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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application filed on December 10, 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application No. KR10-2024-0070307, filed on May 29, 2024.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
No action the part of the applicant is required at this time.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 10, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 that is coupled with functional language 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:
a battery management unit in claims 11-15 structure is found in [0037] “The term “unit” or “module” used in this specification signifies one unit that processes at least one function or operation, and may be realized by hardware, software, or a combination thereof. The operations of the method or the functions described in connection with the forms disclosed herein may be embodied directly in a hardware or a software module executed by a processor, or in a combination thereof”.
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 § 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.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to method for estimating eco-friendly vehicle battery degradation. Claim 11 is directed to a an apparatus for estimating eco-friendly vehicle battery degradation. Therefore, claims 1-20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step2A, 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 follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
In this case independent claims 1 & 11 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes. Independent claim 11 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 11 recites:
An apparatus for estimating eco-friendly vehicle battery degradation, the apparatus comprising:
a sensor unit comprising a voltage sensor configured to detect a voltage of multiple cells forming a battery configured to store energy for driving a vehicle; and
a battery management unit configured to:
measure a first voltage of each cell included in the battery during driving of the vehicle while discharging the battery at a preconfigured first current for a preconfigured time;
determine a first resistance value of each cell based on the first current and the first voltage; and
estimate degradation of the battery based on the first current and the first resistance value.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bold limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determine a first resistance value of each cell based on the first current and the first voltage” in the context of this claim encompasses calculating a value using a formula. Further, “estimate degradation of the battery based on the first current and the first resistance value” in the context of this claim encompasses calculating degradation based on calculated values. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. As explained above, independent claim 11 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claim 1, which is of similar scope to claim 11, likewise recites at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, prong I.
101 Analysis – Step2A, 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”):
An apparatus for estimating eco-friendly vehicle battery degradation, the apparatus comprising:
a sensor unit comprising a voltage sensor configured to detect a voltage of multiple cells forming a battery configured to store energy for driving a vehicle; and
a battery management unit configured to:
measure a first voltage of each cell included in the battery during driving of the vehicle while discharging the battery at a preconfigured first current for a preconfigured time;
determine a first resistance value of each cell based on the first current and the first voltage; and
estimate degradation of the battery based on the first current and the first resistance 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 limitations of “detect a voltage of multiple cells forming a battery configured to store energy for driving a vehicle” & “measure a first voltage of each cell included in the battery during driving of the vehicle while discharging the battery at a preconfigured first current for a preconfigured time” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use sensors to perform the processes. In particular the “detect a voltage of multiple cells forming a battery configured to store energy for driving a vehicle” & “measure a first voltage of each cell included in the battery during driving of the vehicle while discharging the battery at a preconfigured first current for a preconfigured time” steps amount to sensing voltage values, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “a sensor unit comprising a voltage sensor” & “a battery management unit” merely describes how to generally “apply” and “display” the otherwise mental judgements using generic components in a vehicle environment. The “An apparatus for estimating eco-friendly vehicle battery degradation” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the measure and detect steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 11 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 to 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 sensor unit comprising a voltage sensor” & “a battery management unit” amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “detect a voltage of multiple cells forming a battery configured to store energy for driving a vehicle” & “measure a first voltage of each cell included in the battery during driving of the vehicle while discharging the battery at a preconfigured first current for a preconfigured time” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “detect a voltage of multiple cells forming a battery configured to store energy for driving a vehicle” & “measure a first voltage of each cell included in the battery during driving of the vehicle while discharging the battery at a preconfigured first current for a preconfigured time” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); indicate that components or methods, such as measurement devices or techniques, that generate new data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence claim 11 is not patent eligible. Claim 1 is also not patent eligible for the same reasons as stated in the above claim 11 rejection.
Dependent claims 2-10 & 12-20 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 5-8 & 15-18, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on the same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. However claims 2-4, 9-10, 12-14, & 19-20 appear to be patent eligible. Accordingly claims 1-20 are patent ineligible.
If the applicant wishes to incorporate one of the above eligible dependent claims into the independent claims to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection, the examiner recommends an interview in order to ensure 35 USC 101 is sufficiently overcome.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 & 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0070024 A1, to Kim et al., hereafter Kim in view of US 2015/0355288 A1, to Yokoyama et al., hereafter Yokoyama.
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses A method for estimating eco-friendly vehicle battery degradation, the method comprising (Kim [0007], Examiner Note: Kim discloses an invention to estimate the state of health (i.e. degradation) of a battery cell):
measuring a first voltage of each cell included in a battery…while discharging the battery of the vehicle at a preconfigured first current for a preconfigured time (Kim [0056], Examiner Note: Kim discloses a voltage from a discharging current (i.e. first current) of a battery which measured over an average period of predetermined time while the vehicle is turned on);
determining a first resistance value of each cell based on the first current and the first voltage (Kim [0071], Examiner Note: Kim discloses estimating an internal resistance using the voltage and current data); and
estimating degradation of the battery based on the first current and the first resistance value (Kim [0084], Examiner Note: Kim discloses determining the state of health (i.e. degradation) using current and resistance data).
However, Kim does not specifically disclose …during driving of a vehicle…
Yokoyama, in the same field of endeavor, teaches …during driving of a vehicle (Yokoyama [0059]-[0062] & Fig. 1A-1B, Examiner Note: Yokoyama teaches determining if the vehicle is in a stop state or if the starter is operated (i.e. driving), Step S1, when determining the state of health of a battery via measuring the voltage with the updated current, S14)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the battery state of health estimator of Kim with the capability of determining state of battery health while driving of Yokoyama in order to update the latest maximum current discharge for calculating the most updated internal resistance.
With respect to Claim 2, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 2 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
With respect to Claim 11, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 11 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
With respect to Claim 12, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 12 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Claims 6-7 & 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0070024 A1, to Kim et al., hereafter Kim in view of US 2015/0355288 A1, to Yokoyama et al., hereafter Yokoyama as applied to claims 1 & 11 above, and further in view of US 2022/0236329 A1, to Honkura et al., hereafter Honkura.
Regarding Claim 6, as shown above, Kim in view of Yokoyama teaches The method of claim 1,
However, the modification does not specifically disclose wherein the degradation of the battery is estimated by extracting a state of health (SOH) matching a combination of the first current and the first resistance value from a cell current-resistance table for SOH estimation.
Honkura, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the degradation of the battery is estimated by extracting a state of health (SOH) matching a combination of the first current and the first resistance value from a cell current-resistance table for SOH estimation (Honkura [0051]-[0052] & Fig. 5, Examiner Note: Honkura teaches a battery data table for measuring state of health using current and resistance values).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the battery state of health estimator of Kim in view of Yokoyama with the state of health table of Honkura in order to indicate the relation between state of charge and voltage of the battery (Honkura [0050]).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim in view of Yokoyama and further in view of Honkura teaches The method of claim 6,
However, the modification does not specifically teach wherein degradation of a cell having a lowest state of health (SOH) is determined as the degradation of the battery.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine that a battery cell is degrading due to the lowest state of health since it is well known in the art that a battery’s state of health is only as high as the lowest degraded cell. Further, in the scenario in which there is a battery where there is one cell, the minimum would always be the one cell.
With respect to Claim 16, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 6, and it has been determined that claim 16 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 6. Therefore, claim 16 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 6.
With respect to Claim 17, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 7, and it has been determined that claim 17 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 7. Therefore, claim 17 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 8-10, 13-15, & 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sankavaram, Chaitanya (US 20230137625 A1) discloses a system for monitoring a vehicle battery which consists of determining internal resistances of a plurality of cell groups int eh battery pack
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T DOWLING whose telephone number is (703)756-1459. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30, First F: Off, Second F: 8-4:30.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/MICHAEL T DOWLING/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights