CTNF 18/846,860 CTNF 90397 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-27 AIA 2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-042396 , filed on 3/17/22 . Information Disclosure Statement 3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/13/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 4. 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. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 5. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract idea without significantly more. 6. Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “a data acquisition unit that acquires, in a battery pack including a plurality of cells connected in series or a battery pack including parallel cell blocks connected in series, the parallel cell block being comprised of a plurality of cells connected in parallel, an ID of a cell or a parallel cell block presenting a maximum voltage value at each sampling and a voltage and/or an ID of a cell or a parallel cell block presenting a minimum voltage value at each sampling and a voltage value for a predetermined period; a data processing unit that, for each ID, i) calculates a difference between the voltage value and a representative voltage value that occurs when the maximum voltage value is presented and calculates a statistical value of the difference on a maximum voltage side in the predetermined period and/or ii) calculates a difference between the voltage value and the representative value that occurs when the minimum voltage is presented and calculates a statistical value of the difference on a minimum voltage side in the predetermined period; and a determination unit that i) determines a cell or a parallel cell block of an ID in which the statistical value on the maximum voltage side deviates from an allowable range on a high voltage side as a recommended target for equalization discharge and/or ii) determines a cell or a parallel cell block of an ID in which the statistical value on the minimum voltage side deviates from an allowable range on a low voltage side as a recommended target for equalization charge” which altogether is an abstract idea. The claim recites steps of data acquisition/receiving, data processing, carrying out mathematical algorithm all using a generic processor is found to be an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea itself is monopolized here rather than being a particular narrow application of the abstract idea. Generic computer functions are described here, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technology (battery analysis). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a data acquisition unit, a data processing unit, a determination unit are all part of a generic processor linked to a battery and the setup is considered well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of art (see prior arts of record: Maruchi Kohei (WO 2021/186512), Sperling Florian (WO 2015193109)). 7. Claims 2-9 are also rejected as they further limit claim 1. 8. Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “acquiring, in a battery pack including a plurality of cells connected in series or a battery pack including parallel cell blocks connected in series, the parallel cell block being comprised of a plurality of cells connected in parallel, an ID of a cell or a parallel cell block presenting a maximum voltage value at each sampling and a voltage and/or an ID of a cell or a parallel cell block presenting a minimum voltage value at each sampling and a voltage value for a predetermined period; for each ID, i) calculating a difference between the voltage value and a representative voltage value that occurs when the maximum voltage value is presented and calculates a statistical value of the difference on a maximum voltage side in the predetermined period and/or ii) calculating a difference between the voltage value and the representative value that occurs when the minimum voltage is presented and calculates a statistical value of the difference on a minimum voltage side in the predetermined period; andi) determining a cell or a parallel cell block of an ID in which the statistical value on the maximum voltage side deviates from an allowable range on a high voltage side as a recommended target for equalization discharge and/or ii) determining a cell or a parallel cell block of an ID in which the statistical value on the minimum voltage side deviates from an allowable range on a low voltage side as a recommended target for equalization charge” which altogether is an abstract idea. The claim recites steps of data acquisition/receiving, data processing, carrying out mathematical algorithm all using a generic processor is found to be an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea itself is monopolized here rather than being a particular narrow application of the abstract idea. Generic computer functions are described here, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technology (battery analysis). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because generic processor or computer elements linked to a battery is considered well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of art (see prior arts of record: Maruchi Kohei (US 2021/186512)). 9. Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “ a module that acquires, in a battery pack including a plurality of cells connected in series or a battery pack including parallel cell blocks connected in series, the parallel cell block being comprised of a plurality of cells connected in parallel, an ID of a cell or a parallel cell block presenting a maximum voltage value at each sampling and a voltage and/or an ID of a cell or a parallel cell block presenting a minimum voltage value at each sampling and a voltage value for a predetermined period; a module that, for each ID, i) calculates a difference between the voltage value and a representative voltage value that occurs when the maximum voltage value is presented and calculates a statistical value of the difference on a maximum voltage side in the predetermined period and/or ii) calculates a difference between the voltage value and the representative value that occurs when the minimum voltage is presented and calculates a statistical value of the difference on a minimum voltage side in the predetermined period; and a module that i) determines a cell or a parallel cell block of an ID in which the statistical value on the maximum voltage side deviates from an allowable range on a high voltage side as a recommended target for equalization discharge and/or ii) determines a cell or a parallel cell block of an ID in which the statistical value on the minimum voltage side deviates from an allowable range on a low voltage side as a recommended target for equalization charge” which altogether is an abstract idea. The claim recites steps of data acquisition/receiving, data processing, carrying out mathematical algorithm all using a generic processor is found to be an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea itself is monopolized here rather than being a particular narrow application of the abstract idea. Generic computer functions are described here, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technology (battery analysis). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because generic processor or computer elements linked to a battery is considered well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of art (see prior arts of record: Maruchi Kohei (US 2021/186512)). Note: no prior art rejection is made at the moment. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEEL D SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5:30PM. 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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-2258. 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. /NEEL D SHAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/846,860 Page 2 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/846,860 Page 3 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/846,860 Page 4 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/846,860 Page 5 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/846,860 Page 6 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/846,860 Page 7 Art Unit: 2858
Prosecution Insights