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
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment received on 07/08/2026.
Claim 18 has been amended.
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 ement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-10 are directed to an apparatus, claim 11-18 are directed to a method, and claims 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding claim 11:
A battery diagnosing method comprising:
a profile acquisition step of acquiring a charging profile representing a correspondence between a voltage and a current of a battery measured during a charging process;
a capacity calculation step of calculating a first constant current (CC) capacity and a first constant voltage (CV) capacity from the charging profile;
a capacity change rate calculation step of calculating a capacity change rate for the first CC capacity and the first CV capacity based on a second CC capacity and a second CV capacity stored in advance; and
a diagnosis step of diagnosing a state of the battery based on the calculated capacity change rate and a preset correction coefficient.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“a profile acquisition step of acquiring a charging profile representing a correspondence between a voltage and a current of a battery measured during a charging process” is directed to mental step of data gathering.
“a capacity calculation step of calculating a first constant current (CC) capacity and a first constant voltage (CV) capacity from the charging profile” is directed to math because calculating a first constant current (CC) capacity by multiplying the constant current (I) by the time (t) is applied during the first phase Qcc = Icc X Δtcc and calculating a first constant voltage (CV) capacity by integrating the decaying current (I(t)) over time during the constant voltage phase.
“a capacity change rate calculation step of calculating a capacity change rate for the first CC capacity and the first CV capacity based on a second CC capacity and a second CV capacity stored in advance” is directed to math because the capacity change rate is calculated by comparing current capacity measurement with reference values stored in advance.
“a diagnosis step of diagnosing a state of the battery based on the calculated capacity change rate and a preset correction coefficient” is directed to mental step of analyzing data.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “calculation” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of "a capacity calculation step of calculating a first constant current (CC) capacity and a first constant voltage (CV) capacity from the charging profile; a capacity change rate calculation step of calculating a capacity change rate for the first CC capacity and the first CV capacity based on a second CC capacity and a second CV capacity stored in advance” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“a profile acquisition step of acquiring a charging profile representing a correspondence between a voltage and a current of a battery measured during a charging process” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a capacity calculation step of calculating a first constant current (CC) capacity and a first constant voltage (CV) capacity from the charging profile” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a capacity change rate calculation step of calculating a capacity change rate for the first CC capacity and the first CV capacity based on a second CC capacity and a second CV capacity stored in advance” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a diagnosis step of diagnosing a state of the battery based on the calculated capacity change rate and a preset correction coefficient” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim is merely collecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and outputting the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“a profile acquisition step of acquiring a charging profile representing a correspondence between a voltage and a current of a battery measured during a charging process” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a capacity calculation step of calculating a first constant current (CC) capacity and a first constant voltage (CV) capacity from the charging profile” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a capacity change rate calculation step of calculating a capacity change rate for the first CC capacity and the first CV capacity based on a second CC capacity and a second CV capacity stored in advance” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a diagnosis step of diagnosing a state of the battery based on the calculated capacity change rate and a preset correction coefficient” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 1 is similar to claim 11 but recites a battery diagnosing apparatus comprising: a profile acquisition unit configured and a control unit configured. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”). On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 1 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 1
Claim 19 cites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a program that, when executed, causes a computer to execute a battery diagnosing method. This amounts to nothing more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, which fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Additionally, using instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer “is not ‘enough’ to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. Therefore, the rejection of claim 19 for the same reason discussed above with regard to the rejection of claim 10.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, “wherein the control unit is configured to calculate a CC capacity difference between the first CC capacity and the second CC capacity, calculate a CV capacity difference between the first CV capacity and the second CV capacity, and calculate a ratio of the CC capacity difference and the CV capacity difference, thereby obtaining the capacity change rate” is directed to math.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, “wherein the control unit is configured to calculate a decrease in the first CC capacity with respect to the second CC capacity as the CC capacity difference, and calculate an increase in the first CV capacity with respect to the second CV capacity as the CV capacity difference” is directed to math.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, “wherein the control unit is configured to calculate a correction change rate by multiplying the capacity change rate by the correction coefficient, compare the correction change rate with a threshold value set in advance, and diagnose the state of the battery based on a result of the comparison” is directed to math.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, “wherein the control unit is configured to: diagnose the state of the battery as a normal state when the correction change rate is greater than or equal to the threshold value, and diagnose the state of the battery as an abnormal state when the correction change rate is less than the threshold value” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, “wherein the control unit is configured to output a notification signal to notify a warning about sudden drop when the state of the battery is diagnosed as the abnormal state” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, “wherein the correction coefficient is preset based on an amount of change in CC capacity and an amount of change in CV capacity of the battery during a reference number of cycles set in advance” is directed to math.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, “wherein the correction coefficient is preset as a ratio of a representative amount of change in the CV capacity and a representative amount of change in the CC capacity during the reference number of cycles” is directed to math.
Regarding claim 9, “battery pack comprising the battery diagnosing apparatus” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 10, “a vehicle comprising the battery diagnosing apparatus” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Hence the claims 1-19 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
-Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to abstract ideas but rather recite a specific technical solution for diagnosing battery state using CC-CV charging capacity analysis. The claims integrate any recited judicial exception into a practical application by employing specific technical calculations tied to physical battery measurements to produce a concrete diagnostic result.
Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“a profile acquisition step of acquiring a charging profile representing a correspondence between a voltage and a current of a battery measured during a charging process” is directed to mental step of data gathering.
“a capacity calculation step of calculating a first constant current (CC) capacity and a first constant voltage (CV) capacity from the charging profile” is directed to math because calculating a first constant current (CC) capacity by multiplying the constant current (I) by the time (t) is applied during the first phase Qcc = Icc X Δtcc and calculating a first constant voltage (CV) capacity by integrating the decaying current (I(t)) over time during the constant voltage phase.
“a capacity change rate calculation step of calculating a capacity change rate for the first CC capacity and the first CV capacity based on a second CC capacity and a second CV capacity stored in advance” is directed to math because the capacity change rate is calculated by comparing current capacity measurement with reference values stored in advance.
“a diagnosis step of diagnosing a state of the battery based on the calculated capacity change rate and a preset correction coefficient” is directed to mental step of analyzing data.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “calculation” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of "a capacity calculation step of calculating a first constant current (CC) capacity and a first constant voltage (CV) capacity from the charging profile; a capacity change rate calculation step of calculating a capacity change rate for the first CC capacity and the first CV capacity based on a second CC capacity and a second CV capacity stored in advance” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“a profile acquisition step of acquiring a charging profile representing a correspondence between a voltage and a current of a battery measured during a charging process” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a capacity calculation step of calculating a first constant current (CC) capacity and a first constant voltage (CV) capacity from the charging profile” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a capacity change rate calculation step of calculating a capacity change rate for the first CC capacity and the first CV capacity based on a second CC capacity and a second CV capacity stored in advance” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a diagnosis step of diagnosing a state of the battery based on the calculated capacity change rate and a preset correction coefficient” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim is merely collecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and outputting the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“a profile acquisition step of acquiring a charging profile representing a correspondence between a voltage and a current of a battery measured during a charging process” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a capacity calculation step of calculating a first constant current (CC) capacity and a first constant voltage (CV) capacity from the charging profile” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a capacity change rate calculation step of calculating a capacity change rate for the first CC capacity and the first CV capacity based on a second CC capacity and a second CV capacity stored in advance” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a diagnosis step of diagnosing a state of the battery based on the calculated capacity change rate and a preset correction coefficient” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
-Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach, “a profile acquisition step of acquiring a charging profile representing a correspondence between a voltage and a current of a battery measured during a charging process; a capacity calculation step of calculating a first constant current (CC) capacity and a first constant voltage (CV) capacity from the charging profile;” as cited in claims 1, 11, and 19.
Examiner agrees, therefore the rejection of claims 1, 11, and 19 under 102 and 103 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/JOHN H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights