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.
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 - 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a battery depth-of-charge calculation apparatus (i.e., machine) and claim 9 is directed to an operating method of a battery depth-of-charge calculation apparatus (i.e., process). Therefore, claims 1 and 11 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
“a battery depth-of-charge calculation apparatus comprising:
a processor; and
memory having programmed thereon instructions that, when executed, are configured to cause the processor to:
receive a measured open circuit voltage (OCV) value with respect to a state of charge (SoC) of a battery cell and information about a voltage value with respect to an-the SoC of the battery cell during charge;
compute an inner resistance value with respect to the SoC of the battery cell during charge, based on the information about the voltage value with respect to the SoC of the battery cell during charge and the open circuit voltage value with respect to the SoC of the battery cell; and
compute a negative electrode depth- of-charge of the battery cell based on the inner resistance value.”
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” and “mathematical concepts” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind as well as computing limitations that could be math. The claimed “processor” is being interpreted to be equivalent in function to the human mind as well as mathematical computations that establish mathematical relations between variables using words. For example, “receive a measured open circuit voltage (OCV) value with respect to a state of charge (SoC) of a battery cell and information about a voltage value with respect to an-the SoC of the battery cell during charge; compute an inner resistance value with respect to the SoC of the battery cell during charge, based on the information about the voltage value with respect to the SoC of the battery cell during charge and the open circuit voltage value with respect to the SoC of the battery cell; and compute a negative electrode depth- of-charge of the battery cell based on the inner resistance value” in the context of this claim encompasses that a human may manually observe the circuit voltages and SOCs via meters and further manually compute the negative electrode depth- of-charge of the battery cell based on the inner resistance value with mathematical formulas/concepts. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows: “a battery depth-of-charge calculation apparatus comprising: a processor; and
memory having programmed thereon instructions that, when executed, are configured to cause the processor.”
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of using a battery depth-of-charge calculation apparatus comprising: a processor; and memory having programmed thereon instructions that, when executed, are configured to cause the processor, the examiner submits that these limitations are mere instructions to apply the above-noted abstract idea by merely using a computer to perform the process (MPEP § 2106.05). In particular, the processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of computing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a battery depth-of-charge calculation apparatus comprising: a processor; and memory having programmed thereon instructions that, when executed, are configured to cause the processor amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2 - 8, 10 and 11 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2 – 8, 10 and 11 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 9. Therefore, claim(s) 1 - 11 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 and 7 - 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugiyama et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0260798 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sugiyama discloses a battery depth-of-charge calculation apparatus (10, FIG. 1) comprising:
a processor (110, FIG. 1); and
memory having programmed thereon instructions (120, 170; FIG. 1) that, when executed, are configured to cause the processor to:
receive a measured open circuit voltage (OCV) value (open circuit voltage charging in a predetermined range ¶ 18) with respect to a state of charge (SoC) of a battery cell (internal state parameters ¶ 18 and SOC, FIG. 3) and information about a voltage value with respect to an-the SoC of the battery cell during charge (Calculation apparatus collects data of various measurements e.g., voltage, current a charged capacity etc., which is included as internal state parameters ¶ 21);
compute an inner resistance value (“Specifically, the internal state parameter calculator 161 calculates five internal state parameters of the rechargeable battery 201: a quantity of the cathode (in particular, a quantity of an cathode active material), a quantity of the anode (in particular, a quantity of an anode active material), an initial charged capacity of the cathode, an initial charged capacity of the anode, and an internal resistance.” ¶ 50) with respect to the SoC of the battery cell during charge, based on the information about the voltage value with respect to the SoC of the battery cell during charge and the open circuit voltage value with respect to the SoC of the battery cell (¶¶ 46-47); and
compute a negative electrode depth- of-charge of the battery cell based on the inner resistance value (Similarly, read on by charged capacity of the anode which in the art is equivalent to “negative electrode depth- of-charge” ¶ 50 and ¶ 52).
Regarding claim 7, Sugiyama discloses the battery depth-of-charge calculation apparatus, wherein the instructions are configured to cause the processor to generate a charge protocol of the battery cell using the negative electrode depth-of-charge of the battery cell (S401, S402; FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Sugiyama discloses the battery depth-of-charge calculation apparatus, wherein the depth-of-charge corresponds to the SoC of the battery cell at which precipitation of ions included in the battery cell occurs (S402, FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 9, Sugiyama discloses an operating method of a battery depth-of-charge calculation apparatus, the operating method (FIGS. 4 and 5) comprising:
obtaining an open circuit voltage (OCV) value (open circuit voltage charging in a predetermined range ¶ 18) with respect to a state of charge (SoC) of a battery cell (internal state parameters ¶ 18 and SOC, FIG. 3) and information about a voltage value with respect to an the SoC of the battery cell during charge (Calculation apparatus collects data of various measurements e.g., voltage, current a charged capacity etc., which is included as internal state parameters ¶ 21);
calculating computing an inner resistance value (“Specifically, the internal state parameter calculator 161 calculates five internal state parameters of the rechargeable battery 201: a quantity of the cathode (in particular, a quantity of an cathode active material), a quantity of the anode (in particular, a quantity of an anode active material), an initial charged capacity of the cathode, an initial charged capacity of the anode, and an internal resistance.” ¶ 50) with respect to the SoC of the battery cell during charge, based on the information about the voltage value with respect to the SoC of the battery cell during charge and the open circuit voltage value with respect to the SoC of the battery cell (¶¶ 46-47); and
calculating computing a negative electrode depth-of-charge of the battery cell based on the inner resistance value (Similarly, read on by charged capacity of the anode which in the art is equivalent to “negative electrode depth- of-charge” ¶ 50 and ¶ 52).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0260798 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujita et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0261893 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Sugiyama is silent to the battery depth-of-charge calculation apparatus, wherein the resistance calculating unit is further instructions are configured to cause the processor to calculate compute the internal resistance value with respect to the SoC of the battery cell during charge for each current-rate (C-rate) for charging the battery cell.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fujita teaches a charge/discharge apparatus that controls charge discharge of a battery based on at least a condition of deterioration model or map of a secondary battery and at least one inner state parameters of the secondary battery (See Abstract). Reference parameters may include C-rate charge/discharge current values for the secondary battery (¶ 130).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resistance value with respect to the SOC as taught by Sugiyama to charge at a C-rate as taught by Fujita to prevent premature deterioration of the battery (¶ 4).
Regarding claim 6, Fujita teaches the battery depth-of-charge calculation apparatus, wherein the instructions are configured to cause the processor to compute the negative electrode depth-of-charge of the battery cell for each C- rate (¶¶ 145-147).
It would have been obvious to modify Sugiyama to wherein the instructions are configured to cause the processor to compute the negative electrode depth-of-charge of the battery cell for each C- rate as taught by Fujita to prevent premature deterioration of the battery (¶ 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 4, 10 and 11 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 as well as overcoming current 101 rejection set forth in this office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-9727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/TYLER J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights