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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on the date: July 28, 2026.
Claims 1-7 are currently pending. Claims 1, 6 and 7 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
The applicant has argued that the newly amended claim limitations to independent claims 1, 6 and 7 overcomes the 35 U.S.C. § 101 Abstract Idea rejection of claims 1-7 (see REMARKS pages 5-6). The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument. The addition of the amended claim limitations further limits the secondary use destination to four different applications, however, these limitations, as drafted and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. One skilled in the art may be able to mentally use the multiple degradation parameters and respective degradation rates set for each of the secondary use destination candidates to choose which application the secondary battery is to be used in (see rejection below). Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 6 and 7 (see REMARKS pages 6-7 about rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1)
Independent claim 1 recites a power supply device (a machine).
Independent claim 6 recites a diagnosis device (a machine).
Independent claim 7 recites a diagnosis method (a process)
(Step 2A: Prong 1)
The limitations of claim 1 of a calculator that performs calculation and a deriver that derives along with their respective limitations (including the newly amended limitations filed on July 28, 2026); the limitations of claim 6 of a calculator that performs calculation and a deriver that derives along with their respective limitations (including the newly amended limitations filed on July 28, 2026); and the limitations of claim 7 performing the steps of performing and deriving along with their respective limitations (including the newly amended limitations filed on July 28, 2026), as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind and/or covers performance of the limitation through mathematical relationships, formulas, equations and/or calculations. That is, other than reciting “a calculator” and “a deriver” for claims 1 and 6, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps/limitations above from practically being performed in the mind and/or through mathematical relationships, formulas, equations and/or calculations. For example, but for the “a calculator” and “a deriver” language, the “performs calculation” and “derives” along with their respective limitations of claims 1 and 6; and the “performing” and “deriving” steps of claim 7 encompasses a user to mentally (or with aid of pen and paper) and/or through mathematical relationships, formulas, equations and/or calculations to decide a secondary use destination of the secondary battery, including deciding which application is to be selected as the secondary use destination). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations through mathematical relationships, formulas, equations and/or calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1, 6 and 7 recite an abstract idea.
(Step 2A: Prong 2)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims 1, 6 and 7 do not contain any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a secondary battery, an electric circuit that performs charging or discharging of the secondary battery, a measurer that measures a voltage and a current of the secondary battery, a calculator and a deriver. Claim 6 recites the additional elements of a calculator, a secondary battery, measurement value of a voltage and a current of the secondary battery and a deriver. Claim 7 does not contain any additional elements. The secondary battery, the electric circuit that performs charging or discharging of the secondary battery, and the measurer that measures a voltage and a current of the secondary battery of claim 1; and the secondary battery, measurement value of a voltage and a current of the secondary battery of claim 6 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of charging/discharging a secondary battery and measuring a voltage and a current of the secondary battery), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “calculator” and “deriver” of claims 1 and 6 are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor/computer performing generic computer functions of calculating multiple degradation parameters and deriving a secondary use destination of the secondary battery based on the calculation and respective degradation rates of the multiple degradation parameters set for each of secondary use destination candidates) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claims 1, 6 and 7 are directed to an abstract idea.
(Step 2B)
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 7 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above (see Step 2A: Prong 2), claims 1 and 6 do contain any additional elements. Claim 7 does not contain any additional elements. The additional elements of a secondary battery, an electric circuit that performs charging or discharging of the secondary battery, and a measurer that measures a voltage and a current of the secondary battery of claim 1 and the additional elements of a secondary battery, measurement value of a voltage and a current of the secondary battery of claim 6 provide no indication that the additional elements are anything other than a generic computer component or process used in a well-understood, routine, and conventional function, recognized by one skilled in the art, when claimed in a generic manner. Claims 1 and 6 further recites the additional element of “a calculator” and “a deriver” which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1, 6 and 7 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, this claim further adds to the calculation step of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 3, this claim further adds to the calculation step of claim 2. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 4, this claim further adds to the calculation step of claim 3. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 5, this claim has an additional element of a display. This claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity with a well-understood, routine, and convention function (same claim 1 analysis in Step 2A: Prongs 1 and 2 and Step 2B above is used for this additional element). Thus, this claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimonishi et al. US2021/0268927 (called Shimonishi hereinafter and previously cited) in view of Matsuyama et al. US2016/0162849 (called Matsuyama hereinafter, applicant disclosed art and newly cited).
Regarding independent claim 1, Shimonishi teaches a power supply device (Fig. 1) comprising:
a secondary battery (Fig. 1; secondary battery 11);
an electric circuit that performs charging or discharging of the secondary battery (para [0032, 0043 and 0061]; charging and discharging of the secondary battery occurs, thus an electric circuit for charging and discharging is in the system);
a measurer that measures a voltage and a current of the secondary battery (Fig. 13; para [0247]; voltage and current of the secondary battery are measured, thus a measurer is in the system);
a calculator (Fig. 1; BMU 12) that performs calculation of multiple degradation parameters of the secondary battery based on measurement values obtained by the measurer (Fig. 2; para [0043-0047 and 0059-0064]; steps S12-S15 calculates first and second degradation states of the secondary battery 11); and
a deriver (Fig. 1; processor 4) that derives a secondary use destination (para [0059-0064 and 0083]; secondary use applications such as power supply for housing or a vehicle that requires lower performance) of the secondary battery based on the multiple degradation parameters obtained by the calculation performed by the calculator (Fig. 2; para [0059-0064]; steps S14 and S15 calculates multiple second degradation states of the secondary battery for secondary use) and respective degradation rates of the multiple degradation parameters set for each of secondary use destination candidates (Fig. 2; para [0059-0064]; steps S14 and S15 calculate second degradation states of the secondary battery at secondary use applications).
Shimonishi fails to teach to direct the secondary use destination to be selected from at least one of a group consisting of: an application with less occasions of rapid discharging, an application with less occasions of rapid power charging, an application with less time in a fully charged state or a fully discharged state, or an application with less time in a low-temperature environment.
Matsuyama teaches to direct the secondary use destination to be selected from at least one of a group consisting of: an application with less occasions of rapid discharging, an application with less occasions of rapid power charging, an application with less time in a fully charged state or a fully discharged state, or an application with less time in a low-temperature environment (Fig. 9; para [0068-0069]; low-temperature use area as a secondary use destination).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Shimonishi with the low-temperature use are as a secondary use destination of a secondary battery as described by Matsuyama for the purpose of shortening a stock storage period when secondarily using the used battery (para [0005]).
Regarding claim 5, Shimonishi and Matsuyama teach the power supply device according to claim 1, Shimonishi further teaches further comprising a display that displays information related to the secondary use destination obtained by the deriver (Fig. 1; para [0082]; display 5).
Regarding independent claim 6, Shimonishi teaches a diagnosis device (Fig. 1) comprising:
a calculator (Fig. 1; BMU 12) that performs calculation of multiple degradation parameters of a secondary battery (Fig. 2; para [0043-0047 and 0059-0064]; steps S12-S15 calculates first and second degradation states of the secondary battery 11) based on a measurement value of a voltage of the secondary battery and a measurement value of a current of the secondary battery (Fig. 13; para [0247]; voltage and current of the secondary battery are measured and part of battery load information used in the degradation calculations); and
a deriver (Fig. 1; processor 4) that derives a secondary use destination (para [0059-0064 and 0083]; secondary use applications such as power supply for housing or a vehicle that requires lower performance) of the secondary battery based on the multiple degradation parameters obtained by the calculation performed by the calculator (Fig. 2; para [0059-0064]; steps S14 and S15 calculates multiple second degradation states of the secondary battery for secondary use) and respective degradation rates of the multiple degradation parameters set for each of secondary use destination candidates (Fig. 2; para [0059-0064]; steps S14 and S15 calculate second degradation states of the secondary battery at secondary use applications).
Shimonishi fails to teach to direct the secondary use destination to be selected from at least one of a group consisting of: an application with less occasions of rapid discharging, an application with less occasions of rapid power charging, an application with less time in a fully charged state or a fully discharged state, or an application with less time in a low-temperature environment.
Matsuyama teaches to direct the secondary use destination to be selected from at least one of a group consisting of: an application with less occasions of rapid discharging, an application with less occasions of rapid power charging, an application with less time in a fully charged state or a fully discharged state, or an application with less time in a low-temperature environment (Fig. 9; para [0068-0069]; low-temperature use area as a secondary use destination).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Shimonishi with the low-temperature use are as a secondary use destination of a secondary battery as described by Matsuyama for the purpose of shortening a stock storage period when secondarily using the used battery (para [0005]).
Regarding independent claim 7, Shimonishi teaches a diagnosis method (Fig. 1) comprising:
performing calculation of multiple degradation parameters of a secondary battery (Fig. 2; para [0043-0047 and 0059-0064]; steps S12-S15 calculates first and second degradation states of the secondary battery 11) based on a measurement value of a voltage of the secondary battery and a measurement value of a current of the secondary battery (Fig. 13; para [0247]; voltage and current of the secondary battery are measured and part of battery load information used in the degradation calculations); and
deriving a secondary use destination (para [0059-0064 and 0083]; secondary use applications such as power supply for housing or a vehicle that requires lower performance) of the secondary battery based on the multiple degradation parameters obtained by the calculation (Fig. 2; para [0059-0064]; steps S14 and S15 calculates multiple second degradation states of the secondary battery for secondary use) and respective degradation rates of the multiple degradation parameters set for each of secondary use destination candidates (Fig. 2; para [0059-0064]; steps S14 and S15 calculate second degradation states of the secondary battery at secondary use applications).
Shimonishi fails to teach to direct the secondary use destination to be selected from at least one of a group consisting of: an application with less occasions of rapid discharging, an application with less occasions of rapid power charging, an application with less time in a fully charged state or a fully discharged state, or an application with less time in a low-temperature environment.
Matsuyama teaches to direct the secondary use destination to be selected from at least one of a group consisting of: an application with less occasions of rapid discharging, an application with less occasions of rapid power charging, an application with less time in a fully charged state or a fully discharged state, or an application with less time in a low-temperature environment (Fig. 9; para [0068-0069]; low-temperature use area as a secondary use destination).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Shimonishi with the low-temperature use are as a secondary use destination of a secondary battery as described by Matsuyama for the purpose of shortening a stock storage period when secondarily using the used battery (para [0005]).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimonishi, in view of Matsuyama and further in view of Uchino et al. US2017/0146609 (called Uchino hereinafter and previously cited).
Regarding claim 2, Shimonishi and Matsuyama teach the power supply device according to claim 1, Shimonishi further teaches wherein the calculator performs an open circuit voltage (OCV) analysis based on the measurement values obtained by the measurer (Fig. 7A and 7B; para [0135]; open circuit voltage comparison of the secondary battery before degradation and after degradation).
Shimonishi and Matsuyama fail to teach performs the calculation of the multiple degradation parameters of the secondary battery based on an electrical characteristic of the secondary battery obtained by the open circuit voltage analysis and an electrical characteristic of a reference secondary battery.
Uchino teaches wherein the calculator performs an open circuit voltage (OCV) analysis based on the measurement values obtained by the measurer (Fig. 2; para [0047]), and performs the calculation of the multiple degradation parameters of the secondary battery based on an electrical characteristic of the secondary battery obtained by the open circuit voltage analysis (Fig. 2; para [0047]; OCV curve 2B with OCV curve of the positive electrode and negative electrode) and an electrical characteristic of a reference secondary battery (Fig. 2; para [0047]; OCV curve 2A of an unused battery).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Shimonishi and Matsuyama with the open circuit voltage analysis as described by Uchino for the purpose of improving the accuracy of the estimation of a degradation state of a secondary battery (para [0002-0005]).
Regarding claim 3, Shimonishi, Matsuyama and Uchino teach the power supply device according to claim 2, Shimonishi further teaches wherein the multiple degradation parameters include at least two of positive electrode capacity degradation (para [0045-0046]; capacity maintenance rate of the positive electrode), negative electrode capacity degradation (para [0045-0046]; capacity maintenance rate of the negative electrode), positive electrode balance degradation, negative electrode balance degradation, or impedance degradation.
Regarding claim 4, Shimonishi, Matsuyama and Uchino teach the power supply device according to claim 3, Shimonishi further teaches wherein the electrical characteristics each include a positive electrode capacity when the multiple degradation parameters include the positive electrode capacity degradation (para [0052]; positive electrode capacity are part of the degradation state determined), include a negative electrode capacity when the multiple degradation parameters include the negative electrode capacity degradation (para [0051]; negative electrode capacity are part of the degradation state determined), include positive electrode parallel translation and the positive electrode capacity when the multiple degradation parameters include the positive electrode balance degradation, include negative electrode parallel translation and the negative electrode capacity when the multiple degradation parameters include the negative electrode balance degradation, and include impedance when the multiple degradation parameters include the impedance degradation (Interpretation of claim 4; claim 4 recites when the multiple degradation parameters are included, to then add additional limitations to the respective parameters. Thus, claim 4 at minimum requires at least the multiple degradation parameters taught in claim 3 to be taught in claim 4.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shimonishi et al. discloses “Battery life estimation system and method” (see US2019/0361077)
Matsushima et al. discloses “Secondary-battery management apparatuses, second-battery management method, and secondary-battery management program” (see US2007/0145949)
Kawamura et al. discloses “Battery managing device and battery managing method” (see US2016/0344208)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID B FREDERIKSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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.
/DAVID B FREDERIKSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/RAUL J RIOS RUSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights