the OCV measuring unit would improve the accuracy of the measurements of the battery parameters (See Lee Column 3 lines 56-59: “the error is not reflected to reestimation of the second SOC after the error occurs in the current measurement value, thereby enhancing accuracies of the SOC and the SOH of the battery.”).
Regarding claim 8, Pajovic teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon a program (Fig. 9-960: “Memory”, column 20 lines 58-61: “In some embodiments, the memory 960 holds program codes that facilitate prediction of the unknown voltage of the battery, and other tasks performed by the processor 950.”) causing a computer to: acquire time series data including a current, a voltage, and a temperature of a battery (Fig. 1C-105: “Sensors (V,I,T)”, column 9 lines 63-65: “FIG. 1C illustrates a set of sensors 107, connected 113 to the battery 105, measure a variety of physical quantities such as battery voltage, current, temperature, etc.”); … ; estimate an overvoltage from the open circuit voltage of the battery by inputting a desired current and a desired temperature to a learned model that has learned using at least the current and the temperature of the time series data as input data(Fig. 2-220: “Training stage”, column 5 lines 13-15: “FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating training and prediction stage of the algorithms, according to embodiments of the present disclosure”, learned model/(“training … algorithms”); and estimate a closed circuit voltage of the battery by summing the estimated open circuit voltage and the estimated overvoltage (Fig. 1D-173: “Voltage Prediction”, column 10 lines 16-19: “FIG. 1D illustrates for example, some embodiments that allow a driver of the vehicle 160 to manage the battery system 100B to ensure enough power is available for operation at some period of time.”, system can make predictions about the voltage of a battery in a closed circuit).
Pajovic does not as explicitly teach estimate an open circuit voltage of the battery
Lee teaches estimate an open circuit voltage of the battery (Fig. 3-110: “OCV measuring unit”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium taught by Pajovic with the teachings of Lee. One would have added to the “Methods And Systems For Battery State Of Power Prediction” of Pajovic the “Device And Method For Estimating State Of Battery” with of OCV measuring unit of Lee. The motivation would have been that the OCV measuring unit would improve the accuracy of the measurements of the battery parameters (See Lee Column 3 lines 56-59: “the error is not reflected to reestimation of the second SOC after the error occurs in the current measurement value, thereby enhancing accuracies of the SOC and the SOH of the battery.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9537325 B2 "Battery State Estimation System, Battery Control System, Battery System, And Battery State Estimation Method" (Igarashi) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 2 & Fig. 4.
US 20220155381 A1 "Device and Method for Predicting State of Battery" (Jo) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 2 & Fig. 4.
US 20160259010 A1 "Battery State of Charge Estimation Apparatus and Battery State of Charge Estimation Method" (Syouda) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Phan can be reached at (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 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.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights