Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/19/24 and 8/4/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract idea without significantly more.
5. Regarding claim 1, the limitation of “obtaining first voltage information and first current information of the first energy storage unit, wherein the first voltage information comprises a voltage difference of an output terminal of the first energy storage unit before and after the discharge, and the first current information comprises a current flowing through the first energy storage unit during the discharge; and determining a connection state of the first energy storage unit based on the first voltage information and the first current information” recites an Abstract idea of using a mathematical function/algorithm and data processing. The steps of obtaining voltage and current information are considered data receiving steps which is carried out in order to implement abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is monopolized here rather than a particular narrow application of the abstract idea. Generic computer functions are described here, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technology (battery management).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations of “energy storage unit” and “a control unit to control battery (energy storage unit)” as arranged are considered well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of art (see prior art of record: Obara T (JP 2011069720, provided in the IDS), Figures 1-6; Dulle et al. (US 2017/0123471), Figures 1-9; Zhang, Lan-fang (CN 111999663, provided in the IDS), Figures 1-4)).
6. Claims 2-8 are also rejected as they further limit claim 1.
7. Regarding claim 9, the limitation of “sending first voltage information and first current information to the control unit, wherein the first voltage information comprises a voltage difference of an output terminal of the first energy storage unit before and after the discharge, the first current information comprises a current flowing through the first energy storage unit during the discharge, and the first voltage information and the first current information are used for determining a connection state of the first energy storage unit” recites an Abstract idea of using a mathematical function/algorithm and data processing. The steps of obtaining/sending voltage and current information are considered data receiving steps which is carried out in order to implement abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is monopolized here rather than a particular narrow application of the abstract idea. Generic computer functions are described here, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technology (battery management).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations of “energy storage unit” and “a control unit to control battery (energy storage unit)” as arranged are considered well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of art (see prior art of record: Obara T (JP 2011069720, provided in the IDS), Figures 1-6; Dulle et al. (US 2017/0123471), Figures 1-9; Zhang, Lan-fang (CN 111999663, provided in the IDS), Figures 1-4)).
8. Regarding claim 10, the limitation of “obtain first voltage information and first current information of the first energy storage unit, and determine a connection state of the first energy storage unit based on the first voltage information and the first current information, wherein the first voltage information comprises a voltage difference of an output terminal of the first energy storage unit before and after the discharge, and the first current information comprises a current flowing through the first energy storage unit during the discharge” recites an abstract idea of using a mathematical function/algorithm and data processing. The steps of obtaining voltage and current information are considered data receiving steps which is carried out in order to implement abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is monopolized here rather than a particular narrow application of the abstract idea. Generic computer functions are described here, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technology (battery management).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations of “energy storage unit” and “a control unit to control battery (energy storage unit)” as arranged are considered well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of art (see prior art of record: Obara T (JP 2011069720, provided in the IDS), Figures 1-6; Dulle et al. (US 2017/0123471), Figures 1-9; Zhang, Lan-fang (CN 111999663, provided in the IDS), Figures 1-4)).
9. Claims 11-20 are also rejected as they further limit claim 10.
Note: no prior art of rejection is made at the moment.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zuo et al. (US 2023/0034292), Figures 1-12 teaches a charging, discharging apparatus, method of a battery, BMS system is shown, controller is taught. The prior art fails to teach or suggest the limitation of “discharge to a second energy storage unit… receive electricity discharged by the first energy storage unit … a voltage difference of an output terminal” and so on.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEEL D SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Judy Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-2258. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NEEL D SHAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights