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 .
Examiner's Note
2. Examiner has taken note that claims 2-4 and 16-17 have been canceled by the Applicant, and has removed these claims below.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement filed September 4, 2025 has been fully considered after reviewing the foreign patents and non-patent literature submitted with parent application 18/535541.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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, 5-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In view of the new 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019), the Examiner has considered the claims and has determined that under step 1, claims 1 and 5-14 are to a machine, claims 15 and 18-19 are to a process, and claim 20 is to an article of manufacture. Next under the new step 2A prong 1 analysis, the claims are considered to determine if they recite an abstract idea (judicial exception) under the following groupings: (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, or (c) mental processes. The independent claims contain at least the following bolded limitations (see representative independent claims) that fall into the grouping of mathematical concepts and/or mental processes:
1. An apparatus for diagnosing a battery, comprising:
one or more processors configured to:
obtain voltages of a plurality of batteries,
calculate a first voltage deviation of the battery, from among the plurality of batteries, based on a voltage of the battery obtained at a first time point and a first average voltage calculated based on the voltages obtained at the first time point,
calculate a second voltage deviation of the battery based on a voltage of the battery obtained at a second time point and a second average voltage calculated based on the voltages obtained at the second time point,
calculate a voltage deviation variation of the battery based on the first and second voltage deviations,
diagnose a state of the battery based on the calculated voltage deviation variation by comparing a pattern of voltage deviation variations of the battery, including the calculated voltage deviation variation, with a preset diagnosis pattern, wherein the preset diagnosis pattern corresponds to at least one of:
a first diagnosis pattern corresponding to the sum of the voltage deviation variations within the pattern of the voltage deviation variations;
a second diagnosis pattern corresponding to the magnitude of each of the voltage deviation variations;
a third diagnosis pattern corresponding to a maximum magnitude of the voltage deviation variations; or
a fourth diagnosis pattern corresponding to an increase pattern of the voltage deviation variations; and generate and transmit one or more signals indicating the state of the battery to an external device.
15. A method for diagnosing a battery, comprising:
obtaining voltages of a plurality of batteries;
calculating a first voltage deviation of the battery, from among the plurality of batteries, based on a voltage of the battery obtained at a first time point and a first average voltage calculated based on the voltages obtained at the first time point;
calculating a second voltage deviation of the battery based on a voltage of the battery obtained at a second time point and a second average voltage calculated based on the voltages obtained at the second time point;
calculating a voltage deviation variation of the battery based on the first and second voltage deviations;
diagnosing a state of the battery based on the calculated voltage deviation variation by comparing a pattern of voltage deviation variations of the battery, including the calculated voltage deviation variation, with a preset diagnosis pattern, wherein the preset diagnosis pattern corresponds to at least one of:
a first diagnosis pattern corresponding to the sum of the voltage deviation variations within the pattern of the voltage deviation variations;
a second diagnosis pattern corresponding to the magnitude of each of the voltage deviation variations;
a third diagnosis pattern corresponding to a maximum magnitude of the voltage deviation variations; or
a fourth diagnosis pattern corresponding to an increase pattern of the voltage deviation variations; and generating and transmitting one or more signals to an external device wherein the one or more signals indicate the state of the battery.
20. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform:
obtaining voltages of a plurality of batteries;
calculating a first voltage deviation of the battery, from among the plurality of batteries, based on a voltage of the battery obtained at a first time point and a first average voltage calculated based on the voltages obtained at the first time point;
calculating a second voltage deviation of the battery based on a voltage of the battery obtained at a second time point and a second average voltage calculated based on the voltages obtained at the second time point;
calculating a voltage deviation variation of the battery based on the first and second voltage deviations; and diagnosing a state of the battery based on the calculated voltage deviation variation by comparing a pattern of voltage deviation variations of the battery, including the calculated voltage deviation variation, with a preset diagnosis pattern, wherein the preset diagnosis pattern corresponds to at least one of:
a first diagnosis pattern corresponding to the sum of the voltage deviation variations within the pattern of the voltage deviation variations;
a second diagnosis pattern corresponding to the magnitude of each of the voltage deviation variations;
a third diagnosis pattern corresponding to a maximum magnitude of the voltage deviation variations; or
a fourth diagnosis pattern corresponding to an increase pattern of the voltage deviation variations; and generating and transmitting one or more signals to an external device wherein the one or more signals indicate the state of the battery.
It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula."(see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I.). Thus the limitations for "calculating a first voltage deviation of the battery…", "calculating a second voltage deviation of the battery…", and "calculating a voltage deviation variation of the battery…" are all considered as words serving the same purpose as a formula. The calculations of each of the variables describe mathematical operations including calculating an average and/or deviation difference in order to solve for a numerical result. The limitations of "diagnosing a state of the battery based on the calculated voltage deviation variation by comparing a pattern of voltage deviation variations of the battery, including the calculated voltage deviation variation, with a preset diagnosis pattern, wherein the preset diagnosis pattern corresponds to at least one of: a first diagnosis pattern corresponding to the sum of the voltage deviation variations within the pattern of the voltage deviation variations; a second diagnosis pattern corresponding to the magnitude of each of the voltage deviation variations; a third diagnosis pattern corresponding to a maximum magnitude of the voltage deviation variations; or a fourth diagnosis pattern corresponding to an increase pattern of the voltage deviation variations", amounts to a mental step to compare between two sets of data (with descriptions of the data) to determine a state result of the battery.
Next in step 2A prong 2, the independent claims are analyzed to determine whether there are additional elements or combination of elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, in order to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These limitations have been identified and underlined above, and are not indicative of integration into a practical application because: (1) the "one or more processors" or "a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computing instructions, that when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform" are limitations that amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); (2) the "obtaining voltages of a plurality of batteries" amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); and (3) the "generating and transmitting one or more signals to an external device wherein the one or more signals indicate the state of the battery" amount to insignificant post-solution activity to output a calculation result (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Next in step 2B, the independent claims are considered to determine if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. The recitations for the "one or more processors" or "a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions…" do not add something significantly more because they amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The recitation of obtaining voltages of a plurality of batteries does not add something significantly more because such a limitation amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and does not describe any gathering of data in an unconventional way or unconventional measuring arrangement. The "generating and transmitting one or more signals to an external device wherein the one or more signals indicate the state of the battery" does not add something significantly more because such a limitation amounts to insignificant post-solution activity to output a calculation result (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The MPEP states that when “Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output)”, the limitations can be mere data gathering or data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra- Solution Activity, in particular item (3)).
Dependent claims 5-11 and 19 contain additional limitations that fall under the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts or a mental process, as they describe further definitions of the variables used, further mathematical calculations, and/or further mental process data comparisons. Dependent claims 12-14 and 18 describe the general environment of the battery in a vehicle system or battery pack, but such limitations amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not indicative of integration into a practical application nor something significantly more than the recited judicial exception (see MPEP 2016.05(h)).
5. An invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. Applications of such concepts "to a new and useful end" remain eligible for patent protection (see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67)). However, "a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea" (see Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics Corp. _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q. 2d1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). There needs to be additional elements or combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception or render the claim as a whole to be significantly more than the exception itself in order to demonstrate “integration into a practical application” or an “inventive concept.” For instance, particular physical arrangements for actively obtaining the sensor data, or further physical applications using the calculated "informational" diagnosis of the battery to drive a transformation, change in operation, or repair/maintenance of a technology or technical process (beyond just a post-solution informational-based output) could could provide integration into a practical application to demonstrate an improvement to the technology or technical field.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. Previous rejections are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment filed February 3, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. Previous rejections are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment filed February 3, 2026 incorporating the previously indicated allowable subject matter of claim 4 into the independent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 1, 5-15, and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
9. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Itakura et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0296911) fails to anticipate or render obvious an apparatus for diagnosing a battery, comprising: wherein the preset diagnosis pattern corresponds to at least one of: a first diagnosis pattern corresponding to the sum of the voltage deviation variations within the pattern of the voltage deviation variations; a second diagnosis pattern corresponding to the magnitude of each of the voltage deviation variations; a third diagnosis pattern corresponding to a maximum magnitude of the voltage deviation variations; or a fourth diagnosis pattern corresponding to an increase pattern of the voltage deviation variations, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Claim 15 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Itakura et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0296911) fails to anticipate or render obvious a method for diagnosing a battery, comprising: wherein the preset diagnosis pattern corresponds to at least one of: a first diagnosis pattern corresponding to a sum of the voltage deviation variations within a pattern of the voltage deviation variations; a second diagnosis pattern corresponding to a magnitude of each of the voltage deviation variations; a third diagnosis pattern corresponding to a maximum magnitude of the voltage deviation variations; or a fourth diagnosis pattern corresponding to an increase pattern of the voltage deviation variations, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Claim 20 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Itakura et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0296911) fails to anticipate or render obvious a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform: wherein the preset diagnosis pattern corresponds to at least one of: a first diagnosis pattern corresponding to a sum of the voltage deviation variations within a pattern of the voltage deviation variations; a second diagnosis pattern corresponding to a magnitude of each of the voltage deviation variations; a third diagnosis pattern corresponding to a maximum magnitude of the voltage deviation variations; or a fourth diagnosis pattern corresponding to an increase pattern of the voltage deviation variations, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
10. Dependent claims 5-14 depend from claim 1 and contain allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as given for claim 1. Dependent claims 18-19 depends from claim 15 and contain allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as given for claim 15.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant's arguments filed February 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
12. Applicant argues in regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections that the claims are no eligible at least under Step 2A Prong Two according to the August 4, 2025 Memorandum titled "Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101" by finding that a claim reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field. Applicant argues that like the claims at issue in McRO, the claim at issue in the present application improve the detection of a batteries state. Applicant argues that the amended claim recites more than mere mental processes or mathematical concepts, as the claims recite "diagnosing a state of the battery based on the calculated voltage deviation variation by comparing a pattern of voltage deviation variations of the battery, including the calculated voltage deviation variation with a preset diagnosis pattern," and "generating and transmitting one or more signals to an external device wherein the one or more signals indicate the state of the battery." Applicant argues that such features provide technological improvements to battery management systems, thereby integrating the purported abstract idea into a practical application of the technology. Applicant argues that by efficiently diagnosing the state of the battery and providing a signal indicating the state of the battery, action can be quickly taken to avoid the issues described previously with regard to paragraph [0006] and [0007]. Applicant makes similar arguments for the other independent claims and claims depending therefrom (see Applicant's Arguments/Remarks 02/02/3036, pgs. 8-9).
13. In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As to McRO, the invention, as a whole, produced an animation of speech. While rules contributed to the process, they were only a portion of a larger technical process that resulted in the production of animated frames with accurately synchronized lips. This is similar to the technological process in Diehr, where the Arrhenius formula contributed to the process of producing rubber. The transformations in these processes produced tangible results (e.g, a tire and an animation) that were not just the answer to a mathematical question or the product of a mathematical algorithm. In other words, the abstract idea was not the object of the claim, nor was mathematical result the object of the claim. In contrast, the present invention claims a mathematical algorithm utilized to produce a mathematical/analysis result—the calculation of a state of the battery based on a comparison of data patterns. "The basis for the McRO court's decision was that the claims were directed to an improvement in computer-related technology (allowing computers to produce "accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters" that previously could only be produced by human animators), and thus did not recite a concept similar to previously identified abstract ideas" (see November 2, 2016 "Memo", https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/McRo-Bascom-Memo.pdf). In contrast, the present claims do not result in an improvement in computer-related technology, but rather use the computer-related technology as a tool to carry out data calculations and comparisons without improving the functioning of the computer itself. Looking at the claim as a whole, the Examiner cannot find an improvement to the computer-related technology by allowing computer performance of a function previously not performable by a computer. Furthermore, a human can compare between data sets of patterns to diagnose a state of a battery and write down an indication indicating the determined state of the battery. The computer is merely used as a tool to carry out steps that could equivalently be performed by a human, and no new function (previously unperformable by the computer) is newly embodied into the computer. The features described for efficiently diagnosing the state of the battery amount to an improvement in the algorithm comprising abstract idea mathematical calculations and comparisons, but "a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea" (see Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics Corp. _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q. 2d1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The example in McRO provided a particular way of using rules to set morph weights and transitions through phonemes, to do more than just report a solution or outcome of calculated values, but to actually produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters. The present invention on the other hand merely presents the result of a battery state and generating a transmission of one or more signals indicating the state of the battery to an external device, which is nothing more than reporting a solution or outcome. The analysis of the Electric Power Group Court is particularly applicable to the claims in the present case: "Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. In a similar vein, we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category," (see Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
The Examiner further notes that generating and transmitting one or more signals indicating the state of the battery to an external device amount to insignificant post solution outputting activity, which does not provide an integration into a practical application or an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The Examiner suggests that instead of merely outputting a result (which is insignificant post solution activity), to instead insert a physical limitation regarding disconnecting or replacing the battery as a result of a state determination (see paragraph [0013] in the published specification), where such a limitation would amount to an integration into a practical application (beyond a further abstract information-based step) as an improvement to the technology to prevent permanent damage to the battery.
Conclusion
14. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1598. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9:30 am to 6 pm.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached on (571)272-2619. 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.
PAUL D. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/PAUL D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 2/19/2026