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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/16/2025, 07/29/2024 & 07/05/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1–9 & 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Representative claim 1 recites: A direct current resistance (DCR) detection method for batteries, comprising: applying multiple discharging current pulses during a constant current charging period of a battery in response to a DCR detection instruction; obtaining a first battery voltage during a discharging current pulse time period; obtaining a second battery voltage during the constant current charging time period after the discharging current pulse within a current DCR detection period; and obtaining a DCR value within the current DCR detection period according to the first battery voltage, the second battery voltage, and a battery capacity.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above. The remaining limitations are treated as additional elements.
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, the claims are evaluated to determine whether the claimed subject matter falls within one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is considered to be in a statutory category because it recites a process.
Step 2A Prong One – Judicial Exception
Under Step 2A Prong One, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
In Claim 1, the highlighted portions constitute an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, they recite limitations that fall within the abstract idea groupings identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, including:
A. Mathematical concepts: the limitation of obtaining a DCR value according to the first battery voltage, the second battery voltage, and a battery capacity is treated as belonging to the mathematical concepts grouping because it involves calculating or deriving a resistance value from measured voltage values and a capacity parameter. This constitutes a mathematical relationship used to produce a numerical result.
B. Mental processes: the limitation of responding to a DCR detection instruction and determining a DCR value based on obtained voltages encompasses evaluation of measured information and a resulting judgment regarding battery resistance. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, such evaluation and determination can be practically performed in the human mind or using routine calculations.
Accordingly, Claim 1 recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong Two – Practical Application
Under Step 2A Prong Two, it is evaluated whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1 includes the following additional elements: “applying discharging current pulses during charging”; “obtaining voltage measurements during defined time periods” and “responding to a detection instruction”.
These additional elements represent mere data gathering and generic control activity that is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. According to the October 2019 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility, obtaining measurement data for use in mathematical analysis is considered extra-solution activity because it merely collects information for performing the abstract idea.
Further, while the claim recites applying current pulses to a battery, it does not recite a specific asserted improvement to battery hardware or charging technology. The claim does not specify any particular pulse waveform, control architecture, circuit topology, or electrochemical modification that improves battery operation. Instead, the current pulses are used solely as inputs for resistance calculation.
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception and requires further analysis under Step 2B.
Step 2B – Significantly More
Under Step 2B, it is evaluated whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements are well understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant art. Merienne et al. (U.S. 2015/0028818 A1) disclose a system for charging a battery of a motor vehicle from a power supply network, including injecting current pulses into the network, measuring voltages, filtering measured voltages, and determining resistance based on measured voltage values and current pulse amplitudes. Merienne further discloses determining resistance using filtered voltage measurements and known pulse characteristics as part of conventional charging and diagnostic operations.
Similar to Claim 1, Merienne automates resistance determination using voltage measurements and current pulses without improving underlying computing technology or introducing a specific technological improvement to battery hardware. The use of current pulse injection, voltage measurement, filtering, and resistance calculation is shown to be routine and conventional in battery charging and diagnostic systems.
Accordingly, the additional elements of Claim 1, individually and as an ordered combination, amount to nothing more than applying abstract mathematical analysis using conventional battery charging and measurement techniques.
Therefore, Claim 1 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claims 2–9 & 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as Claim 1.
Claims 2–4 recite obtaining temperature values, battery capacities, storing mapping relationships, and performing linear interpolation, which further elaborate on abstract data processing and mathematical calculations applied to collected measurement data.
Claims 5–7 recite determining whether to respond to a detection instruction based on electrical parameters or corrected SOC values, which constitute abstract decision making, evaluation, and judgment based on data inputs.
Claims 8–9 recite correcting allowable power using DCR values, lookup tables, and correction coefficients, which are abstract mathematical relationships and table-based data processing operations applied to previously calculated values.
Claims 11–12 recite a computing device and a computer-readable medium configured to perform the method of claim 1. These claims merely implement the abstract idea of claim 1 using generic computer components and do not recite any additional elements that impose meaningful limits on the execution of the abstract idea. The recited processor, memory, and computer-readable medium are generic components used to automate the abstract data processing steps of claim 1 and therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
These dependent claims do not add meaningful limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Instead, they expand upon the abstract data analysis and control logic of Claim 1 using conventional techniques.
Accordingly, Claims 2–9 & 11-12 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons as Claim 1.
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(s) 1-2, 4-8, & 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao et al. (US 2023/0393215 A1) in view of Na et al. (US 2023/0018424 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bao et al. disclose a direct current resistance measurement method for batteries comprising performing multiple pulse discharges on a battery (see [0050], performing multiple pulse discharges, multiple different discharge time periods, measuring multiple equivalent direct current resistance values); obtaining a first battery voltage during a discharging current pulse time period (see [0050], measuring a battery voltage at an end of the pulse discharge, measuring battery voltage at end of pulse discharge, see [00051]); obtaining a second battery voltage after the discharging current pulse within a current detection period (see [0063], measuring a normal voltage of the battery when the battery is not pulse discharged, and measuring battery voltage at end of pulse discharge, and calculating a voltage difference according to the normal voltage, see [0066]); and obtaining a DCR value within the current detection period according to voltage difference and a discharge current (see calculating the ratio of the voltage difference and the discharge current to obtain the equivalent direct current resistance value, see [0055] & [0071]).
Bao et al. are not understood to explicitly disclose applying multiple discharging current pulses during a constant current charging period of a battery; obtaining a second battery voltage during the constant current charging time period after the discharging current pulse.
Na et al. disclose that, applying multiple discharging current pulses during a constant current charging period of a battery; obtaining a second battery voltage during the constant current charging time period after the discharging current pulse (see Na’s claim 1 & [0048], during a charging operation, a current pulse is input to the battery, and a discharging current is periodically input during the charging operation, including during a current charging time TCC (see [0022]; wherein current pulse input during charging, discharging current input during charging operation, current charging time TCC, Na et al. further disclose the charging operation includes a current charging time period prior to switching to a voltage charging time, and during the current charging time a current pulse may be input to the battery, see also see [0045] & [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify Bao et al. by applying the pulse discharge based direct current resistance measurement during the constant current charging period with periodic discharge pulses as taught by Na et al., as doing so would provide the ability to monitor or determine direct current internal resistance behavior during charging profiles that are used to suppress lithium plating and minimize DCIR increase because Na et al. emphasize in paragraphs [0048] & [0067] that periodic discharge during charging suppresses lithium plating and minimizes increases in direct current internal resistance while enabling higher charging currents and improved process time (see lithium plating suppression, minimizing DCIR increase, periodic discharge during charging, see [0022]).
PNG
media_image1.png
682
1057
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Bao et al. & Na et al. disclose the DCR detection method according to claim 1, wherein Bao et al. further disclose obtaining a battery temperature value and the battery capacity within the current DCR detection period (see multiple DCR values in [0049] & [0087]); and storing a mapping relationship between the DCR value, the battery temperature value, and the battery capacity (multiple DCR values, spectrum, parameter extraction, see [0027 & 01115]).
Regarding claim 4, Bao et al. & Na et al. disclose the DCR detection method according to claim 1, wherein Bao et al. further disclose obtaining DCR values, temperature values, and battery capacities within multiple DCR detection periods (see multiple DCR values in [0049] & [0087]); and obtaining DCR values corresponding to all calibrated temperatures and calibrated battery capacities of the battery through linear interpolation according to the DCR values, temperature values, and battery capacities within the multiple DCR detection periods (see multiple DCR values in [0050] & [0109]).
Regarding claim 5, Bao et al. & Na et al. disclose the DCR detection method according to claim 1, wherein Bao et al. further disclose determining whether to respond to the DCR detection instruction according to electrical parameters of the battery (see [0026 & 0110]).
Regarding claim 6, Bao et al. & Na et al. disclose the DCR detection method according to claim 5, wherein Bao et al. further disclose determining whether to respond to the DCR detection instruction (see [0050]) according to electrical parameters of the battery comprises: determining to respond to the DCR detection instruction if one or more of a temperature detection value, a current value, and a voltage detection value of the battery are within a corresponding preset range for a period of time (see Equations [00002-00005], paragraphs 0051 & 0063]).
Regarding claim 7, Bao et al. & Na et al. disclose the DCR detection method according to claim 5, wherein Bao et al. further disclose determining whether to respond to the DCR detection instruction according to electrical parameters of the battery comprises: determining to respond to the DCR detection instruction if a sampling error of a state of charge (SOC) value of the battery is corrected within a period of time.
Regarding claim 8, Bao et al. & Na et al. disclose the DCR detection method according to claim 1, wherein Bao et al. further disclose correcting an initial allowable power of the battery (see [0046]) according to the DCR value of the battery to obtain the corrected allowable power of the battery (see [0117]).
Regarding claim 10, Bao et al. disclose an apparatus comprising a power supply unit (711) including a pulse control switch (see [0102]) configured to provide different discharge time periods and discharge currents to a pulse discharge of the battery (see [0104]), a voltage detector (712) configured to measure a voltage across the battery including a normal voltage and a battery voltage at the end of the pulse discharge (see [0104]), and a control unit configured to collect the voltage and calculate multiple equivalent direct current resistance values (see [0022], pulse control switch, voltage detector, control unit, calculating equivalent direct current resistance values, also see [0102]). Bao et al. further disclose in [0015] & [0052] multiple pulse discharges and measuring battery voltages and calculating resistance values (see multiple pulse discharges, normal voltage, battery voltage at end of pulse discharge, voltage difference, ratio to discharge current, [0056] & [0071]).
Bao et al. are not understood to explicitly disclose that the pulse circuit applies multiple discharging current pulses during a constant current charging period of the battery (or that the second battery voltage is obtained during the constant current charging time period after the discharging current pulse).
Na et al. disclose a charging discharging system that the pulse circuit applies multiple discharging current pulses during a constant current charging period of the battery (see [0019-0020], including a DC to DC converter and a charging discharging controller, and disclose that during a charging operation a current pulse is input to the battery electrodes and a discharging current may be input during the charging operation, including during a current charging time TCC, see controller controlled pulse charging, periodic discharge during charging, current charging time TCC, [0045] & [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify Bao et al. such that the pulse control switch and control unit apply multiple discharging current pulses during a constant current charging period, as taught by Na et al., while using Bao et al. voltage detection and resistance calculation circuitry to obtain DCR values during such charging profiles, as doing so would provide improved charging process robustness by enabling charging profiles that suppress lithium plating while also enabling measurement of DCIR behavior and minimizing DCIR increase because Na et al. emphasize in paragraphs [0021-0022] that periodic discharge during charging suppresses lithium plating and minimizes increases in direct current internal resistance (see, Na’s [0048 & 0067], lithium plating suppression, minimizing DCIR increase, pulse discharge during charging).
Regarding claim 11, Bao et al. & Na et al. disclose the DCR detection method according to claim 1, wherein Bao et al. further disclose a memory unit (see [0110]) configured to store instructions to be executed by a processor and a processor (see [0111], configured to execute the instructions to realize the method (memory, processor, instructions implementing method, see [0026], [0114]).
Regarding claim 12, Bao et al. & Na et al. disclose the DCR detection method according to claim 1, wherein Bao et al. further disclose a computer readable medium storing computer program codes (see [0111]) implementing the method when executed by a processor (see computer readable medium, program codes, executed by processor implements method) ([0027], [0111]).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, although Bao et al. (U.S. 2023/0393215 A1) and Na et al. (U.S. 2023/0018424 A1) disclose obtaining battery voltage values during a DCR detection period, the prior art of record fails to disclose the additional limitations recited in claims 3 and 9. Accordingly, claims 3 and 9 are not taught or suggested by the cited references, either individually or in combination, for at least the reasons set forth below.
With respect to claim 3, the prior art of record does not teach, alone or in combination, “obtaining the DCR value within the current DCR detection period according to a ratio of a voltage difference between the first battery voltage and the second battery voltage to a battery capacity, in combination with all other elements of claim 1. Bao et al. calculate resistance based on a voltage difference and a discharge current, rather than battery capacity, and Na et al. do not disclose calculating DCR using battery capacity as part of the resistance determination”.
With respect to claim 9, the prior art of record does not teach, alone or in combination, “correcting an initial allowable power of the battery according to a DCR value by obtaining a power correction coefficient based on the DCR value and a lookup DCR obtained by table lookup, and correcting the initial allowable power using the power correction coefficient, in combination with all other elements of claims 1 and 8. Neither Bao et al. nor Na et al. disclose determining a power correction coefficient from a DCR lookup table or applying such a coefficient to modify allowable battery power”.
Accordingly, claims 3 and 9 define subject matter that is not disclosed or suggested by the cited prior art and therefore remain patentably distinct over Bao et al. and Na et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. 12,388,280 B2 to Sherstyuk discloses methods, systems, and devices to adaptively charge a battery. Charging current is applied to charge the battery. After application of the charging current, at least one discharging pulse is applied to the battery. During an ON period of the discharging pulse, at least one battery parameter is measured. One or more charging parameters are adapted based on the at least one battery parameter as measured during the ON period of the discharging pulse. The battery is charged based on the adapted one or more charging parameters.
U.S. 2024/0053106 A1 to Hung et al. disclose a method for measuring DC internal resistance of battery, which defines a depth of discharge detection interval including a first threshold and a second threshold. When the battery is discharging, a currently discharge current and a currently battery voltage are periodically measured, and a currently depth of discharge is calculated, and an open-circuit voltage corresponding to the currently depth of discharge is queried. The open-circuit voltage corresponding to the currently depth of discharge minus the currently battery voltage to obtain a voltage difference. The voltage difference is continuously accumulated to obtain a currently accumulated voltage difference. The currently depth of discharge reaches the first threshold or the second threshold, the currently accumulated voltage difference is a first accumulated voltage difference or a second accumulated voltage difference. A difference between the first accumulated voltage difference and the second accumulated voltage difference is divided by a discharging amount in the depth of discharge detection interval.
U.S. 2022/0329080 A1 to Kobayashi et al. disclose in Fig. 1 an energy storage apparatus 2 including a battery cell 16 in which a positive electrode P and a negative electrode N are immersed in a nonaqueous electrolyte solution 18 in a state of being partitioned by a separator 20 and a BMU 46, in which the BMU 46 executes detection processing of detecting a state in which a voltage of the battery cell 16 does not substantially change, and discharge processing of discharging the battery cell 16 in response to detection of the state in the detection processing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUNG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1966. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon- Friday 8AM - 4:00PM Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Phan can be reached on 571-272-7924. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
Examiner: /Trung Q. Nguyen/- Art 2858
February 4, 2026
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858