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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on September 8, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Non-FINAL.
The examiner would like to note that this application is being handled by examiner Christine Huynh.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 8, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, applicants argue in pages 10-11 that the amendments to independent claims 1 and 11 have overcome the 101 and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea or a human activity but instead is a practical application of the presently claimed invention. Specifically, the Applicant argues that because the claim includes concrete methods closely coupled with a physical system (ex, a memory, a processor, and a display unit operatively connected to the controller ) to solve the technical problem of " efficient use of the battery in the electric vehicle" (page 11) and the amended limitation “displaying, through a display unit operatively connected to the controller, at least one of a battery status notification and a battery operation guide based on the calculated degradation state of the battery” is not the abstract idea or a human activity because such activity is performed by a controller operatively connected to the display unit (page 11). However, the examiner respectfully disagrees, because merely including a memory, a processor, or a display unit is nothing more than including generic computer parts and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The amended limitation, “displaying, through a display unit operatively connected to the controller, at least one of a battery status notification and a battery operation guide based on the calculated degradation state of the battery” is insignificant extra-solution activities, as it is merely displaying calculated values. A display unit operatively connected to the controller amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims as amended are still directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained. Dependent claims are rejected for the same reasons as listed above due to dependency. See detailed rejection below.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-20:
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-10 are directed to an apparatus for vehicle battery control and claims 11-20 are directed to a method for vehicle battery control which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
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. Claim 11 is similar to independent claim 1. 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 vehicle battery control apparatus, comprising:
a memory storing at least one instruction; and
a controller operatively connected to the memory, wherein the at least one instruction executed by the controller, is configured to cause the vehicle battery control apparatus to:
obtain at least one of driving durability data according to a driving state of a host vehicle or calendar aging data according to a parking state of the host vehicle, or any combination thereof;
obtain degradation data of a battery of the host vehicle using at least some of the driving durability data or the calendar aging data, or the any combination thereof; and
compare reference data identified based on a predetermined reference model with the degradation data to determine a degradation state of the battery,
wherein the at least one instruction executed by the controller is configured to cause the vehicle battery control apparatus to determine a first calendar aging model based on concluding that an abandonment time before the host vehicle starts to drive is greater than a predetermined time;
store the first calendar aging model determined using the calendar aging data, the degradation data, and an existing calendar aging model in the memory, upon concluding that the abandonment time before the host vehicle starts to drive is greater than the predetermined time; and
determine and store the existing calendar aging model as the first calendar aging model in the memory, upon concluding that the abandonment time is less than or equal to the predetermined time; and
display, through a display unit operatively connected to the controller, at least one of a battery status notification and a battery operation guide based on the determined degradation state of the battery.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the limitation “compare reference data…” falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas as comparing reference data to the state of the battery could be done mentally for example using a pen and paper to compare the values of the given reference data and the current state of the value, solving for the difference in states, and making a determination regarding the degradation of the battery. The limitation, “determine a first calendar aging model based on concluding that an abandonment time before the host vehicle starts to drive is greater than a predetermined time” and “determine… the existing calendar aging model as the first calendar aging model…” in the context of this claim could be a mental process as a person could at data collected and forming a simple judgement from the comparison using the given data. These limitations are a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. With respect to claims 1 and 11, other than reciting “a controller” and “memory”, nothing in the claim limitations precludes the idea from practically being performed in the human mind. The recitation of generic components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an 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 idea 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.”
The claims recite elements additional to the abstract concepts. However, these additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A vehicle battery control apparatus, comprising:
a memory storing at least one instruction; and
a controller operatively connected to the memory, wherein the at least one instruction executed by the controller, is configured to cause the vehicle battery control apparatus to:
obtain at least one of driving durability data according to a driving state of a host vehicle or calendar aging data according to a parking state of the host vehicle, or any combination thereof;
obtain degradation data of a battery of the host vehicle using at least some of the driving durability data or the calendar aging data, or the any combination thereof; and
compare reference data identified based on a predetermined reference model with the degradation data to determine a degradation state of the battery,
wherein the at least one instruction executed by the controller is configured to cause the vehicle battery control apparatus to determine a first calendar aging model based on concluding that an abandonment time before the host vehicle starts to drive is greater than a predetermined time.
store the first calendar aging model determined using the calendar aging data, the degradation data, and an existing calendar aging model in the memory, upon concluding that the abandonment time before the host vehicle starts to drive is greater than the predetermined time; and
determine and store the existing calendar aging model as the first calendar aging model in the memory, upon concluding that the abandonment time is less than or equal to the predetermined time; and
display, through a display unit operatively connected to the controller, at least one of a battery status notification and a battery operation guide based on the determined degradation state of the battery.
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. The “obtain at least one of driving durability data…”, “obtain degradation data of a battery of the host vehicle…”, and “accumulate and store the driving durability data…”, “store the first calendar aging model…”, “store the existing calendar aging model…”, “display, through a display unit operatively connected to the controller, at least one of a battery status notification and a battery operation guide…” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (controller) to perform the process. The hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component or it is merely insignificant extra solution activity. In particular, the obtaining steps amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and accumulating and storing the driving durability data amounts to mere data storing. Displaying a battery status notification and a battery operation guide is merely displaying given data. Lastly, the “memory”, “processor”, “and “controller” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim 1 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [00262-00264] about implantation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more as well as MPEP 2106.05(d), as well as MPEP 2106.05(g), if applicable. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1 and 11 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 11 thus correspond to mental process and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, but would be allowable if rewritten to
overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Although the closes prior art, Kim et al. (US 20230182575 A1), teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 11 including:
a memory storing at least one instruction; (“The storage means 52a is a non-transitory memory device and is a computer storage medium capable of writing and/or erasing and/or modifying and/or transferring data.” [0056])
a controller operatively connected to the memory, (“The electric vehicle control device 52 is a computer device that controls the charging/discharging operation of t battery 51, and measures the voltage, current, and temperature of the battery 51 during charging/discharging of the battery 51 and records the same in a storage means 52a. The electric vehicle control device 52 may also perform a control operation for a mechanical mechanism and/or an electronic mechanism related to the operation of the electric vehicle 50.” [0055])
obtain at least one of driving durability data according to a driving state of a host vehicle or calendar aging data according to a parking state of the host vehicle, or any combination thereof; (“The electric vehicle control device 52 is a computer device that controls the charging/discharging operation of t battery 51, and measures the voltage, current, and temperature of the battery 51 during charging/discharging of the battery 51 and records the same in a storage means 52a.” [0055], “the diagnostic analysis data may comprise operation characteristic accumulative information for the battery 51, and may include at least one selected from the group consisting of an accumulative operation time for each voltage section, an accumulative operation time for each current section, and an accumulative operation time for each temperature section for the battery 51 of the electric vehicle 50.” [0091], “when the electric vehicle 50 is parked, the battery service server 30 may collect the diagnostic analysis data about the battery 51 of the electric vehicle 50 through the network 40 from the communication device 20 separately installed in the parking place, and store the same in the database 60” [0101]), where this teaches obtaining the driving durability data including the voltage, current, and temperature of the battery, and the calendar aging data which includes the state of charge and the temperature of the battery over time including collecting data when the vehicle is parked.
obtain degradation data of a battery of the host vehicle using at least some of the driving durability data or the calendar aging data, or the any combination thereof; (“the battery service server 30 may determine the degree of degradation of the battery 51 by using the operation characteristic profile of the battery 51 included in the diagnostic analysis data, and record the degree of degradation in the diagnostic analysis data storage unit 62 of the database 60 to be matched with the model code of the electric vehicle 50 and/or the identification code of the electric vehicle 50 and/or the model code of the battery 51 and/or the identification code of the battery 51.” [0110]), in which the degradation data of a battery can be determined using the data collected from the battery.
compare reference data identified based on a predetermined reference model with the degradation data to determine a degradation state of the battery; (“the battery service server 30 determines whether the operation characteristic profile of the battery 51 is collected in a preset degradation estimation voltage section. To this end, the battery service server 30 may examine the voltage distribution of the voltage profile according to the change of SOC. If the determination is YES, the battery service server 30 may determine a charge capacity change amount by integrating the current data measured in the degradation estimation voltage section, and determine the ratio of the charge capacity change amount to a reference charge capacity change amount as the degree of degradation. The reference charge capacity change amount is a charge capacity change amount represented while the battery 51 in a BOL state is being charged in the degradation estimation voltage section, and the reference charge capacity change amount may be recorded in advance in the database 60 for each model of the battery” [0111]), where the collected battery data is compared to reference data.
wherein the at least one instruction executed by the controller is configured to cause the vehicle battery control apparatus to determine a first calendar aging model…; (“In another example, the diagnostic analysis data may comprise operation characteristic accumulative information for the battery 51 and may include at least one selected from the group consisting of an accumulative operation time for each voltage section, an accumulative operation time for each current section, and an accumulative operation time for each temperature section for the battery 51 mounted to the electric vehicle 50.” [0079], “The database 60 includes a degradation look-up table storage unit 64. The degradation look-up table storage unit 64 is an information storage area in which voltage profile information according to SOC is recorded for each degree of degradation of the battery 51. The area in which the voltage profile information is stored for each degree of degradation is allocated to each battery assigned with the same battery model code. The degradation look-up table storage unit 64 may be defined in advance using data provided by a battery manufacturer and stored in the database 60.” [0082], “when the electric vehicle 50 is parked, the battery service server 30 may collect the diagnostic analysis data about the battery 51 of the electric vehicle 50 through the network 40 from the communication device 20 separately installed in the parking place, and store the same in the database 60” [0101], “the battery service server 30 determines whether the operation characteristic profile of the battery 51 is collected in a preset degradation estimation voltage section. To this end, the battery service server 30 may examine the voltage distribution of the voltage profile according to the change of SOC. If the determination is YES, the battery service server 30 may determine a charge capacity change amount by integrating the current data measured in the degradation estimation voltage section, and determine the ratio of the charge capacity change amount to a reference charge capacity change amount as the degree of degradation.” [0111]) where the collected battery data from a battery during a period of time including when the vehicle is parked is compared to reference data from a reference model. The calendar aging data including the state of charge and the temperature of the battery is collected and stored, and can be compared database information, which can be used to determine the capacity and degradation of the battery.
and display, through a display unit operatively connected to the controller, at least one of a battery status notification and a battery operation guide based on the determined degradation state of the battery; (“In one example, the battery service server 30 may calculate the remaining life of the battery 51 by referring to the degradation information on the battery 51 and output the same graphically through the battery management software. Of course, the information about the remaining life may be output from the integrated information display 53 of the electric vehicle 50 through the electric vehicle control device 52. The remaining life may be calculated by referring to a look-up table that defines the remaining life for each degree of degradation. The remaining life look-up table may be defined for each model of the electric vehicle 50 and/or each battery model and recorded in advance in the battery residual value storage unit 65 of the database 60.” [0187], “Then, the electric vehicle control device 52 may display the remaining life information of the battery 51 estimated for each type of driving habit through the integrated information display 53 of the electric vehicle 50. In addition, the battery management software may display the remaining life information of the battery 51 estimated for each type of driving habit through the display of the mobile communication terminal 90. The user of the electric vehicle 50 may be provided with the remaining life information of the battery 51 estimated from the current driving habit as well as the remaining life information of the battery 51 estimated from other driving habit types. Accordingly, it is possible to induce the user of the electric vehicle 50 to drive more economically.” [0191]).
Kim does not teach …based on concluding that an abandonment time before the host vehicle starts to drive is greater than a predetermined time. However, Fujita et al. (US 20130317690 A1) teaches (“Left-at-high-charge-level duration rate D is one of the degrees of battery degradation which is defined by t/t0, where t represents the time period over which the secondary battery V1 is left unused in a state of a certain SOC (for example, 90%) or more, and t0 represents the elapsed time from the date of manufacture of the battery to the present, and is a characteristic value in which the degree of battery degradation increases as left-at-high-charge-level duration rate D increases. The time period t over which the secondary battery V1 is left unused in a state of the certain SOC or more and the elapsed time t0 from the date of manufacture of the battery to the present are read out from the memory of the battery controller V4 via the vehicle controller V5.” [0028]), which shows comparing the time in which the battery is left unused to a time threshold, for example, determining when the vehicle battery is left unused is greater than a predetermined time. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art where the abandonment time is less than a time threshold in an attempt to provide an improved system or method, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
None of the prior art of record references taken either together or in combination with the prior art of record disclose a method, or system including the further instructions:
Regarding claims 1 and 11:
store the first calendar aging model determined using the calendar aging data, the degradation data, and an existing calendar aging model in the memory, upon concluding that the abandonment time before the host vehicle starts to drive is greater than the predetermined time; and
determine and store the existing calendar aging model as the first calendar aging model in the memory, upon concluding that the abandonment time is less than or equal to the predetermined time;
in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicants’ invention defines over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christine N Huynh whose telephone number is (571)272-9980. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 pm.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/CHRISTINE NGUYEN HUYNH/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights