DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Office Action on the merits and is responsive to the originally filed application papers. Claims filed on 10/15/2024 are being examined. Claims 1-9 are being considered and further pending examination.
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(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 10/15/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 4-9 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 recites “a fifth threshold value”, however this claim does not recite a first, second, third, and/or fourth threshold value, therefore it could cause potential confusion as to if these previous threshold values are required. Claim 8 recites “an eight threshold value”, however, these claims do not recite a first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and/or seventh threshold value, therefore it could cause potential confusion as to if these previous threshold values are required. Claims 5-7 and 9 do not cure the deficiencies thereof, therefore they are objected to for the same reason. For the purpose of compact prosecution the examiner is interpreting each numbered threshold as an individual threshold value with the numerical indicator a simply a way to uniquely identify each threshold value with no requirement that other threshold values be present unless explicitly stated.
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 (“an acquisition unit”, “a derivation unit”, “a determination unit”) that is coupled with functional language (“to exchange”, “to send”, “storing”) 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 as follows:
”an acquisition unit configured to acquire…data” recited in claims 1, 4-5, and 8 invokes interpretation under 112(f), however no description of hardware could be found int eh specification. For the purpose of compact prosecution examiner will interpret “an acquisition unit” as electrical circuitry or equivalent.
”a derivation unit configured to derive…” recited in claims 1-4 and 6-8 invokes interpretation under 112(f), however no description of hardware could be found int eh specification. For the purpose of compact prosecution examiner will interpret “a derivation unit” as electrical circuitry or equivalent.
”a determination unit configured to determine…” recited in claims 1, 4-5, and 8 invokes interpretation under 112(f), however no description of hardware could be found int eh specification. For the purpose of compact prosecution examiner will interpret “a determination unit” as electrical circuitry or equivalent.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
1. Claim 1-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1-9 contain limitation(s) which invoke interpretation under 112(f) which no description of hardware is found in the specification.
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 ou 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 1-9 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.
Claim limitations “an acquisition unit configured to acquire”, “a derivation unit configured to derive”, and “a determination unit configured to determine” invoke 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. The specification does not indicate any hardware which is or may be used to be configured to be the acuistion unit/derivation unit/determination unit recited in the claims. 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.
Claim 2 recites “the determination unit is configured to determine that the external charging or the replacement of the battery has been performed when a count of a state in which the intergrated value of the currents is smaller than the first threshold value and the average value of the currents is smaller than the second threshold value is larger than a third threshold value”, emphasis added, however, this limitation is generally unclear as to what is being claimed with regards to “is larger than a third threshold value” as it is grammatically improper and renders unclear which of the mentioned values is intended to be larger than a third threshold value .
Claim 6 recites “the determination unit is configured to determine that the external charging or the replacement of the battery has been performed when a count of a state in which the value obtained by subtracting the second voltage difference from the first voltage difference is larger than the fifth threshold value is larger than a sixth threshold value.”, emphasis added, however, this limitation is generally unclear as to what is being claimed with regards to “is larger than a sixth threshold value” as it is grammatically improper and renders unclear which of the mentioned values is intended to be larger than a sixth threshold value .
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Applicant’s independent claim 1 is directed toward a battery management device. Therefore, it can be seen that it/they fall(s) within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong I: Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite and abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites :
A battery management device configured to manage a battery mounted on a vehicle, the battery management device comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire, from the vehicle, data including information on a current of the battery and information on activation of the vehicle;
a derivation unit configured to derive, based on the data, an integrated value of currents that have been charged and discharged by the battery and an average value of currents charged and discharged by the battery during a latest activation period of the vehicle; and
a determination unit configured to determine that external charging or replacement of the battery has been performed when the integrated value of the currents is smaller than a first threshold value and the average value of the currents is smaller than a second threshold value.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the steps “to derive” and “to determine” encompasses a user making an observation, evaluation, or judgement, based on data to derive currents charges and discharged by a batter and to determine when charging or replacement of the battery has been performed when comparing the derived value to two other values, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II: Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A battery management device configured to manage a battery mounted on a vehicle, the battery management device comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire, from the vehicle, data including information on a current of the battery and information on activation of the vehicle;
a derivation unit configured to derive, based on the data, an integrated value of currents that have been charged and discharged by the battery and an average value of currents charged and discharged by the battery during a latest activation period of the vehicle; and
a determination unit configured to determine that external charging or replacement of the battery has been performed when the integrated value of the currents is smaller than a first threshold value and the average value of the currents is smaller than a second threshold value.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “A battery management device configured to manage a battery mounted on a vehicle, the battery management device comprising” the examiner submits that this limitation amounts to no more than generally linking to the technological field of vehicle batteries.
Regarding the additional limitation of “configured to acquire, from the vehicle, data including information on a current of the battery and information on activation of the vehicle” the examiner submits this is the pre-solution activity of data gathering.
Regarding the additional limitations of “an acquisition unit”, “a derivation unit configured”, and “a determination unit” the examiner submits that these limitations are no more than a generic computing device acting in its typical capacity.
101 Analysis - Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application the additional element of “A battery management device configured to manage a battery mounted on a vehicle, the battery management device comprising” amount to no more than generally linking to the technological field of vehicles, the additional element “configured to acquire, from the vehicle, data including information on a current of the battery and information on activation of the vehicle” amounts to no more than the pre-solution activity of data gathering, and the additional elements of “an acquisition unit”, “a derivation unit configured”, and “a determination unit” amount to know more than the utilization of a generic computing device in its typical capacity. Therefore, as a whole the claim is directed to an abstract idea implemented on a generic computer generally linked to the technological fields of vehicles with insignificant extra solution activities of data gathering.
Dependent claim(s) 2-3 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as discussed below. Therefore, dependent claims 2-3 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 2-3 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Regarding claim 2, which is dependent on claim 1, it merely adds the limitations “the derivation unit is configured to derive the integrated value of the currents and the average value of the currents each time the vehicle is acting; and
The determination unit is configured to determine that the external charging or the replacement of the battery has been performed when amount of a state in which the integrated value of the currents is smaller than the first threshold value and the average value of the currents is smaller than the second threshold value is larger than a third threshold value” which is merely further defining the abstract ideas of derivation of values by defining at what time the derivation occurs and further defining the abstract idea of determination by further defining values that the derived values are compared to.
Regarding claim 3, which is dependent on claim 1, it merely adds the limitation “wherein the determination unit is configured not to perform determination when the activation period of the vehicle is shorter than a fourth threshold value” which is merely further defining the abstract idea by further determining when the determination is to take place based on a comparison of values.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Applicant’s independent claim 4 is directed toward a battery management device. Therefore, it can be seen that it/they fall(s) within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong I: Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 4 includes limitations that recite and abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites :
A battery management device configured to manage a battery mounted on a vehicle, the battery management device comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire, from the vehicle, data including information on a current of the battery and information on activation of the vehicle;
a derivation unit configured to derive, based on the data, a first voltage difference that is a difference value between an activation voltage of the battery at a time of current activation and an activation voltage of the battery at a time of previous activation, and a second voltage difference obtained by converting, into a voltage, a difference value between an integrated value of currents charged and discharged by the battery before the current activation and an integrated value of currents charged and discharged by the battery before the previous activation; and
a determination unit configured to determine that external charging or replacement of the battery has been performed when a value obtained by subtracting the second voltage difference from the first voltage difference is larger than a fifth threshold value.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the steps “to derive” and “to determine” encompasses a user making an observation, evaluation, or judgement, based on data to derive currents charges and discharged by a batter and to determine when charging or replacement of the battery has been performed when comparing the derived value to two other values, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II: Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A battery management device configured to manage a battery mounted on a vehicle, the battery management device comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire, from the vehicle, data including information on a current of the battery and information on activation of the vehicle;
a derivation unit configured to derive, based on the data, a first voltage difference that is a difference value between an activation voltage of the battery at a time of current activation and an activation voltage of the battery at a time of previous activation, and a second voltage difference obtained by converting, into a voltage, a difference value between an integrated value of currents charged and discharged by the battery before the current activation and an integrated value of currents charged and discharged by the battery before the previous activation; and
a determination unit configured to determine that external charging or replacement of the battery has been performed when a value obtained by subtracting the second voltage difference from the first voltage difference is larger than a fifth threshold value.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “A battery management device configured to manage a battery mounted on a vehicle, the battery management device comprising” the examiner submits that this limitation amounts to no more than generally linking to the technological field of vehicle batteries.
Regarding the additional limitation of “configured to acquire, from the vehicle, data including information on a current of the battery and information on activation of the vehicle” the examiner submits this is the pre-solution activity of data gathering.
Regarding the additional limitations of “an acquisition unit”, “a derivation unit configured”, and “a determination unit” the examiner submits that these limitations are no more than a generic computing device acting in its typical capacity.
101 Analysis - Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application the additional element of “A battery management device configured to manage a battery mounted on a vehicle, the battery management device comprising” amount to no more than generally linking to the technological field of vehicles, the additional element “configured to acquire, from the vehicle, data including information on a current of the battery and information on activation of the vehicle” amounts to no more than the pre-solution activity of data gathering, and the additional elements of “an acquisition unit”, “a derivation unit configured”, and “a determination unit” amount to know more than the utilization of a generic computing device in its typical capacity. Therefore, as a whole the claim is directed to an abstract idea implemented on a generic computer generally linked to the technological fields of vehicles with insignificant extra solution activities of data gathering.
Dependent claim(s) 5-7 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as discussed below. Therefore, dependent claims 2-3 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 4.
Therefore, claim(s) 5-7 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Regarding claim 5, which is dependent on claim 4, it merely adds the limitations “the derivation unit is configured to derive the first voltage difference by converting the activation voltage in a current state of the battery acquired by the acquisition unit into an activation voltage at a predetermined reference temperature of the batter and at a reference activation current” which is merely further defining the abstract ideas of derivation of values by defining at what time the derivation occurs and which values are used for the derivation.
Regarding claim 6, which is dependent on claim 4, it merely adds the limitation “wherein the determination unit is configured to determine that the external charging or the replacement of the battery has been performed when a count of a state in which the value obtained by subtracting the second voltage difference from the first voltage difference is larger than the fifth threshold value is larger than a sixth threshold value” which is merely further defining the abstract idea by further determining when the determination is to take place based on a comparison of values.
Regarding claim 7, which is dependent on claim 4, it merely adds the limitation “wherein the determination unit is configured not to perform determination when a period from an end of the previous activation of the vehicle to the current activation of the vehicle is smaller than a seventh threshold value” which is merely further defining the abstract idea by further determining when the determination is to take place based on a comparison of values.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Applicant’s independent claim 1 is directed toward a battery management device. Therefore, it can be seen that it/they fall(s) within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong I: Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 8 includes limitations that recite and abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites :
A battery management device configured to manage a battery mounted on a vehicle, the battery management device comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire, from the vehicle, data including information on a current of the battery and information on activation of the vehicle;
a derivation unit configured to derive, based on the data, a base voltage value obtained by updating a predetermined initial voltage in accordance with a relative difference from an activation voltage of the battery at a time of activation, and a reference voltage value obtained by updating the initial voltage in accordance with a difference value between an activation voltage of the battery at a time of current activation and an activation voltage of the battery at a time of previous activation; and
a determination unit configured to determine that external charging or replacement of the battery has been performed when a value obtained by subtracting the base voltage value from the reference voltage value is larger than an eighth threshold value.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the steps “to derive” and “to determine” encompasses a user making an observation, evaluation, or judgement, based on data to derive currents charges and discharged by a batter and to determine when charging or replacement of the battery has been performed when comparing the derived value to two other values, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II: Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A battery management device configured to manage a battery mounted on a vehicle, the battery management device comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire, from the vehicle, data including information on a current of the battery and information on activation of the vehicle;
a derivation unit configured to derive, based on the data, an integrated value of currents that have been charged and discharged by the battery and an average value of currents charged and discharged by the battery during a latest activation period of the vehicle; and
a determination unit configured to determine that external charging or replacement of the battery has been performed when a value obtained by subtracting the base voltage value from the reference voltage value is larger than an eighth threshold value.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “A battery management device configured to manage a battery mounted on a vehicle, the battery management device comprising” the examiner submits that this limitation amounts to no more than generally linking to the technological field of vehicle batteries.
Regarding the additional limitation of “configured to acquire, from the vehicle, data including information on a current of the battery and information on activation of the vehicle” the examiner submits this is the pre-solution activity of data gathering.
Regarding the additional limitations of “an acquisition unit”, “a derivation unit configured”, and “a determination unit” the examiner submits that these limitations are no more than a generic computing device acting in its typical capacity.
101 Analysis - Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application the additional element of “A battery management device configured to manage a battery mounted on a vehicle, the battery management device comprising” amount to no more than generally linking to the technological field of vehicles, the additional element “configured to acquire, from the vehicle, data including information on a current of the battery and information on activation of the vehicle” amounts to no more than the pre-solution activity of data gathering, and the additional elements of “an acquisition unit”, “a derivation unit configured”, and “a determination unit” amount to know more than the utilization of a generic computing device in its typical capacity. Therefore, as a whole the claim is directed to an abstract idea implemented on a generic computer generally linked to the technological fields of vehicles with insignificant extra solution activities of data gathering.
Dependent claim(s) 9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as discussed below. Therefore, dependent claims 2-3 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 8.
Therefore, claim(s) 9 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Regarding claim 9, which is dependent on claim 8, it merely adds the limitation “wherein the derivation unit is configured to derive the base voltage value by reducing a voltage change amount from a previous time to a current time as a difference between the activation voltage of the battery at the time of current activation and the base voltage value updated at the time of previous activation increases, and to derive the reference voltage value by reducing the voltage change amount from the previous time to the current time as a difference between the activation voltage of the battery at the time of current activation and the activation voltage of the battery at the time of previous activation increases.” which is merely further defining the abstract ideas of derivation of values by defining at what time the derivation occurs and further defining the abstract idea of determination by further defining values that the derived values are compared to.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, 35 U.S.C. 112(a), and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The closest prior arts found are :
Tawa et al (US 20210286020 A1) teaches an inspection apparatus for an assembled battery having a plurality of energy storage devices connected in series, based on a voltage difference between a first energy storage device with the first-lowest voltage and a second energy storage device with the second-lowest voltage during charge or discharge among the plurality of energy storage devices, an abnormality of the first energy storage device is detected.
Watanabe et al (US 20120032647 A1) teaches a method for determining completion of charge a lithium ion secondary battery including one lithium compound having an olivine crystal structure as a positive electrode active material, and a graphite material as a negative electrode active material, includes: (S1) charging the battery by an amount of electricity Xc in time Ti1; (S2) stopping the charging for time Yc after completion of (S1), and measuring a battery voltage Vi1 after the time Yc has passed; (S3) charging the amount of electricity Xc in the time Ti1 after completion of (S2); (S4) stopping the charging for the time Yc after completion of (S3), and measuring a battery voltage Vi2 after the time Yc has passed; and comparing Vi2-Vi1 with a predetermined voltage difference Vi3 to determine that the charge has been completed when Vi2-Vi1>Vi3, and determine that the charge has not been completed when Vi2-Vi1<Vi3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID HATCH whose telephone number is (571)272-4518. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, James J Lee can be reached on 571-270-5965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/BRIAN P SWEENEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668