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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/22/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, & 5 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 & 5 in line recites the limitation "the". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither “change amount of the OCV” nor “change amount of the SOC” has been previously recited.
Claim 4 in line recites the limitation ", and ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note: the first instance of an element should be in the form “a [unique descriptive terminology]” and successive references to that element should be in the form “the [unique descriptive terminology]” where [unique descriptive terminology] is the same throughout the claims. This is necessary because similarly phrased elements can be patentably distinct. Otherwise, the claim would likely raise 35 U.S.C § 112(b) antecedent basis issues.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
1) "an OCV acquisition unit that acquires the OCV of the storage battery" in claim 1 line 6.
2) "a first SOC estimation unit that estimates a first SOC based on the OCV of the storage battery and the SOC-OCV characteristics when the OCV of the storage battery acquired by the OCV acquisition unit is within a first change region which is the change region including 100% SOC" in claim 1 lines 7-10.
3) "and a second SOC estimation unit that estimates a second SOC based on the OCV of the storage battery, the SOC-OCV characteristics, and a correlation value that correlates with the degradation state of the storage battery when the OCV of the storage battery is within the other change regions other than the first change region." in claim 1 lines 11-14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Three-Prong test for:
1) "an OCV acquisition unit that acquires the OCV of the storage battery"
Prong (A) (as above)
Yes;
“an OCV acquisition unit” is a nonce with no specific structural meaning.
Prong (B) (as above)
Yes;
“that” is a linking word connecting the nonce to functional language.
Prong (C) (as above)
Yes;
It is unclear how to “acquires the OCV of the storage battery”
Conclusion:
The limitation of:
"an OCV acquisition unit that acquires the OCV of the storage battery"
Is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Note: the initially filed specification (filed 11/22/2024) was searched for an interpretation of:
1) "an OCV acquisition unit that acquires the OCV of the storage battery"
No support was found within the initially filed specifications.
For the purposes of examination:
“OCV acquisition unit” is interpreted as relating to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) of a computer environment.
Three-Prong test for:
2) "a first SOC estimation unit that estimates a first SOC based on the OCV of the storage battery and the SOC-OCV characteristics when the OCV of the storage battery acquired by the OCV acquisition unit is within a first change region which is the change region including 100% SOC"
Prong (A) (as above)
Yes;
"a first SOC estimation unit” is a nonce with no specific structural meaning.
Prong (B) (as above)
Yes;
“that” is a linking word connecting the nonce to functional language.
Prong (C) (as above)
Yes;
It is unclear how to “estimates a first SOC based on the OCV of the storage battery and the SOC-OCV characteristics when the OCV of the storage battery acquired by the OCV acquisition unit is within a first change region which is the change region including 100% SOC”
Conclusion:
The limitation of:
"a first SOC estimation unit that estimates a first SOC based on the OCV of the storage battery and the SOC-OCV characteristics when the OCV of the storage battery acquired by the OCV acquisition unit is within a first change region which is the change region including 100% SOC"
Is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Note: the initially filed specification (filed 11/22/2024) was searched for an interpretation of:
2) "a first SOC estimation unit that estimates a first SOC based on the OCV of the storage battery and the SOC-OCV characteristics when the OCV of the storage battery acquired by the OCV acquisition unit is within a first change region which is the change region including 100% SOC"
No support was found within the initially filed specifications.
For the purposes of examination:
“first SOC estimation unit” is interpreted as relating to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) of a computer environment.
Three-Prong test for:
3) "and a second SOC estimation unit that estimates a second SOC based on the OCV of the storage battery, the SOC-OCV characteristics, and a correlation value that correlates with the degradation state of the storage battery when the OCV of the storage battery is within the other change regions other than the first change region."
Prong (A) (as above)
Yes;
"a second SOC estimation unit” is a nonce with no specific structural meaning.
Prong (B) (as above)
Yes;
“that” is a linking word connecting the nonce to functional language.
Prong (C) (as above)
Yes;
It is unclear how to “estimates a second SOC based on the OCV of the storage battery, the SOC-OCV characteristics, and a correlation value that correlates with the degradation state of the storage battery when the OCV of the storage battery is within the other change regions other than the first change region.”
Conclusion:
The limitation of:
"a second SOC estimation unit that estimates a second SOC based on the OCV of the storage battery, the SOC-OCV characteristics, and a correlation value that correlates with the degradation state of the storage battery when the OCV of the storage battery is within the other change regions other than the first change region."
Is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Note: the initially filed specification (filed 11/22/2024) was searched for an interpretation of:
2) "a second SOC estimation unit that estimates a second SOC based on the OCV of the storage battery, the SOC-OCV characteristics, and a correlation value that correlates with the degradation state of the storage battery when the OCV of the storage battery is within the other change regions other than the first change region."
No support was found within the initially filed specifications.
For the purposes of examination:
“first SOC estimation unit” is interpreted as relating to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) of a computer environment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding “Failure to particularly point out & distinctly claim [indefinite]”
Claim 1 in lines 10-12 recites the limitation "and a second SOC estimation unit that estimates a second SOC based on the OCV of the storage battery, the SOC-OCV characteristics". It is not clear how the second SOC estimation unit is different from the first SOC estimation unit or what functionality it has which is different from the first SOC estimation unit.
Claim 5 in lines 9-11 recites the limitation "and". It is not clear how the “estimating a second SOC” is different from the “a step of estimating the first SOC” or what functionality is different from the first SOC estimation.
Regarding “Relative term – term of degree”:
The terms “is relatively low” and “is relatively high” in claims 1 & 5 in lines 4-5 (both claims) are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “is relatively low” and “is relatively high” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The parameter "the OCV change rate" is rendered indefinite by these terms; one of ordinary skill in the art would not know which values should be considered to be "relatively high" or "relatively low" nor with regard to what other voltage.
Regarding “Lack of antecedent basis in the claims”:
Claims 1 & 5 in line 3 (both claims) recites the limitation "the change amount of the OCV". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1 & 5 in lines 3-4 (both claims) recites the limitation "the change amount of the SOC". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note: the first instance of an element should be in the form “a [unique descriptive terminology]” and successive references to that element should be in the form “the [unique descriptive terminology]” where [unique descriptive terminology] is the same throughout the claims. This is necessary because similarly phrased elements can be patentably distinct.
Regarding “Claim Limitation Interpreted under 112(f) or pre-AIA 112, 6th Para., but Disclosure of Structure, Material, or Acts for Performing Function Recited in Claim Lacking, Insufficient, or Not Clearly Linked”:
Claim 1:
Claim limitations:
1) "an OCV acquisition unit that acquires the OCV of the storage battery"
2) "a first SOC estimation unit that estimates a first SOC based on the OCV of the storage battery and the SOC-OCV characteristics when the OCV of the storage battery acquired by the OCV acquisition unit is within a first change region which is the change region including 100% SOC"
3) "and a second SOC estimation unit that estimates a second SOC based on the OCV of the storage battery, the SOC-OCV characteristics, and a correlation value that correlates with the degradation state of the storage battery when the OCV of the storage battery is within the other change regions other than the first change region."
invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
1), 2), & 3) The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding ‘rejected for inheriting the rejected limitation(s) of a parent claim without rectifying the issue(s) for which the parent claim(s) was rejected’:
Claims 2-4, & 6 are rejected for inheriting the limitations of parent claim 1.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Flow diagrams from MPEP 2106(III) & 2106.04(II)(A), respectively.
Claims 1-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Claim 1:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A storage battery management device” which is a machine and within one of the four patentable categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
“A storage battery management device for managing a storage battery having SOC-OCV characteristics including a plateau region in which an OCV change rate, which is the absolute value of the change amount of the OCV relative to the change amount of the SOC, is relatively low, and multiple change regions in which the OCV change rate is relatively high, the storage battery management device comprising:”
“a first SOC estimation unit that estimates a first SOC based on the OCV of the storage battery and the SOC-OCV characteristics when the OCV of the storage battery acquired by the OCV acquisition unit is within a first change region which is the change region including 100% SOC;”
“and a second SOC estimation unit that estimates a second SOC based on the OCV of the storage battery, the SOC-OCV characteristics, and a correlation value that correlates with the degradation state of the storage battery when the OCV of the storage battery is within the other change regions other than the first change region.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the ‘characteristics’, ‘change rate’, ‘absolute value’, ‘estimates’, ‘correlation value’, ‘change region’ are either mathematical concepts done by generic computing elements or a mental process done by generic computing elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception abstract idea grouping.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim recites the additional elements of:
“storage battery management device”, “a storage battery”, “OCV acquisition unit”, “second SOC estimation unit”,
The claim recites the additional limitation of:
“an OCV acquisition unit that acquires the OCV of the storage battery;”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process,”
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr,”
Analysis:
The elements which are a “device” or “units” are not significantly more than generic computing elements for doing to judicial exception(s) or extra solution activity for doing the judicial exception(s).
The element of “a battery” is a field of art limitation corresponding to at least the CPC symbol G01R 31/36: . Arrangements for testing, measuring or monitoring the electrical condition of accumulators or electric batteries, e.g. capacity or state of charge [SoC].
The limitation is directed towards extra solution activity (pre-solution data gathering) and is not significantly more than that which the judicial exception(s) necessarily requires.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim recites the additional elements of:
“storage battery management device”, “a storage battery”, “OCV acquisition unit”, “second SOC estimation unit”,
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(I): “An inventive concept “cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.”
See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I): “When making a determination whether the additional elements in a claim amount to significantly more than a judicial exception, the examiner should evaluate whether the elements define only well-understood, routine, conventional activity. In this respect, the well-understood, routine, conventional consideration overlaps with other Step 2B considerations, particularly the improvement consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).”
&
“2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc”
Analysis:
The “storage battery management device”, “a storage battery”, “OCV acquisition unit”, “second SOC estimation unit”, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity, as demonstrated by at least the references of:
US 12222396 B2 “Battery Internal Temperature Information Processing Method, Computer Device, And Storage Medium” (Deng) teaches the “units” which are computing elements see Fig. 8 and also teaches the “a battery” see Fig. 1-S10: “testing data of battery”
US 12566216 B2 “Battery Apparatus And Method For Estimating Resistance State” (Yun) teaches the “units” which are computing elements see Fig. 1-150: “Processor” and also teaches the “a battery” see Fig. 1-110: “Battery”
US 9910100 B2 “Battery Characteristic Determining Device For A Vehicle” (Hwang) teaches the “units” which are computing elements see Fig. 1-12: “Processing Module” and also teaches the “a battery” see Fig. 1-21: “battery module”
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 2:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A storage battery management device” which is a machine and within one of the four patentable categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 2 additionally recites:
“a coulomb counting processing unit that calculates the capacity of the storage battery by integrating the current measured by the current measurement unit;”
“a first reference SOC setting unit that sets the SOC estimated by the first SOC estimation unit as the SOC at the first reference time when the OCV of the storage battery is within the first change region;”
“and a correlation value correction unit that corrects the correlation value on the condition that the OCV of the storage battery moves from the first change region to a second change region where the OCV is equal to or smaller than a predetermined value among the other change regions, wherein the correlation value correction unit corrects the correlation value based on the SOC estimated by the second SOC estimation unit based on the OCV after moving to the second change region, the SOC at the first reference time, and the change amount of the capacity of the storage battery calculated by the coulomb counting processing unit during the time period in which the OCV of the storage battery moves from the first change region to the second change region.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the ‘calculates the capacity’, sets the SOC estimated by’, ‘corrects the correlation value’ are either mathematical concepts done by generic computing elements or a mental process done by generic computing elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception abstract idea grouping.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim recites the additional elements of:
“a current measurement unit”, “a coulomb counting processing unit”, “a first reference SOC setting unit”, “a correlation value correction unit”.
The claim recites the additional limitation of:
“a current measurement unit that measures the current flowing through the storage battery;”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process,”
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr,”
Analysis:
The elements which are a “device” or “units” are not significantly more than generic computing elements for doing to judicial exception(s) or extra solution activity for doing the judicial exception(s).
The element of “a battery” is a field of art limitation corresponding to at least the CPC symbol G01R 31/36: . Arrangements for testing, measuring or monitoring the electrical condition of accumulators or electric batteries, e.g. capacity or state of charge [SoC].
The limitation is directed towards extra solution activity (pre-solution data gathering) and is not significantly more than that which the judicial exception(s) necessarily requires.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim recites the additional elements of:
“a current measurement unit”, “a coulomb counting processing unit”, “a first reference SOC setting unit”, “a correlation value correction unit”.
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(I): “An inventive concept “cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.”
See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I): “When making a determination whether the additional elements in a claim amount to significantly more than a judicial exception, the examiner should evaluate whether the elements define only well-understood, routine, conventional activity. In this respect, the well-understood, routine, conventional consideration overlaps with other Step 2B considerations, particularly the improvement consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).”
&
“2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc”
Analysis:
The “storage battery management device”, “a storage battery”, “OCV acquisition unit”, “second SOC estimation unit”, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity, as demonstrated by at least the references of:
US 12222396 B2 “Battery Internal Temperature Information Processing Method, Computer Device, And Storage Medium” (Deng) teaches the “units” which are computing elements see Fig. 8 and also teaches the “a battery” see Fig. 1-S10: “testing data of battery”.
US 12566216 B2 “Battery Apparatus And Method For Estimating Resistance State” (Yun) teaches the “units” which are computing elements see Fig. 1-150: “Processor” and also teaches the “a battery” see Fig. 1-110: “Battery”.
US 9910100 B2 “Battery Characteristic Determining Device For A Vehicle” (Hwang) teaches the “units” which are computing elements see Fig. 1-12: “Processing Module” and also teaches the “a battery” see Fig. 1-21: “battery module”.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 3:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A storage battery management device” which is a machine and within one of the four patentable categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 3 additionally recites:
“a coulomb counting processing unit that calculates the capacity of the storage battery by integrating the current measured by the current measurement unit;”
“a first reference SOC setting unit that sets the SOC estimated by the first SOC estimation unit as the SOC at the first reference time when the OCV of the storage battery is within the first change region where the OCV is equal to or smaller than a predetermined value among the other change regions;”
“and a correlation value correction unit that corrects the correlation value on the condition that the OCV of the storage battery moves from the second change region to a first change region,”
“wherein the correlation value correction unit corrects the correlation value based on the SOC estimated by the first SOC estimation unit based on the OCV after moving to the first change region, the SOC at the first reference time, and the change amount of the capacity of the storage battery calculated by the coulomb counting processing unit during the time period in which the OCV of the storage battery moves from the second change region to the first change region.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the ‘calculates the capacity’, sets the SOC estimated by’, ‘corrects the correlation value’ are either mathematical concepts done by generic computing elements or a mental process done by generic computing elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception abstract idea grouping.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim recites the additional elements of:
“a current measurement unit”, “a coulomb counting processing unit”, “a first reference SOC setting unit”, “a correlation value correction unit”.
The claim recites the additional limitation of:
“a current measurement unit that measures the current flowing through the storage battery;”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process,”
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr,”
Analysis:
The elements which are a “device” or “units” are not significantly more than generic computing elements for doing to judicial exception(s) or extra solution activity for doing the judicial exception(s).
The element of “a battery” is a field of art limitation corresponding to at least the CPC symbol G01R 31/36: . Arrangements for testing, measuring or monitoring the electrical condition of accumulators or electric batteries, e.g. capacity or state of charge [SoC].
The limitation is directed towards extra solution activity (pre-solution data gathering) and is not significantly more than that which the judicial exception(s) necessarily requires.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim recites the additional elements of:
“a current measurement unit”, “a coulomb counting processing unit”, “a first reference SOC setting unit”, “a correlation value correction unit”.
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(I): “An inventive concept “cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.”
See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I): “When making a determination whether the additional elements in a claim amount to significantly more than a judicial exception, the examiner should evaluate whether the elements define only well-understood, routine, conventional activity. In this respect, the well-understood, routine, conventional consideration overlaps with other Step 2B considerations, particularly the improvement consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).”
&
“2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc”
Analysis:
The “storage battery management device”, “a storage battery”, “OCV acquisition unit”, “second SOC estimation unit”, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity, as demonstrated by at least the references of:
US 12222396 B2 “Battery Internal Temperature Information Processing Method, Computer Device, And Storage Medium” (Deng) teaches the “units” which are computing elements see Fig. 8 and also teaches the “a battery” see Fig. 1-S10: “testing data of battery”.
US 12566216 B2 “Battery Apparatus And Method For Estimating Resistance State” (Yun) teaches the “units” which are computing elements see Fig. 1-150: “Processor” and also teaches the “a battery” see Fig. 1-110: “Battery”.
US 9910100 B2 “Battery Characteristic Determining Device For A Vehicle” (Hwang) teaches the “units” which are computing elements see Fig. 1-12: “Processing Module” and also teaches the “a battery” see Fig. 1-21: “battery module”.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 4:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A storage battery management device” which is a machine and within one of the four patentable categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 4 additionally recites:
“a second reference SOC setting unit that sets the SOC estimated by the first SOC estimation unit or the second SOC estimation unit as the SOC at the second reference time;”
“an integrated SOC estimation unit that estimates the integrated SOC of the storage battery based on the SOC at the second reference time, the change amount of the capacity of the storage battery from the second reference time calculated by the coulomb counting processing unit, and the FCC of the storage battery;”
“and an FCC correction unit that corrects the FCC based on the corrected correlation value corrected by the correlation value correction unit.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the ‘sets the SOC estimated by the first SOC estimation unit’, ‘that estimates the integrated SOC’, ‘calculated by the coulomb counting processing unit’, and ‘corrected correlation value’ are either mathematical concepts done by generic computing elements or a mental process done by generic computing elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception abstract idea grouping.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim recites the additional elements of:
“a second reference SOC setting unit”, “an integrated SOC estimation unit”, “an FCC correction unit”.
The claim does not recite an additional limitation which could incorporate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process,”
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr,”
Analysis:
The elements which are a “device” or “units” are not significantly more than generic computing elements for doing to judicial exception(s) or extra solution activity for doing the judicial exception(s).
The element of “a battery” is a field of art limitation corresponding to at least the CPC symbol G01R 31/36: . Arrangements for testing, measuring or monitoring the electrical condition of accumulators or electric batteries, e.g. capacity or state of charge [SoC].
The limitation is directed towards extra solution activity (pre-solution data gathering) and is not significantly more than that which the judicial exception(s) necessarily requires.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 6:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A storage battery management device” which is a machine and within one of the four patentable categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 3 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 6 additionally recites:
“a second reference SOC setting unit that sets the SOC estimated by the first SOC estimation unit or the second SOC estimation unit as the SOC at the second reference time;”
“an integrated SOC estimation unit that estimates the integrated SOC of the storage battery based on the SOC at the second reference time, the change amount of the capacity of the storage battery from the second reference time calculated by the coulomb counting processing unit, and the FCC of the storage battery;”
“and an FCC correction unit that corrects the FCC based on the corrected correlation value corrected by the correlation value correction unit.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the ‘sets the SOC estimated by the first SOC estimation unit’, ‘that estimates the integrated SOC’, ‘calculated by the coulomb counting processing unit’, and ‘corrected correlation value’ are either mathematical concepts done by generic computing elements or a mental process done by generic computing elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception abstract idea grouping.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim recites the additional elements of:
“a second reference SOC setting unit”, “an integrated SOC estimation unit”, “an FCC correction unit”.
The claim does not recite an additional limitation which could incorporate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process,”
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr,”
Analysis:
The elements which are a “device” or “units” are not significantly more than generic computing elements for doing to judicial exception(s) or extra solution activity for doing the judicial exception(s).
The element of “a battery” is a field of art limitation corresponding to at least the CPC symbol G01R 31/36: . Arrangements for testing, measuring or monitoring the electrical condition of accumulators or electric batteries, e.g. capacity or state of charge [SoC].
The limitation is directed towards extra solution activity (pre-solution data gathering) and is not significantly more than that which the judicial exception(s) necessarily requires.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 5 is rejected for similar reasons as claims 1-4, & 6.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210349149 A1 (Ide) in view of US 20160259012 A1 (Sejima).
Regarding claim 1, Ide teaches a storage battery management device (Title: “Storage Battery Management Device and Method”) for managing a storage battery having SOC-OCV characteristics (Fig. 2-TB1: “Storage Battery Characteristics Table”) including a plateau region in which an OCV change rate (Fig. 2-21: “OCV characteristics Acquisition Unit” & Fig. 2-23: “SOC Estimation Unit”, characteristics of batteries would have plateaus), which is the absolute value of the change amount of the OCV relative to the change amount of the SOC, is relatively low, and multiple change regions in which the OCV change rate is relatively high, the storage battery management device comprising (system evaluates the state of a battery based on characteristics and relations between the OCV and SOC, evaluations are done over regions within the OCV vs SOC): an OCV acquisition unit that acquires the OCV of the storage battery (Fig. 2-21: “OCV Characteristics Acquisition Unit”, OCV Characteristic Acquisition Unit requires acquiring the OCV); a first SOC estimation unit that estimates a first SOC based on the OCV of the storage battery and the SOC-OCV characteristics when the OCV of the storage battery acquired by the OCV acquisition unit is within a first change region which is the change region including 100% SOC (Fig. 2-22: “Storage Battery Characteristics Storage Unit”, system evaluates the SOC and OCV); … and a correlation value that correlates with the degradation state of the storage battery when the OCV of the storage battery is within the other change regions other than the first change region (Fig. 7-26: “Internal Resistance Characteristics Acquisition Unit”, as system degrades the internal resistance changes and monitoring the internal resistance provides an indication of the health of the battery, Fig. 12A-53: “Present Capacity”, capacity of the battery changes as it degrades).
Ide does not as explicitly teach … and a second SOC estimation unit that estimates a second SOC based on the OCV of the storage battery, the SOC-OCV characteristics
Sejima teaches … and a second SOC estimation unit that estimates a second SOC based on the OCV of the storage battery, the SOC-OCV characteristics (Fig. 2: OCV vs SOC with multiple regions, Fig. 4-S9: system takes into account different regions, second SOC estimation unit is for additional regions),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device taught by Ide with the teachings of Sejima. One would have added to the “Storage Battery Management Device and Method” of Ide the “Energy Storage Device Management Apparatus” in particular the multiple regions of Sejima. The motivation would have been that the multiple regions would allow for more accurate assessments of the OCV and SOC as well as any values determined based thereon (see Sejima Para 0042: “The value can be corrected with high frequency by the reset processing when the SOC regions that the SOC(I) and the SOC(V) belong to are different, while deciding the SOC based on the current integration method, which brings about advantages that the SOC can be estimated during use of the energy storage device. Also, the accumulation of the error, which is a disadvantage of the current integration method, is prevented, thereby increasing the accuracy of the SOC estimated value.”)
Regarding claim 2, Ide in view of Sejima teaches the storage battery management device according to claim 1,
Ide further teaches further comprising: a current measurement unit that measures the current flowing through the storage battery (para 0028: “The storage battery management device 12 includes an OCV characteristics acquisition unit 21 that functions as a characteristics acquisition unit and acquires open circuit voltage (OCV) characteristics Socv based on storage battery information (such as current, voltage, and temperature) acquired from the storage battery unit 11”); a coulomb counting processing unit that calculates the capacity of the storage battery by integrating the current measured by the current measurement unit (as well known to one of ordinary skill in the art: the total coulombs is the integral of current over time and a capacity of a battery is a measure of the total charge that can be delivered (such as amp-hours);
Sejima further teaches a first reference SOC setting unit that sets the SOC estimated by the first SOC estimation unit as the SOC at the first reference time when the OCV of the storage battery is within the first change region (Fig. 4-S9: system uses the region in determining SOC); and a correlation value correction unit that corrects the correlation value on the condition that the OCV of the storage battery moves from the first change region to a second change region where the OCV is equal to or smaller than a predetermined value among the other change regions (Fig2: OCV vs SOC, there are multiple regions with OCV equal to or smaller than a predetermined value (i.e. in other regions)), wherein the correlation value correction unit corrects the correlation value based on the SOC estimated by the second SOC estimation unit based on the OCV after moving to the second change region, the SOC at the first reference time, and the change amount of the capacity of the storage battery calculated by the coulomb counting processing unit during the time period in which the OCV of the storage battery moves from the first change region to the second change region(Fig. 4-S9: system takes into which region of the OCV vs SOC in determining capacity of the battery).
Regarding claim 3, Ide in view of Sejima teaches the storage battery management device according to claim 1,
Ide further teaches further comprising: a current measurement unit that measures the current flowing through the storage battery (para 0028: “The storage battery management device 12 includes an OCV characteristics acquisition unit 21 that functions as a characteristics acquisition unit and acquires open circuit voltage (OCV) characteristics Socv based on storage battery information (such as current, voltage, and temperature) acquired from the storage battery unit 11”); a coulomb counting processing unit that calculates the capacity of the storage battery by integrating the current measured by the current measurement unit (as well known to one of ordinary skill in the art: the total coulombs is the integral of current over time and a capacity of a battery is a measure of the total charge that can be delivered (such as amp-hours);
Sejima further teaches a first reference SOC setting unit that sets the SOC estimated by the second SOC estimation unit as the SOC at the first reference time when the OCV of the storage battery is within a second change region where the OCV is equal to or smaller than a predetermined value among the other change regions(Fig2: OCV vs SOC, there are multiple regions with OCV equal to or smaller than a predetermined value (i.e. in other regions)); and a correlation value correction unit that corrects the correlation value on the condition that the OCV of the storage battery moves from the second change region to the first change region, wherein the correlation value correction unit corrects the correlation value based on the SOC estimated by the first SOC estimation unit based on the OCV after moving to the first change region (Fig. 4-S9: system takes into which region of the OCV vs SOC in determining capacity of the battery), the SOC at the first reference time, and the change amount of the capacity of the storage battery calculated by the coulomb counting processing unit during the time period in which the OCV of the storage battery moves from the second change region to the first change region (Fig. 4-S9: system makes corrections depending on which region of the OCV vs SOC graph the system is operating in).
Regarding claim 4, Ide in view of Sejima teaches the storage battery management device according to claim 2,
Ide further teaches … and an FCC correction unit that corrects the FCC based on the corrected correlation value corrected by the correlation value correction unit (Fig. 7-26: “Internal Resistance Characteristics Acquisition Unit”, as the battery degrades the charge capacity decreases and equivalently the internal resistance of the battery increases).
Sejima further teaches further comprising: a second reference SOC setting unit that sets the SOC estimated by the first SOC estimation unit or the second SOC estimation unit as the SOC at the second reference time (Fig 2: OCV vs SOC, there are multiple regions and at different times the SOC would correspond to those different regions); an integrated SOC estimation unit that estimates the integrated SOC of the storage battery based on the SOC at the second reference time, the change amount of the capacity of the storage battery from the second reference time calculated by the coulomb counting processing unit, and the FCC of the storage battery(Fig. 4-S9: system makes corrections depending on which region of the OCV vs SOC graph the system is operating in); …
Regarding claim 5, Ide teaches method for managing a storage battery having SOC-OCV characteristics(Fig. 2-TB1: “Storage Battery Characteristics Table”) including a plateau region in which an OCV change rate (Fig. 2-21: “OCV characteristics Acquisition Unit” & Fig. 2-23: “SOC Estimation Unit”, characteristics of batteries would have plateaus), which is the absolute value of the change amount of the OCV relative to the change amount of the SOC, is relatively low, and multiple change regions in which the OCV change rate is relatively high, the method comprising(system evaluates the state of a battery based on characteristics and relations between the OCV and SOC, evaluations are done over regions within the OCV vs SOC): a step of acquiring the OCV of the storage battery (Fig. 2-21: “OCV Characteristics Acquisition Unit”, OCV Characteristic Acquisition Unit requires acquiring the OCV); and a step of estimating the first SOC based on the OCV of the storage battery and the SOC-OCV characteristics when the acquired OCV of the storage battery is within a first change region which is the change region including 100% SOC (Fig. 2-22: “Storage Battery Characteristics Storage Unit”, system evaluates the SOC and OCV); … , and a correlation value that correlates with the degradation state of the storage battery when the OCV of the storage battery is within the other change regions other than the first change region(Fig. 7-26: “Internal Resistance Characteristics Acquisition Unit”, as system degrades the internal resistance changes and monitoring the internal resistance provides an indication of the health of the battery, Fig. 12A-53: “Present Capacity”, capacity of the battery changes as it degrades).
Ide does not as explicitly teach … and a step of estimating a second SOC based on the OCV of the storage battery, the SOC-OCV characteristics.
Sejima teaches … and a step of estimating a second SOC based on the OCV of the storage battery, the SOC-OCV characteristics (Fig. 2: OCV vs SOC with multiple regions, Fig. 4-S9: system takes into account different regions, second SOC estimation unit is for additional regions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device taught by Ide with the teachings of Sejima. One would have added to the “Storage Battery Management Device and Method” of Ide the “Energy Storage Device Management Apparatus” in particular the multiple regions of Sejima. The motivation would have been that the multiple regions would allow for more accurate assessments of the OCV and SOC as well as any values determined based thereon ( see Sejima Para 0042: “The value can be corrected with high frequency by the reset processing when the SOC regions that the SOC(I) and the SOC(V) belong to are different, while deciding the SOC based on the current integration method, which brings about advantages that the SOC can be estimated during use of the energy storage device. Also, the accumulation of the error, which is a disadvantage of the current integration method, is prevented, thereby increasing the accuracy of the SOC estimated value.”)
Regarding claim 4, Ide in view of Sejima teaches the storage battery management device according to claim 3,
Ide further teaches … and an FCC correction unit that corrects the FCC based on the corrected correlation value corrected by the correlation value correction unit(Fig. 7-26: “Internal Resistance Characteristics Acquisition Unit”, as the battery degrades the charge capacity decreases and equivalently the internal resistance of the battery increases).
Sejima further teaches further comprising: a second reference SOC setting unit that sets the SOC estimated by the first SOC estimation unit or the second SOC estimation unit as the SOC at the second reference time(Fig 2: OCV vs SOC, there are multiple regions and at different times the SOC would correspond to those different regions); an integrated SOC estimation unit that estimates the integrated SOC of the storage battery based on the SOC at the second reference time, the change amount of the capacity of the storage battery from the second reference time calculated by the coulomb counting processing unit, and the FCC of the storage battery (Fig. 4-S9: system makes corrections depending on which region of the OCV vs SOC graph the system is operating in);
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9800086 B2 "Electric Storage Device Management System, Electric Storage Device Pack, And Method Of Estimating State Of Charge" (Shiraishi) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 2.
US 10718814 B2 "Battery Testing Apparatus And Method" (Seo) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 3.
US 10330738 B2 "Apparatus For Estimating Battery Degradation State, System Including The Same, And Method Thereof" (Kim) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 6.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 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, Huy Phan can be reached at (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.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights