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 .
Claims 1 – 24 are pending.
Note: The current Office Action is responsive to the Set of Claims filed on 7/31/2024. The set of Claims filed on 1/15/2025 seems to be the old version of the claims.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 is ineligible.
PNG
media_image1.png
624
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step
Analysis
1. Statutory Category?
YES. This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a series of elements, therefore, is an apparatus.
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
YES. This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites the element of “determine a first average cell voltage and a second average cell voltage of each battery cell based on the time series data”. In this claim, “determine” a first average cell voltage and a second average cell voltage involve a mathematical operation (see Equation 1 or 2 of the original Specification). The formula does not have to be in the claim to have the limitation directed to an abstract concept and in addition this step can be accomplished visually/mentally on the fly. Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical operation for determine a first average cell voltage and a second average cell voltage. The claim also recites a element that detects “detect a voltage abnormality of each battery cell based on the difference between the first average cell voltage and the second average cell voltage” involve a mathematical operation (see page 26, lines 6 – 14 of the original Specification). The formula in the original specification is clearly a mathematical formula or equation, and the detection is a mathematical calculation. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical formula or equation as well as a mathematical calculation, both of which fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. As explained in the MPEP, when a claim recites multiple abstract ideas that fall in the same or different groupings, examiners should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea, rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. As the steps (c) and (d) fall within the same grouping of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts), these limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
NO. This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites a first additional element of “store the cell voltage determined from the voltage signal in the memory” and “generate time series data representing a change over time in the cell voltage of each battery cell”. As explained above, this element is claimed at a high level of generality and could be accomplished by a general computer device. The “generate” element does not impose any other meaningful limits on the claim. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The method also recites a second additional element of “generate a voltage signal” which is also insignificant extra-solution activity. When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Here, there are no details about a particular structure or how the structure operates to obtain the “store…” and “generate time series…” elements other than that it is being used to a first/second average cell voltage from the measurements. The “the first/second average cell voltage” is used to generally apply the abstract idea (i.e., perform the mathematical calculation using the mathematical equation) without placing any limitation on how any structure operates to derive the “store and generate” as a function of the “cell voltage”. In addition, the limitation recites only the idea of using the values without details on how this is accomplished. Also, the claim invokes a generic “memory unit” merely as a tool for store the cell voltage necessary for data gathering in order to achieve the recited mathematical calculation rather than purporting to improve the technology or a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim, however, only requires part of the particular arrangement and therefore does not reflect the improvement discussed in the disclosure. The recited generic “memory” merely adds a generic component necessary to for the data gathering to perform the method and therefore fails to provide an improvement to the technology or technical field. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
NO. This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, the second additional element of “generate a voltage signal” was found to represent no more than mere instructions to apply the value in the formula since no link of how the value is possible with respect to the “storing” and “generating” is disclosed. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Further, the first additional element in step (a) was found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the re-evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Here, generating a voltage signal is mere activity for the data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality, and as discussed in the original disclosure, is well-understood (e.g., page 2 of the background of the original specification explains that the attempt to diagnosis the voltage abnormality of each battery cell requires the accountant of other values in addition to the voltage possible by other related methods). Therefore, this limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO).
The claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims(s) 2 – 12 and 23, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the additional recited limitations(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim is not directed to an abstract idea because the additional limitations(s) are no more than a field of use or merely involve insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering and calculation.
Particularly:
Regarding Claims 2 – 9 and 23, are considered abstract ideas which require mathematical calculations, similar to the abstract ideas presented above.
Regarding Claims 10 – 12, the claims are considered more than an abstract idea, but they are considered insignificant extra solution activity necessary for the calculations.
Claim 13 is ineligible.
PNG
media_image2.png
640
842
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Step
Analysis
1. Statutory Category?
YES. This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
YES. This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites the step (d) of “determining a first average cell voltage and a second average cell voltage of each battery cell based on the time series data”. In this claim, “determining” a first average cell voltage and a second average cell voltage involve a mathematical operation (see Equation 1 or 2 of the original Specification). The formula does not have to be in the claim to have the limitation directed to an abstract concept and in addition this step can be accomplished visually/mentally on the fly. Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical operation for determining a first average cell voltage and a second average cell voltage. The claim also recites a step (e) that detects “detecting a voltage abnormality of each battery cell based on the difference between the first average cell voltage and the second average cell voltage” involve a mathematical operation (see page 26, lines 6 – 14 of the original Specification). The formula in the original specification is clearly a mathematical formula or equation, and the detection is a mathematical calculation. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical formula or equation as well as a mathematical calculation, both of which fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. As explained in the MPEP, when a claim recites multiple abstract ideas that fall in the same or different groupings, examiners should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea, rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. As the steps (c) and (d) fall within the same grouping of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts), these limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
NO. This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites a first additional element of “storing the cell voltage determined from the voltage signal in a memory unit” and “generating time series data representing the change over time in the cell voltage of each battery cell”. As explained above, step(a) is claimed at a high level of generality and could be accomplished by a general computer device. The “generating” element does not impose any other meaningful limits on the claim. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The method also recites a second additional element in step (a) of “generating a voltage signal” which is also insignificant extra-solution activity. When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Here, there are no details about a particular structure or how the structure operates to obtain the “storing…” and “generating time series…” steps other than that it is being used to a first/second average cell voltage from the measurements. The “the first/second average cell voltage” is used to generally apply the abstract idea (i.e., perform the mathematical calculation using the mathematical equation) without placing any limitation on how any structure operates to derive the “storing and generating” as a function of the “cell voltage”. In addition, the limitation recites only the idea of using the values without details on how this is accomplished. Also, the claim invokes a generic “memory unit” merely as a tool for storing the cell voltage necessary for data gathering in order to achieve the recited mathematical calculation rather than purporting to improve the technology or a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim, however, only requires part of the particular arrangement and therefore does not reflect the improvement discussed in the disclosure. The recited generic “memory unit” merely adds a generic component necessary to for the data gathering to perform the method and therefore fails to provide an improvement to the technology or technical field. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
NO. This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, the second additional element in step (a) of “generating a voltage signal” was found to represent no more than mere instructions to apply the value in the formula since no link of how the value is possible with respect to the “storing” and “generating” is disclosed. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Further, the first additional element in step (a) was found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the re-evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Here, the step of generating a voltage signal in step (a) is mere activity for the data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality, and as discussed in the original disclosure, is well-understood (e.g., page 2 of the background of the original specification explains that the attempt to diagnosis the voltage abnormality of each battery cell requires the accountant of other values in addition to the voltage possible by other related methods). Therefore, this limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO).
The claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims(s) 14 – 22 and 24, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the additional recited limitations(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim is not directed to an abstract idea because the additional limitations(s) are no more than a field of use or merely involve insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering and calculation.
Particularly:
Regarding Claims 14 – 22 and 24, are considered abstract ideas which require mathematical calculations, similar to the abstract ideas presented above.
The claims have been considered ineligible under 35 USC 101 by reviewing both the limitations themselves and as ordered combinations of elements which do not amount to a practical application of the abstract limitations.
Comments
The prior art of record found as a result of the search, does not teach alone or in combination all of the elements recited in claims 1 and 13. Therefore, no prior art rejection for claims 1 and 13 is presented in this action. However, Claims 1 – 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee et al. (US 12,360,166 B2) suggest a battery diagnosis apparatus, comprising: a voltage detector configured to measure a cell voltage of a battery cell; and a control circuit configured to: determine a plurality of sub-voltage curves by applying a moving window of a first time length to a reference voltage curve, the reference voltage curve being a time series of voltage values indicating the cell voltage measured at each sampling time for a predetermined period of time; for each sub-voltage curve: determine a long-term average voltage value of the sub-voltage curve using a first average filter of the first time length; determine a short-term average voltage value of the sub-voltage curve using a second average filter of a second time length that is shorter than the first time length; and determine a voltage deviation associated with the sub-voltage curve by calculating a difference between the long-term average voltage value and the short-term average voltage value of the sub-voltage curve; and wherein the control circuit is configured to determine whether the battery cell is abnormal when any two of the plurality of voltage deviations determined for the plurality of sub-voltage curves meet a first requirement, a second requirement and a third requirement, wherein the first requirement is that one of the two voltage deviations is equal to or larger than a first deviation threshold, wherein the second requirement is that the other of the two voltage deviations is equal to or smaller than a second deviation threshold, and wherein the third requirement is that a time interval between the two voltage deviations is equal to or smaller than a threshold time (see claim 1).
Sung et al. (US 11,768,251 B2) teach a battery diagnosis apparatus for a cell group including a plurality of battery cells connected in series, the battery diagnosis apparatus comprising: a voltage sensing circuit configured to periodically generate a voltage signal indicating a cell voltage of each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells; and a control circuit configured to: for each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells, generate time series data indicating a change in cell voltage of the battery cell over time based on the voltage signal; for each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells, determine a first average cell voltage and a second average cell voltage of the battery cell based on the time series data, wherein the first average cell voltage is a short term moving average, and the second average cell voltage is a long term moving average; and detect an abnormal voltage of at least one battery cell based on a difference between the first average cell voltage and the second average cell voltage of the at least one battery cells (see claim 1).
Sung et al. (US 12,422,497 B2) disclose a battery diagnosis apparatus, comprising: a voltage sensing circuit configured to measure a voltage of at least one battery cell; and a control circuit configured to: determine a first moving average corresponding to a first time interval and a second moving average corresponding to a second time interval different from the first time interval based on a plurality of voltages of the at least one battery cell measured by the voltage sensing circuit, and diagnose the at least one battery cell based on the first moving average and the second moving average (see claim 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIOVANNI ASTACIO-OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)270-5724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, 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 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.
/GIOVANNI ASTACIO-OQUENDO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858 9/5/2026
Prosecution Insights