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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on March 11, 2025, February 17, 2026, and May 27, 2026 are considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “further configured authenticate the state information”, as stated in lines 1 and 2 of claim 9, needs to be corrected to “further configured to authenticate the state information”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a battery state information providing apparatus configured to receive experimental life indexes and the driving life index and determine state information on the target battery pack” and “an external device configured to output the state information of the target battery backpack” in claim 11, “external device is configured to output the state information to an authenticated user” in claim 12, and “a battery state information providing apparatus configured to receive experimental life indexes and a driving life index of a target battery pack and determine state information of the target battery pack” and “an external device configured to display the state information” in claim 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitations “a battery state information providing apparatus configured to receive experimental life indexes and the driving life index and determine state information on the target battery pack” and “an external device configured to output the state information of the target battery backpack” in claim 11, “external device is configured to output the state information to an authenticated user” in claim 12, and “a battery state information providing apparatus configured to receive experimental life indexes and a driving life index of a target battery pack and determine state information of the target battery pack” and “an external device configured to display the state information” in claim 21 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the functions in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
For the purpose of the prior art rejection below, the term “battery state information providing apparatus” has been interpreted as “battery management system” and the term “external device” has been interpreted as “user terminal”.
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, 11, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed toward an abstract idea with significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
101 Analysis - Step 1
Claim 1 is directed toward a battery state information apparatus which consists of a generator configured to generate experimental profiles and a driving profile based on experimental life indexes and driving life indexes, a comparator configured to compare the experimental profiles and the driving profile to determine an evaluation profile among the experimental profiles, and an evaluator configured to determine state information on a target battery pack based on the evaluation profile and a target life index (a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A battery state information providing apparatus comprising:
a generator configured to generate experimental profiles and a driving profile based on experimental life indexes and driving life indexes;
a comparator configured to compare the experimental profiles and the driving profile to determine an evaluation profile among the experimental profiles;
and an evaluator configured to determine state information on a target battery pack based on the evaluation profile and a target life index, wherein the target life index is a driving life index of a vehicle including the target battery pack.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation constitutes a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “generate”, “compare”, and “determine”, in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at information collected and forming a simple judgment.
Accordingly, the claim recites at one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into the practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” In the present case, therefore since there are no additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea above, there is no integration into a practical application.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, as noted above, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional limitations that amount to significantly more.
Dependent claims 4-9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine, and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 4 uses the limitation of “determine a continuous reference profile for an entire driving distance based on the driving profile”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 5 uses the limitation of “determine, as a first evaluation profile, an experimental profile having a higher experimental life index than the continuous reference profile and having a smallest slope for the entire driving distance”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 6 uses the limitation of “determine, as a second evaluation profile, an experimental profile having a lower experimental life index than the continuous reference profile and having a largest slope for the entire driving distance”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 7 uses the limitation of “determine an experimental profile having a highest degree of agreement with the driving profile among the experimental profiles as the continuous reference profile”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 8 uses the limitation of “generate the continuous reference profile by linearly interpolating the driving profile”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 9 uses the limitation of “authenticate the state information and provide the authenticated state information to an external device”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding claim 11,
101 Analysis - Step 1
Claim 11 is directed toward a battery state information provision system which consists of a vehicle comprising a target battery pack and a controller configured to transmit a driving life index for a target battery pack, a battery state information providing apparatus configured to receive experimental life indexes and the driving life index and determine state information on a target battery pack based on the experimental life indexes and the driving life index, and an external device configured to output the state information of a target battery pack (a machine). Therefore, claim 11 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 11 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 11 recites:
A battery state information provision system comprising:
a vehicle comprising a target battery pack and a controller configured to transmit a driving life index for the target battery pack;
a battery state information providing apparatus configured to receive experimental life indexes and the driving life index and determine state information on the target battery pack based on the experimental life indexes and the driving life index;
and an external device configured to output the state information of the target battery pack.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation constitutes a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “transmit”, “receive”, and “output”, in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at information collected and forming a simple judgment.
Accordingly, the claim recites at one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into the practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” In the present case, a controller is provided for the purpose of implementing the abstract ideas. However, this feature is a mere computer and does not give practical application to the transmitting, receiving, and outputting steps.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, as noted above, representative independent claim 11 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional limitations that amount to significantly more.
Dependent claim 12 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine, and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 12 uses the limitation of “output the state information to an authenticated user”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding claim 15,
101 Analysis - Step 1
Claim 15 is directed toward a operation method of a battery state information provision system which consists of the steps of receiving driving life indexes from a vehicle including a target battery pack and vehicles of a same model as the vehicle, receiving experimental life indexes, generating experimental profiles and a driving profile based on the experimental life indexes and the driving life indexes, determining an evaluation profile among the experimental profiles by comparing the experimental profiles with the driving profile, determining state information of the target battery pack based on the evaluation profile and a target life index, providing the state information of the target battery pack to an external device, and outputting the state information of the target battery pack, wherein the target life index is a driving life index of the vehicle (a process). Therefore, claim 15 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 15 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 15 recites:
An operation method of a battery state information provision system, the method comprising:
receiving, by a generator, driving life indexes from a vehicle including a target battery pack and vehicles of a same model as the vehicle;
receiving, by the generator, experimental life indexes;
generating, by the generator, experimental profiles and a driving profile based on the experimental life indexes and the driving life indexes;
determining, by a comparator, an evaluation profile among the experimental profiles by comparing the experimental profiles with the driving profile;
determining, by an evaluator, state information of the target battery pack based on the evaluation profile and a target life index;
providing, by the evaluator, the state information of the target battery pack to an external device; and
outputting, by the external device, the state information of the target battery pack, wherein the target life index is a driving life index of the vehicle.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation constitutes a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “receiving”, “generating”, “determining”, “providing”, and “outputting”, in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at information collected and forming a simple judgment.
Accordingly, the claim recites at one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into the practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” In the present case, therefore since there are no additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea above, there is no integration into a practical application.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, as noted above, representative independent claim 15 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional limitations that amount to significantly more.
Dependent claims 18-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine, and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 18 uses the limitations of “determining, by the comparator, a continuous reference profile for an entire driving distance based on the driving profile”, “determining, as a first evaluation profile, an experimental profile having a higher experimental life index than the continuous reference profile and having a smallest slope for the entire driving distance”, and “determining, as a second evaluation profile, an experimental profile having a lower experimental life index than the continuous reference profile and having a largest slope for the entire driving distance”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 19 uses the limitation of “determining the continuous reference profile comprises determining an experimental profile having a highest degree of agreement with the driving profile among the experimental profiles as the continuous reference profile”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 20 uses the limitation of “determining the continuous reference profile comprises generating the continuous reference profile by linearly interpolating the driving profile”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding claim 21,
101 Analysis - Step 1
Claim 21 is directed toward a battery state information provision system which consists of a battery state information providing apparatus configured to receive experimental life indexes and a driving life index of a target battery pack and determine state information of the target battery pack based on the experimental life indexes and the driving life index and an external device configured to display the state information (a machine). Therefore, claim 21 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 21 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 21 recites:
A battery state information provision system comprising:
a battery state information providing apparatus configured to receive experimental life indexes and a driving life index of a target battery pack and determine state information of the target battery pack based on the experimental life indexes and the driving life index;
and an external device configured to display the state information, wherein the battery state information providing apparatus authenticates the state information, and the state information comprises performance information, safety information, or price information on the target battery pack.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation constitutes a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “receive” and “display”, in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at information collected and forming a simple judgment.
Accordingly, the claim recites at one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into the practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” In the present case, therefore since there are no additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea above, there is no integration into a practical application.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, as noted above, representative independent claim 21 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional limitations that amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For the purposes of the prior art rejections below:
The term “battery state information providing apparatus” has been interpreted to be a battery management system.
The term “external device” has been interpreted to be a user terminal.
Claims 1-3, 9-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kwak, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230384391).
Regarding claim 1, Kwak, et al. teaches: A battery state information providing apparatus comprising: a generator configured to generate experimental profiles and a driving profile based on experimental life indexes and driving life indexes; (Fig. 2B, Paragraph [0032]: "Referring to FIG. 2B, a first scenario generation model (170) [generator] may output driving profile data (180) corresponding to a future usage scenario [generate experimental profiles and driving profile]. As an example, the scenario generation model (170) may output driving profile data (180), based on data generated from the past driving history of the customer who purchased the electric vehicle (100), data of other customers who have purchased a vehicle similar to the electric vehicle (100), or the like [based on experimental life indexes and driving life indexes].")
a comparator configured to compare the experimental profiles and the driving profile to determine an evaluation profile among the experimental profiles; (Fig. 2B, Paragraph [0034]: "As an example, in an embodiment illustrated in FIG. 2B, a calculator (190) [comparator] may output the sum of the first SOH estimate (SOH1) and the third SOH estimate (SOH3) as an initial SOH value of the battery (110) [specific procedure]. […] The lifespan prediction model may continuously perform learning by comparing the decreasing trend of SOH with the actual decreasing trend of SOH according to the accumulated use time of the electric vehicle (100) [comparing experimental profile and driving profile to determine final evaluation profile].")
and an evaluator configured to determine state information on a target battery pack based on the evaluation profile and a target life index, wherein the target life index is a driving life index of a vehicle including the target battery pack (Fig. 3, Paragraph [0041]: "…the lifespan prediction model may be stored in a separate server capable of communicating with the system (200). In this case, the battery management system (220) [evaluator] may transmit the usage environment and usage pattern of the system (200) together with the SOH of the battery (210) determined at the current time point to the server. The server may create a usage scenario based on the usage environment and usage pattern of the system (200), input the data extracted from the usage scenario together with the SOH of the battery (210) into the lifespan prediction model, and predict the end of the life of the battery (210) [determination of state information on target battery pack through use of target life index and evaluation profile].").
Regarding claim 2, Kwak, et al. teaches: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the experimental profiles are profiles in which the experimental life indexes of the target battery pack for a preset experimental driving condition are arranged with respect to a driving distance (Paragraph [0085]: "When the usage pattern is collected, the server may classify the battery-mounted system as one of a plurality of groups (S21). When the server is connected to a plurality of systems through a network, the plurality of systems may be divided into a plurality of groups [experimental profiles]. For example, when the systems are electric vehicles, the electric vehicles may be divided into a business group and a household group according to the driving distance [target battery pack for preset experimental driving condition are arranged with respect to a driving distance]").
Regarding claim 3, Kwak, et al. teaches: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the driving profile is a profile in which the driving life indexes collected from the vehicle and vehicles of a same model as the vehicle are arranged with respect to a driving distance (Paragraph [0079]: "Alternatively, a new electric vehicle may be grouped using the raw data (501) that is field data collected from other existing electric vehicles [building driving profile]. For example, among existing electric vehicles, the new electric vehicles may be grouped by referring to load information such as driving distance and driving time obtained from other electric vehicles similar to the new electric vehicle [driving life indexes are vehicles of same model].").
Regarding claim 9, Kwak, et al. teaches: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the evaluator is further configured authenticate the state information and provide the authenticated state information to an external device (Paragraph [0091]: "…the battery management system (612) is connected to the server (620) to communicate with each other through the communication network (600), and a user terminal (630) owned by the user of the system (610) [provide state information to external device] is also connected to the communication network (600) [authenticates state information through use of battery state providing apparatus].").
Regarding claim 10, Kwak, et al. teaches: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the state information comprises performance information, safety information, or price information on the target battery pack (Paragraph [0092]: "The server (620) may execute a lifespan prediction model for predicting the lifespan of the battery (611) mounted in the system (610) [state information consists of performance information of target battery pack].")
Regarding claim 11, Kwak, et al. teaches: A battery state information provision system comprising: (Paragraph [0035]: "FIG. 3 is a block diagram schematically illustrating a battery management system according to an embodiment [battery state provision system].")
a vehicle comprising a target battery pack and a controller configured to transmit a driving life index for the target battery pack; (Paragraph [0032]: "The battery management system (120) may predict the remaining lifespan of the battery (110) [target battery pack] at an initial time point corresponding to immediately after shipment of the electric vehicle (100) [vehicle], using the physical information-based lifespan prediction model (160) [controller to transmit driving life index for target battery pack], which has been trained")
a battery state information providing apparatus configured to receive experimental life indexes and the driving life index and determine state information on the target battery pack based on the experimental life indexes and the driving life index; (Paragraph [0041]: "…the lifespan prediction model may be stored in a separate server capable of communicating with the system (200). In this case, the battery management system (220) [battery state information providing apparatus] may transmit the usage environment and usage pattern of the system (200) together with the SOH of the battery (210) determined at the current time point to the server [configured to receive experimental life indexes and driving life index]. The server may create a usage scenario based on the usage environment and usage pattern of the system (200), input the data extracted from the usage scenario together with the SOH of the battery (210) into the lifespan prediction model, and predict the end of the life of the battery (210) [determination of state information on target battery pack through use of target life index and evaluation profile].")
and an external device configured to output the state information of the target battery pack (Paragraph [0020]: "output the state of charge, remaining life, and the like, to the owner or driver of the electric vehicle (100) through the display inside the electric vehicle (100) and/or a user terminal that interfaces with the electric vehicle (100) [external device which outputs state information of target battery pack].").
Regarding claim 12, Kwak, et al. teaches: The system of claim 11, wherein the external device is configured to output the state information to an authenticated user (Paragraph [0091]: "…the battery management system (612) is connected to the server (620) to communicate with each other through the communication network (600), and a user terminal (630) owned by the user of the system (610) is also connected to the communication network (600) [authenticates state information through use of battery state providing apparatus].").
Regarding claim 13, Kwak, et al. teaches: The system of claim 11, wherein the experimental life indexes are life indexes of the target battery pack under a preset experimental driving condition (Paragraph [0085]: "When the usage pattern is collected, the server may classify the battery-mounted system as one of a plurality of groups (S21). When the server is connected to a plurality of systems through a network, the plurality of systems may be divided into a plurality of groups [experimental profiles]. For example, when the systems are electric vehicles, the electric vehicles may be divided into a business group and a household group according to the driving distance [experimental life indexes for preset experimental driving condition are arranged with respect to a driving distance]").
Regarding claim 14, Kwak, et al. teaches: The system of claim 11, wherein the driving life index is a life index collected from the vehicle and vehicles of a same model as the vehicle (Paragraph [0093]: "For example, the server (620) may be connected to a plurality of other electric vehicles that are the same as or similar to the system (610) through the communication network (600) [index data consists of vehicle same model as target vehicle], and the server (620) extracts characteristic information from the raw data received from respective electric vehicles to group the electric vehicles [receiving driving life indexes].")
Regarding claim 15, Kwak, et al. teaches: An operation method of a battery state information provision system, the method comprising: receiving, by a generator, driving life indexes from a vehicle including a target battery pack and vehicles of a same model as the vehicle; (Paragraph [0093]: "…the server (620) may be connected to a plurality of other electric vehicles that are the same as or similar to the system (610) through the communication network (600) [index data consists of vehicle same model as target vehicle], and the server (620) extracts characteristic information from the raw data received from respective electric vehicles to group the electric vehicles [receiving driving life indexes]." ; Step (S20), Fig. 11, Paragraph [0084]: "The server may collect information indicating a usage pattern of the battery to predict the lifespan of the battery mounted in each of the systems (S20) [specific step - data collection].")
receiving, by the generator, experimental life indexes; (Step (S24), Fig. 11, Paragraph [0087]: "the SOH may be estimated based on the system usage without the electric current integration amount and the SOC (S24). The server may receive an estimate for the SOH from each of the systems via the network [receiving experimental life indexes].")
generating, by the generator, experimental profiles and a driving profile based on the experimental life indexes and the driving life indexes; (Step (S21), Fig. 11, Paragraph [0085]: "When the usage pattern is collected, the server may classify the battery-mounted system as one of a plurality of groups (S21). When the server is connected to a plurality of systems through a network, the plurality of systems may be divided into a plurality of groups. For example, when the systems are electric vehicles, the electric vehicles may be divided into a business group and a household group according to the driving distance, and may be divided into a commuting group and a leisure group according to the number of rapid acceleration/braking instances [generating driving profile based on index information]." ; Steps (S22) - (S23), Fig. 11, Paragraph [0087]: "The battery management system installed in the system together with the battery may determine whether it is possible to estimate the SOH from the battery (S22). For example, when the SOC of the battery may be accurately measured, the SOH of the battery may be estimated using the SOC measured from the battery and the electric current integration amount (S23) [generating experimental profile based on index information].")
determining, by a comparator, an evaluation profile among the experimental profiles
by comparing the experimental profiles with the driving profile; (Paragraph [0034]: "As an example, in an embodiment illustrated in FIG. 2B, a calculator (190) may output the sum of the first SOH estimate (SOH1) and the third SOH estimate (SOH3) as an initial SOH value of the battery (110) [specific procedure]. […] The lifespan prediction model may continuously perform learning by comparing the decreasing trend of SOH with the actual decreasing trend of SOH according to the accumulated use time of the electric vehicle (100) [comparing experimental profile and driving profile to determine final evaluation profile].")
determining, by an evaluator, state information of the target battery pack based on the evaluation profile and a target life index; (Step (S26), Fig. 11, Paragraph [0088]: "…Based on the usage scenario, data that may be input to the lifespan prediction model, for example, an SOC profile, is created, and the lifespan prediction model mounted in the server receives the estimated value of the SOH of the battery and the data extracted from the usage scenario, and may predict the end-of-life time (S26) [determining state information of target battery pack as a function of evaluation profile and target life index].")
providing, by the evaluator, the state information of the target battery pack to an external device; (Step (S27), Fig. 11, Paragraph [0089]: "The server may output battery information and end-of-life time to the user through the network (S27). For example, the server may output battery information indicating the state of the battery and the end-of-life time to a display of the system or a mobile device interlocked with the system through a network [providing state information of target battery pack to external device].")
and outputting, by the external device, the state information of the target battery pack, wherein the target life index is a driving life index of the vehicle (Step (S27), Fig. 11, Paragraph [0089]: "The server may output battery information and end-of-life time to the user through the network (S27). For example, the server may output battery information indicating the state of the battery and the end-of-life time to a display of the system or a mobile device interlocked with the system through a network [outputting by external device about target battery pack of vehicle].").
Regarding claim 16, Kwak, et al. teaches: The method of claim 15, wherein the experimental profiles are profiles in which the experimental life indexes of the target battery pack for a preset experimental driving condition are arranged with respect to a driving distance (Step (S21), Fig. 11, Paragraph [0085]: "When the usage pattern is collected, the server may classify the battery-mounted system as one of a plurality of groups (S21). When the server is connected to a plurality of systems through a network, the plurality of systems may be divided into a plurality of groups [experimental profiles]. For example, when the systems are electric vehicles, the electric vehicles may be divided into a business group and a household group according to the driving distance [target battery pack for preset experimental driving condition are arranged with respect to a driving distance]").
Regarding claim 17, Kwak, et al. teaches: The method of claim 15, wherein the driving profile is a profile in which the driving life indexes collected from the vehicle and vehicles of the same model as the vehicle are arranged with respect to a driving distance (Paragraph [0079]: "Alternatively, a new electric vehicle may be grouped using the raw data (501) that is field data collected from other existing electric vehicles [building driving profile]. For example, among existing electric vehicles, the new electric vehicles may be grouped by referring to load information such as driving distance and driving time obtained from other electric vehicles similar to the new electric vehicle [driving life indexes are vehicles of same model].").
Regarding claim 21, Kwak, et al. teaches: A battery state information provision system comprising: (Paragraph [0035]: "FIG. 3 is a block diagram schematically illustrating a battery management system according to an embodiment [battery state provision system].")
a battery state information providing apparatus configured to receive experimental life indexes and a driving life index of a target battery pack and determine state information of the target battery pack based on the experimental life indexes and the driving life index; (Paragraph [0041]: "…the lifespan prediction model may be stored in a separate server capable of communicating with the system (200). In this case, the battery management system (220) [battery state information providing apparatus] may transmit the usage environment and usage pattern of the system (200) together with the SOH of the battery (210) determined at the current time point to the server [configured to receive experimental life indexes and driving life index]. The server may create a usage scenario based on the usage environment and usage pattern of the system (200), input the data extracted from the usage scenario together with the SOH of the battery (210) into the lifespan prediction model, and predict the end of the life of the battery (210) [determination of state information on target battery pack through use of target life index and evaluation profile].")
and an external device configured to display the state information, (Paragraph [0020]: "output the state of charge, remaining life, and the like, to the owner or driver of the electric vehicle (100) through the display inside the electric vehicle (100) and/or a user terminal that interfaces with the electric vehicle (100) [external device which outputs state information of target battery pack].")
wherein the battery state information providing apparatus authenticates the state information, and the state information comprises performance information, safety information, or price information on the target battery pack (Paragraph [0091]: "As an example, the battery management system (612) is connected to the server (620) to communicate with each other through the communication network (600), and a user terminal (630) owned by the user of the system (610) is also connected to the communication network (600) [authenticates state information through use of battery state providing apparatus]." ; Paragraph [0092]: "The server (620) may execute a lifespan prediction model for predicting the lifespan of the battery (611) mounted in the system (610) [state information consists of performance information of target battery pack].")
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
For the purposes of the prior art rejections below:
The term “battery state information providing apparatus” has been interpreted to be a battery management system.
The term “external device” has been interpreted to be a user terminal.
Claims 4-8 and 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230384391) in view of Pochner (U.S. Patent No. 12434594).
Regarding claim 4, Kwak, et al. does not teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the comparator is further configured to determine a continuous reference profile for an entire driving distance based on the driving profile.
In a similar field of endeavor (vehicle storage energy management), Pochner teaches: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the comparator is further configured to determine a continuous reference profile for an entire driving distance based on the driving profile (Fig. 2B, Col. 14, lines 51-57: "FIG. 2b shows two energy-range curves (402) in an energy range graph (400) according to an exemplary embodiment [determination of continuous reference profile]. In the graph (400), the remaining range or distance is plotted on the abscissa (404) and ranges from -60 km to 0 km and from 0 km to 60 km [entire driving distance - example]." ; Col. 15, lines 23-24: "However, it is also ensured that a continuous and substantially offset-free course is formed [continuous profile]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kwak, et al. to include the teaching of Pochner based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the efficiency of energy management for an energy storage device by predicting the range of an electric vehicle (Pochner Col. 2, lines 52-53, Col. 4, lines 5-9).
Regarding claim 5, Kwak, et al., and Pochner remain as applied to claim 4, and in a further embodiment, teach: The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the comparator is further configured to determine, as a first evaluation profile, an experimental profile having a higher experimental life index than the continuous reference profile and having a smallest slope for the entire driving distance (Pochner Fig. 2B, Col. 15, lines 17-18: "The curves (402a), (402b) are in each case steadily continued from the maximum range curve (402b') [derived from Fig. 2B, higher experimental life index than continuous reference profile and having smallest slope over range], […] which, according to the maximum range curve (202b'), the range prediction curve (202b"), and the minimum range curve (202b"'), satisfy a prediction about the range [experimental profile].").
Regarding claim 6, Kwak, et al., and Pochner remain as applied to claim 4, and in a further embodiment, teach: The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the comparator is further configured to determine, as a second evaluation profile, an experimental profile having a lower experimental life index than the continuous reference profile and having a largest slope for the entire driving distance (Pochner Fig. 2B, Col. 15, lines 17-18: "The curves (402a), (402b) are in each case steadily continued […] and the minimum range curve (402b"') [derived from Fig. 2B, lower experimental life index than continuous reference profile and having largest slope over range], which, according to the maximum range curve (202b'), the range prediction curve (202b"), and the minimum range curve (202b"'), satisfy a prediction about the range [experimental profile].").
Regarding claim 7, Kwak, et al., and Pochner remain as applied to claim 4, and in a further embodiment, teach: The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the comparator is further configured to determine an experimental profile having a highest degree of agreement with the driving profile among the experimental profiles as the continuous reference profile (Pochner Fig. 2B, Col. 15, lines 17-18: "The curves (402a), (402b) are in each case steadily continued from […] the range prediction curve (402b"") [derived from Fig. 2B, experimental profile with highest degree of agreement from driving profile data], […] which, according to the maximum range curve (202b'), the range prediction curve (202b""), and the minimum range curve (202b""), satisfy a prediction about the range [experimental profile]." ; Pochner Col. 17, lines 28-30: "…the range estimation apparatus (108) may thus be adapted to determine a specific consumption [...] Likewise, a driving profile or driver profile may be taken into account-for example, sporty, aggressive, or defensive [integration of driving profile data].").
Regarding claim 8, Kwak, et al., and Pochner remain as applied to claim 4, and in a further embodiment, teach: The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the comparator is further configured to generate the continuous reference profile by linearly interpolating the driving profile (Pochner Fig. 2B, Col. 15, lines 17-18: "The curve (403) is a comparison curve which shows a linear course of an energy-range curve [compares and interpolates data to create specific curve; ref Fig. 2B]").
Regarding claim 18, Kwak, et al. does not teach the method of claim 15, wherein the determining the evaluation profile comprises: determining, by the comparator, a continuous reference profile for an entire driving distance based on the driving profile; determining, as a first evaluation profile, an experimental profile having a higher experimental life index than the continuous reference profile and having a smallest slope for the entire driving distance; and determining, as a second evaluation profile, an experimental profile having a lower experimental life index than the continuous reference profile and having a largest slope for the entire driving distance.
In a similar field of endeavor (vehicle storage energy management), Pochner teaches: The method of claim 15, wherein the determining the evaluation profile comprises: determining, by the comparator, a continuous reference profile for an entire driving distance based on the driving profile; (Col. 14, lines 51-57: "FIG. 2b shows two energy-range curves (402) in an energy range graph (400) according to an exemplary embodiment [determination of continuous reference profile]. In the graph (400), the remaining range or distance is plotted on the abscissa (404) and ranges from -60 km to 0 km and from 0 km to 60 km [entire driving distance - example]." ; Col. 15, lines 23-24: "However, it is also ensured that a continuous and substantially offset-free course is formed [continuous profile]")
determining, as a first evaluation profile, an experimental profile having a higher experimental life index than the continuous reference profile and having a smallest slope for the entire driving distance; (Fig. 2B, Col. 15, lines 17-18: "The curves (402a), (402b) are in each case steadily continued from the maximum range curve (402b') [derived from Fig. 2B, higher experimental life index than continuous reference profile and having smallest slope over range], […] which, according to the maximum range curve (202b'), the range prediction curve (202b"), and the minimum range curve (202b"'), satisfy a prediction about the range [experimental profile].")
and determining, as a second evaluation profile, an experimental profile having a lower experimental life index than the continuous reference profile and having a largest slope for the entire driving distance (Fig. 2B, Col. 15, lines 17-18: "The curves (402a), (402b) are in each case steadily continued […] and the minimum range curve (402b"') [derived from Fig. 2B, lower experimental life index than continuous reference profile and having largest slope over range], which, according to the maximum range curve (202b'), the range prediction curve (202b"), and the minimum range curve (202b"'), satisfy a prediction about the range [experimental profile].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kwak, et al. to include the teaching of Pochner based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the efficiency of energy management for an energy storage device by predicting the range of an electric vehicle (Pochner Col. 2, lines 52-53, Col. 4, lines 5-9).
Regarding claim 19, Kwak, et al., and Pochner remain as applied to claim 18, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of claim 18, wherein the determining the continuous reference profile comprises determining an experimental profile having a highest degree of agreement with the driving profile among the experimental profiles as the continuous reference profile (Pochner Fig. 2B, Col. 15, lines 17-18: "The curves (402a), (402b) are in each case steadily continued from […] the range prediction curve (402b"") [derived from Fig. 2B, experimental profile with highest degree of agreement from driving profile data], […] which, according to the maximum range curve (202b'), the range prediction curve (202b""), and the minimum range curve (202b""), satisfy a prediction about the range [experimental profile]." ; Pochner Col. 17, lines 28-30: "In one exemplary embodiment, the range estimation apparatus (108) may thus be adapted to determine a specific consumption [...] Likewise, a driving profile or driver profile may be taken into account-for example, sporty, aggressive, or defensive [integration of driving profile data].").
Regarding claim 20, Kwak, et al., and Pochner remain as applied to claim 18, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of claim 18, wherein the determining the continuous reference profile comprises generating the continuous reference profile by linearly interpolating the driving profile (Pochner Fig. 2B, Col. 15, lines 17-18: "The curve (403) is a comparison curve which shows a linear course of an energy-range curve [compares and interpolates data to create specific curve; ref Fig. 2B]").
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ishii (U.S. Patent No. 12558993) teaches the generation of a deterioration regression curve generation unit of a vehicle battery with respect to a plurality of states of health (SOHs) clarified in a time series for each vehicle battery, and in which a deterioration coefficient is generated using an average travel distance for the vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TORRENCE S MARUNDA II whose telephone number is (571)272-5172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANGELA Y ORTIZ can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/TORRENCE S MARUNDA II/ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
