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 1-14 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.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “A battery full charge capacity estimation method comprising:
step (A) including acquiring battery data including a voltage value, a current value, and a temperature value, the battery data acquired over time from a battery that is a measurement target, and processing the acquired data;
step (B) of extracting greater than or equal to n data satisfying a predetermined condition, from at least one of data acquired in the step (A) and data obtained by the processing in the step (A), wherein n is an integer greater than or equal to 3; and
step (C) of estimating a full charge capacity of the battery that is the measurement target based on the data extracted in the step (B).”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed 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 (process for claim 1).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. 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 that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions).
In claim 1, the step of “extracting greater than or equal to n data satisfying a predetermined condition, from at least one of data acquired and data obtained by the processing” is a combination of a mathematical concept and a mental process, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea.
The step of “estimating a full charge capacity of the battery that is the measurement target based on the data extracted” is a mathematical concept, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea.
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 claim comprises the following additional elements:
acquiring battery data including a voltage value, a current value, and a temperature value, the battery data acquired over time from a battery that is a measurement target, and processing the acquired data; and wherein n is an integer greater than or equal to 3.
The additional element “acquiring battery data including a voltage value, a current value, and a temperature value, the battery data acquired over time from a battery that is a measurement target, and processing the acquired data” represents necessary data gathering and does not integrate the limitation into a practical application. The additional element “wherein n is an integer greater than or equal to 3” is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, therefore, only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, acquiring battery data including a voltage value, a current value, and a temperature value, the battery data acquired over time from a battery that is a measurement target, and processing the acquired data is considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e., acquiring measurement data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
For example, wherein n is an integer greater than or equal to 3 is disclosed by “Arai JP 3774103B2”, Abstract, [0050], [0054], [0051], [0079]; and “Dong CN 106556802A”, [0015], [0019], [0036], [0064].
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 12 recites subject matter that are similar or analogous to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claim is also patent ineligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-11 and 13-14 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also 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.
Claims 1-2, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (US 20130320989, hereinafter Inoue) in view of Arai et al. (JP 3774103B2, hereinafter Arai).
As to claims 1 and 12, Inoue teaches one or more sensors; and a controller, the one or more sensors including: a voltage sensor; a current sensor ([0043]); and a temperature sensor ([0104]); wherein: the controller is configured to execute ([0034]);
step (A) including acquiring battery data including a voltage value, a current value, and a temperature value, the battery data acquired over time from a battery that is a measurement target ([0035], [0049], and [0092] discloses any one of the controller of the states detection device measures temperature, an electric current and a voltage of the battery; and the electric current values, the voltage values, and temperature of the battery are measured until a predetermined time), and processing the acquired data ([0005]);
step (B) of extracting greater than or equal to n data satisfying a predetermined condition, from at least one of data acquired in the step (A) and data obtained by the processing in the step (A) ([0005] and [0008] discloses measuring an electric current value and a terminal voltage value of a battery at the time of charge/discharge thereof; and when a change in the measured electric current value per second is at a predetermined value or higher (i.e., the measured electric current is greater than or equal to n data satisfying a predetermined value or condition - emphasis added by Examiner), at least one of the SOC, the SOH and the full charge capacity of the battery is calculated based on the electric current values and the terminal voltage values measured during a battery charge/discharge period other than the lapsed period); and
step (C) of estimating a full charge capacity of the battery that is the measurement target based on data extracted ([0048] discloses it is arranged such that based on the electric current and terminal voltage values measured during the operation (during charge/discharge), the battery states (Full Charge Capacity, State of Charge (SOC), SOH) are calculated).
Inoue does not explicitly teach wherein n is an integer greater than or equal to 3; and estimating a full charge capacity of the battery that is the measurement target based on the data extracted.
Arai teaches wherein n is an integer greater than or equal to 3 ([0050] discloses
samples the current value and the voltage every 500 microsecs, and averages them when eight data points are collected for each. Then, 100 pairs of this averaged average current data and average voltage data are collected (i.e., the eight data points that are collected for each indicates that data are collected more than to 3 times, and the measurement data are collected more than 3 times in order to obtain 100 pairs of this averaged average current data and average voltage data that are collected - emphasis added by Examiner); and
estimating a full charge capacity of the battery that is the measurement target based on the data extracted ([0077] discloses the current integration method works by accumulating the current value from the current sensor 20 every 500 microsecs while the ignition is on and the vehicle is running. When there is little change in the current from the battery or when regeneration by the alternator occurs, the difference between this accumulated current and the full charge capacity is calculated (i.e.,
the full charge capacity is calculated based on the extracted current data - emphasis added by Examiner) and taken as the current remaining capacity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Arai into Inoue for the purpose of estimating capacities of both high-voltage and low-voltage batteries
by selecting an optimal method according to changes in battery current and voltage. This combination would improve in estimating the full charge capacity of the battery by accumulating the current values of the battery every set interval and when there is little change in the current from the battery.
As to claim 2, the combination of Inoue and Arai teaches the claimed limitations
as discussed in claim 1.
Inoue teaches wherein the predetermined condition in the step (B) includes a magnitude of the current value acquired in the step (A) that continues for a predetermined time to be less than or equal to a predetermined threshold value ([0006] and [0049] disclose detection section to detect a change per second in the electric current value detected at the electric current value detection section that is at a predetermined value (i.e., the current value acquired is equal to a predetermined threshold value - emphasis added by Examiner)); and the electric current values measured until a predetermined time has passed).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue and Arai, in view of Akamine (US 20150046108, hereinafter Akamine).
As to claim 7, the combination of Inoue and Arai teaches the claimed limitations
as discussed in claim 1.
Inoue teaches wherein: the battery data acquired over time ([0049] discloses “the electric current values and the voltage values measured until a predetermined time has passed”).
The combination of Inoue and Arai does not explicitly teach the step (A) includes: integrating the current value to calculate a current integral value up to each time instant for the battery data acquired over time; and obtaining a SOC estimate value based on the battery data and a predetermined voltage behavior model.
Akamine teaches the step (A) includes: integrating the current value to calculate a current integral value up to each time instant for the battery data acquired ([0054] discloses “the state of-charge estimation section 264 illustrated in FIG. 2 and calculates an estimated SOC value by time integration of a measured current value.”); and obtaining a SOC estimate value based on the battery data and a predetermined voltage behavior model ([0043] discloses “The control section 26 estimates a state of charge (SOC) of the secondary cell 30 by use of a measured current value and a measured voltage value. Estimation of the SOC is carried out by use of a plurality of battery behavior models.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Akamine into Inoue in view of Arai for the purpose of estimating a state of charge (SOC) of a secondary cell 30 by use of a measured current value and a measured voltage value by a plurality of battery behavior models. This combination would improve and enhance the accuracy of estimation of the SOC by optimizing parameters of a selected model.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue and Arai, in view of Nakayama et al. (US 20120029851, hereinafter Nakayama).
As to claim 8, the combination of Inoue and Arai teaches the claimed limitations
as discussed in claim 7.
The combination of Inoue and Arai does not explicitly teach wherein the full charge capacity of the battery that is the measurement target is estimated based on the current integral value and the SOC estimate value.
Nakayama teaches wherein the full charge capacity of the battery that is the measurement target is estimated based on the current integral value and the SOC estimate value ([0007] and [0063] disclose calculating the full charge capacity by using current integration (i.e., predict a full charge capacity using the current integral value - emphasis added by Examiner); and when data about SOC and the integrated charge amount are stored during discharging to predict a full charge capacity (i.e., predict a full charge capacity using SOC and the integrated charge amount - emphasis added by Examiner)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Nakayama into Inoue in view of Arai for the purpose of calculating remaining capacity and the remaining time using the full charge capacity. This combination would improve accurately calculating a full charge capacity even after degradation of the secondary battery, and improving an estimation accuracy of a remaining capacity and a remaining time.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue and Arai, in view of Sakurai (WO 2020066173A1, hereinafter Sakurai).
As to claim 10, the combination of Inoue and Arai teaches the claimed limitations
as discussed in claim 1.
The combination of Inoue and Arai does not explicitly teach wherein the predetermined condition in the step (B) is determined based on a fluctuation range of the current value acquired in the step (A).
Sakurai teaches wherein the predetermined condition in the step (B) is determined based on a fluctuation range of the current value acquired in the step (A) ([0007] discloses a control unit sets a fluctuation range indicating an upper and lower limit of fluctuation of the current value supplied to the load device, and determines whether the current value detected by the current detection unit is within the fluctuation range using the set fluctuation range; [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Sakurai into Inoue in view of Arai for the purpose of detecting failures or malfunctions in connected load devices of a battery by determining an amount of fluctuation in current value detected by a current detection unit due to the operation of the load device, and notify the user. This combination would improve in avoiding significant impact on system operation, and
potentially leading to system-wide system shutdowns due to failures or malfunctions in the load devices.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue and Arai, in view of Takashima et al. (US 20150362557, hereinafter Takashima).
As to claim 11, the combination of Inoue and Arai teaches the claimed limitations
as discussed in claim 1.
The combination of Inoue and Arai does not explicitly teach wherein the predetermined condition in the step (B) is determined based on a change in SOC that is obtained by processing the data acquired in the step (A).
Takashima teaches wherein the predetermined condition in the step (B) is determined based on a change in SOC that is obtained by processing the data acquired in the step (A) ([0059] discloses the state detecting method and the state detecting device correct the current threshold value used to determine the charge State, on the basis of the amount of variation in the state quantities caused by variation
(i.e., the predetermined condition or current threshold value is determined based on the variation or change in SOC that is obtained by processing the current data acquired - emphasis added by Examiner)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Takashima into Inoue in view of Arai for the purpose of detecting a state of a secondary battery by detecting the secondary battery that has reached a chargeable upper limit in order to estimate the state of charge. This combination would improve in detecting the secondary battery that correct the impact of state quantities caused by variation and calculate the state of charge with high accuracy.
Examiner' s Note
Regarding claims 3-6, 9, and 13-14, the most pertinent prior arts are "Inoue US 20130320989", "Arai JP 3774103B2", "Dong CN 106556802A", "Akamine US 20150046108", "Nakayama US 20120029851", "Sakurai WO 2020066173A1", "Takashima US 20150362557", "Tamezane US 20130311119", "Igarashi US 20150346285", "Ohkawa US 20180037130", and "Hashimoto US 20180335479".
As to claims 3 and 13, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “wherein the step (B) includes filtering the data extracted in the step (B) based on a predetermined priority in a descending order of priority when the number of the data extracted in the step (B) is greater than n” including all limitations as claimed.
As to claims 5 and 14, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “wherein: a full charge capacity that is estimated last time is memorized; and
the method further comprises step (D) of weighting the last estimated full charge capacity and the full charge capacity estimated in the step (C) according to a predetermined condition to update the full charge capacity” including all limitations as claimed.
As to claim 9, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “wherein the predetermined condition in the step (B) is determined based on a polarization estimate value of the battery, the estimate value obtained by processing the data acquired in the step (A)” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 4 and 6 are also distinguished over the prior art for at least the same reason as claims 3 and 5.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Takahashi US 20200292620” teaches “A battery life learning device including a learning section configured to obtain a learned prediction model for predicting a remaining life of a vehicle battery from time-series data of a deterioration characteristic of the vehicle battery, the learned prediction model being obtained by learning a prediction model from the time-series data of the deterioration characteristic of the vehicle battery based on learning data, the learning data including time-series data of the deterioration characteristic at a predetermined time point in the past of a vehicle battery for learning that has reached an end of life and the remaining life at the predetermined time point of the vehicle battery for learning.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 EST.
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, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/LAL CE MANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights