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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant, in his remarks, alleges that the claims do not claim the mere result of detecting a defect, but the claims recites a particular technique for achieving it: accumulating "a plurality of end voltages", including "a first end voltage measured at a conclusion of a first charging or discharging of each of the plurality of battery cells and a second end voltage measured at a conclusion of a second charging or discharging of each of the plurality of battery cells", "to form an end voltage trend," and "detect[ing] a defect in at least one battery cell among the plurality of battery cells based on the end voltage trend", thus the claims are patent legible. In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s allegation. Applicant appears to rely on the step of: “accumulating a plurality of end voltages, including a first end voltage measured at a conclusion of a first charging or discharging of each of the plurality of battery cells and a second end voltage measured at a conclusion of a second charging or discharging of each of the plurality of battery cells”, in combination with the detecting step to show that the claims are directed to a specific improvement of the battery diagnostic system, however said step of “accumulating the plurality of end voltages of each of the battery cells to form an end voltage trend” is a mere data gathering step. In other words, the accumulating step is recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as a general gathering the plurality of end voltages for use in the detecting step, and amounts to a mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the process that performs the detecting step is also recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the detecting step. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processor). Accordingly, even in combination, the 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 21-36 are not patent eligible.
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 21-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 21 recites the limitation, “detect a defect in at least one battery cell among the plurality of battery cells based on the end voltage trend”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind but for a recitation of a generic computer component. That is other than reciting “a processor”, nothing in the claim precludes the limitation from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
The claim recites two additional limitations: accumulating a plurality of end voltages of each of the battery cells over time to form an end voltage trend, wherein the plurality of end voltage includes a first end voltage measured at a conclusion of a first charging or discharging of each of the plurality of battery cells and a second end voltage measure at a conclusion of a second charging or discharging of each of the plurality of battery cells and that the processor performs the data collecting step. The accumulating step is recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as a general gathering of the plurality of end voltages for use in the detecting step, and amounts to a mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor that performs the detecting step is also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the detecting step. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processor). Accordingly, even in combination, the 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, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 33 recites subject matter that is similar or analogous to that of claim 21, and therefore, the claim is also patent ineligible.
Dependent claims 22-32 and 34-36 fail to incorporate anything significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims recite additional steps of further data manipulation/calculation, which are considered part of the expanded abstract idea of independent claims 21 and 33, respectively, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The dependent claims are also patent ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 37-40 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 37, applicant has sufficiently defined and claimed a battery system, whereby the prior art does not teach or suggest generate an end voltage trend based on a plurality of end voltage for the plurality of battery cells accumulated over time, wherein the plurality of end voltages are measured at conclusions of a plurality of charging operations or discharging operations of each of the plurality of battery cells, and detect a defect in at least one battery cell among the plurality of battery cells based on the end voltage trend, in combination with all other limitations set forth in the claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MINH Q PHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3898. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
MINH Q. PHAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2852
/MINH Q PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
