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 .
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1- 15 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed 6/11/2024, 1/02/2025, 1/21/2025, 5/19/2025, and 6/12/2026 are acknowledged.
Priority
The Examiner has noted this Application claims Priority from Provisional Application KR10-2022-0001089 filed January 04, 2022.
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:
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;
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
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 limitations are: “unit(s)” in claims 1 -9.
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. Examiner suggests amended claim language such as “A battery state estimating apparatus comprising a logic circuit ( data processor), executing a program comprising:” to avoid 112f claim interpretation and 112b issues.
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 -14 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “offset and variance calculation unit”, “system noise calculation unit”, and “battery state estimation unit” 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. 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:
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;
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
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:
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
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.
Claims 2-14 depend from claim 1, and are rejected for same reasons as 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.
Claims 1- 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-15 are directed to battery state estimation.
Claim 1 recites a system for battery state estimation, and Claim 15 recites a method for battery state estimation, which include calculate a voltage offset and a voltage variance based on a voltage value of a battery obtained during a predetermined period, and calculate a current offset and a current variance based on a current value of the battery obtained during the predetermined period; calculate an offset noise matrix and a variance noise matrix based on the voltage offset, the voltage variance, a preset voltage measurement specification, the current offset, the current variance and a preset current measurement specification-specification, and calculate a system noise from the offset noise matrix and the variance noise matrix; and a battery state estimation unit configured to estimate state information of the battery by applying the system noise to a preset recursive filter, wherein the battery state estimating controls the battery based on the estimated state information.
As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea grouping of “Mental Processes” – evaluation. The recitation of “offset and variance calculation unit”, “system noise calculation unit”, and “battery state estimation unit”, provide nothing in the claim elements to preclude the step from being “Mental Processes”- evaluation. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims primarily recite the additional element of using computer components to perform each step. The offset and variance calculation unit”, “system noise calculation unit”, and “battery state estimation unit” is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the “controlling of the battery” under the broadest reasonable interpretation can include collecting data, monitoring performance and displaying information which is MPEP 2106.05(d)- M2106.05(d)- Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information) and Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims also fail to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and/or an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. In particular, there is a lack of improvement to a computer or technical field in battery analysis.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “offset and variance calculation unit”, “system noise calculation unit”, and “battery state estimation unit” is insufficient to amount to significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. With regards to receiving data and step 2B, it is M2106.05(d)- Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information) and Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Examiner concludes that the additional elements in combination fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea based on findings that each element merely performs the same function(s) in combination as each element performs separately. The claim is not patent eligible. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Dependent Claims 2-14 recite calculate the first offset component based on the current offset and the current measurement specification, and calculate the second offset component based on the voltage offset and the voltage measurement specification; calculate the first offset component; calculate the second offset component; calculate the first variance component based on the current variance and the current measurement specification, and calculate the second variance component based on the voltage offset and the voltage measurement specification; calculate the first variance component using ( varc xq1(rangec x accuracyc)max- where qiis the first variance component, qi is a preset minimum value of the first variance component, qilmax is a preset maximum value of the first variance component, varcis the current variance, rangec is a measurable maximum current of the current measurement specification, and accuracyc is a current measurement error of the current measurement specification; calculate the second variance component using where q22 is the second variance component, q22_min is a preset minimum value of the second variance component, q22_max is a preset maximum value of the second variance component, vary is the voltage variance, rangev is a measurable maximum voltage of the voltage measurement specification, and accuracyv is a voltage measurement error of the voltage measurement specification; calculate the system noise by calculating a dot product of the offset noise matrix, the variance noise matrix, and a transposition matrix of the offset noise matrix; calculate the system noise using Ew=WQWT where Ew is the system noise, W is the offset noise matrix, WT is the transposed matrix of the offset noise matrix, and Q is the variance noise matrix; the preset recursive filter is configured as a dual adaptive extended Kalman filter including a first extended Kalman filter that predicts and corrects state of charge (SOC) and SOC covariance of the battery and a second extended Kalman filter that predicts and corrects state of health (SOH) and SOH covariance of the battery; predict SOC of a current cycle based on SOC of the battery estimated in a previous cycle and the offset noise matrix, predict SOC covariance of the current cycle based on SOC covariance of the battery estimated in the previous cycle and the system noise, and estimate SOC and SOC covariance of the battery in the current cycle based on the predicted SOC, the predicted SOC covariance, and the SOH predicted by the second extended Kalman filter; predict SOH of a current cycle based on SOH of the battery estimated in a previous cycle, predict SOH covariance of the current cycle based on SOH covariance of the battery estimated in the previous cycle and the variance noise matrix, and estimate SOH and SOH covariance of the battery in the current cycle based on the predicted SOH, the predicted SOH covariance, and the SOC predicted by the first extended Kalman filter; and further narrowing the abstract idea. These recited limitations in the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exceptions in Claim 1. Regarding Claims, 2-9, and the additional elements of “system noise calculation unit” it is M2106.05(d)- Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Regarding claim 13-14 and the additional element of “battery pack” and “energy storage system” - it is M2106.05(g)- extra solution activity.
Reasons Claims are Patentably Distinguishable from the Prior Art
Examiner analyzed Claims 1-15 in view of the prior art on record and finds not all claim limitations are explicitly taught nor would one of ordinary skill in the art find it obvious to combine these references with a reasonable expectation of success as discussed below.
In regards to Claim 1 (similarly Claim 15), the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest:
“…calculate a voltage offset and a voltage variance based on a voltage value of a battery obtained during a predetermined period, and calculate a current offset and a current variance based on a current value of the battery obtained during the predetermined period; a system noise calculation unit configured to: calculate an offset noise matrix and a variance noise matrix based on the voltage offset, the voltage variance, a preset voltage measurement specification, the current offset, the current variance and a preset current measurement specification, and calculate a system noise from the offset noise matrix and the variance noise matrix; and a battery state estimation unit configured to estimate state information of the battery by applying the system noise to a preset recursive filter, wherein the battery state estimating apparatus is configured to control the battery based on the estimated state information.”.
Examiner finds that Lee. (US PG Publication 20240085486 A1) teaches A battery management system includes a current sensor to measure a battery current through a battery, a voltage sensor to measure a battery voltage across the battery, and a control circuit. In response to a key-on signal during a first rest period of the battery, the control circuit determines a fixed rest time, a fixed Open Circuit Voltage (OCV) and a fixed State Of Charge (SOC), and determines an integrated current value of the battery current during a cycle period of the battery. In response to a key-off signal during the cycle period, the control circuit starts a second rest period of the battery. The control circuit determines an interest SOC corresponding to an interest OCV, i.e., the battery voltage during the second rest period. The control circuit determines a State Of Heath (SOH) of the battery based on the fixed SOC, the integrated current value and the interest SOC. (see Abstract).
Lim (U.S. PG Publication 20220082626) teaches The method of estimating the state of health of the battery comprises: measuring a voltage and current of a battery in use to periodically generate a voltage value and a current value; using an adaptive filter to periodically update a G parameter value and an H parameter value in real time from the voltage value and the current value, said parameters indicating the present state of the battery; and using an initial value and a final value of the G parameter that is preset and a present value of the G parameter to estimate the state of health of the battery in real time. The G parameter is a parameter that represents the sensitivity of the voltage to changes in the current of the battery, and the H parameter is a parameter that represents an effective potential determined by the local equilibrium potential distribution and resistance distribution inside the battery. (see Abstract).
Zhang et al. (U.S. PG Publication 20210215768) teaches A method for battery capacity estimation is provided. The method includes monitoring a sensor, collecting a plurality of data points including a voltage-based state of charge value and an integrated current value, defining within the data points a first data set collected during a first time period and a second data set collected during a second time period, determining an integrated current error related to the second data set, comparing the integrated current error related to the second data set to a threshold integrated current error. When the error related to the second data set exceeds the threshold, the method further includes resetting the second data set based upon an integrated current value from the first time period. The method further includes combining the data sets to create a combined data set and determining a voltage slope capacity estimate as a change in integrated current versus voltage-based state of charge. (see Abstract).
Although Lee, Lim and Zhang teach the battery state elements of the claim, none of the cited prior art, singularly or in combination, teach or fairly suggest, the combination of, the algorithmic estimation steps.
Additionally, Examiner finds Geslo et al. (U.S. PG Publication 20200018797) teaches The invention relates to a method for robust estimation of state of charge (SOC) for a battery cell (6) for an electric vehicle, the method comprising: measuring an output current (/m) from the battery cell; a temperature (Tm) of the battery cell; and an N output voltage (y) from the battery cell; providing a SOC estimation model (M) for the battery cell comprising the measured current (/m) and the measured temperature (Tm) to provide an estimated output voltage (y); calculating the estimated output voltage (y) and an intermediate SOC value (SOCint) using the SOC estimation model (M); calculating a voltage difference between the estimated output voltage (y) and the measured voltage (y); estimating the SOC (SOC) for a battery cell by optimizing said SOC estimation model (M) based on the calculated voltage difference and the intermediate SOC value (SOCint). The method is characterized in that the SOC estimation model (M) further comprises a current fault estimate (lf) for an error of the measured current (/m); and/or the SOC estimation model (M) further comprises a voltage fault estimate (yf) for an error of a measured output voltage (ym); and in that the step of estimating the SOC (SOC) for a battery cell is further optimized based on the current fault estimate (lf) and/or the voltage fault estimate {yf). The invention further relates to a computer program comprising program code performing the steps of the method, a computer readable medium carrying such a computer program, a control unit (2) for controlling the monitoring the state of a battery cell, a battery state monitoring system, and an electrical vehicle comprising such a battery state monitoring system. (see Abstract).
Lim (U.S. PG Publication 20190346511) teaches A method of calculating the SOC of a battery in real time includes a battery parameter measurement operation for measuring current, voltage, temperature, and degradation degree of battery, and a real-time SOC calculation operation for calculating the SOC of the battery in real time based on the measured battery parameter. The real-time SOC calculation operation calculates the SOC of the battery in real time using an Extended Kalman Filter. (see Abstract). However Geslo and Lim, individually and in combination, fail to teach the specific case of calculate an offset noise matrix and a variance noise matrix based on the voltage offset, the voltage variance, a preset voltage measurement specification, the current offset, the current variance and a preset current measurement specification. Therefore, for at least these reasons, Claim 1 (similarly Claim 15) is eligible over the prior art.
The dependent claims 2-14 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 because they depend on claim 1 that is determined to be eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chesiree Walton, whose telephone number is (571) 272-5219. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 8 AM and 5 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patricia Munson, can be reached at (571) 270-5396. The fax telephone numbers for this group are either (571) 273-8300 or (703) 872-9326 (for official communications including After Final communications labeled “Box AF”).
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private 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, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/CHESIREE A WALTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights