DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-4, 6-14 and 16-20 are pending
Claims 5 and 15 have been amended
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 11, 13 and 16-18 have been amended
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-13, filed 9/24/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/24/2026 regarding the rejection of claims 1-20 under U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the claim is not directed to an abstract idea (pg. 8-10). Specifically, applicant argues that the calculation and simulation steps aren’t directed to mental processes. However, according to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) and the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), these steps still fall under the abstract idea groupings of mathematical concepts and mental processes. Calculating and simulating both involve mathematical concepts and mental processes. Applicant further argues the detection of an abnormal operation is significantly more than the judicial exception. However, there aren’t enough particular elements recited in the claim to provide and improvement in the technological field; on the contrary, it still recites a mental process because, detecting an abnormal operation based on a comparison can be done by a human with pen and paper. Thus, for these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites
A method for detecting an abnormal operation of an energy storage system, comprising:
receiving operation information from the energy storage system;
calculating deterioration acceleration parameters of a battery of the energy storage system based on the operation information;
simulating the battery based on the operation information and the calculated deterioration acceleration parameters; and
detecting that the energy storage system is operating abnormally based on a comparison between a battery capacity of the simulated battery and a battery capacity of deterioration data associated with the energy storage system in an initial use environment.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method; therefore, it is a process
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of calculating deterioration acceleration parameters of a battery of the energy storage system based on the operation information. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, calculating deterioration acceleration parameters can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of simulating the battery based on the operation information and the calculated deterioration acceleration parameters. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, simulating the battery based on the operation information and the calculated deterioration acceleration parameters can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of detecting that the energy storage system is operating abnormally based a comparison between a battery capacity of the simulated battery and a battery capacity of deterioration data associated with the energy storage system in an initial use environment. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, detecting that the energy storage system is operating abnormally can be done by a human with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: an energy storage system
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of fault monitoring within in a computer environment. The claimed battery components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform detection of a fault condition of an energy storage system. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic energy storage system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: receiving operation information from the energy storage system
These additional elements have been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, conventional activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buy SAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The following references establish the conventionality of the limitation “receiving operation information from the energy storage system”:
US 20170031404 A1 “STORAGE-BATTERY EVALUATION DEVICE, ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM, AND STORAGE-BATTERY EVALUATION METHOD” (YAMAMOTO; Takahiro et al.) teaches “receiving operation information from the energy storage system” see par.39: “The Information acquirer 150 is electrically connected to the storage battery 113 and receives the battery information (for example, current, voltage, temperature) of the energy storage device”
US 11364813 B2 “Battery state determination system, battery state determination method, and recording medium” teaches “receiving operation information from the energy storage system” see col.1 ln 53-55 “a first acquisition part configured to acquire physical quantity data showing a physical quantity related to a state of a battery mounted on the vehicle”.
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of detecting faults within in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the operation information comprises at least one of accumulated temperature information of the battery, excess usage time information of the battery, power information provided to the battery, state-of-charge (SOC) information during an idle period of the battery, state-of-health information of the battery, or state-of-charge range information of the battery.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 3 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the calculating of the deterioration acceleration parameters comprises: calculating the deterioration acceleration parameters of the battery based on the deterioration data and the operation information.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 4 depends on claim 3, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the deterioration data is determined based on a kind of the battery.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 6 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein a result of a simulation of the battery comprises an hourly deterioration rate of the battery predicted based on the operation information.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 7 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the detecting that the energy storage system is operating abnormally is based on a result of a simulation of the battery.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 8 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising: updating a guaranteed capacity of the energy storage system based on a result of a simulation of the battery.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 9 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 9 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising: providing a notification in response to the detecting that the energy storage system is operating abnormally, the notification comprising information informing the energy storage system of an abnormal operation.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 10 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 10 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising: providing analysis information in response to the detecting that the energy storage system is operating abnormally, the analysis information being associated with an operation of the energy storage system.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites a system for detecting an abnormal operation of an energy storage system, comprising: a receiver configured to receive operation information from the energy storage system; a calculator configured to calculate deterioration acceleration parameters of a battery of the energy storage system based on the operation information; and a simulator configured to simulate the battery based on the operation information and the deterioration acceleration parameters, and detect that the energy storage system is operating abnormally based on a comparison between a battery capacity of the simulated battery and a battery capacity of deterioration data associated with the energy storage system in an initial use environment.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method; therefore, it is a process
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of a calculator configured to calculate deterioration acceleration parameters of a battery of the energy storage system based on the operation information. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, calculating deterioration acceleration parameters can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of a simulator configured to simulate the battery based on the operation information and the deterioration acceleration parameters. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, simulating the battery based on the operation information and the calculated deterioration acceleration parameters can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of detecting that the energy storage system is operating abnormally based a comparison between a battery capacity of the simulated battery and a battery capacity of deterioration data associated with the energy storage system in an initial use environment. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, detecting that the energy storage system is operating abnormally can be done by a human with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: an energy storage system, a calculator
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of fault monitoring within in a computer environment. The claimed battery components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform detection of a fault condition of an energy storage system. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic energy storage system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: a receiver
These additional elements have been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, conventional activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buy SAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The following references establish the conventionality of the limitation “receiver and calculator”:
US 20170031404 A1 “STORAGE-BATTERY EVALUATION DEVICE, ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM, AND STORAGE-BATTERY EVALUATION METHOD” (YAMAMOTO; Takahiro et al.) teaches “receiving operation information from the energy storage system” see par.39: “The Information acquirer 150 is electrically connected to the storage battery 113 and receives the battery information (for example, current, voltage, temperature) of the energy storage device”
US 11364813 B2 “Battery state determination system, battery state determination method, and recording medium” teaches “receiving operation information from the energy storage system” see col.1 ln 53-55 “a first acquisition part configured to acquire physical quantity data showing a physical quantity related to a state of a battery mounted on the vehicle”.
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of detecting faults within in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 12 depends on claim 11, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 12 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the operation information comprises at least one of accumulated temperature information of the battery, excess usage time information of the battery, power information provided to the battery, state-of-charge (SOC) information during an idle period of the battery, state-of-health information of the battery, or state-of-charge range information of the battery.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 13 depends on claim 11, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 13 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the deterioration acceleration parameter calculation part is configured to calculate the deterioration acceleration parameters of the battery based on deterioration data associated with the energy storage system and the operation information.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 14 depends on claim 13, which depends on claim 11, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 14 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the deterioration data is determined based on a kind of the battery.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 16 depends on claim 11, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 16 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein a result of the simulation of the battery comprises an hourly deterioration rate of the battery predicted based on the operation information.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 17 depends on claim 11, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 17 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the simulator is configured to detect that the energy storage system is operating abnormally based on a result of a simulation of the battery.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 18 depends on claim 11, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 18 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising: updating a guaranteed capacity of the energy storage system based on a result of a simulation of the battery.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 18 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 19 depends on claim 11, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 19 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising: a notification providing part configured to provide a notification informing the energy storage system of an abnormal operation in response to the detecting that the energy storage system is operating abnormally.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 19 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 20 depends on claim 11, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 20 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising: an analysis information providing part configured to provide analysis information associated with an operation of the energy storage system in response to the detecting that the energy storage system is operating abnormally.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 20 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OKABE; Yosuke et al. (US Publication #US 20210293892 A1; hereinafter Okabe; previously provided) in view of Beaston; Virgil Lee et al. (US Patent # US 10536007 B2; hereinafter Beaston; newly cited).
Regarding claim 1, Okabe teaches
A method for detecting an abnormal operation of an energy storage system (abstract), comprising:
receiving operation information from the energy storage system (par.37 “The measurement data acquired by the estimation device 10 includes data on a current of the energy storage device 1 and data on temperature of the energy storage device 1.”);
calculating deterioration acceleration parameters (par.42 “One of the computer programs stored in the storage unit 12 is an estimation processing program for estimating a deterioration state of the energy storage device 1 by using a deterioration simulator based on the deterioration mechanism of the energy storage device 1.”) of a battery of the energy storage system (par.36 teaches a battery of the energy storage system) based on the operation information;
detecting that the energy storage system is operating abnormally (par.98-99 and fig.9 teaches detecting that the energy storage system is operating abnormally through the identification of deterioration factor).
Okabe fails to teach simulating the battery based on the operation information and the calculated deterioration acceleration parameters; and based on a comparison between a battery capacity of the simulated battery and a battery capacity of deterioration data associated with the energy storage system in an initial use environment.
Beaston does teach simulating the battery based on the operation information and the calculated deterioration acceleration parameters (col.6 ln 12-35 teaches battery simulation); and
based on a comparison between a battery capacity of the simulated battery and a battery capacity of deterioration data associated with the energy storage system (col.37 ln 40-52 teaches comparison of battery voltages using reference voltage from the simulation/model and the measured voltage) in an initial use environment (col.25 ln 44 – col. 26 ln 1-3 teaches an initial use environment).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Okabe to include the teachings of Beaston; which would provide a battery pack operating system that include modules which produce battery data that can be collected in a data center and analyzed to determine rate data used for the purpose of selling insurance as disclosed by Beaston (col.2 ln 19-22).
Regarding claim 2, Okabe in view of Beaston teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, Okabe further teaches wherein the operation information comprises at least one of accumulated temperature information of the battery (par.46 “measures temperature of the energy storage device 1 in time series.”), excess usage time information of the battery, power information provided to the battery (par.99 “When the main deterioration factor is isolation, the control unit 11 outputs information on recommendation that an auxiliary power supply or a power supply for disaster prevention storage batteries is applied as a reuse application”), state-of-charge (SOC) information during an idle period of the battery (par.62), state-of-health information of the battery, or state-of-charge range information of the battery.
Regarding claim 3, Okabe in view of Beaston teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, Okabe further teaches wherein the calculating of the deterioration acceleration parameters comprises:
calculating the deterioration acceleration parameters of the battery based on the deterioration data and the operation information (par.97).
Regarding claim 4, Okabe in view of Beaston teaches the method as claimed in claim 3, Okabe further teaches wherein the deterioration data is determined based on a kind of the battery (par.36 teaches “an all-solid lithium-ion battery, a bipolar type lithium ion battery (a battery in which electrodes are electrically connected in series), a zinc air battery, a sodium ion battery, or a lead-acid battery”; par.65 teaches a kind of the battery as a lithium ion battery).
Regarding claim 6, Okabe in view of Beaston teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, Okabe further teaches wherein a result (par.47 “an estimation result”) of a simulation of the battery comprises an hourly deterioration rate of the battery predicted based on the operation information (par.46 implicitly teaches simulation comprising hourly deterioration rate through measurement of discharge current of the energy storage device 1 in time series; furthermore, current data measured by the current sensor 131 at any time is used in the simulation).
Regarding claim 7, Okabe in view of Beaston teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, Okabe further teaches wherein the detecting that the energy storage system is operating abnormally is based on a result of a simulation of the battery (par.90 “identifies a deterioration factor”).
Regarding claim 8, Okabe in view of Beaston teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, Okabe further teaches further comprising:
updating a guaranteed capacity of the energy storage system based on a result of a simulation of the battery (par.32 “The output unit may be configured to calculate and output a remaining value of the energy storage device based on an estimation result of the estimation unit.” The guaranteed capacity of the energy storage system is the remaining value).
Regarding claim 9, Okabe in view of Beaston teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, Okabe further teaches further comprising:
providing a notification in response to the detecting that the energy storage system is operating abnormally (par.99 “the control unit 11 may notify a terminal device used by a user”), the notification comprising information informing the energy storage system of an abnormal operation (par.99 “When the main deterioration factor is decrease in number of charge carriers, the control unit 11 may output information on recommendation that an auxiliary power supply or a power supply for disaster prevention storage batteries is applied as a reuse application.”).
Regarding claim 10, Okabe teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising:
providing analysis information in response to the detecting that the energy storage system is operating abnormally(par..99 teaches providing analysis information through the information generated by the control unit 11), the analysis information being associated with an operation of the energy storage system (par.99 “the control unit 11 generates information on a recommended reuse method for the energy storage device 1, being suitable for the identified main deterioration factor, and outputs the generated information on the reuse method from the output unit 14 (step S104). For example, when the main deterioration factor is increase in electric resistance, the control unit 11 outputs information on recommendation that energy storage of natural energy is applied as a reuse application.”).
Regarding claim 11, Okabe teaches
A system for detecting an abnormal operation of an energy storage system (abstract), comprising:
a receiver (par.46 “a current sensor 131 and a temperature sensor 132”) configured to receive operation information from the energy storage system (par.37 “The measurement data acquired by the estimation device 10 includes data on a current of the energy storage device 1 and data on temperature of the energy storage device 1.”);
a calculator (par.37 “estimation device 10”) configured to calculate deterioration acceleration parameters (par.42 “One of the computer programs stored in the storage unit 12 is an estimation processing program for estimating a deterioration state of the energy storage device 1 by using a deterioration simulator based on the deterioration mechanism of the energy storage device 1.”) of a battery of the energy storage system (par.36 teaches a battery of the energy storage system) based on the operation information; and
configured to detect that the energy storage system is operating abnormally (par.98-99 and fig.9 teaches detecting that the energy storage system is operating abnormally through the identification of deterioration factor).
Okabe fails to teach a simulator to simulate the battery based on the operation information and the deterioration acceleration parameters, and based on a comparison between a battery capacity of the simulated battery and a battery capacity of deterioration data associated with the energy storage system in an initial use environment.
Beaston does teach simulating the battery based on the operation information and the calculated deterioration acceleration parameters (col.6 ln 12-35 teaches battery simulation); and
based on a comparison between a battery capacity of the simulated battery and a battery capacity of deterioration data associated with the energy storage system (col.37 ln 40-52 teaches comparison of battery voltages using reference voltage from the simulation/model and the measured voltage) in an initial use environment (col.25 ln 44 – col. 26 ln 1-3 teaches an initial use environment).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Okabe to include the teachings of Beaston; which would provide a battery pack operating system that include modules which produce battery data that can be collected in a data center and analyzed to determine rate data used for the purpose of selling insurance as disclosed by Beaston (col.2 ln 19-22).
Regarding claim 12, Okabe in view of Beaston teaches the system as claimed in claim 11, Okabe further teaches wherein the operation information comprises at least one of accumulated temperature information of the battery (par.46 “measures temperature of the energy storage device 1 in time series.”), excess usage time information of the battery, power information provided to the battery (par.99 “When the main deterioration factor is isolation, the control unit 11 outputs information on recommendation that an auxiliary power supply or a power supply for disaster prevention storage batteries is applied as a reuse application”), state-of-charge information during an idle period of the battery (par.62), state-of-health information of the battery, or state-of-charge range information of the battery.
Regarding claim 13, Okabe in view of Beaston teaches the system as claimed in claim 11, Okabe further teaches wherein the calculator is configured to calculate the deterioration acceleration parameters of the battery based the deterioration data and the operation information (par.97).
Regarding claim 14, Okabe in view of Beaston teaches the system as claimed in claim 13, Okabe further teaches wherein the deterioration data is determined based on a kind of the battery (par.36 teaches “an all-solid lithium-ion battery, a bipolar type lithium-ion battery (a battery in which electrodes are electrically connected in series), a zinc air battery, a sodium ion battery, or a lead-acid battery”; par.65 teaches a kind of the battery as a lithium ion battery).
Regarding claim 16, Okabe in view of Beaston teaches the system as claimed in claim 11, Okabe further teaches wherein a result (par.47 “an estimation result”) of a simulation of the battery comprises an hourly deterioration rate of the battery predicted based on the operation information (par.46 implicitly teaches simulation comprising hourly deterioration rate through measurement of discharge current of the energy storage device 1 in time series; furthermore, current data measured by the current sensor 131 at any time is used in the simulation).
Regarding claim 17, Okabe in view of Beaston teaches the system as claimed in claim 11, Okabe further teaches wherein the abnormal operation detection part is configured to detect that the energy storage system is operating abnormally based on a result of a simulation of the battery (par.90 “identifies a deterioration factor”).
Regarding claim 18, Okabe in view of Beaston teaches the system as claimed in claim 11, Okabe further teaches further comprising: an updating part configured to update a guaranteed capacity of the energy storage system based on a result of a simulation of the battery (par.32 “The output unit may be configured to calculate and output a remaining value of the energy storage device based on an estimation result of the estimation unit.” The guaranteed capacity of the energy storage system is the remaining value).
Regarding claim 19, Okabe in view of Beaston teaches the system as claimed in claim 11, Okabe further teaches further comprising:
a notification providing part configured to provide a notification (par.99 “the control unit 11 may notify a terminal device used by a user”) informing the energy storage system of an abnormal operation in response to the detecting that the energy storage system is operating abnormally (par.99 “When the main deterioration factor is decrease in number of charge carriers, the control unit 11 may output information on recommendation that an auxiliary power supply or a power supply for disaster prevention storage batteries is applied as a reuse application.”).
Regarding claim 20, Okabe in view of Beaston teaches the system as claimed in claim 11, Okabe further teaches further comprising:
an analysis information providing part configured to provide analysis information (par..99 teaches providing analysis information through the information generated by the control unit 11) associated with an operation of the energy storage system in response to the detecting that the energy storage system is operating abnormally (par.99 “the control unit 11 generates information on a recommended reuse method for the energy storage device 1, being suitable for the identified main deterioration factor, and outputs the generated information on the reuse method from the output unit 14 (step S104). For example, when the main deterioration factor is increase in electric resistance, the control unit 11 outputs information on recommendation that energy storage of natural energy is applied as a reuse application.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20230202336 A1; Lu; Norman et al. is a power allocation based on energy source.
US 20140092375 A1; Raghavan; Ajay et al. monitoring and management for energy storage devices.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3991. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am -5:00am.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
