DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of claims
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-2 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 3-8 and 12-14 are objected to.
Examiner’s Note
The terms “abnormal” is clear according to recited paragraph [0052] of applicant’s specification with receipt date 03/25/2024 which is according to a result of a comparison result a reference value.
“[0052] The controller 122 may determine whether the voltage of the battery module 110 is abnormal. For example, the controller 122 may determine that the voltage of the battery module 110 is abnormal when the voltage of the battery module 110 is equal to or greater than the first reference voltage or less than or equal to the second reference voltage. According to an embodiment, the controller 122 may generate an abnormal count value by counting a case where the voltage of the battery module 110 is equal to or greater than the first reference voltage or less than or equal to the second reference voltage. According to an embodiment, the controller 122 may generate an abnormal count value by comparing the voltage of the battery module 110, transmitted from the detecting unit 121, with the first reference voltage and/or the second reference voltage. Herein, the second reference voltage may be set to a value less than the first reference voltage. The controller 122 may increase the abnormal count value when the third cycle count value is less than or equal to a threshold value and the abnormal count value is less than a maximum value. For example, the maximum value may be set to 255, without being limited thereto.”
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1 of claim 1, “battery management apparatus” should be changed to
“A battery management apparatus”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 1:
1. (Original) battery management apparatus comprising:
a detecting unit configured to detect a voltage of a battery; and
a controller configured to determine a state of the battery based on cycle information related to a use cycle of the battery and an abnormal count value related to whether the voltage of the battery is abnormal.
Analysis Steps for claim 1:
Step 1: Is claim 1 claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, claim 1 recites battery management apparatus which is within one of the 4 statutory categories the process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Step 2a) Prong One: Does claim 1 recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, claim 1 recites “determine a state of the battery based on cycle information related to a use cycle of the battery and an abnormal count value related to whether the voltage of the battery is abnormal” may be done by human mental process by mentally comparing the cycle information and the abnormal count value; therefore, human mental process is abstract idea.
Step 2a) Prong Two: Does claim 1 recite additional element that integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application?
No, claim 1 recites additional elements “a detecting unit configured to detect a voltage of a battery” that is merely general voltage data collection pre-solution active which does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas; therefore, merely using the detecting unit to collect voltage data of the battery which does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application.
No, claim 1 recites additional elements “a controller” may be a general component of a general computer which does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas; therefore, merely using the detecting unit to collect voltage data of the battery which does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application.
Step 2b): Does claim 1 recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception?
No, when considering claim 1 as a whole, merely using the detecting unit to collect voltage data of the battery and using the controller to perform the determine step does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claims 2-4 and 5-8, each of claims 2-4 and 5-8 corresponds to pre-solution activities in determining cycle information and/or count value for further comparison which does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception.
Regarding claims 4, claim 4 corresponds to post-solution activity which does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception.
Regarding claims 9, claim 9 is analogously rejected as in claim 1, claim 9 recites “determine the state of the battery according to a preset period” may be done by human mental process by performing the determine step mentally; therefore, human mental process is abstract idea; and “the controller” may be a general component of a general computer which does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas; therefore, merely using the detecting unit to collect voltage data of the battery which does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application.
Regarding claim 10:
10. (Currently Amended) An operating method of a battery management apparatus, the operating method comprising:
detecting a voltage of a battery;
determining whether the voltage of the battery is abnormal;
generating cycle information related to a use cycle of the battery; and
determining a state of the battery based on the cycle information and an abnormal count value related to whether the voltage of the battery is abnormal.
Analysis Steps for claim 10:
Step 1: Is claim 10 claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, claim 10 recites an operating method which is within one of the 4 statutory categories the process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Step 2a) Prong One: Does claim 10 recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, claim 10 recites “determining whether the voltage of the battery is abnormal” may be done by human mental process by performing the determining step mentally; therefore, human mental process is abstract idea.
Yes, claim 10 recites “determining a state of the battery based on the cycle information and an abnormal count value related to whether the voltage of the battery is abnormal” may be done by human mental process by mentally comparing the cycle information and the abnormal count value; therefore, human mental process is abstract idea.
Step 2a) Prong Two: Does claim 10 recite additional element that integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application?
No, claim 10 recites additional elements “detecting a voltage of a battery” that is merely general voltage data collection pre-solution active which does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas; therefore, merely collecting voltage data of the battery which does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application.
No, claim 10 recites additional elements “generating cycle information related to a use cycle of the battery” that is merely general pre-solution active for further comparison which does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
Step 2b): Does claim 10 recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception?
No, when considering claim 10 as a whole, merely detecting the voltage and generating the cycle information does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception. There are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract ideas.
Therefore, claim 10 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claims 11-14, each of claims 11-14 corresponds to pre-solution activities in determining cycle information and/or count value for further comparison which does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception.
PNG
media_image1.png
949
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
690
768
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-2 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 2008/0224667), and further in view of Kwak et al. (US 2021/0194265).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka teaches battery management apparatus (e.g. fig. 2, [0029], battery pack 10 have a control circuit 13) comprising:
a detecting unit configured to detect a voltage of a battery (e.g. fig. 2, [0029], A/D converter detects a digital voltage of battery 11 based on an obtained voltage from the battery 11); and
a controller configured to determine a state of the battery (e.g. fig. 2, arithmetic circuit 18 having degradation level detector 20 for detecting degradation level such that the battery 11 can be judged to be in a degradation state) based on cycle information related to a use cycle of the battery (e.g. fig. 2, [0042], the degradation level is detected based on accumulated cycle number of the battery 11) and a count value (e.g. fig. 2, [0042], the battery 11 can be judged to be in a degradation state when the accumulated cycle number become larger than the set cycle number).
However, Tanaka is silent with regard to the count value being an abnormal count value related to whether the voltage of the battery is abnormal.
Kwak teaches a count value being an abnormal count value related to whether the voltage of a battery is abnormal (e.g. fig. 3, [0069], when the number of charging and discharging cycles of battery exceeds the specified count (e.g. 100), in a battery having a capacity of 3000 mAh, a battery cell corresponding to a capacity of 300 mAh may be a dead cell; therefore, 3000 mAh is degraded at a level to having a capacity of 300mAh which is an abnormal dead battery cell).
It would produce a predictive result of set the count value as an abnormal count value when the battery is degraded to a level that the battery become an abnormal dead battery that couldn’t provide sufficient voltage, for the purpose of accurately calculate a battery’s cycle life and control a charge voltage to prevent rapid aging (e.g. Kwak, [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Tanaka by applying the teaching of Kwak to explicitly have the count value being an abnormal count value related to whether the voltage of the battery is abnormal, for the purpose of accurately calculate a battery’s cycle life and control a charge voltage to prevent rapid aging (e.g. Kwak, [0008]).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, combination of Tanaka and Kwak teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: define, as one use cycle, a case where a cumulative use amount of the battery reaches an entire capacity of the battery (e.g. Tanaka, e.g. fig. 2, [0042]-[0043], the degradation level is detected based on accumulated cycle number of the battery 11, fully discharging and fully charging), and generate the cycle information based on a first cycle count value obtained by cumulatively counting the use cycle (e.g. Tanaka, e.g. fig. 2, [0042]-[0043], the degradation level is detected based on accumulated cycle number of the battery 11) and a second cycle count value obtained by counting a use cycle of the battery in response to the voltage of the battery being equal to or greater than a first reference voltage or being less than or equal to a second reference voltage (e.g. Tanaka, e.g. fig. 2, [0042]-[0043], the degradation level is detected based on accumulated cycle number of the battery 11, initial cycle count is when battery is new and detected initial voltage equal to a normal reference voltage).
Regarding claim 9, combination of Tanaka and Kwak teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine the state of the battery according to a preset period (e.g. Tanaka, [0042]-[0043], set cycle number is a preset cycle number where each preset cycle corresponds to a preset period between fully discharge state and fully charged state).
Regarding claim 10, Tanaka teaches an operating method of a battery management apparatus (e.g. fig. 2, [0042], a method for detecting degradation level of battery 11 by operating a control circuit 13), the operating method comprising:
detecting a voltage of a battery (e.g. fig. 2, [0029], A/D converter detects a digital voltage of battery 11 based on an obtained voltage from the battery 11);
generating cycle information related to a use cycle of the battery (e.g. fig. 2, [0042], the degradation level is detected based on accumulated cycle number of the battery 11, and the accumulated cycle number is generated first before being used); and
determining a state of the battery (e.g. fig. 2, arithmetic circuit 18 having degradation level detector 20 for detecting degradation level such that the battery 11 can be judged to be in a degradation state) based on the cycle information and a count value (e.g. fig. 2, [0042], the battery 11 can be judged to be in a degradation state when the accumulated cycle number become larger than the set cycle number).
However, determining whether the voltage of the battery is abnormal; and the count value being an abnormal count value related to whether the voltage of the battery is abnormal.
However, Tanaka is silent with regard to determining whether a voltage of the battery is abnormal (e.g. fig. 3, [0069], in a battery having a capacity of 3000 mAh, a battery cell corresponding to a capacity of 300 mAh may be dead cell that couldn’t provide sufficient voltage; therefore, 3000 mAh is degraded at a level to having a capacity of 300mAh that couldn’t which is an abnormal dead battery cell); and an abnormal count value related to whether a voltage of the battery is abnormal (e.g. fig. 3, [0069], when the number of charging and discharging cycles of battery exceeds the specified count (e.g. 100), in a battery having a capacity of 3000 mAh, a battery cell corresponding to a capacity of 300 mAh may be a dead cell; therefore, 3000 mAh is degraded at a level to having a capacity of 300mAh which is an abnormal dead battery cell).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Tanaka by applying the teaching of Kwak to explicitly have determining whether the voltage of the battery is abnormal; and the count value being an abnormal count value related to whether the voltage of the battery is abnormal, for the purpose of accurately calculate a battery’s cycle life and control a charge voltage to prevent rapid aging (e.g. Kwak, [0008]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 and 12-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; and if the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 3-8 and 12-14 are properly overcome without broadening the scopes of claims 3-8 and 12-14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIDONG ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5815. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/HAIDONG ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858