DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 that include “unit” in claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
4. Claims 1-5 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 being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two-step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to one of the four statutory class, apparatus. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example), we recognize that the limitations “estimates a capacity ratio of the battery
based on the physical quantity,” “and calculates the at least one of the lithium precipitation amount or the thickness of the film based on a change in at least one of the current or the voltage when both the ends of the lithium ion battery are shorted by the short circuit.” are abstract ideas, as they recite limitations that can be performed by mental process. Similar rejections are made for other dependent claims. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, prong two, the claims additionally recite “a deterioration detection unit that detects a physical quantity having a higher correlation with a capacity deterioration of the battery than a voltage and a current of the battery, wherein the battery is a lithium-ion battery, the deterioration detection unit detects, as the physical quantity, at least one of a lithium precipitation amount inside the lithium-ion battery or a thickness of a film formed at an interface between a negative electrode and an electrolytic solution of the lithium-ion battery, and the deterioration detection unit includes a short circuit that temporarily shorts both ends of the lithium-ion battery to discharge the lithium-ion battery,” and “a temperature sensor that detects a battery temperature of the lithium ion
Battery” are directed to insignificant data collection activity, recited at high level of generality. In fact, the claims do not even recite any sensors in the data collection activity. The claims also recite “estimation unit” and “deterioration detection unit” but said limitations are merely directed to general-purpose processor for implementing the abstract idea. The claims do not improve the functioning of any units and do not improve other technology under the practical application. At most, the claims are an improvement in the estimating a capacity ratio of the lithium-ion battery. However, improved or new abstract idea is still an abstract idea, and not eligible under the 101. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In step 2B, the claims additionally recite “a deterioration detection unit that detects a physical quantity having a higher correlation with a capacity deterioration of the battery than a voltage and a current of the battery, wherein the battery is a lithium-ion battery, the deterioration detection unit detects, as the physical quantity, at least one
of a lithium precipitation amount inside the lithium-ion battery or a thickness of a film
formed at an interface between a negative electrode and an electrolytic solution of the
lithium-ion battery, and the deterioration detection unit includes a short circuit that temporarily shorts both ends of the lithium-ion battery to discharge the lithium-ion battery,” and “a temperature sensor that detects a battery temperature of the lithium ion
battery” are directed to data collection activity, recited at high level of generality, that is well-understood, routine and conventional. In fact, the claims do not even recite any sensors in the data collection activity. The claims also recite “estimation unit” and “deterioration detection unit” but said limitations are merely directed to general-purpose processor for implementing the abstract idea, that is also well-understood, routine and conventional. As such, the claims do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murphy et al., US-PGPUB 2020/0106137 (hereinafter Murphy)
Regarding Claim 1. Murphy discloses a battery monitoring device that monitors a battery (Abstract), comprising:
a deterioration detection unit that detects a physical quantity having a higher
correlation with a capacity deterioration of the battery than a voltage and a current of
the battery (Paragraph [0094]), and a capacity ratio estimation unit that estimates a capacity ratio of the battery based on the physical quantity (Paragraph [0265], measuring change in thickness and determining SOH, the capacity ratio), wherein the battery is a lithium-ion battery (Paragraph [0003], lithium-ion battery), the deterioration detection unit detects, as the physical quantity, at least one of a lithium precipitation amount inside the lithium-ion battery or a thickness of a film formed at an interface between a negative electrode and an electrolytic solution of the lithium ion battery (Paragraph [0265], thickness), and the deterioration detection unit includes a short circuit that temporarily shorts both ends of the lithium ion battery to discharge the lithium ion battery (Fig. 16, controlled short circuit; Paragraphs [0019], [0134]-[0135], controlled short-circuit), and calculates the at least one of the lithium precipitation amount or the thickness of the film based on a change in at least one of the current or the voltage when both the ends of the lithium ion battery are shorted by the short circuit (Paragraph [0009]; Paragraph [0190], SOH from the thickness; Paragraph [0265], measuring change in thickness and determining SOH)
Regarding Claim 2. Murphy discloses a temperature sensor that detects a battery temperature of the lithium ion battery (Paragraphs [0094]-[0102], [0150]), wherein the deterioration detection unit calculates, as the physical quantity, a
correction value obtained by correcting the at least one of the lithium precipitation
amount or the thickness of the film with the battery temperature (Paragraph [0079], enhance the accuracy of the measurements, which also includes measurement of the thickness; Paragraphs [0094]-[0102])
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy et al., US-PGPUB 2020/0106137 in view of Yamamoto et al., US-PGPUB 2020/0233037 (hereinafter Yamamoto).
Regarding Claim 3. Murphy does not disclose a battery management device that determines whether or not a secondary use of the battery is possible based on the capacity ratio estimated by the capacity ratio estimation unit.
Yamamoto discloses determining whether or not a secondary use of the battery is possible based on the capacity ratio estimated (Paragraphs [0089]-[0093])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Yamamoto in Murphy and have a battery management device that determines whether or not a secondary use of the battery is possible based on the capacity ratio estimated by the capacity ratio estimation unit, so as to properly maintain and make the operation state of the battery comprehensive.
Regarding Claim 5. Murphy does not disclose ratio estimated by the capacity ratio detection unit is within an allowable range of the capacity ratio indicated in a battery specification data, and outputs a determination result an outside.
Yamamoto discloses ratio estimated by the capacity ratio detection unit is within an allowable range of the capacity ratio indicated in a battery specification data, and outputs a determination result an outside (Paragraphs [0089]-[0093])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Yamamoto in Murphy and determine the ratio estimated by the capacity ratio detection unit is within an allowable range of the capacity ratio indicated in a battery specification data, and outputs a determination result an outside, so as to properly maintain and make the operation state of the battery comprehensive.
10. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy et al., US-PGPUB 2020/0106137 in view of White et al., US-PGPUB 2010/0250162 (hereinafter White)
Regarding Claim 4. Murphy does not disclose determining whether or not the battery has an abnormality based on the capacity ratio estimated by the capacity ratio estimation unit, and sets a residual value of the battery when the battery has the abnormality.
White discloses determining whether or not the battery has an abnormality based on the capacity ratio estimated by the capacity ratio estimation unit, and sets a residual value of the battery when the battery has the abnormality (Paragraphs [0072]-[0073]).
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of White in Murphy and determine whether or not the battery has an abnormality based on the capacity ratio estimated by the capacity ratio estimation unit, and sets a residual value of the battery when the battery has the abnormality, and thereby accurately determine the state of the battery.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu, US-PGPUB 2019/0219640
Lin et al., CN 112986837 discloses calculating the precipitation of impurities in lithium-ion battery using short-circuiting.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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 Vazquez can be reached at 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 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights