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 .
No prior art is being applied to Claims 9, 15, and 20 because the prior art does not disclose or make obvious the processor is configured to: calculate a vehicle UBE value based on an energy efficiency of a power system of a vehicle that uses the battery pack as a power source and the pack UBE value; and estimate the SOCE by comparing the vehicle UBE value with the reference UBE value” as recited in Claim 9, “ wherein the estimating the SOCE includes: calculating a vehicle UBE value based on an energy efficiency of a power system of a vehicle using the battery pack as a power source and the pack UBE value; and estimating the SOCE by comparing the vehicle UBE value with the reference UBE value” as recited in Claim 15, and “the battery apparatus is configured to: calculate a vehicle UBE value based on an energy efficiency of a power system of a vehicle that uses the battery pack as a power source and the pack UBE value; and estimate the SOCE by comparing the vehicle UBE value with the reference UBE value” as recited in Claim 20 as currently claimed, in the combination, and as best understood.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 3/24/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language.
The references struck-through were not considered because no statement of relevance in English was provided. Also note that that as it pertains to the Search Report, this application is not a national stage.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to Claim 1,
Step 1: Claim 1 is and apparatus claim, and thus fall within one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One: The abstract idea is the claim feature “determine an operating range of a battery pack based on battery state variables; calculate degradation rate values of the battery state variables based on energy degradation parameters; measure a usable battery energy (UBE) to be supplied by the battery pack based on a standard test pattern; and estimate a state of certified energy (SOCE) of the battery pack by comparing a measured UBE value with a reference UBE value” as recited on lines 5-11. This feature is deemed an abstract idea because it is a mathematical calculation, which has been held to be abstract. All of the above features are being performed by a processor, and in light of the disclosure, all noted features are calculations performed by the processor. At a minimum, because a processor is what is configured to perform all of the above features, such features reasonably capture the concept of being calculations under a broadest reasonable interpretation, because processors perform functions by way of calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Note that it has been held that the claims need not recite any actual formulas or equations to be deemed a mathematical calculation. As explained in this MPEP section, “a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.”
Lastly, note that while applicant uses the term “measure” in the above phrase, it is the processor itself that is configured to perform this feature, which therefore must be a calculation. This is evidenced in paragraph [0059] where applicant explicitly discloses “The processor 1322 may be configured to measure the usable battery energy (UBE) to be supplied by the battery pack 120 based on a standard test pattern by executing the instructions stored in the memory 1321 … UBE value of each cell in the battery pack 120 may be calculated, and based on these values, the pack UBE value and vehicle UBE value may be measured” (emphasis added). Because the UBE values are measured by performing calculations, claiming a processor configured to measure a usable battery energy (UBE) is a calculation, both expressly stated as such and under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no feature of the claim implements, relies upon, or otherwise implements the above noted abstract idea into anything significantly more than the abstract idea. In fact, almost the entirety of the claim is the abstract idea, with only the initially recited memory and processor being any feature found in the claim in addition to the abstract idea. Because no feature of the claim reasonably implements the abstract idea into something significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim does not reasonably recite a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As explained above, no practical application of the abstract idea is reasonably implemented in the claim. The claim furthermore does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are a memory and a processing operatively connected to the memory. Such features are field of use features necessary to implement the claimed invention, and furthermore, such features are well understood to be routine and conventional features that therefore do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This is evidenced by the references cited below.
Evidence:
US 2021/0050631 to Li et al. discloses the use of a processor (905) and associated memory (925) (Paragraph [0083]) in the related art.
US 2022/0200312 to Wang et al. discloses the use of a processor and associated memory (Paragraph [0016]) in the related art.
As to Claim 2,
Similar to the above, this claim recites “generate the battery state variables based on the battery data” which is an abstract idea as, being executed by the processor, it is reciting more calculations to generate the claimed variables, and thus, similar to that already explained above, is an abstract idea.
The remaining new feature of this claim is “a sensor configured to collect battery data from the battery pack” which is an additional element. This sensor does not reasonably amount to a practical application, as it does not reasonably implement the abstract idea in an meaningful manner. Furthermore, this feature does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because it is a well-known and conventional feature.
Evidence:
US 2019/0339330 to Bryngelsson et al. discloses a sensor configured to collect battery data from the battery pack (Paragraph [0011] / note that applicant discloses the sensor as a voltage or current sensor, and such a sensor is reasonably able (configured) to collect data from a battery cell or battery pack with no difference in the actual configuration of the sensor itself).
US 2017/0166076 to Yoon et al. disclose a sensor configured to collect battery data from the battery pack (Paragraph [0053] / note that this sensor, being able to monitor and obtain data about the state of the battery is also itself configured to obtain such data from more than one battery.
As to Claims 3-10,
All of the features of these claims are solely directed to abstract ideas for similar reasons as explained above. The features of these claims either further define the already identified abstract ideas above, or introduce new abstract ideas by reciting new “calculate, “estimate,” “measure,” or other similar mathematical calculations. These features are abstract for the same reasons already identified above. The Examiner notes that Claim 7 recites that the processor is configured to select a representative SOHC value, but that such a feature is abstract as it is a mathematical calculation. The manner in which the processor performs the selection is by way of mathematical calculations, as this is how processors operate. At a minimum, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, such a selection is a mathematical calculation for this reason. As such, all of the features recited in these claims are mathematical calculations, and thus directed towards the abstract idea. These features are abstract for the same reasons already identified above, and no practical application and no feature that is significantly more than the abstract idea have been recited.
As to Claim 11,
Step 1: This claim is a method of using claim, and is therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One: The entirety of this claim, being the feature “determining an operating range of a battery pack based on battery state variables; calculating degradation rate values of the battery state variables based on energy degradation parameters; measuring a usable battery energy (UBE) to be supplied by the battery pack based on a standard test pattern; and estimating a state of certified energy (SOCE) of the battery pack by comparing a measured UBE value with a reference UBE value,” is an abstract idea. Both in light of the disclosure and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, everything recited in this claim is a mathematical calculation, and thus directed to an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Note that the “measuring” feature is a calculation for the same reasons already explained in the above Claim 1 rejection.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This claim does not recite any practical application, as the claim does not recite any mechanism that uses or otherwise relies upon the abstract idea to implement it any practical manner or one that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Instead, the entirety of the claim is solely directed towards the abstract idea of mathematical calculations.
Step 2B: As noted above, no practical application of this claim is present. Furthermore, there are no additional elements, and thus nothing in this claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to Claims 12-15,
All of the features of these claims are solely directed to abstract ideas for similar reasons as explained above. The features of these claims either further define the already identified abstract ideas above, or introduce new abstract ideas by reciting new “calculate, “estimate,” “measure,” or other similar mathematical calculations. These features are abstract for the same reasons already identified above. The Examiner notes that Claim 13 recites that the battery pack includes multiple battery cells, but that such a feature is not positively recited because a determination of an operating range of a battery pack, from which this claim refers and as recited in Claim 11, does not require such a pack. A computer/processor can reasonably make such a determination with or without a battery pack, as it can already have all the data necessary to perform such a determination without the battery pack present. These features are abstract for the same reasons already identified above, and no practical application and no feature that is significantly more than the abstract idea have been recited.
As to Claim 16,
Step 1: Claim 1 is and apparatus claim, and thus fall within one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One: The abstract idea is the claim feature “determine an operating range of a battery pack based on battery state variables; calculate degradation rate values of the battery state variables based on energy degradation parameters; measure a usable battery energy (UBE) to be supplied by the battery pack based on a standard test pattern; and estimate a state of certified energy (SOCE) of the battery pack by comparing a measured UBE value with a reference UBE value” as recited on lines 5-11. This feature is deemed an abstract idea because it is a mathematical calculation, which has been held to be abstract. All of the above features are being performed by a processor, and in light of the disclosure, all noted features are calculations performed by the processor. At a minimum, because a processor is what is configured to perform all of the above features, such features reasonably capture the concept of being calculations under a broadest reasonable interpretation, because processors perform functions by way of calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Note that it has been held that the claims need not recite any actual formulas or equations to be deemed a mathematical calculation. As explained in this MPEP section, “a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.”
Lastly, note that while applicant uses the term “measure” in the above phrase, it is the processor itself that is configured to perform this feature, which therefore must be a calculation. This is evidenced in paragraph [0059] where applicant explicitly discloses “The processor 1322 may be configured to measure the usable battery energy (UBE) to be supplied by the battery pack 120 based on a standard test pattern by executing the instructions stored in the memory 1321 … UBE value of each cell in the battery pack 120 may be calculated, and based on these values, the pack UBE value and vehicle UBE value may be measured” (emphasis added). Because the UBE values are measured by performing calculations, claiming a processor configured to measure a usable battery energy (UBE) is a calculation, both expressly stated as such and under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no feature of the claim implements, relies upon, or otherwise implements the above noted abstract idea into anything significantly more than the abstract idea. In fact, almost the entirety of the claim is the abstract idea, with only the initially recited battery back and battery management apparatus being any feature found in the claim in addition to the abstract idea. Because no feature of the claim reasonably implements the abstract idea into something significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim does not reasonably recite a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As explained above, no practical application of the abstract idea is reasonably implemented in the claim. The claim furthermore does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are a battery back and battery management apparatus. Such features are field of use features necessary to implement the claimed invention, and furthermore, such features are well understood to be routine and conventional features that therefore do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This is evidenced by the references cited below.
Evidence:
US 2023/0152388 to Sun et al discloses that a battery back and battery management apparatus a found in the art as “attempts have bene made to carry out abnormal voltage diagnosis of each battery cell … of the plurality of battery cells” in paragraph [0007] in reference to cells of a battery pack (paragraph [0005]), and where this reference presents yet another mechanism for battery diagnosis of a battery back including battery cells (Paragraph [0009]). Such a reference reasonably discloses that battery packs are conventional, and that a battery management apparatus, which is the apparatus that monitors the batteries to carry out the above noted diagnosis is also reasonably conventional.
As to Claims 16-20,
All of the features of these claims are solely directed to abstract ideas for similar reasons as explained above. The features of these claims either further define the already identified abstract ideas above, or introduce new abstract ideas by reciting new “calculate, “estimate,” “measure,” or other similar mathematical calculations. These features are abstract for the same reasons already identified above, and no practical application and no feature that is significantly more than the abstract idea have been recited.
As to Claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their parent claims without resolving the above noted issues, and these claims therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-20 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.
As to Claims 1, 11, and 16,
The phrase “a measured UBE value” on the last two lines of Claims 1 and 16 and the last line of Claim 11 is indefinite. As best understood, this value is the same as the previously measured UBE in the second to last paragraph, but where these features are being distinctly recited. As such, the difference and relationship between these two distinctly recited UBE features are unclear. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that these features are the same.
As to Claims 6, 13, and 18,
The phrase “measure the UBE” on line 6 is indefinite.
1) More than one UBE was recited in Claims 1, 11, and 16 and is it unclear which UBE this phrase is referencing.
2) The UBE was twice recited to have already been measured in Claims 1, 11, and 16 but where the recitation now recited is distinct from the previously recited UBE value. The difference and relationship between these different UBE recitations are therefore unclear, because it is unclear if they are intended to refer to the same UBE, different UBEs, or if the initial UBE is part of the above claimed UBE. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that all UBEs refer to the same UBE.
As to Claim 7,
The phrase “measure the UBE” on line 6 is indefinite.
1) More than one UBE was recited in Claim 1, and is it unclear which UBE this phrase is referencing.
2) The UBE was twice recited to have already been measured in Claim 1 and again in Claim 6, but where the recitation now recited is distinct from the previously recited UBE values. The difference and relationship between these different UBE recitations are therefore unclear, because it is unclear if they are intended to refer to the same UBE, different UBEs, or if the initial UBE is part of the above claimed UBE. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that all UBEs refer to the same UBE
As to Claims 8, 14, and 19
The phrase “the processor is configured to: calculate a cell UBE value for each of the multiple battery cells based on the multiple SOHCs, the multiple SOHRs, and the multiple SOC operating ranges; and calculate a pack UBE value of the battery pack based on an energy loss caused by an internal resistance of the battery pack and the cell UBE values of the multiple battery cells” on lines 1 to the end and the similar phrase recited on lines 1 to the end of Claims 14 and 19 is indefinite.
1) Claims 1, 11, and 16 already claim a UBE value, and Claims 6, 13, and 19 recite another UBE value. A UBE value must be of a battery or group of batteries, and thus the ones previously recite cannot reasonably be distinct from those now recited in Claims 8, 14 and 19. However, the UBE values of Claims 8, 14, and 19 are being distinctly recited in Claims 8, 14, and 19 from those previously recited are unclear.
2) It is unclear from the phrase “a cell UBE value for each of the multiple battery cells based on the multiple SOHCs, the multiple SOHRs, and the multiple SOC operating ranges” whether each UBE value is computed using all SOHCs, SOHRS, and SOC values, or if each UBE is computed from a respective SOHC, SOHR, and SOC value. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that each cell UBE value can be computed either way.
As to Claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10, 11-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamijio et al. (Kamijio) (WO 2023188962 A1).
Note that US 2025/0180649 to Kamijio et al. is being used as an English translation for the above document, and thus any cited paragraphs come from this US document.
As to Claims 1, 11, and 16,
Kamijio discloses A battery pack (Paragraph [0095]); and a battery management apparatus, the battery management apparatus comprising: a memory (202b,206a) (Paragraphs [0033]),[0038]; and a processor (202a,206a) operatively connected to the memory (Figure 2), (Paragraphs [0033],[0038]), wherein the battery management apparatus/processor is configured to: determine an operating range of a battery pack based on battery state variables (Paragraphs [0055], [0056],[0062]-[0064] / note the operating range is established by finding the SOCmin and max); calculate degradation rate values of the battery state variables based on energy degradation parameters (Paragraphs [0051],[0103]-[0106] / the parameters can be the change in SOC, Qmin0, and note that the degradation rate values are repeatedly performed (paragraph [0084]); measure a usable battery energy (UBE) to be supplied by the battery pack based on a standard test pattern (Paragraphs [0051],[0059] / note Qmin is the full charge and thus usable energy) ; and estimate a state of certified energy (SOCE) of the battery pack by comparing a measured UBE value with a reference UBE value (Paragraph [0064] / note the degradation/abnormality and is a percentage representing the degradation, which is an SOCE).
As to Claim 2,
Kamijio discloses: a sensor (201 or voltage sensor) configured to collect battery data from the battery pack (Paragraphs [0032],[0034] / note a voltage is sensed and thus a sensor must be present), wherein the processor is configured to generate the battery state variables based on the battery data (Paragraph [0036] note the values are reasonably computed from the obtained current/voltage from the battery pack).
As to Claims 3, 12, and 17,
Kamijio discloses the battery state variables include a state of charge (SOC) (Paragraph [0036]), a state of health capacity (SOHC) (Paragraph [0036] / note a computation of the SOH is done with a SOHC computation), and a state of health resistance (SOHR) of the battery pack (Paragraphs [0220],[0221]), and wherein the operating range includes an SOC operating range defined by an upper SOC limit and a lower SOC limit (Paragraph [0056]).
As to Claim 4,
Kamijio discloses the energy degradation parameters include a first degradation parameter related to a rate at which a decrease in the SOHC contributes to energy degradation (Paragraph [0059] / note Qmin), and a second degradation parameter related to a rate at which an increase in the SOHR contributes to energy degradation (Paragraphs [0220],[0221] / note SOHRmax).
As to Claim 5
Kamijio discloses the degradation rate values of the battery state variables include a first degradation rate value related to the degradation of the SOHC and a second degradation rate value related to the degradation of the SOHR (Paragraph [0059] / note Qmin), (Paragraphs [0220],[0221] / note SOHRmax).
As to Claims 6, 13, and 18,
Kamijio discloses wherein the battery pack includes multiple battery cells (Paragraph [0031]), and wherein the processor is configured to: determine multiple SOC operating ranges based on multiple SOCs corresponding to the multiple battery cells (Paragraph [0056] / note in order to know which is the highest and lowest SOC, an SOC for each cell must be determined) ; and measure the UBE based on multiple SOHCs, multiple SOHRs, and the multiple SOC operating ranges corresponding to the multiple battery cells (Paragraph [0064] / note the degradation/abnormality and is a percentage representing the degradation, which is an SOCE, and note that this is based on the entirety of all obtained data, which must come from the various battery cells including multiple SOH/SOHC and SOHR values).
As to Claim 7,
Kamijio discloses the processor is configured to: calculate a maximum SOC value (Paragraph [0056]), a minimum SOC value (Paragraph [0056]), and an average SOC value based on the multiple SOCs (Paragraph [0056]); select a representative SOHC value and a representative SOHR value from the multiple SOHCs and SOHRs (Paragraphs [0056],[0221] / note values are used from the various SOHC,SOHR values to compute degradation); and measure the UBE based on the maximum SOC value, the minimum SOC value, the average SOC value, the representative SOHC value, and the representative SOHR value (Paragraphs [0056],[0064],[0221]).
As to Claim 8,
Kamijio discloses the processor is configured to: calculate a cell UBE value for each of the multiple battery cells based on the multiple SOHCs, the multiple SOHRs, and the multiple SOC operating ranges (Paragraphs [0056],[0064],[0221] / note the UBE is being computed based on the SOH/SOHC, SOHR, and SOC for each cell); and calculate a pack UBE value of the battery pack based on an energy loss caused by an internal resistance of the battery pack and the cell UBE values of the multiple battery cells (Paragraph [0036] / note the degradation can be determined for the pack as a whole).
As to Claim 10,
Kamijio discloses the processor is configured to calculate the cell UBE value for each of the multiple battery cells using at least one of an energy map (Emap) and an equivalent circuit model (ECM) (Figure 4 / the graph shown is reasonably an energy map as it pertains to a charge amount).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1) US 2024/0027537 to Lim et al. which is pertinent because like the instant application, it discloses a battery management apparatus that includes measuring values from battery cells used to determine indicate a battery capacity degradation, and 2) US 2024/0012067 to Jeong et al. which is pertinent because like the instant application, it discloses a battery management apparatus that includes measuring values from battery cells used to determine indicate a battery capacity degradation, and includes the calculation of state of charge (SoC), and state of health (SoH) information in a related manner to the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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 M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights