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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8 of Applicant’s response, filed 3/12/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 21-34 and 36-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Johnson (US 2015/0364936 A1).
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.
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 21-34 and 36-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0143257 A1) [hereinafter “Garcia”] in view of Hortop et al. (United States Patent Application Publication US 2019/0039467 A1) [hereinafter “Hortop”] and Johnson et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0364936 A1) [hereinafter “Johnson”].
Regarding claim 21, Garcia teaches an apparatus (computing system 1100), comprising:
a memory (memory 1120); and
a processor (processors 1110) configured to execute executable instructions stored in the memory (see [0147]) to:
receive battery use data from a battery (see [0047]-[0051], [0059]-[0061], and [0085]-[0086]); and
calculate a state of health of the battery based on the battery use data from the battery management system of the electric vehicle (see [0040], [0049], [0059]-[0062], [0070], and [0096]-[0105]).
Garcia does not expressly teach that the battery use data is received from a battery management system of an electric vehicle powered by the battery. Garcia teaches that the batteries used in the calculations may be from electric vehicles (see [0036]) and the data can be collected from distributed sensors specific to the tested batteries both online and offline (see [0037]), but is not explicit in the battery use data is received from a battery management system of an electric vehicle powered by the battery.
Hortop also generally teaches a system for analyzing the battery of an electric vehicle (see Abstract). Hortop teaches a remote monitoring system 170 is in communication with a plurality of electric vehicles 100. Hortop teaches that the monitoring system receives battery usage data from the connected electric vehicles for analysis (see at least [0020]-[0021] and [0035]).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention taught by Garcia such that the battery use data is received from a battery management system of an electric vehicle powered by the battery, in view of Hortop, as Hortop teaches this allows the system to improve battery lifetime and mitigate battery degradation for an entire fleet of connected electric vehicles in essentially real time (see [0003] and [0035]).
The combination of Garcia and Hortop furthermore does not expressly teach the processor receives the battery use data in response to the electric vehicle reaching a particular battery charge throughput.
Johnson also generally teaches systems and methods for estimating battery capacity and health (see Abstract). Johnson teaches that in order to estimate the capacity and health of the battery, a threshold charge throughput must first be reached (see [0034]-[0037]). Johnson teaches this ensures that the estimation is accurate and of statistical significance (see [0036]-[0037]). Johnson teaches the estimations are performed via a remote computing system that communicates wirelessly with the vehicle battery sensors (see [0033] and [0053]).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention taught by the combination of Garcia and Hortop such that the data is received from the vehicle at the remote monitoring/processing system 170 in response to the electric vehicle reaching a particular battery charge throughput, in view of Johnson, as Johnson teaches enough data must be acquired for the analysis of the battery health to be accurate and statistically significant (see [0036]-[0037] of Johnson). One or ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would also readily appreciate that doing so would reduce the amount of data being transferred over the network. As Hortop acknowledges that the amount of data being transferred for analysis can be vast (see [0035] of Hortop), one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would appreciate that the invention taught by the combination of Garcia and Hortop can effectively benefit from the teachings of Johnson.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Garcia, Hortop, and Johnson further teaches the processor is further configured to execute instructions to calculate the SoH of the battery based on laboratory data (see [0073]-[0075] of Garcia).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Garcia, Hortop, and Johnson further teaches the apparatus is a network computing device (see [0139] of Garcia and [0015] of Hortop).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Garcia, Hortop, and Johnson further teaches the battery use data includes actual battery use data (see [0047]-[0051], [0059]-[0061], and [0085]-[0086] of Garcia).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Garcia, Hortop, and Johnson further teaches the actual battery use data includes current amplitude and temperature data (see [0086] of Garcia).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Garcia, Hortop, and Johnson further teaches the processor is further configured to execute instructions to optimize battery use based on the calculated SoH of the battery (see [0052]-[0053] and [0120]-[0125] of Garcia).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Garcia, Hortop, and Johnson further teaches the battery use data includes a state of charge of the battery (see [0047]-[0049] and [0107]-[0113] of Garcia; see also [0025] of Hortop).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Garcia, Hortop, and Johnson further teaches the calculated SoH of the battery is a percentage ratio of actual battery capacity over nominal battery capacity (see [0097]-[0104] of Garcia).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Garcia, Hortop, and Johnson, as applied to claim 21 above, teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium having computer readable instructions stored thereon that are executable by a processor (see [0139]-[0149] of Garcia) to:
receive battery use data at a network computing device from a battery management system of an electric vehicle powered by a battery (see [0047]-[0051], [0059]-[0061], and [0085]-[0086] of Garcia, [0020]-[0021] and [0035] of Hortop, and the rejection of claim 21 above) in response to the electric vehicle reaching a particular battery charge throughput (see [0034]-[0037] of Johnson and the rejection of claim 21 above); and
calculate a lifetime of the battery at the network computing device based on the battery use data from the battery management system of the electric vehicle (see [0040]-[0051], [0070]-[0077], and [0114]-[0133] of Garcia).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Garcia, Hortop, and Johnson further teaches the computer readable instructions are executed by the processor to calculate the lifetime of the battery by estimating a period of time after which a predicted battery state of health reaches a threshold value (see [0040]-[0051], [0062], [0070]-[0077], and [0114]-[0133] of Garcia).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Garcia, Hortop, and Johnson further teaches the computer readable instructions are executed by the processor to receive different battery use data from a different battery management system of a different electric vehicle (see [0035] of Hortop).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Garcia, Hortop, and Johnson further teaches the computer readable instructions are executed by the processor to calculate the lifetime of the battery at the network computing device based on actual battery use data, expected battery use data, and the different battery use data from the different electric vehicle (see [0040]-[0051], [0062], [0070]-[0077], and [0114]-[0133] of Garcia).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Garcia, Hortop, and Johnson further teaches the computer readable instructions are executed by the processor to calculate a state of health of the battery based on the battery use data from the battery management system of the electric vehicle (see [0040], [0049], [0059]-[0062], [0070], and [0096]-[0105] of Garcia); and calculate the lifetime of the battery at the network computing device based on the calculated SoH (see [0040]-[0051], [0062], [0070]-[0077], and [0114]-[0133] of Garcia).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Garcia, Hortop, and Johnson, as applied to claim 21 above, teaches a method comprising:
sending battery use data from a battery management system of an electric vehicle powered by a battery (see [0020]-[0021] and [0035] of Hortop and the rejection of claim 21 above) in response to the electric vehicle reaching a particular battery charge throughput (see [0034]-[0037] of Johnson and the rejection of claim 21 above);
receiving the battery use data at a network computing device (see [0020]-[0021] and [0035] of Hortop and the rejection of claim 21 above); and
capturing battery health at the network computing device by calculating a state of health of the battery based on the battery use data from the battery management system of the electric vehicle (see [0040], [0049], [0059]-[0062], [0070], and [0096]-[0105] of Garcia).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Garcia, Hortop, and Johnson further teaches collecting current amplitude via a sensor on the battery, wherein the battery use data includes the current amplitude (see [0086] and [0136]-[0137] of Garcia).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Garcia, Hortop, and Johnson further teaches collecting the current amplitude via the sensor on the battery by measuring a current the battery is operating in (see [0086] and [0136]-[0137] of Garcia).
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Garcia, Hortop, and Johnson further teaches collecting temperature via a sensor on the battery, wherein the battery use data includes the temperature (see [0086] and [0136]-[0137] of Garcia).
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Garcia, Hortop, and Johnson further teaches collecting the temperature via the sensor on the battery by measuring a temperature the battery is operating in (see [0086] and [0136]-[0137] of Garcia).
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Garcia, Hortop, and Johnson further teaches providing laboratory data for calculating the SoH (see [0073]-[0075] of Garcia).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHUL SOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-9411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7-5 ET.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ANSHUL SOOD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights