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
Current application, US Application No. 18/721,151 filed on 06/17/2024, is a National Stage entry of PCT/JP2022/045070, International Filing Date: 12/07/2022, which claims foreign priority to JP 2021-210649 filed on 12/24/2021.
Examiner acknowledges that the certified copy of foreign priority document has been received. However, the certified English translation copy of the original foreign document, which is not written in English, has not been received. There is no requirement to submit certified English translation copy at this stage according to 37 CFR 1.55(g)(3). However, should the need of certified English translated copy arise according to the cases mentioned in 37 CFR 1.55(g)(3), submission may be requested in the future.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the application filed on 06/17/2024. Claims 1-7 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: As per claim 7, the limitation “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having embodied thereon a battery abnormality detection program for causing a computer to execute” should be replaced with “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a battery abnormality detection program executable by a computer to perform” or with an appropriate phrase for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC 112(f)
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 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) 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) 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.
The current application includes limitations in claims 1-5 that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because of the following reasons:
Claims 1, 4 and 5 includes limitation/element that uses generic placeholders, “acquirer”, that are coupled with functional language “acquire(s)” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claims 1-4 include limitations/elements that use generic placeholders, “determiner”, that are coupled with functional language “determine(s)” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The physical structures of acquirer and determiner are interpreted as subcomponents of a generic microprocessor. (see specification – hardware resources, CPU, ROM, RAM, GPU, ASIC, FPGA, LSIs [0036-0037, Fig. 3]).
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. 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.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
“A battery abnormality detection system (1.A) comprising:
an acquirer structured to acquire a current flowing through a battery and a temperature of the battery; (1.B)
and a determiner structured to determine presence or absence of abnormal heat generation of the battery based on a relation between an amount of the current flowing through the battery in a certain period and a temperature rise of the battery in the certain period, (1.B.1) wherein the determiner determines the presence or absence of the abnormal heat generation of the battery based on the current and the temperature of the battery in a charging period in which the temperature of the battery exceeds a set temperature. (1.B.2)”.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (Machine - System).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion).
For example, highlighted limitations/steps (1.A), (1.B1.) and (1.B.2) are treated by the Examiner as belonging to Mathematical Concept grouping or a combination of Mathematical Concept and Mental Process groupings as the limitations include Mathematical Calculations/Algorithms, or show Mathematical Relationship combined with optional Mental evaluations/judgements.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements: (Side Note: duplicated elements are not repeated)
In Claim 1: “A battery abnormality detection system”, “an acquirer”, “acquire a current flowing through a battery and a temperature of the battery” and “a determiner”;
In Claim 4: “acquires a voltage of the battery”;
In Claim 5: “the battery is a secondary battery mounted on an information device”;
In Claim 6: “A battery abnormality detection method”;
In Claim 7: “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having embodied thereon a battery abnormality detection program”;
As per claim 1, the additional element in the preamble “A battery abnormality detection system” is not a meaningful limitation because the preamble simply links the system with an abstract ide, i.e. battery abnormality detection.
The limitations/elements “an acquirer” and “determiner” represent microprocessor subcomponents and they are not particular in the art.
The limitation/step “acquire a current flowing through a battery and a temperature of the battery” represents a standard data collection step in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception.
As per claim 4, the limitation/step “acquire a voltage of the battery” represents a standard data collection step in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception.
As per claim 5, the limitation/element “the battery is a secondary battery mounted on an information device” is not particular in the art.
As per claim 6, the additional element in the preamble “A battery abnormality detection method” is not a meaningful limitation because the preamble simply links the method with an abstract ide, i.e. battery abnormality detection.
As per claim 7, the additional element in the preamble “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having embodied thereon a battery abnormality detection program” is not a meaningful limitation because the preamble simply links the computer readable medium with an abstract idea, i.e. a battery abnormality detection, included in a program, which is not particular in the art.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements as a whole do not reflect an improvement to the computer technology or other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. No particular machine or real-world transformation are claimed. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Under Step 2B analysis, the above claims fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as shown in the prior art of record.
The limitations/elements listed as additional elements above are well understood, routine and conventional steps/elements in the art according to the prior art of record. (See Ono, Umemura, Shiraishi, Toya and others in the list of prior art cited below)
Claims 1-7, therefore, are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono (JP 2019087457 A), hereinafter ‘Ono’ in view of Umemura (EP 2879227 B1), hereinafter “Ume’.
As per claim 1, Ono discloses
A battery abnormality detection system (an abnormality detection device for a secondary battery [abs, pg. 2 line 1-3]) comprising:
an acquirer structured to acquire a current flowing through a battery and a temperature of the battery; (current measurement [pg. 7 line 18-20, Fig. 5], measurement, battery temperature [pg.7 line 14-17, 22-25, Fig. 5])
and a determiner structured to determine presence or absence of abnormal heat generation of the battery based on a relation between an amount of the current flowing through the battery in a certain period and a temperature rise of the battery in the certain period, (abnormality detection control unit, heat, temperature, predetermined time, current value 30 flowing through the inside of the secondary battery, the battery heat generation calculation [pg. 4 line 1 – pg. 7 line 10, Figs. 1-4], the battery temperature rise abnormality determination control unit .. of the abnormality detection control unit [pg. 7 line 11-13, Fig. 5])
However, Ono is silent regarding determination of the abnormal heat generation of the battery in a charging period in which the temperature of the battery exceeds a set temperature.
Ume discloses determination of the abnormal heat generation of the battery in a charging period in which the temperature of the battery exceeds a set temperature (charge control … for determining abnormality of the battery, per the temperature range [pg. 3 line 12-16], when the battery temperature exceeds the high temperature determination threshold during charging of the battery, … the abnormality determination voltage is changed … it is possible to inhibit termination of charging of the battery, it is possible to reduce the heating amount of the battery … by reducing the charging current [pg. 5 line 19-37]).
Ume is in the same art of detecting abnormality of rechargeable battery as Ono.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Ono in view of Ume to equip the determiner to determine the presence or absence of the abnormal heat generation of the battery based on the current and the temperature of the battery in a charging period in which the temperature of the battery exceeds a set temperature with a rationale to accurately and timely determine abnormal state of the battery. (see Ono – determine quickly and accurately that there is an abnormal temperature rise inside the secondary [abs], judge promptly and accurately that there is an abnormal temperature rise inside the secondary battery [pg. 8 line 30-33]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono and Ume in view of Shiraishi (US 20220009352 A1), hereinafter ‘Shira’.
As per claim 5, Ono and Ume disclose claim 1 set forth above.
Ono further discloses the battery is a secondary battery mounted on an information device (a vehicle such as a personal computer, mobile phone, a digital camera, PDA, EV HV, , secondary batteries … used in “EV” [pg. 1 line 31-36], nickel-cadmium used for electric vehicles such as personal computers, mobile phones, digital cameras, electronic devices such as PDAs, electric vehicles (EVs), hybrid cars (HVs), and plug-in hybrid cars (PHVs) [pg. 9 line 31-34]), but fails to discloses acquiring a current, a voltage, and a temperature of the secondary battery via a network.
Shira discloses acquiring a current, a voltage, and a temperature of the secondary battery via a network (remotely monitoring a plurality of batteries, measuring … transmit the measurement data of the current, voltage, and temperature of the energy storage device to the monitoring server via the network [0165, Fig. 17]).
Shira is also in the same art of managing energy storage device as the combined prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Shira to equip the acquirer to acquire a current, a voltage, and a temperature of the secondary battery mounted on the information device via a network with a rationale to accurately and timely determine abnormal state of the battery.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono in view of Ume and Toya (US 20160268822 A1), hereinafter ‘Toya’.
As per claim 6, Ono and Ume discloses the claim as shown in representative claim 1 above.
The combined prior art, Ono and Ume, fail to recite “A battery abnormality detection method”.
Toya discloses a battery abnormality detection method ((general and specific aspects may be implemented using a system and a method, and any combination of systems and methods [0008], information indicating the state of the storage battery pack, for example. A possible example of information indicating the state of the storage battery pack is abnormality history information such as … a temperature abnormality [0067]).
Toya is in the same art of managing batteries for charging and discharging as the combined prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention was filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Toya to use a battery abnormality detection method with a rationale to accurately and timely determine abnormal state of the battery.
As per claim 7, Ono and Ume discloses the claim as shown in representative claim 1 above.
The combined prior art, Ono and Ume, fail to recite “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having embodied thereon a battery abnormality detection program for causing a computer to execute”.
Toya discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having embodied thereon a battery abnormality detection program for causing a computer to execute the operational seps (a software program recorded in a recording medium [0161], a recoding medium [0162]).
Toya is in the same art of managing batteries for charging and discharging as the combined prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Toya to use a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having embodied thereon a battery abnormality detection program for causing a computer to execute the program with a rationale to accurately and timely determine abnormal state of the battery.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As per claim 2, the closest prior art of record, Ono, Ume, Omariba (Omariba, Zachary Bosire, Lijun Zhang, and Dongbai Sun. "Review of battery cell balancing methodologies for optimizing battery pack performance in electric vehicles." Ieee Access 7 (2019): 129335-129352), hereinafter ‘Omar’, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious limitations
“determines the presence or absence of the abnormal heat generation of the battery by comparing a ratio between a current integration amount and a temperature rise in the certain period with a threshold“ in combination with other limitations.
As per claim 2, Ono and Ume disclose claim 1 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art is silent regarding determination of the presence or absence of the abnormal heat generation of the battery by comparing a ratio between a current integration amount and a temperature rise in the certain period with a threshold.
Omar recites a ratio between battery’s remaining charge and cell capacity, current integration value and temperature rise (The health of each individual battery cell in the pack is determined based on its state of charge (SOC) measurement, which measures the ratio of its remaining charge to its cell capacity [pg. 129335 right col par. 1], Q is the current integration value ‘Ah’ [pg. 129343 right col par. 1-3, eq. 12], excessive temperature rise or drop [pg. 129336 left col par. 2]), but fails to disclose the above allowable limitation.
As per claims 3 and 4, the closest prior art of record, Ono, Ume, Shira, Toya, and Omar, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious limitations
“in the charging period in which the temperature of the battery exceeds the set temperature, when the current of the battery at a reference time earlier than a target time by a first set time is less than a first set current and the current of the battery at the target time is larger than the current of the battery at the reference time by a second set current or more, the determiner suspends the determination on the presence or absence of the abnormal heat generation of the battery“ in combination with other limitations.
Notes with regard to Prior Art
The prior arts made of record are provided as additional references relevant to the current claims.
Toya (US 10110029 B2) discloses determining the possibility of charging the power storage device by comparing the received value indicating the state of the storage battery with a value indicating a past state of the storage battery that is stored and corresponds to the received identification information of the power storage device. The method further includes transmitting information indicating the determined possibility of charging the power storage device to at least one of the charging device and the power storage device (see – [abs]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS KAY, whose telephone number is (408) 918-7569. The examiner can normally be reached on M, Th & F 8-5, T 2-7, and W 8-1.
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 on 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/DOUGLAS KAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights