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 statements (IDS’) submitted on 04/30/24, 04/09/25, and 06/25/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The 04/30/24 drawings are accepted.
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 1-13 are 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.
With respect to step 1 of the patent subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Independent claim 1 is directed to a battery life prediction apparatus, which is a machine. Independent claim 9 is directed to an operating method of a battery life prediction apparatus, which is a process. All other claims depend on independent claims 1 and 9. As such, claims 1-13 are directed to a statutory category.
With respect to step 2A, prong one, the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Specifically, the following limitations recite mathematical concepts and/or mental processes.
Claim 1
predict a life of the battery based on a current integration method by using the operational data to generate a first result (General and generic prediction may be construed as an abstract mental process that merely includes an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. Here, the claim mentions a “current integration method,” but does not detail what such a method entails. However, paragraphs 0037-0038 of the applicant’s original specification states, “Herein, the current integration method may be understood as a life prediction method based on Equation 1 provided below …” Under such a context, the limitation, by virtue of claiming a method that is defined by an explicit mathematical equation, recites an abstract mathematical concept.)
predict the life of the battery based on a life prediction function by using the operational data to generate a second result (General and generic prediction may be construed as an abstract mental process that merely includes an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. Here, the claim mentions a “life prediction function” but does not detail what such a function entails. However, paragraph 0040 of the applicant’s original specification states, “Herein, the life prediction function may include an equation modeled based on data …” Under such a context, the limitation, by virtue of claiming a function that is defined by a mathematical equation, recites an abstract mathematical concept.)
manage the life prediction function based on the first result and the second result (The claims do not detail what “manage the life prediction function entails.” However, paragraph 0019 of the applicant’s original specification states, “the managing of the life prediction function based on the first result and the second result may include comparing the difference between the second result and the first result …” Comparing two values is an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion that can be performed in the human mind. The limitation therefore recites an abstract mental process.)
Independent claim 9 represents a variation of claim 1 and recites similar abstract limitations.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-13 depend on independent claims 1 and 9. They recite the independent claims’ abstract limitations, by virtue of their dependence. In addition, some of the claims also recite their own abstract mathematical concepts and/or mental processes.
Claims 2-3 and 10 are further directed to the management of the life prediction function. As discussed above, the claimed management appears to merely be an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion that can be performed in the human mind.
With respect to step 2A, prong two, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The following limitations are considered “additional elements” and explanation will be given as to why these “additional elements” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1
A battery life prediction apparatus (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). No structural detail about the battery life prediction apparatus is given.)
a data obtaining unit configured to obtain operational data of a battery (Generic data gathering merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).)
a controller configured to (No detail about the controller is claimed, but the controller appears to merely implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The general mention of a controller, absent any structural details about the controller itself, is not indicative of integration into a practical application.)
Independent claim 9 represents a variation of claim 1 and recites similar limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application. The limitations of claim 9 recite even less structure than that of claim 1. Claim 9 discloses, “an operating method of a battery life prediction apparatus.” The mention of “battery life prediction” merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). It is not indicative of integration into a practical application.)
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-13 depend on independent claims 1 and 9. They recite the independent claims’ limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application, by virtue of their dependence. In addition, some of the claims also recite their own limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 4-7 and 12-13 are directed to “correcting a value” or “updating the function.” What this entails is not detailed in the claims, but it appears to be a data processing step that merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. If the claimed management is not merely generic data processing but actually results in some sort of transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), the examiner requests that the applicant show where positive recitation of such a teaching is supported in the applicant’s disclosure.
With respect to step 2B, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claimed invention does not add significantly more because, as discussed above in step 2A, prong two, the claims do nothing more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims are directed to receiving and processing data. This is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, and specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chow et al (US PgPub 20160209472). Chow et al was cited in the 04/30/24 IDS.
With respect to claim 1, Chow et al discloses:
A battery life prediction apparatus (abstract; figures 1-2; paragraph 0049 states, “The remaining useful life may refer to a duration of time left until the battery is predicted to reach an end of life (EOL).”)
a data obtaining unit configured to obtain operational data of a battery (figure 2, reference 11; paragraphs 0027-0028 state, “an apparatus for estimating battery life includes a sensor configured to detect battery performance information of a battery that powers a device … The sensor may be configured to measure at least one of a voltage, a current, a temperature, a cycle count and a partial cycle count of the battery.”)
a controller (paragraph 0120 states, “A processing device may be implemented using one or more general-purpose or special purpose computers, such as, for example, a processor, a controller …”) configured to:
predict a life of the battery based on a current integration method by using the operational data to generate a first result (figure 9, reference 920; abstract; figure 5, paragraphs 0093-0094; paragraph 0094 states, “Based on a coulomb counting method …” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a coulomb counting method is a type of current integration method. See also paragraph 0107, which states, “the first estimator estimates first status information based on the battery information … The first estimator may count full cycles and partial cycles based on the estimated SOC …”)
predict the life of the battery based on a life prediction function by using the operational data to generate a second result (figure 9, reference 930; figure 3; paragraphs 0082-0083 discloses equivalent circuit model, which represents a model-based approach that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to represent a life prediction function. See also paragraphs 0108-0110. Paragraph 0108 states, “a second estimator estimates second status information based on the partial cycle model.”)
manage the life prediction function based on the first result and the second result (figure 9; paragraph 0110 states, “When the first status information is determined to differ from the second status information, the life calculator adjusts the partial cycle model in operation 950. For example, the life calculator may change a structure of the partial cycle model used to estimate the remaining useful life, using a model prediction adaptation approach … there is no limitation thereto and accordingly, the second estimator or the model storage may adjust the partial cycle model, based on a determination of the life calculator.”
With respect to claim 2, Chow et al discloses:
wherein the controller is further configured to manage the life prediction function so that the second result has a value corresponding to the first result (figure 9, reference 940; paragraphs 0109-0110; paragraph 0109 states, “the life calculator determines whether the first status information is identical to the second status information. For example, when a difference between the first status information and the second status information is equal to or less than a predetermined difference, the life calculator may determine that the first status information is identical to the second status information.”)
With respect to claim 3, Chow et al discloses:
wherein the controller is further configured to manage the life prediction function so that a difference between the second result and the first result is less than a reference value (figure 9, reference 940; paragraph 0109 – note “equal to or less than a predetermined difference …”)
With respect to claim 4, Chow et al discloses:
wherein the controller is further configured to correct a value of at least one parameter of the life prediction function (figure 9, reference 950; paragraph 0110 states, “When the first status information is determined to differ from the second status information, the life calculator adjusts the partial cycle model … the life calculator may change a degree of an equation or a model parameter of the partial cycle model.” The examiner broadly interprets Chow’s “adjusting” to anticipate the claimed “correcting,” especially since no detail is given as to what correcting entails.)
With respect to claim 5, Chow et al discloses:
wherein the at least one parameter comprises a coefficient of at least any one of a state of charge (SoC), a constant power rate (CP-rate), and a temperature of the life prediction function (paragraphs 0015-0016 state, “The estimating of the second status information may involve estimating, as the second status information, at least one of a capacity and an internal resistance estimated from a partial cycle count of the battery using the partial cycle model. The battery information may include at least one of a voltage, a current, a temperature …”)
With respect to claim 6, Chow et al discloses:
wherein the controller is further configured to correct the value of the at least one parameter so that the second result has a value corresponding to the first result (figure 9; paragraphs 0107-0110)
With respect to claim 7, Chow et al discloses:
wherein the controller is further configured to update the life prediction function by using the value of the at least one parameter when a difference between the second result and the first result is less than a reference value (suggested by paragraph 0053, which states, “when an internal resistance and a capacity of the battery that are updated in real time are determined to be different from values estimated by the partial cycle model, the partial cycle model may be modified.” Real time updates account for the claimed scenario.)
With respect to claim 8, Chow et al discloses:
wherein the controller is further configured to:
generate the first result and the second result based on the operational data obtained daily (suggested by real time updating, as taught in paragraph 0053; see further real time teaching in paragraph 0059)
manage the life prediction function based on the first result and the second result obtained daily (suggested by real time updating, as taught in paragraph 0053; see further real time teaching in paragraph 0059)
Claim 9 represents the method claim version of apparatus claim 1. It is rejected for similar reasons as those discussed above.
Claim 10 represents a variation of claim 2. It is rejected for similar reasons as those discussed above.
With respect to claim 11, Chow et al discloses:
wherein the managing of the life prediction function based on the first result and the second result comprises:
comparing a difference between the second result and the first result with a reference value (figure 9; paragraphs 0106-0110)
correcting a value of at least one parameter of the life prediction function, based on a result of comparing the difference with the reference value (figure 9; paragraphs 0106-0110)
With respect to claim 12, Chow et al discloses:
further comprising updating the life prediction function, based on the result of comparing the difference with the reference value (figure 9; paragraphs 0053 and 0106-0110)
Claim 13 represents a variation of claim 5. It is rejected for similar reasons as those discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vuylsteke et al (US PgPub 20220024438) discloses electrified vehicle control using battery state of charge and power capability strategy.
Youn Geumran (KR102066223B1) (both original reference and machine translation included) discloses a method, apparatus, and program for maintaining battery lifetime.
Sastry et al (US PgPub 20190089023) discloses an energy storage system.
Berkowitz et al (US PgPub 20120200266) discloses a method and circuitry to calculate the state of charge of a battery/cell.
Coenen (US Pat 10295600) discloses monitoring charge stored in a battery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONARD S LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7 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, ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ can be reached at (571)272-2619. 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.
/LEONARD S LIANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857 08/05/26
