Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/710,146

DEGRADATION STATE ESTIMATION SYSTEM, DEGRADATION STATE ESTIMATION METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
May 14, 2024
Examiner
MCANDREW, CHRISTOPHER P
Art Unit
2858
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
820 granted / 957 resolved
+17.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
979
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.8%
-38.2% vs TC avg
§103
46.4%
+6.4% vs TC avg
§102
31.8%
-8.2% vs TC avg
§112
15.9%
-24.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 957 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
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 . 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of assessing and estimating the degradation state of a battery without significantly more. Claim 1 is directed towards an abstract idea . Claim 1 recites generic units that are essentially a single computer processor with multi-functionality or multiple computer processors doing mathematical steps. Claim 1 recites an abstract idea because the following steps are directed toward mathematical concepts: I. a data acquisition unit that acquires usage data of a secondary battery and battery information for specifying the type of the secondary battery (A routine data acquisition of information from a device or database.); II. a degradation characteristic search unit that searches a degradation characteristic database on the basis of the battery information and specifies degradation characteristic information that includes a storage degradation characteristic, a charging degradation characteristic, and a discharging degradation characteristic of the secondary battery (A routine query for information from a database.); III. a degradation state analysis unit that estimates a storage degradation amount, a charging degradation amount, and a discharging degradation amount of the secondary battery on the basis of the specified degradation characteristic information and the usage data of the secondary battery (Abstract idea of making an estimation or calculation based on known values of variables. It is a form of mathematical calculation.). IV. estimating a storage degradation amount of the secondary battery on the basis of the specified storage degradation characteristic and state of charge (SOC), temperature, and elapsed time obtained based on the usage data of the secondary battery; estimating a charging degradation amount of the secondary battery on the basis of SOC, a charging rate, temperature, and a charging amount obtained based on the specified charging degradation characteristic and the usage data of the secondary battery (Abstract idea of making an estimation or calculation based on known values of variables. It is a form of mathematical calculation.); V. estimating a discharging degradation amount of the secondary battery on the basis of SOC, a discharging rate, temperature, and a discharging amount obtained based on the specified discharging degradation characteristic and the usage data of the secondary battery (Abstract idea of making an estimation or calculation based on known values of variables. It is a form of mathematical calculation.). The additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more for the following reasons: I. The limitation “a data acquisition unit that acquires usage data” fails to integrate into a practical application or amount to significantly more because this limitation is a generically recited computer element and does not add meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). II. The limitation “a degradation characteristic search unit” fails to integrate into a practical application or amount to significantly more because this limitation is a generically recited computer element and does not add meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). III. The limitation “a degradation state analysis unit” fails to integrate into a practical application or amount to significantly more because this limitation is a generically recited computer element and does not add meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). IV. The limitation “estimating a storage degradation amount” is a mathematical concept or abstract idea that can be performed by a human by analyzing all of the appropriate gathered data. V. Finally, the limitation “estimating a discharging degradation amount” is a mathematical concept or abstract idea that can be performed by a human by analyzing all of the appropriate gathered data. As such, the additional elements do not incorporate the abstract ideas, identified above into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Claims 7 and 8 recite similar limitation and additional elements and therefore the same analysis applies. Claims 7 & 8 are directed towards a method and a program that performs the method respectively. The claims recite a series of steps that can be performed by hand by a user. All of the method steps are simply using a computer to perform calculations and generic estimations that a human can do with a pencil and paper. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations only store and retrieve information in memory, and these are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). These are also steps that are easily performed by a human with access to relevant information and a pencil and paper. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-8 contain allowable subject matter but are currently subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. If and when applicant overcomes the 101 rejection the claims will be allowed. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art listed does not anticipate alone or combine in an obvious manner to teach the invention claimed by applicant. The written opinion of the international search authority has indicated that the claims were allowable because none of the listed documents taught or suggested a “degradation characteristic search unit for searching a degradation characteristic database on the basis of the battery information, and identifying degradation characteristic information including a storage degradation characteristic, a charge degradation characteristic, and a discharge degradation characteristic of the secondary cell.” This limitation, in combination with all of the other required limitations, is not anticipated in one lone reference. Examiner notes that impermissible hindsight would be necessary to make any combination of references obvious if all limitations were to be found. After a further search, Examiner concurs with the international search authority and its written opinion. Therefore, for these reasons, the above listed claims are allowable if or when the 101 rejection has been overcome. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed but not cited represents the previous state of the art and analogous art that teaches some of the limitations claimed by applicant. The best listed references are the following: U.S. PGPub # 2017/0328957; WO # 2018/105645; U.S. PGPub # 2021/0270906; WO 2015/041093. Document 1, U.S. PGPub # 2017/0328957, discloses calculating an amount of time-dependent degradation and amount of energization degradation of respective sections of a charging/discharging history on the basis of a time-dependent degradation coefficient and energization degradation coefficient extracted in accordance with the charging/discharging history, adding the two after having integrated the amount of time-dependent degradation and the amount of energization degradation of each of the sections, and thereby estimating the state of degradation of a power storage element (see entire text, all drawings (in particular, see fig. 1-7)). Document 2, WO # 2018/105645, discloses a system for controlling charging and discharging operations of a power storage system, wherein the amount of degradation of the power storage system is found by charge time * cycle degradation factor + discharge time * cycle degradation factor + respective SOC storage times * respective storage degradation factors (see paragraphs [0105]-[0108], [0189]-[0198], and fig. 6-9). Document 3, U.S. PGPub # 2021/0270906, discloses calculating a charge degradation rate and discharge degradation rate, weighting values found by multiplying each thereof by an initial charge capacity, and thereby calculating a degraded charge capacity (see paragraphs [0060]-[0077]). Document 4, WO 2015/041093, discloses consulting a degradation characteristic corresponding to a usage pattern of a battery from a degradation characteristic database and predicting future performance of a storage cell, wherein a degradation model according to which degradation of the storage cell is represented by the sum of cycle degradation and calendar degradation is used (see entire text, all drawings). However, for example, although document 2 discloses calculating the storage degradation, the charge degradation, and the discharge degradation, document 2 involves using a cycle degradation factor based on a table common to charge degradation and discharge degradation, and does not disclose handling a storage degradation characteristic, a charge degradation characteristic, and a discharge degradation characteristic each separately. Also, document 3 discloses handing the charge degradation and the discharge degradation separately, but does not disclose taking the storage degradation into consideration to calculate the charge degradation and the discharge degradation. That is, none of the documents cited in the ISR discloses the feature of claim 1 of the "degradation characteristic search unit for searching a degradation characteristic database on the basis of the battery information, and identifying degradation characteristic information including a storage degradation characteristic, a charge degradation characteristic, and a discharge degradation characteristic of the secondary cell". Moreover, this feature would not be obvious to a person skilled in the art. Other notable references that address secondary battery degradation are the following: U.S. PGPub # 2017/0370996; U.S. Pat. # 9,494,656; U.S. PGPub # 2016/0047861; U.S. PGPub # 2012/0105014. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW whose telephone number is (469)295-9025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-4:30. 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, Lee Rodak can be reached on 571-270-5628. 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. /CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 14, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601796
PHASE DIFFERENCE MEASUREMENT DEVICE, MEASUREMENT METHOD, AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT COMPRISING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596141
QUANTUM ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD SENSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12578368
ROTATION MECHANISM FOR MEASURING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571753
END-OF-LIFE SENSORS FOR FABRICS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571828
SOLID STATE ELECTRIC FIELD SENSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+14.2%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 957 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month