DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on XXXXXXXXXXXXXX has been entered.
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
Claim 19 is canceled.
Claims 1-18 and 20 are pending and have been examined.
This action is in reply to the papers filed on 08/04/2026 (effective filing date 12/20/2023).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted: 12/16/2024, has/have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Amendment
The present Office Action is based upon the original patent application filed on 12/16/2024 as modified by the amendment filed on 08/04/2026.
Reasons For Allowance
Prior-Art Rejection withdrawn
Claims xxx are allowed. Independent claims X, Y, and Z all contain the same inventive scope. The closest prior art (See PTO-892, Notice of References Cited) does not teach the claimed:
The closest prior-art (xxx) teach the features as disclosed in Non-final Rejection (xxxx), however, these cited references do not teach and the prior-art does not teach at least the following combination of features and/or elements:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101 - Withdrawn
Per Applicant’s amendments and arguments and considering new guidance in the MPEP, the rejections are withdrawn. Specifically, in Applicant’s Remarks (dated 03/14/2017, pgs. 8-11), Applicant traverses the 35 USC §101 rejections arguing that the amended claims recite new limitations that are not abstract, amount to significantly more, are directed to a practical application, etc… For example, Applicant argues….
In support of their arguments, Applicant cites to the following recent Fed. Cir. court cases (i.e., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, Berkheimer, Core Wireless, McRO, Enfish, Bascom, DDR, etc…).
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 1–18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Legal Standard
Under Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), and as set forth in MPEP § 2106, subject-matter eligibility is evaluated using the following framework:
Step 1: Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (a statutory category)? (MPEP § 2106.03)
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon)? (MPEP § 2106.04)
Step 2A, Prong Two: If a judicial exception is recited, does the claim as a whole integrate the exception into a practical application? (MPEP § 2106.04(d))
Step 2B: If the exception is not integrated into a practical application, do the additional elements, considered individually or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., an "inventive concept")? (MPEP § 2106.05)
Independent Claim 1
Claim 1 recites: "A computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to: obtain target battery historic usage data of an initial battery targeted for replacement... obtain a plurality of candidate battery historic usage data... and select a specific replacement candidate battery as a replacement battery for the initial battery based on a comparison of the target battery historic usage data to the candidate battery historic usage data, wherein the comparison determines a similarity of battery aging profiles between the initial battery and the specific replacement candidate battery."
Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a "computer system," which falls within the statutory category of a machine. See MPEP § 2106.03. The claim therefore requires analysis under Step 2A.
Step 2A – Prong One
The claim recites limitations that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components ("processing circuitry"). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Specifically:
"obtain target battery historic usage data of an initial battery" – obtaining/observing information;
"obtain a plurality of candidate battery historic usage data" – obtaining/observing information;
"select a specific replacement candidate battery ... based on a comparison of the target battery historic usage data to the candidate battery historic usage data, wherein the comparison determines a similarity of battery aging profiles" – evaluating and comparing data to reach a judgment (i.e., which candidate battery is most similar to the target battery) and selecting an outcome based on that judgment.
A person (e.g., a technician) could mentally, or with the aid of pen and paper, review historic usage records for an initial battery and for several candidate batteries, compare the recorded parameters, judge which candidate is most similar in aging profile, and select that candidate as the replacement. Comparing data sets to evaluate similarity and reaching a selection based on that evaluation is a typical mental process. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (a method of verifying a transaction by comparing information was an unpatentable mental process); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (collecting, analyzing, and displaying data, without more, is an abstract idea); In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (claims directed to analyzing data to identify a subset of candidates meeting certain criteria were directed to a mental process). Because the claim recites a mental process not practically performed outside the human mind but for generic computer implementation, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two
Having identified that the claim recites a judicial exception, the additional elements of the claim are evaluated, individually and in combination, to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The only additional element beyond the abstract idea itself is "processing circuitry," recited at a high level of generality and invoked merely to perform the generic computer functions of obtaining data and performing a comparison/selection. The specification does not recite any particular improvement to the functioning of a computer, battery-management hardware, or any other technology; rather, generic processing circuitry is used simply as a tool to perform the abstract mental process of comparing data and selecting a result. This is "mere instructions to apply the judicial exception" using generic computer components, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(f); see Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 ("the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention"). No additional element:
reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology (MPEP § 2106.05(a));
applies the judicial exception with a particular machine that is integral to the claim (MPEP § 2106.05(b));
effects a transformation of an article to a different state (MPEP § 2106.05(c)); or
applies the exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking it to a technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(e), (h)).
Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Because the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, it must be determined whether the additional elements, individually or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05.
The only additional element—generic "processing circuitry"—performing the generic computer functions of receiving/obtaining data and performing a comparison, is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field, as recognized in Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26 (generic computer implementation of an abstract idea, including receiving, storing, and processing data, is not "significantly more"), and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer functions such as receiving and processing data are "purely conventional"). See also MPEP § 2106.05(d). Applicant's own specification confirms that the processing circuitry is implemented using conventional computing hardware, further evidencing that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional. There is no indication that the ordered combination of obtaining data and comparing/selecting adds anything beyond the sum of its generic parts. Considered individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 1 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Dependent Claims 2–13
Claims 2–13 depend from claim 1 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for at least the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1, because they do not remedy the deficiencies of claim 1. Each dependent claim is addressed below.
Claim 2 recites that the historic usage data "compris[es] cycling age data of associated batteries, the cycling age data comprising one or more of upper charging limit data, lower discharging limit data, depth of discharge data, peak current data, average current data, energy throughput data, capacity throughput data, temperature data and/or usage time data." This limitation merely narrows the type of data obtained and compared as part of the abstract mental comparison/evaluation process, and thus further limits the abstract idea itself rather than integrating it into a practical application or adding an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(a) (narrowing or limiting the judicial exception, without more, does not add significantly more). Merely selecting which category of data to observe and compare does not change the fundamentally mental nature of the comparison.
Claim 3 further narrows the data of claim 2 to "peak plugged in charging current data, peak regenerative charging current data and/or peak drainage current data" – again merely narrowing the field of data being mentally observed and compared; no additional element is recited.
Claim 4 similarly narrows to "average plugged in charging current data, average regenerative charging current data and/or average drainage current data" – for the same reasons as claim 3, this is a further limitation on the type of data considered in the abstract comparison and does not add significantly more.
Claim 5 recites that the compared data comprises "calendric age data... comprising one or more of storage charge level data, storage time data and/or storage temperature data" – another narrowing of the category of data mentally compared, not an additional inventive element.
Claim 6 recites "mechanical age data... comprising vibration data and/or shock data" – likewise merely narrows the abstract data-comparison idea to a further data type.
Claim 7 recites: "determining the similarity of battery aging profiles comprises: rating each replacement candidate battery based on a similarity of the candidate battery historic usage data and the target battery historic usage data." "Rating" candidates based on similarity is itself an evaluative judgment a human evaluator could perform mentally or with pen and paper and is therefore an additional abstract mental-process/mathematical-concept limitation rather than a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 8 recites: "determining the similarity of battery aging profiles comprises weighting respective usage data parameters." Weighting different data parameters when performing a comparison is a mathematical concept/mental step (assigning relative importance to different observed factors when forming a judgment) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I) (mathematical concepts).
Claim 9 recites: "obtaining at least part of the target battery historic usage data from a non-volatile data storage of the initial battery." This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution data-gathering activity — merely specifying the generic source from which data is retrieved — and does not integrate the exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g); In re TLI Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611–12 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (data-gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity). Storing and retrieving data using generic non-volatile memory is also well-understood, routine, and conventional. MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Claim 10 recites: "obtaining at least part of the target battery historic usage data from a server system." As with claim 9, this is insignificant extra-solution activity specifying a generic source (a server) for data gathering, and generic client-server data retrieval is well-understood, routine, and conventional. MPEP §§ 2106.05(d), (g).
Claim 11 recites obtaining "a state of health, SoH, of the initial battery," obtaining SoH "of one or more of the specific replacement candidate batteries," and selecting the replacement "further based on a comparison of the SoH." This adds another data type (SoH) to the mental comparison/selection process already found abstract with respect to claim 1 and is therefore itself an additional abstract mental evaluation step rather than a practical application.
Claim 12 similarly recites obtaining "open cell voltage, OCV, in relation to state of charge, SOC, data" for the initial battery and candidate batteries, and selecting "further based on" that OCV/SOC data. Like claim 11, this merely expands the abstract data-comparison process to another data type without integrating it into a practical application.
Claim 13 is a combination claim reciting, in a single dependent claim, the cycling age data of claim 2, the calendric age data of claim 5, the mechanical age data of claim 6, the rating step of claim 7, the weighting step of claim 8, the SoH comparison of claim 11, and the data sourcing of claims 9 (and, additionally, "a cloud server"). Because each of these individual limitations was addressed above and found to merely narrow or add to the abstract mental comparison process (or constitute insignificant extra-solution data gathering using generic computer components such as a "cloud server"), the combination of these limitations in claim 13 likewise does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination, does it amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(d)–(g).
Claims 2–13 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites: "An energy storage system comprising at least one battery and processing circuitry configured to store usage data of the at least one battery as target battery historic usage data for use as target battery historic usage data and/or candidate battery historic usage data by the computer system of claim 1..."
Step 1: The claim recites an "energy storage system," a machine, satisfying Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong One: Because claim 14 incorporates the computer system of claim 1 by reference, it likewise recites the abstract mental process of comparing battery historic usage data identified above with respect to claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The additional element added by claim 14 — "processing circuitry configured to store usage data ... as target battery historic usage data" — is merely a generic data-storage/data-gathering function, which is insignificant extra-solution activity that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(g). The optional non-volatile data storage ("preferably") is likewise a generic data-storage component.
Step 2B: Storing sensor/usage data in a generic non-volatile data storage using generic processing circuitry is well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functionality. MPEP § 2106.05(d); Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26. No inventive concept is added.
Claim 14 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites: "A vehicle comprising the energy storage system of claim 14." Claim 15 adds only a field-of-use limitation (a "vehicle") in which the energy storage system of claim 14 is used. Generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, without more, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. MPEP § 2106.05(h); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010). For at least the reasons discussed with respect to claims 1 and 14, claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Independent Claim 16
Claim 16 recites: "A computer-implemented method, comprising: obtaining, by processing circuitry of a computer system, target battery historic usage data of an initial battery targeted for replacement... obtaining, by processing circuitry of the computer system, a plurality of candidate battery historic usage data... and selecting, by processing circuitry of the computer system, a specific replacement candidate battery as replacement battery for the initial battery based on comparing, by processing circuitry of the computer system, the target battery historic usage data to the candidate battery historic usage data, wherein the comparing determines a similarity of battery aging profiles..."
Step 1: Claim 16 recites a "computer-implemented method," which is a process, a statutory category under MPEP § 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong One: For the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, the obtaining, comparing, and selecting steps of claim 16 recite a mental process — evaluating and comparing historic usage data to judge similarity of aging profiles and select a replacement — that could practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, but for the generic recitation that the steps are performed "by processing circuitry."
Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim recites only generic "processing circuitry of a computer system" performing the obtaining, comparing, and selecting steps. As with claim 1, this is mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using a generic computer, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(f); Alice, 573 U.S. at 223.
Step 2B: For the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, using generic processing circuitry to obtain, compare, and select data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, whether the additional elements are considered individually or as an ordered combination. MPEP § 2106.05(d); Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26.
Claim 16 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent Claims 17–18
Claim 17 recites: "determining the similarity of battery aging profiles comprises: rating, by processing circuitry of the computer system, each replacement candidate battery based on a similarity..." As with claim 7, "rating" candidates based on similarity is an additional abstract mental evaluative step, merely tied to generic processing circuitry, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more. MPEP §§ 2106.04(a)(2)(III), 2106.05(f).
Claim 18 recites: "determining the similarity of battery aging profiles comprises: weighting, by processing circuitry of the computer system, respective usage data parameters..." As with claim 8, weighting data parameters is an abstract mathematical/mental step merely implemented by generic processing circuitry and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more. MPEP §§ 2106.04(a)(2)(I), 2106.05(f).
Claims 17–18 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 20
Claim 20 recites: "A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 16."
Step 1: Claim 20 recites a "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium," an article of manufacture, satisfying Step 1. MPEP § 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong One: Because claim 20 requires performance of the method of claim 16 when its instructions are executed, it recites the same abstract mental process of obtaining, comparing, and selecting battery historic usage data identified above with respect to claim 16.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The only additional elements are the generic "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium" and "instructions" executed by generic "processing circuitry." Reciting a generic storage medium storing instructions that, when executed, carry out an abstract idea is a quintessential example of merely applying the abstract idea using generic computer components, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(f); Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, 226.
Step 2B: Generic computer-readable media storing executable instructions, and generic processing circuitry executing those instructions, are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components. MPEP § 2106.05(d); Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334–35 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claiming a generic computer-readable medium storing instructions to perform an abstract method does not add an inventive concept). No additional element, alone or in combination, amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 20 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
For at least the reasons discussed above, independent claims 1, 16, and 20, and dependent claims 2–15, 17, and 18 are each directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea in the form of a mental process of comparing and evaluating battery usage data to select a replacement battery, and/or a mathematical concept in the rating/weighting limitations) without integrating that exception into a practical application, and without reciting an inventive concept sufficient to transform the exception into patent-eligible subject matter. Claims 1–18 and 20 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Iwai et al. 2019/0197608; in view of Murai et al. 2021/0090153; in view of Ricci et al. 2018/0012197; in view of Gering 2023/0306152.
18/982,162 – Claim 1. (Currently Amended) Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 teaches A computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [0048; 0050]): obtain target battery historic usage data of an initial battery targeted for replacement (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [0056 - The consumption history information is information about how to use the storage battery module mounted in a certain period of time in the past. The consumption history information includes a maximum output, an average output, and an average replacement period]), the target battery historic usage data comprising at least one of cycling age data (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [0011 – charge cycle]), calendric age data, or mechanical age data of the initial battery; obtain a plurality of candidate battery historic usage data, each candidate battery historic usage data being associated with a specific replacement candidate battery (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [0015-0016 - a storage battery module rental method including: acquiring module information from a storage battery module prepared in each providing point that is dispersedly distributed and that can be rented to a user; acquiring individual information of a plurality of the users, the user being a rentee candidate of the storage battery module][0035 - When the server 200 determines that it is preferable to rent a specific storage battery module 400, which is to be determined, to a certain user 900, it increases the incentive given for renting this storage battery module 400 to promote the user 900 to select the storage battery module 400][0061 - When the consumption history information of the individual information (A) is compared with that of the individual information (B), the maximum output of the individual information (A) is larger than that of the individual information (B). Moreover, the average output of (A) is larger than that of (B). These pieces of information are indicators for determining how much load the user applies to the storage battery module while using it. The larger the load applied while the user is using the storage battery, the larger the maximum output and the average output tend to become. When an excessive load is applied to the storage battery module, the number of times the storage battery module can be used (battery life) is reduced, which is not preferable for the business operator who rents the storage battery modules. To address this issue, the determining unit 210b increases or reduces the incentive to be given in consideration of the maximum output and the average output. Further, regarding the average replacement period]), each candidate battery historic usage data comprising at least one of cycling age data, calendric age data, or mechanical age data of the associated replacement candidate battery (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [0054 – replacement cycle][0056 – replacement period and replacement cycle]); and select a specific replacement candidate battery as a replacement battery for the initial battery based on a comparison of the target battery historic usage data to the candidate battery historic usage data (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [0008 - when the determining unit determines the incentive given for renting one of the storage battery modules to the plurality of users, the determining unit compares the individual information of the users with each other to determine the incentive. When the circumstances and state of the users are compared to decide the incentive in this manner, if rental requests competes for one storage battery module, it is possible to smoothly guide some users to select the storage battery modules other than the one competed for][0061 - When the consumption history information of the individual information (A) is compared with that of the individual information (B), the maximum output of the individual information (A) is larger than that of the individual information (B). Moreover, the average output of (A) is larger than that of (B). These pieces of information are indicators for determining how much load the user applies to the storage battery module while using it. The larger the load applied while the user is using the storage battery, the larger the maximum output and the average output tend to become. When an excessive load is applied to the storage battery module, the number of times the storage battery module can be used (battery life) is reduced, which is not preferable for the business operator who rents the storage battery modules. To address this issue, the determining unit 210b increases or reduces the incentive to be given in consideration of the maximum output and the average output. Further, regarding the average replacement period]), wherein the comparison determines a similarity of battery aging profiles between the initial battery and the specific replacement candidate battery (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [0056; 0061]).
Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 may not expressly disclose the “select a specific replacement … battery” features, however, Murai et al. 2021/0090153 teaches (Murai et al. 2021/0090153[0049 - battery selection unit 57 selects a presentation battery to be presented to the user from among the candidate battery(ies)…if there are multiple candidate batteries 110, the battery selection unit 57 selects a presentation battery in accordance with a predetermined criterion][0051 - The battery selection unit 57 may select multiple presentation batteries from among multiple candidate batteries 110 and transmit information indicating the presentation batteries to the user terminal][0067 - a battery selection unit 57 selecting the presentation battery for presenting to the user from among the candidate batteries 110 extracted by the battery extraction unit 56 before the scheduled battery replacement time, and a storage unit 58 memorizing an information on the presentation battery selected by the battery selection unit 57 (FIG. 3). Thus, since the presented battery is reserved in advance, the battery replacement can be efficiently performed]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 to include the features as taught by Murai et al. 2021/0090153. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to implement well known battery replacement tools and features which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 may not expressly disclose the “historic usage data …” features, however, Ricci et al. 2018/0012197 teaches (Ricci et al. 2018/0012197 [0007 - State of Life (SOL) … the SOL of the equipment used for the exchange and the user can specify and pay a premium based on the age of a battery pack and/or battery pack usage level, e.g., historic charging cycle number. For example, in a battery pack exchange, a high service level user can receive the newest available battery pack or battery pack having the lowest use, e.g., lowest historic charging cycles, relative to a lower service level user.]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 to include the features as taught by Ricci et al. 2018/0012197. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to implement well known battery replacement tools and features which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 may not expressly disclose the “aging profiles …” features, however, Gering 2023/0306152 teaches (Gering 2023/0306152 [0202 - redesigning the battery based on the alternative aging profile (and/or a comparison between the aging profile and the alternative aging profile), or designing another batter based on the alternative aging profile.][0236 - designing another battery based on the comparison between the aging profile and the alternative aging profile.][0237 - an alternative aging profile indicative of changes in the battery resulting from the alternative discrete interactions; and comparing the aging profile with the alternative aging profile.][0238 - designing another battery based on the comparison between the aging profile and the alternative aging profile.][0240 - determining to use or manage the battery according to the first factor based on the comparison between the first aging profile and the second aging profile.][0241 - providing instructions to use or manage the battery according to the first factor based on the comparison between the first aging profile and the second aging profile.]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 to include the features as taught by Gering 2023/0306152. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to implement well known battery replacement tools and features which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Iwai et al. 2019/0197608; in view of Murai et al. 2021/0090153; in view of Ricci et al. 2018/0012197; in view of Gering 2023/0306152; in view of Kumar et al. 2019/0176639.
18/982,162 – Claim 2. (Original) Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 further teaches The computer system of claim 1, wherein the target battery historic usage data and the candidate battery historic usage data comprise cycling age data of associated batteries, the cycling age data comprising one or more of upper charging limit data, lower discharging limit data, depth of discharge data, peak current data, average current data, energy throughput data, capacity throughput data, temperature data and/or usage time data (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [0015; 0054-0061; 0071][0050 - charging and discharging circuit 412 functions as a circuit for charging the storage battery when the storage battery module 400 is connected to the charging station…]).
Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 may not expressly disclose the “charging… discharging… current…” features, however, Kumar et al. 2019/0176639 teaches (Kumar et al. 2019/0176639 [0003 - state of health of a system battery is predicted based on the frequency of battery charging and discharging and its effects on battery parameters such as impedance, electrolyte state, etc.][0047 – measure battery voltage, battery current and temperature][Fig. 2; 0056 - FIG. 2, a battery internal resistance (R) and a battery capacity (Q) are monitored. … battery capacity … defined as the amount of charge it can deliver at rated discharge current and temperature such that the battery terminal voltage is above a defined threshold … monitoring the change in internal resistance and overall capacity, a battery health can be monitored. As the battery ages, the resistance of the battery is expected to increase while the capacity is expected to decrease][0007 - battery voltage and current during vehicle operation…][0062 - symptom may be accompanied by a high internal resistance corresponding to battery voltage and average discharge current…]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 to include the features as taught by Kumar et al. 2019/0176639. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to implement well known battery replacement tools and features which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Iwai et al. 2019/0197608; in view of Murai et al. 2021/0090153; in view of Ricci et al. 2018/0012197; in view of Gering 2023/0306152; in view of Kumar et al. 2019/0176639; in view of Bower et al. 202/0092189.
18/982,162 – Claim 3. (Original) Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 further teaches The computer system of claim 2, wherein the cycling age data comprises peak current data, wherein the peak current data indicate one or more of peak plugged in charging current data, peak regenerative charging current data and/or peak drainage current data (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [Figs. 4-7][0011 – charge cycle][0068 - The charging information indicates a current charging state. When the charging is completed, the charging information indicates “full”, while when the storage battery module is being charged, a level of the charge is represented in percentages.]).
Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 may not expressly disclose the “peak current data” features, however, Bower et al. 202/0092189 teaches (Bower et al. 202/0092189 [0002 - performance … is to a significant extent determined by the storage capacity, peak/sustained current delivery capacity, and charge/discharge cycle efficiency of the vehicle's battery pack (or “battery assembly”)…] In an electric vehicle (e.g. a fully electric or hybrid electric vehicle, either plug-in or non-plug-in), performance (in terms of acceleration, top speed and range) is to a significant extent determined by the storage capacity, peak/sustained current delivery capacity, and charge/discharge cycle efficiency of the vehicle's battery pack (or “battery assembly”). The battery pack may be constructed from a plurality of individual battery cells, connected in parallel or series, or a combination thereof. The above-mentioned performance factors are in turn dependent to an extent upon the operating temperatures of the cells which make up the battery pack, therefore it is desirable to effectively control the operating temperature of the cells. Constraints on the available space in a vehicle for locating a battery pack can make it challenging to design a battery pack that achieves said requirement to effectively control the operating temperature of the cells. The present disclosure aims to alleviate, at least to an extent, problems associated with existing vehicle battery pack assemblies.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 to include the features as taught by Bower et al. 202/0092189. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to implement well known battery replacement tools and features which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Iwai et al. 2019/0197608; in view of Murai et al. 2021/0090153; in view of Ricci et al. 2018/0012197; in view of Gering 2023/0306152; in view of Kumar et al. 2019/0176639; in view of Kupcsik 2021/0373082.
18/982,162 – Claim 4. (Original) Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 further teaches The computer system of claim 2, wherein the cycling age data comprises average current data, wherein the average current data indicate one or more of average plugged in charging current data, average regenerative charging current data and/or average drainage current data (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [0011 – charge cycle][0068 – current charging state]).
Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 may not expressly disclose the “average current data” features, however, Kupcsik 2021/0373082 teaches (Kupcsik 2021/0373082 [0043 - The usage history parameters may include one or multiple of the following parameters: a battery temperature, temporal load pattern, i.e., charging and driving cycles determined by use patterns (e.g., quick charging at high current levels or strong accelerations or strong regenerative braking processes), an age of the vehicle battery, a period of use of the vehicle battery, a cumulative charge over the service life and a cumulative discharge over the service life, a maximum charge current, a maximum discharge current, a charging frequency, an average charge current, an average discharge current, a power throughput during charging and discharging, a charging frequency, (an, in particular, average) charging temperature, an average state of charge, (an, in particular, average) spread of the state of charge, histogram data about the state of charge, temperature, voltage, current, etc.] Vehicle parameters F indicate parameters which depend on the state of health SOH of the vehicle battery. The vehicle parameters may include, in particular, usage history parameters which indicate past operating histories of the vehicle battery in a compressed form, so that these are suited for updating the prediction of a predicted state of health SOH. The usage history parameters may include one or multiple of the following parameters: a battery temperature, temporal load pattern, i.e., charging and driving cycles determined by use patterns (e.g., quick charging at high current levels or strong accelerations or strong regenerative braking processes), an age of the vehicle battery, a period of use of the vehicle battery, a cumulative charge over the service life and a cumulative discharge over the service life, a maximum charge current, a maximum discharge current, a charging frequency, an average charge current, an average discharge current, a power throughput during charging and discharging, a charging frequency, (an, in particular, average) charging temperature, an average state of charge, (an, in particular, average) spread of the state of charge, histogram data about the state of charge, temperature, voltage, current, etc., and the like.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 to include the features as taught by Kupcsik 2021/0373082. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to implement well known battery replacement tools and features which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Iwai et al. 2019/0197608; in view of Murai et al. 2021/0090153; in view of Ricci et al. 2018/0012197; in view of Gering 2023/0306152.
18/982,162 – Claim 5. (Original) Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 further teaches The computer system of claim 1, wherein the target battery historic usage data and the candidate battery historic usage data comprise calendric age data of associated batteries, the calendric age data comprising one or more of storage charge level data, storage time data and/or storage temperature data (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [0006 - module information from the storage battery module, the user being a rentee candidate of the storage battery module][0010-0011 - time][0013 – time to charge][0015 - vehicle information may include history information related to consumption of the storage battery module mounted on the electric vehicle in the past, and the determining unit may determine the incentive in consideration of the history information][0067 - The degradation level represents how much the storage battery module has degraded compared with the initial performance. The degradation level is represented by, for example, four levels of A to D.]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Iwai et al. 2019/0197608; in view of Murai et al. 2021/0090153; in view of Ricci et al. 2018/0012197; in view of Gering 2023/0306152; in view of Fauteux et al. 2016/0141728.
18/982,162 – Claim 6. (Original) Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 further teaches The computer system of claim 1, wherein the target battery historic usage data and the candidate battery historic usage data comprises mechanical age data of associated batteries, the mechanical age data comprising vibration data and/or shock data (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [0056 – consumption history information is information about how to use the storage battery module mounted in a certain period of time in the past. The consumption history information includes a maximum output, an average output, and an average replacement period]).
Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 may not expressly disclose the “battery historic usage” features, however, Fauteux et al. 2016/0141728 teaches (Fauteux et al. 2016/0141728 [0029 - battery 40 constructed of pouch cells must be physically and mechanically supported within the battery housing 11 against mechanical vibrations and shocks that might be experienced during use of the tool to which a battery pack 10 is connected] The interconnected stack of cells 30 forming battery 40 is located within a battery pack housing such as housing 11 of the battery of FIG. 1. It will be appreciated by a skilled person that the battery 40 constructed of pouch cells must be physically and mechanically supported within the battery housing 11 against mechanical vibrations and shocks that might be experienced during use of the tool to which a battery pack 10 is connected. FIGS. 6 to 10 show a cradle and shell arrangement for mechanically supporting a stack of battery cells 30 within the battery housing 11 in some embodiments. FIG. 7 shows an individual battery cradle 39 for supporting a substantially flat lithium-polymer battery cell 30. The cradle 39 is a flat substrate of resiliently deformable material such as EVA foam or the like and has a wide cell-channel extending through one face of the substrate. An individual battery cell 30 locates within the cell-channel for support by the cradle. The cradle 39 has side edges 40 to provide mechanical protection for the sides of the battery cell 30 and integrally combines the resiliently deformable cell spacer substrate 37, below the cell-channel, and cell tab guide 36 into a single protective cradle for an individual battery cell 30. FIG. 9 shows a stack of battery cells 30 each held within its own individual resiliently deformable cradle 39. The cradled stack of battery cell 30 locates within a cradle frame 43 and is fitted with a cover 42 in order to mechanically hold the stack of battery cells 30 together. A printed circuit board assembly (PCBA) 44 can optionally be attached to or incorporated with the cover 42. The PCBA can contain battery pack electronics and protection circuits. The cradle frame 43 supporting the battery 40 is located within a battery housing 11. The cradles 39 and cradle frame 42, 43 are preferably a “friction fit” within the battery housing 11 such that the battery 40 is mechanically supported against and variations and shocks experienced during use of the battery on a power tool.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 to include the features as taught by Fauteux et al. 2016/0141728. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to implement well known battery replacement tools and features which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Iwai et al. 2019/0197608; in view of Murai et al. 2021/0090153; in view of Ricci et al. 2018/0012197; in view of Gering 2023/0306152; in view of Kang 2023/0132491.
18/982,162 – Claim 7. (Currently Amended) Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 further teaches The computer system of claim 1, wherein determining the similarity of battery aging profiles comprises: rating each replacement candidate battery based on a similarity of the candidate battery historic usage data and the target battery historic usage data (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [0015; 0056 – history information][0056 - consumption history information is information about how to use the storage battery module mounted in a certain period of time in the past. The consumption history information includes a maximum output, an average output, and an average replacement period.][0057 - (A) is compared with the individual information (B)]).
Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 may not expressly disclose the “rating … battery based on a similarity of the … battery historic usage data” features, however, Kang 2023/0132491 teaches (Kang 2023/0132491 [0058 - battery usage environment data 330 may be quantified in consideration of the similarity of the usage environment of the battery. The similarity of the cooling environment of the battery and the similarity of the temperature at which the battery is used may each be quantified and then synthesized to determine the similarity of the usage environment of the battery] The battery usage environment data 330 may be quantified in consideration of the similarity of the usage environment of the battery. The similarity of the cooling environment of the battery and the similarity of the temperature at which the battery is used may each be quantified and then synthesized to determine the similarity of the usage environment of the battery.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 to include the features as taught by Kang 2023/0132491. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to implement well known battery replacement tools and features which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Iwai et al. 2019/0197608; in view of Murai et al. 2021/0090153; in view of Ricci et al. 2018/0012197; in view of Gering 2023/0306152; in view of Prabhakar et al. 2018/0145514.
18/982,162 – Claim 8. (Currently Amended) Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 further teaches The computer system of claim 1, wherein determining the similarity of battery aging profiles comprises weighting respective usage data parameters of the candidate battery historic usage data and the target battery historic usage data (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [0038 - systematically accumulates the parameters and data][0015; 0056 – history information][0056 - consumption history information is information about how to use the storage battery module mounted in a certain period of time in the past. The consumption history information includes a maximum output, an average output, and an average replacement period.][0057 - (A) is compared with the individual information (B)]).
Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 may not expressly disclose the “weighting respective usage data parameters of the candidate battery historic usage data” features, however, Prabhakar et al. 2018/0145514 teaches (Prabhakar et al. 2018/0145514 [0054 - historical usage data gathered by the historical usage module may be weighted by the battery analysis module (or may be previously weighted by the historical usage module)]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 to include the features as taught by Prabhakar et al. 2018/0145514. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to implement well known battery replacement tools and features which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Iwai et al. 2019/0197608; in view of Murai et al. 2021/0090153; in view of Ricci et al. 2018/0012197; in view of Gering 2023/0306152; in view of Brochhaus 2016/0339794.
18/982,162 – Claim 9. (Original) Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 further teaches The computer system of claim 1, wherein obtaining target battery historic usage data of the initial battery comprises: obtaining at least part of the target battery historic usage data from a non-volatile data storage of the initial battery (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [0056 - The consumption history information is information … storage battery module …][0015; 0056 – history information][0056 - consumption history information is information about how to use the storage battery module mounted in a certain period of time in the past. The consumption history information includes a maximum output, an average output, and an average replacement period.]).
Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 may not expressly disclose the “non-volatile” features, however, Brochhaus 2016/0339794 teaches (Brochhaus 2016/0339794 [0007 - The battery system further comprises a non-volatile storage unit, in which data regarding the usage behavior of the battery modules including the maximum voltage or the maximum current of the battery modules and a history of the battery modules are stored.]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 to include the features as taught by Brochhaus 2016/0339794. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to implement well known battery replacement tools and features which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Iwai et al. 2019/0197608; in view of Murai et al. 2021/0090153; in view of Ricci et al. 2018/0012197; in view of Gering 2023/0306152; in view of Hiratsuka 2024/0192282.
18/982,162 – Claim 10. (Original) Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 further teaches The computer system of claim 1, wherein obtaining target battery historic usage data of the initial battery comprises: obtaining at least part of the target battery historic usage data from a server system (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [Fig. 5; 0025 - individual information acquired from a vehicle by the server;][0031 - server 200 acquires individual information related to the vehicle from each of the vehicles 300 of the users 900 who are the rentee candidates of the storage battery module][0015; 0056 – history information][0056 - consumption history information is information about how to use the storage battery module mounted in a certain period of time in the past. The consumption history information includes a maximum output, an average output, and an average replacement period.]).
Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 may not expressly disclose the “historic usage data from a server system” features, however, Hiratsuka 2024/0192282 teaches (Hiratsuka 2024/0192282 [Claim 8 - battery deterioration degree determination system for determining deterioration of a used battery element, the battery deterioration degree determination system comprising: a management server configured to record identification data of the battery element in association with usage historical data…]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 to include the features as taught by Hiratsuka 2024/0192282. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to implement well known battery replacement tools and features which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Iwai et al. 2019/0197608; in view of Murai et al. 2021/0090153; in view of Ricci et al. 2018/0012197; in view of Gering 2023/0306152.
18/982,162 – Claim 11. (Original) Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 further teaches The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: obtain a state of health, SoH, of the initial battery; obtain a SoH of one or more of the specific replacement candidate batteries; and select a specific replacement candidate battery as the replacement battery further based on a comparison of the SoH of the initial battery to SoHs of the one or more of the specific replacement candidate batteries (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [0038 - systematically accumulates the parameters and data][0015; 0056 – history information][0056 - consumption history information is information about how to use the storage battery module mounted in a certain period of time in the past. The consumption history information includes a maximum output, an average output, and an average replacement period.][0057 - (A) is compared with the individual information (B)]).
Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 may not expressly disclose the “state of health, SoH, of the initial battery” features, however, Murai et al. 2021/0090153 teaches (Murai et al. 2021/0090153 [0027; 0028; 0046; 0054; 0055; 0066; 0069] battery SoH (state of health)). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 to include the features as taught by Murai et al. 2021/0090153. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to implement well known battery replacement tools and features which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Iwai et al. 2019/0197608; in view of Murai et al. 2021/0090153; in view of Ricci et al. 2018/0012197; in view of Gering 2023/0306152; in view of Kawahara et al. 2016/0351976.
18/982,162 – Claim 12. (Original) Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 further teaches The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: obtain open cell voltage, OCV, in relation to state of charge, SOC, data of the initial battery; obtain OCV in relation to SOC data one or more of the specific replacement candidate batteries; and select a specific replacement candidate battery as replacement battery further based on the OCV in relation to SOC data of the initial battery, to OCV in relation to SOC data of the one or more of the specific replacement candidate batteries (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [0067 – voltage and charge data]).
Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 may not expressly disclose the “SOC and OCV” features, however, Kawahara et al. 2016/0351976 teaches (Kawahara et al. 2016/0351976 [0009 – SOC and OCV] A secondary battery system according to the invention described in claim 1 includes: a CCV acquisition unit which acquires a charging CCV at a predetermined charging point during a charging period of a battery and a discharging CCV at a predetermined discharging point during a discharging period of the battery; an SOC calculation unit which calculates a charging SOC on the basis of the charging CCV and a discharging SOC on the basis of the discharging CCV; a gap SOC error reduction processing unit which calculates, on the basis of the charging SOC and the discharging SOC, a corrected SOC having a reduced gap SOC error that is included in an SOC of the battery and results from a gap between a CCV and an OCV; and a cumulative SOC error reduction processing unit which replaces, at a predetermined replacement point, the SOC of the battery with the corrected SOC calculated by the gap SOC error reduction processing unit, updates the SOC of the battery, and reduces a cumulative SOC error included in the SOC of the battery and resulting from a measurement error of a current value.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 to include the features as taught by Kawahara et al. 2016/0351976. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to implement well known battery replacement tools and features which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Iwai et al. 2019/0197608; in view of Murai et al. 2021/0090153; in view of Ricci et al. 2018/0012197; in view of Gering 2023/0306152; in view of Kumar et al. 2019/0176639; in view of Fauteux et al. 2016/0141728; in view of Kang 2023/0132491; in view of Prabhakar et al. 2018/0145514; in view of Brochhaus 2016/0339794.
18/982,162 – Claim 13. (Currently Amended) Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 further teaches The computer system of claim 1, wherein the target battery historic usage data and the candidate battery historic usage data comprise cycling age data of associated batteries, the cycling age data comprising one or more of upper charging limit data, lower discharging limit data, depth of discharge data, peak current data, average current data, energy throughput data, capacity throughput data, temperature data and/or usage time data (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [0015; 0054-0061; 0071][0050 - charging and discharging circuit 412 functions as a circuit for charging the storage battery when the storage battery module 400 is connected to the charging station…]);
Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 may not expressly disclose the “charging… discharging… current…” features, however, Kumar et al. 2019/0176639 teaches (Kumar et al. 2019/0176639 [0003 - state of health of a system battery is predicted based on the frequency of battery charging and discharging and its effects on battery parameters such as impedance, electrolyte state, etc.][0047 – measure battery voltage, battery current and temperature][Fig. 2; 0056 - FIG. 2, a battery internal resistance (R) and a battery capacity (Q) are monitored. … battery capacity … defined as the amount of charge it can deliver at rated discharge current and temperature such that the battery terminal voltage is above a defined threshold … monitoring the change in internal resistance and overall capacity, a battery health can be monitored. As the battery ages, the resistance of the battery is expected to increase while the capacity is expected to decrease][0007 - battery voltage and current during vehicle operation…][0062 - symptom may be accompanied by a high internal resistance corresponding to battery voltage and average discharge current…]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 to include the features as taught by Kumar et al. 2019/0176639. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to implement well known battery replacement tools and features which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 further teaches wherein the target battery historic usage data and the candidate battery historic usage data comprise calendric age data of associated batteries, the calendric age data comprising one or more of storage charge level data, storage time data and/or storage temperature data (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [0006 - module information from the storage battery module, the user being a rentee candidate of the storage battery module][0010-0011 - time][0013 – time to charge][0015 - vehicle information may include history information related to consumption of the storage battery module mounted on the electric vehicle in the past, and the determining unit may determine the incentive in consideration of the history information][0067 - The degradation level represents how much the storage battery module has degraded compared with the initial performance. The degradation level is represented by, for example, four levels of A to D.]); wherein the target battery historic usage data and the candidate battery historic usage data comprises mechanical age data of associated batteries, the mechanical age data comprising vibration data and/or shock data (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [0056 – consumption history information is information about how to use the storage battery module mounted in a certain period of time in the past. The consumption history information includes a maximum output, an average output, and an average replacement period]);
Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 may not expressly disclose the “battery historic usage” features, however, Fauteux et al. 2016/0141728 teaches (Fauteux et al. 2016/0141728 [0029 - battery 40 constructed of pouch cells must be physically and mechanically supported within the battery housing 11 against mechanical vibrations and shocks that might be experienced during use of the tool to which a battery pack 10 is connected] The interconnected stack of cells 30 forming battery 40 is located within a battery pack housing such as housing 11 of the battery of FIG. 1. It will be appreciated by a skilled person that the battery 40 constructed of pouch cells must be physically and mechanically supported within the battery housing 11 against mechanical vibrations and shocks that might be experienced during use of the tool to which a battery pack 10 is connected. FIGS. 6 to 10 show a cradle and shell arrangement for mechanically supporting a stack of battery cells 30 within the battery housing 11 in some embodiments. FIG. 7 shows an individual battery cradle 39 for supporting a substantially flat lithium-polymer battery cell 30. The cradle 39 is a flat substrate of resiliently deformable material such as EVA foam or the like and has a wide cell-channel extending through one face of the substrate. An individual battery cell 30 locates within the cell-channel for support by the cradle. The cradle 39 has side edges 40 to provide mechanical protection for the sides of the battery cell 30 and integrally combines the resiliently deformable cell spacer substrate 37, below the cell-channel, and cell tab guide 36 into a single protective cradle for an individual battery cell 30. FIG. 9 shows a stack of battery cells 30 each held within its own individual resiliently deformable cradle 39. The cradled stack of battery cell 30 locates within a cradle frame 43 and is fitted with a cover 42 in order to mechanically hold the stack of battery cells 30 together. A printed circuit board assembly (PCBA) 44 can optionally be attached to or incorporated with the cover 42. The PCBA can contain battery pack electronics and protection circuits. The cradle frame 43 supporting the battery 40 is located within a battery housing 11. The cradles 39 and cradle frame 42, 43 are preferably a “friction fit” within the battery housing 11 such that the battery 40 is mechanically supported against and variations and shocks experienced during use of the battery on a power tool.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 to include the features as taught by Fauteux et al. 2016/0141728. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to implement well known battery replacement tools and features which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 further teaches wherein determining the similarity of battery aging profiles comprises rating each replacement candidate battery based on a similarity of the candidate battery historic usage data and the target battery historic usage data (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [0015; 0056 – history information][0056 - consumption history information is information about how to use the storage battery module mounted in a certain period of time in the past. The consumption history information includes a maximum output, an average output, and an average replacement period.][0057 - (A) is compared with the individual information (B)]);
Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 may not expressly disclose the “rating … battery based on a similarity of the … battery historic usage data” features, however, Kang 2023/0132491 teaches (Kang 2023/0132491 [0058 - battery usage environment data 330 may be quantified in consideration of the similarity of the usage environment of the battery. The similarity of the cooling environment of the battery and the similarity of the temperature at which the battery is used may each be quantified and then synthesized to determine the similarity of the usage environment of the battery] The battery usage environment data 330 may be quantified in consideration of the similarity of the usage environment of the battery. The similarity of the cooling environment of the battery and the similarity of the temperature at which the battery is used may each be quantified and then synthesized to determine the similarity of the usage environment of the battery.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 to include the features as taught by Kang 2023/0132491. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to implement well known battery replacement tools and features which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 further teaches wherein determining the similarity of battery aging profiles comprises weighting respective usage data parameters of the candidate battery historic usage data and the target battery historic usage data; (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [0038 - systematically accumulates the parameters and data][0015; 0056 – history information][0056 - consumption history information is information about how to use the storage battery module mounted in a certain period of time in the past. The consumption history information includes a maximum output, an average output, and an average replacement period.][0057 - (A) is compared with the individual information (B)]);
Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 may not expressly disclose the “weighting the respective usage data parameters of the candidate battery historic usage data” features, however, Prabhakar et al. 2018/0145514 teaches (Prabhakar et al. 2018/0145514 [0054 - historical usage data gathered by the historical usage module may be weighted by the battery analysis module (or may be previously weighted by the historical usage module)]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 to include the features as taught by Prabhakar et al. 2018/0145514. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to implement well known battery replacement tools and features which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: obtain a state of health, SoH, of the initial battery; obtain a SoH of one or more of the specific replacement candidate batteries; and select a specific replacement candidate battery as the replacement battery further based on a comparison of the SoH of the initial battery to SoHs of the one or more of the specific replacement candidate batteries (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [0038 - systematically accumulates the parameters and data][0015; 0056 – history information][0056 - consumption history information is information about how to use the storage battery module mounted in a certain period of time in the past. The consumption history information includes a maximum output, an average output, and an average replacement period.][0057 - (A) is compared with the individual information (B)]); and
Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 may not expressly disclose the “state of health, SoH, of the initial battery” features, however, Murai et al. 2021/0090153 teaches (Murai et al. 2021/0090153 [0027; 0028; 0046; 0054; 0055; 0066; 0069] battery SoH (state of health)). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 to include the features as taught by Murai et al. 2021/0090153. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to implement well known battery replacement tools and features which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 further teaches wherein obtaining target battery historic usage data of the initial battery comprises: obtaining at least part of the target battery historic usage data from a non-volatile data storage of the initial battery and/or a cloud server (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [0056 - The consumption history information is information … storage battery module …][0015; 0056 – history information][0056 - consumption history information is information about how to use the storage battery module mounted in a certain period of time in the past. The consumption history information includes a maximum output, an average output, and an average replacement period.]).
Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 may not expressly disclose the “non-volatile” features, however, Brochhaus 2016/0339794 teaches (Brochhaus 2016/0339794 [0007 - The battery system further comprises a non-volatile storage unit, in which data regarding the usage behavior of the battery modules including the maximum voltage or the maximum current of the battery modules and a history of the battery modules are stored.]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 to include the features as taught by Brochhaus 2016/0339794. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to implement well known battery replacement tools and features which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Iwai et al. 2019/0197608; in view of Murai et al. 2021/0090153; in view of Ricci et al. 2018/0012197; in view of Gering 2023/0306152; in view of Brochhaus 2016/0339794.
18/982,162 – Claim 14. (Original) Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 further teaches An energy storage system comprising at least one battery and processing circuitry configured to (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [0048; 0050]) store usage data of the at least one battery as target battery historic usage data for use as target battery historic usage data and/or candidate battery historic usage data (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [0056 - The consumption history information is information about how to use the storage battery module mounted in a certain period of time in the past. The consumption history information includes a maximum output, an average output, and an average replacement period][0015-0016 - a storage battery module rental method including: acquiring module information from a storage battery module prepared in each providing point that is dispersedly distributed and that can be rented to a user; acquiring individual information of a plurality of the users, the user being a rentee candidate of the storage battery module][0035 - When the server 200 determines that it is preferable to rent a specific storage battery module 400, which is to be determined, to a certain user 900, it increases the incentive given for renting this storage battery module 400 to promote the user 900 to select the storage battery module 400][0061 - When the consumption history information of the individual information (A) is compared with that of the individual information (B), the maximum output of the individual information (A) is larger than that of the individual information (B). Moreover, the average output of (A) is larger than that of (B). These pieces of information are indicators for determining how much load the user applies to the storage battery module while using it. The larger the load applied while the user is using the storage battery, the larger the maximum output and the average output tend to become. When an excessive load is applied to the storage battery module, the number of times the storage battery module can be used (battery life) is reduced, which is not preferable for the business operator who rents the storage battery modules. To address this issue, the determining unit 210b increases or reduces the incentive to be given in consideration of the maximum output and the average output. Further, regarding the average replacement period]) by the computer system of claim 1, preferably the energy storage system further comprises a non-volatile data storage configured to store the usage data (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [Fig. 2; 0036 – system memory][0038 - information storage unit 213 stores various parameters, data, and a database (DB) that systematically accumulates the parameters and data]).
Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 may not expressly disclose the “non-volatile” features, however, Brochhaus 2016/0339794 teaches (Brochhaus 2016/0339794 [0007 - The battery system further comprises a non-volatile storage unit, in which data regarding the usage behavior of the battery modules including the maximum voltage or the maximum current of the battery modules and a history of the battery modules are stored.]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 to include the features as taught by Brochhaus 2016/0339794. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to implement well known battery replacement tools and features which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Iwai et al. 2019/0197608; in view of Murai et al. 2021/0090153; in view of Ricci et al. 2018/0012197; in view of Gering 2023/0306152; in view of Brochhaus 2016/0339794.
18/982,162 – Claim 15. (Original) Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 further teaches A vehicle comprising the energy storage system of claim 14 (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [0004; 0013 – Evs and storage battery][Figs. 3, 5, 8; 0013-0015 - vehicles][Fig. 1; 0030 – the storage battery modules detachable from vehicles, which are electric vehicles, at charging stations]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Iwai et al. 2019/0197608; in view of Murai et al. 2021/0090153; in view of Ricci et al. 2018/0012197; in view of Gering 2023/0306152.
18/982,162 – Claim 16. (Currently Amended) Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 further teaches A computer-implemented method (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [0048; 0050]), comprising: obtaining, by processing circuitry of a computer system, target battery historic usage data of an initial battery targeted for replacement, the target battery historic usage data comprising at least one of cycling age data, calendric age data, or mechanical age data of the initial battery (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [0056 - The consumption history information is information about how to use the storage battery module mounted in a certain period of time in the past. The consumption history information includes a maximum output, an average output, and an average replacement period]); obtaining, by processing circuitry of the computer system, a plurality of candidate battery historic usage data, each candidate battery historic usage data being associated with a specific replacement candidate battery, each candidate battery historic usage data comprising at least one of cycling age data, calendric age data, or mechanical age data of the associated replacement candidate battery (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [0015-0016 - a storage battery module rental method including: acquiring module information from a storage battery module prepared in each providing point that is dispersedly distributed and that can be rented to a user; acquiring individual information of a plurality of the users, the user being a rentee candidate of the storage battery module][0035 - When the server 200 determines that it is preferable to rent a specific storage battery module 400, which is to be determined, to a certain user 900, it increases the incentive given for renting this storage battery module 400 to promote the user 900 to select the storage battery module 400][0061 - When the consumption history information of the individual information (A) is compared with that of the individual information (B), the maximum output of the individual information (A) is larger than that of the individual information (B). Moreover, the average output of (A) is larger than that of (B). These pieces of information are indicators for determining how much load the user applies to the storage battery module while using it. The larger the load applied while the user is using the storage battery, the larger the maximum output and the average output tend to become. When an excessive load is applied to the storage battery module, the number of times the storage battery module can be used (battery life) is reduced, which is not preferable for the business operator who rents the storage battery modules. To address this issue, the determining unit 210b increases or reduces the incentive to be given in consideration of the maximum output and the average output. Further, regarding the average replacement period]); and selecting, by processing circuitry of the computer system, a specific replacement candidate battery as replacement battery for the initial battery based on comparing, by processing circuitry of the computer system, the target battery historic usage data to the candidate battery historic usage data, wherein the comparing determines a similarity of battery aging profiles between the initial battery and the specific replacement candidate battery (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [0008 - when the determining unit determines the incentive given for renting one of the storage battery modules to the plurality of users, the determining unit compares the individual information of the users with each other to determine the incentive. When the circumstances and state of the users are compared to decide the incentive in this manner, if rental requests competes for one storage battery module, it is possible to smoothly guide some users to select the storage battery modules other than the one competed for][0061 - When the consumption history information of the individual information (A) is compared with that of the individual information (B), the maximum output of the individual information (A) is larger than that of the individual information (B). Moreover, the average output of (A) is larger than that of (B). These pieces of information are indicators for determining how much load the user applies to the storage battery module while using it. The larger the load applied while the user is using the storage battery, the larger the maximum output and the average output tend to become. When an excessive load is applied to the storage battery module, the number of times the storage battery module can be used (battery life) is reduced, which is not preferable for the business operator who rents the storage battery modules. To address this issue, the determining unit 210b increases or reduces the incentive to be given in consideration of the maximum output and the average output. Further, regarding the average replacement period]).
Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 may not expressly disclose the “select a specific replacement … battery” features, however, Murai et al. 2021/0090153 teaches (Murai et al. 2021/0090153 [0049 - battery selection unit 57 selects a presentation battery to be presented to the user from among the candidate battery(ies)…if there are multiple candidate batteries 110, the battery selection unit 57 selects a presentation battery in accordance with a predetermined criterion][0051 - The battery selection unit 57 may select multiple presentation batteries from among multiple candidate batteries 110 and transmit information indicating the presentation batteries to the user terminal][0067 - a battery selection unit 57 selecting the presentation battery for presenting to the user from among the candidate batteries 110 extracted by the battery extraction unit 56 before the scheduled battery replacement time, and a storage unit 58 memorizing an information on the presentation battery selected by the battery selection unit 57 (FIG. 3). Thus, since the presented battery is reserved in advance, the battery replacement can be efficiently performed]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 to include the features as taught by Murai et al. 2021/0090153. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to implement well known battery replacement tools and features which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Iwai et al. 2019/0197608; in view of Murai et al. 2021/0090153; in view of Ricci et al. 2018/0012197; in view of Gering 2023/0306152; in view of Kang 2023/0132491.
18/982,162 – Claim 17. (Currently Amended) Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 further teaches The computer implemented method of claim 16, wherein determining the similarity of battery aging profiles comprises: rating, by processing circuitry of the computer system, each replacement candidate battery based on a similarity of the candidate battery historic usage data and the target battery historic usage data (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [0015; 0056 – history information][0056 - consumption history information is information about how to use the storage battery module mounted in a certain period of time in the past. The consumption history information includes a maximum output, an average output, and an average replacement period.][0057 - (A) is compared with the individual information (B)]).
Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 may not expressly disclose the “rating … battery by determining… a similarity of the … battery historic usage data” features, however, Kang 2023/0132491 teaches (Kang 2023/0132491 [0058 - battery usage environment data 330 may be quantified in consideration of the similarity of the usage environment of the battery. The similarity of the cooling environment of the battery and the similarity of the temperature at which the battery is used may each be quantified and then synthesized to determine the similarity of the usage environment of the battery] The battery usage environment data 330 may be quantified in consideration of the similarity of the usage environment of the battery. The similarity of the cooling environment of the battery and the similarity of the temperature at which the battery is used may each be quantified and then synthesized to determine the similarity of the usage environment of the battery.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 to include the features as taught by Kang 2023/0132491. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to implement well known battery replacement tools and features which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Iwai et al. 2019/0197608; in view of Murai et al. 2021/0090153; in view of Ricci et al. 2018/0012197; in view of Gering 2023/0306152; in view of Prabhakar et al. 2018/0145514.
18/982,162 – Claim 18. (Currently Amended) Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 further teaches The computer implemented method of claim 16, wherein determining the similarity of battery aging profiles comprises: weighting, by processing circuitry of the computer system, respective usage data parameters of the candidate battery historic usage data and the target battery historic usage data (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [0038 - systematically accumulates the parameters and data][0015; 0056 – history information][0056 - consumption history information is information about how to use the storage battery module mounted in a certain period of time in the past. The consumption history information includes a maximum output, an average output, and an average replacement period.][0057 - (A) is compared with the individual information (B)]).
Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 may not expressly disclose the “weighting… the respective usage data parameters of the candidate battery historic usage data” features, however, Prabhakar et al. 2018/0145514 teaches (Prabhakar et al. 2018/0145514 [0054 - historical usage data gathered by the historical usage module may be weighted by the battery analysis module (or may be previously weighted by the historical usage module)]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 to include the features as taught by Prabhakar et al. 2018/0145514. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to implement well known battery replacement tools and features which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Iwai et al. 2019/0197608; in view of Murai et al. 2021/0090153; in view of Ricci et al. 2018/0012197; in view of Gering 2023/0306152.
18/982,162 – Claim 20. (Original) Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 further teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 16 (Iwai et al. 2019/0197608 [0076; 0086 - The program can be stored and provided to a computer using any type of non-transitory computer readable media. Non-transitory computer readable media include any type of tangible storage media][Claim 13]).
Examiner’s Response to Arguments
Per Applicants’ amendments/arguments, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Examiner’s Response: Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112
Per Applicants’ amendments/arguments, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Examiner’s Response: Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
Per Applicants’ amendments/arguments, the rejections are withdrawn. See notes above for additional reasoning and rationale for dropping 35 USC 101 rejection including Applicant’s amendments, arguments, lack of abstract idea, and practical integration.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Response to Applicant's Arguments – 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 08/04/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection of claims 1–18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained for the reasons set forth below.
I. Applicant's Step 2A, Prong One Arguments Are Not Persuasive
Applicant argues that the recitation of specific data categories — cycling age data, calendric age data, and mechanical age data — renders the claims outside the mental-process grouping because a human cannot mentally record, normalize, and compare high-resolution sensor data such as vibration, shock, or OCV/SOC curves. This argument is not persuasive for several reasons.
First, the mental-processes inquiry does not turn on whether every possible embodiment of the recited data (e.g., "high-resolution vibration and shock data") could be mentally tabulated to an arbitrary degree of precision; it turns on whether the claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the claimed functions in the mind or with pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claims do not require any particular resolution, sampling rate, or volume of data — they recite only that the historic usage data comprises "at least one of cycling age data, calendric age data, or mechanical age data," which under its broadest reasonable interpretation encompasses coarse, summary-level records (e.g., a technician's log of average storage temperature or a single depth-of-discharge figure) that are readily observed, recorded, and compared by a human evaluator. A claim is not removed from the mental-processes grouping merely because some embodiments falling within its scope might involve large data volumes; if the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim covers data that can be mentally evaluated, the mental-process characterization is proper.
Second, and more fundamentally, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that the technical character of the underlying data does not itself confer eligibility where the claim is directed to collecting, analyzing, and using that data to reach a conclusion. In Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the claims involved analysis of substantial volumes of technical, sensor-derived power-grid data, yet the Federal Circuit held that "the essentially result-focused, functional character of claim language has been a frequent feature of claims held ineligible," and that limiting the claims to a particular technological environment or data source does not make an otherwise abstract concept eligible. Similarly, in SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 1167–68 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Federal Circuit rejected the argument that a claimed data-analysis technique was technological simply because it operated on complex data using a mathematical method, explaining that "the essential advance" was in the analysis itself, which remained abstract "no matter how groundbreaking." The instant claims recite the analogous result — "a comparison of the target battery historic usage data to the candidate battery historic usage data, wherein the comparison determines a similarity of battery aging profiles" — without reciting any particular technical means (e.g., a specific algorithm, transformation, sensor architecture, or data structure) for performing that comparison. The claims are thus results-oriented and functional, reciting what is determined (similarity of aging profiles) rather than a specific technical how.
Third, Applicant's reliance on the Specification's description of weighting (Spec. [0053]) does not change this analysis, because "weighting" data parameters to arrive at a rating remains a mathematical concept/mental evaluative step under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)–(III) — assigning relative importance to observed factors in reaching a judgment is squarely within the kind of process humans (e.g., engineers evaluating competing technical trade-offs) perform mentally, and no specific weighting algorithm or formula is recited in the claims themselves.
For these reasons, Applicant's Step 2A, Prong One arguments are not persuasive, and the claims continue to be found to recite an abstract idea (a mental process, and, with respect to the weighting/rating limitations, a mathematical concept).
II. Applicant's Step 2A, Prong Two Arguments Are Not Persuasive
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they solve a technical problem rooted in battery physics (mismatch between batteries of differing usage histories) and provide a technological improvement to the field of energy storage management, citing Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017), and Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017). This argument is not persuasive.
A. The claims do not recite the specific technical means required by Thales and Visual Memory.
In both cases cited by Applicant, eligibility turned on the claims themselves reciting a specific, non-generic technical arrangement that produced the improvement. In Thales, the claims recited a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a specific mathematical relationship for deriving position information that eliminated the need for prior-art coordinate transformations — the improvement was captured in the claim language itself. 850 F.3d at 1348–49. In Visual Memory, the claims recited a specific memory system architecture (a programmable operational characteristic of a cache based on the type of processor) that was expressly tied to the claim limitations. 867 F.3d at 1259–60. By contrast, claim 1 here recites no specific sensor configuration, no specific data structure, no specific algorithm for computing "similarity of battery aging profiles," and no specific arrangement of hardware components. It recites only generic "processing circuitry" configured to "obtain," "obtain," and "select" — i.e., to gather two sets of data and output a selection based on a comparison, described purely in terms of the desired result. The purported improvement (reduced environmental impact, increased battery lifespan, avoidance of "performance issues and potential safety hazards," Spec. [0004][0031]) is a benefit that flows from the outcome of the abstract comparison (choosing a well-matched battery) — it is not an improvement to the computer, the sensors, or any other technology achieved through a specific technical means recited in the claim. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) (practical application requires that the claim "reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field," as evidenced by what is claimed, not merely a stated purpose).
B. A stated purpose or benefit, without a claimed technical means, does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application.
The Federal Circuit has repeatedly cautioned that a claim's asserted real-world benefit cannot substitute for reciting the technical means by which that benefit is achieved. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (an abstract idea does not become patent-eligible merely because it is applied to a particular technical environment or produces a beneficial result); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1168 ("no matter how much of an advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm"). Here too, no matter how significant the asserted advance in battery-management outcomes may be, that advance lies in which data is compared and what conclusion is drawn from the comparison — i.e., in the content of the abstract idea itself — rather than in any non-abstract technological implementation. Reciting that historic usage data of a particular type is obtained and compared does not, without more, transform the claim into one directed to an improvement in computer functionality or sensor technology; it is, at most, a new application of conventional data acquisition and comparison to the battery-replacement context, which is precisely the kind of "generally link[ing] the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use" that MPEP § 2106.05(h) confirms is insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant's Step 2A, Prong Two arguments are accordingly not persuasive, and the claims remain directed to the identified abstract idea.
III. Applicant's Step 2B Arguments Are Not Persuasive
Applicant argues that an inventive concept is present under BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), because the specific combination of cycling, calendric, and mechanical aging data to determine battery replacement compatibility is not well-understood, routine, or conventional, as purportedly confirmed by the cited prior art (Iwai, Murai, Kumar), and that under Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018), this is a factual question that the Office has not supported with evidence. These arguments are not persuasive.
A. The purported inventive concept identified by Applicant resides in the abstract idea itself, not in the additional elements.
Under Alice Step 2B (and Mayo), the search for an inventive concept examines the additional elements — those beyond the judicial exception — individually and in ordered combination, to determine whether they transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. It is well settled that the abstract idea's own novelty cannot itself supply the requisite inventive concept. See BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290–91 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("A claimed invention's use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention 'significantly more' than that ineligible concept."); Mayo, 566 U.S. at 89–91 (a claim does not become eligible merely because the abstract idea or law of nature applied is itself new). Applicant's argument — that the specific combination of technical parameters (cycling, calendric, and mechanical aging data) used to match batteries is unconventional — is an argument about the novelty of the abstract idea (i.e., what data is compared and why), not about the conventionality of the claimed additional elements (i.e., the generic processing circuitry, generic data storage, and generic data-obtaining steps). Even accepting, for the sake of argument, that no prior art of record teaches using this particular combination of historic usage data for battery-replacement matching, that fact bears on novelty and obviousness under §§ 102 and 103 — not on whether the claim's additional, non-abstract elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional under § 101. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) (Step 2B inquiry addresses the additional elements, not the abstract idea).
B. BASCOM is distinguishable because it involved a specific, non-conventional technical architecture recited in the claims.
In BASCOM, the inventive concept arose from an unconventional technical arrangement recited in the claims themselves — installing a filtering tool at a specific location (a remote ISP server) with a specific customizable-filtering architecture that departed from the two conventional alternatives (filtering at the local computer or at the ISP without customization). 827 F.3d at 1350. That non-conventional arrangement of components, not merely the type of content being filtered, was the source of the inventive concept. Here, by contrast, claim 1 recites no non-conventional arrangement of hardware or software components — it recites generic "processing circuitry" performing generic obtain/obtain/select functions, with no claimed departure from conventional computer architecture. The dependent claims' recitation of data sourced from "a non-volatile data storage of the initial battery" (claim 9) or "a server system" (claim 10) likewise reflects conventional, off-the-shelf data storage and retrieval architecture, not an unconventional arrangement of the kind found significant in BASCOM.
C. The Office's finding that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported as required by Berkheimer and the accompanying USPTO guidance.
Berkheimer held that whether a claim limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional is a question of fact that, when genuinely disputed, must be supported by evidence. 881 F.3d at 1368. It does not, however, require prior-art evidence in every case, nor does it disturb the settled principle that generic computer components performing generic computer functions — such as obtaining, storing, and comparing data — can be recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional based on their treatment in the courts and in the applicant's own specification. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I) (an examiner may support a finding that an additional element is well-understood, routine, or conventional by citing to a court decision noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s), or to a showing that the specification describes the additional elements as well-known, routine, conventional, or in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars). Applicant's own Specification confirms that the "processing circuitry" and data storage are implemented using conventional computing hardware and do not depart from off-the-shelf components; no special-purpose hardware, non-standard data structures, or unconventional processing architecture is disclosed as necessary to practice the claims. Furthermore, Alice itself, at the Supreme Court level, confirms that generic computer functions of obtaining, storing, and comparing data are well-understood, routine, and conventional as a matter of law. 573 U.S. at 225–26. This finding is not undermined by the fact that the prior art of record (Iwai, Murai, Kumar) uses battery/usage data for different purposes than claimed; that circumstance, again, speaks to the novelty of the claimed application of the data (an issue for §§ 102/103), not to whether the generic computer components used to implement that application are conventional.
D. Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements add nothing beyond their generic, individual functions.
Considered together, "processing circuitry" configured to (i) obtain data from a source, (ii) obtain further data from another source, and (iii) output a selection based on comparing the two — with the data-sourcing options in claims 9–10 and 14 being generic on-battery non-volatile storage and generic servers — reflects nothing more than the sum of well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions performing the abstract idea. No ordered combination of these generic functions yields a non-conventional technical result of the kind found in BASCOM, DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), or similar cases.
Applicant's Step 2B arguments are accordingly not persuasive.
35 USC § 101 - Conclusion
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive for the reasons discussed above. The claims recite a mental process (and, in the rating/weighting limitations, a mathematical concept) that is not integrated into a practical application, and the additional elements — considered individually and as an ordered combination — do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The rejection of claims 1–18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is accordingly maintained.
Examiner’s Response: Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
Per Applicants’ amendments/arguments, the rejections are withdrawn. See notes above for additional reasoning and rationale for dropping prior-art rejection including Applicant’s amendments and arguments and unique combination of features and elements not taught by the prior-art without hindsight reasoning.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Regarding Claim X, on page(s) 8-9 of Applicant’s Remarks / After Final Amendments (dated 07/15/2011), Applicant(s) argues that the cited reference(s) (Ellis and Vandermolen) fails to teach, describe, or suggest the amended features. Specifically, Applicant(s) argues that cited reference(s) do not teach, describe, or suggest the following: . With respect, Applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive and the amended feature(s) remain rejected as follows.
With respect, Applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive and the amended feature(s) remain rejected as follows.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
PERTINENT PRIOR ART – Patent Literature
The prior-art made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kanada 2015/0369867 [0066 - battery management system for the purpose of selecting a replacement battery suitable for a usage at the time when the battery of the vehicle is replaced]
Pressman et al. 2023/0382266 [0059 - controller may compare the new predicted charge time of the new battery pack with a previous predicted charge time of the replaced battery pack]
PERTINENT PRIOR ART – Non-Patent Literature (NPL)
The NPL prior-art made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
M. Eagon, S. Fakhimi, G. Lyu, A. Yang, B. Lin and W. F. Northrop, "Model-Based Framework to Optimize Charger Station Deployment for Battery Electric Vehicles," 2022 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), Aachen, Germany, 2022, pp. 1639-1648, doi: 10.1109/IV51971.2022.9827442.
J. Wang, J. Zhou and D. Xu, "A real-time predictive energy management strategy of fuel cell/battery/ ultra-capacitor hybrid energy storage system in electric vehicle," 2020 Chinese Automation Congress (CAC), Shanghai, China, 2020, pp. 3951-3954, doi: 10.1109/CAC51589.2020.9327653.
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 extension fee 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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW T. SITTNER whose telephone number is (571) 270-7137 and email: matthew.sittner@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm (Mountain Time Zone). Please schedule interview requests via email: matthew.sittner@uspto.gov
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah M. Monfeldt can be reached on (571) 270-1833.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/MATTHEW T SITTNER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629b
Prosecution Insights