Patent Analysis of the Electric Vehicle Battery Management Systems Based on the AHP and Entropy Weight Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents an insightful analysis of patent trends in EV BMS. The research is well-structured, methodologically sound, and contributes to the literature by integrating AHP and EWM for patent evaluation. The study’s findings are relevant for both academia and industry.

However, there are two main parts that require improvement:

1. In Section 2. Research Methods, the authors introduce four types of patent analysis methods: single patent indicator, multiple indicator combination recognition, patent indicator system construction, and complex network-based recognition. However, the study claims to incorporate all four methods, yet only single patent indicator and patent indicator system construction are explicitly discussed in the subsequent sections. This discrepancy should be clarified—either by explaining how all four methods are applied or by revising the claim to reflect only the methods actually used.

Additionally, the authors should provide a justification for methodological choices, discussing their advantages and limitations compared to the omitted approaches. A comparison table summarizing the key characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses of all four methods would enhance clarity and help readers better understand the methodological choices.

2. In Section 5. Conclusion and Insights, the authors used assertive languages like "must", "should", and "need to" without supporting reference. In academic writing, strong claims require evidence or citations to validat them. Reference to market reports or scientific stuides should be added to justify these claims.

Besides, there are some minor suggestions: 

1. Define acronyms such as BMS (Battery Management System), IPC (International Patent Classification), and AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) once and use them consistently throughout the paper.
2. Check the reference citation in line 70—the authors of references 22 and 23 should be Liu and Etengoff, not Xin, Hu, and Wang.
3. In line 145, remove the extra "1" after the word "Table" to correct the formatting.
4. In Table 4, capitalize all words in the header row for consistency.
5. In Figure 6, translate the names of current assignees into English for better consistency and improved readability for international audiences.

Author Response

Comments1:

1. In Section 2. Research Methods, the authors introduce four types of patent analysis methods: single patent indicator, multiple indicator combination recognition, patent indicator system construction, and complex network-based recognition. However, the study claims to incorporate all four methods, yet only single patent indicator and patent indicator system construction are explicitly discussed in the subsequent sections. This discrepancy should be clarified—either by explaining how all four methods are applied or by revising the claim to reflect only the methods actually used.

Additionally, the authors should provide a justification for methodological choices, discussing their advantages and limitations compared to the omitted approaches. A comparison table summarizing the key characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses of all four methods would enhance clarity and help readers better understand the methodological choices.

2. In Section 5. Conclusion and Insights, the authors used assertive languages like "must", "should", and "need to" without supporting reference. In academic writing, strong claims require evidence or citations to validat them. Reference to market reports or scientific stuides should be added to justify these claims.

Besides, there are some minor suggestions: 

1. Define acronyms such as BMS (Battery Management System), IPC (International Patent Classification), and AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) once and use them consistently throughout the paper.
2. Check the reference citation in line 70—the authors of references 22 and 23 should be Liu and Etengoff, not Xin, Hu, and Wang.
3. In line 145, remove the extra "1" after the word "Table" to correct the formatting.
4. In Table 4, capitalize all words in the header row for consistency.
5. In Figure 6, translate the names of current assignees into English for better consistency and improved readability for international audiences.

 

Response1:

1. Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions on my paper. I believe the feedback is highly effective and crucial. I have revised the description of the research methods in Section 2, explaining the characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages of the four patent analysis methods. I also clarified the method chosen for this study and the reasons for its selection.
2. I have restructured the conclusion, moderated overly assertive statements, and provided evidence and citations for some of the arguments.
3. I have completed the revisions on the details, and I appreciate your help :)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Present study “Patent Analysis of Electric Vehicle Battery Management System: Based on AHPandEntropy Weight Method” align with the scope of journal however the novelty of the study is not significant. It is advised to carefully review following comments:

 

1. The significance of the study should be relatable with the conclusion for future research/remarks on what needs to be done. It is advisable to review most recent patents and rewrite introduction section with more concise focused. Present structure looks summarization without drawing key current research such as Active Balancer, prognosis algorithms…

 

2. All mentioned research methods in 2.0 needs a correlation with the study with the big picture of study. Ex. 2.3 Discusses method, and mathematical expression but lacks a rational on what is the source of data, how it is imported, to draw conclusions.

 

3. Why citation is a good matrix to create statistical conclusions? Citation grows by age, however if there is a new novel research which does not have citation probably would be ignored with this method shown in 3.1 and 3.2.

 

4. Future scope needs to be define.

    5. Check for grammatical corrections, example line 145 "(Table 1 1)" written two times.  

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Can be improved 

Author Response

Comments2:

1. The significance of the study should be relatable with the conclusion for future research/remarks on what needs to be done. It is advisable to review most recent patents and rewrite introduction section with more concise focused. Present structure looks summarization without drawing key current research such as Active Balancer, prognosis algorithms…
2. All mentioned research methods in 2.0 needs a correlation with the study with the big picture of study. Ex. 2.3 Discusses method, and mathematical expression but lacks a rational on what is the source of data, how it is imported, to draw conclusions.
3. Why citation is a good matrix to create statistical conclusions? Citation grows by age, however if there is a new novel research which does not have citation probably would be ignored with this method shown in 3.1 and 3.2.
4. Future scope needs to be define.
5. Check for grammatical corrections, example line 145 "(Table 1 1)" written two times.  

 

Response2:

1. Thank you for your comments on my manuscript, they were very helpful. I have revised the introduction section to make the significance of this study clearer. In addition, I have restructured the focus of the current research and highlighted the differences between this study and existing studies, emphasizing the importance of my research.
2. Since I discussed the methods and formula derivation in section 2.0, I have added references in section 2.0 to support the research methodology. I placed the data sources, practical operations, and retrieval process in section 3.0. In the first paragraph of section 3.0, I explained how the data was retrieved from patent databases and presented my search expressions. Additionally, I did not previously cite the most recent literature in the methodological discussion, as I considered the original initiators of the method. Therefore, I chose to reference earlier literature. I have now made this modification by adding new citations.
3. I noticed this oversight and have corrected it.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• The research gap should be clarified by explaining why previous qualitative studies are insufficient and how this method offers an improvement.

• The criteria for defining core patents (e.g., 0.7 value degree threshold) require clearer justification.
• Regional gaps in Europe and India could be better analyzed to explain why patent activity is limited in these areas.
• More specific recommendations for industry stakeholders, particularly regarding R&D investment areas, would strengthen the conclusion.

• The application of the Entropy Weight Method would benefit from clearer examples to aid reader understanding.

• Battery safety has been extensively investigated using advanced digital solutions such as machine learning, which should be discussed to highlight recent advancements and contextualize the study’s findings (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2020.11.018; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2023.101142).

Author Response

Comments 3:

The research gap should be clarified by explaining why previous qualitative studies are insufficient and how this method offers an improvement.

The criteria for defining core patents (e.g., 0.7 value degree threshold) require clearer justification.

Regional gaps in Europe and India could be better analyzed to explain why patent activity is limited in these areas.

More specific recommendations for industry stakeholders, particularly regarding R&D investment areas, would strengthen the conclusion.

The application of the Entropy Weight Method would benefit from clearer examples to aid reader understanding.

Battery safety has been extensively investigated using advanced digital solutions such as machine learning, which should be discussed to highlight recent advancements and contextualize the study’s findings (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2020.11.018; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2023.101142).

 

Response 3:

1. Thank you for your help. I have added an explanation in lines 85-86 to answer why qualitative research is insufficient.

2. I have added an explanation in lines 269-271 of the text: this method is based on the Delphi method and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method. Additionally, in section 2.0, I have added references to explain the applicability of the research methodology.

3. I have provided an explanation in line 412 and discussed possible reasons. Since this conclusion cannot be drawn from my current experiments, I have cited literature to support my argument.

4. In conclusion 5.2, I have revised the content and added suggestions.

5. I have added relevant literature on the application of the entropy weight method. Thank you for your reminder.

6. In lines 77-87, I explained the current research on BMS. This paper mainly focuses on the technological development trends and patent layout of electric vehicle BMS. It does not address battery development and safety measures, so I have not cited relevant literature.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

the paper "Patent Analysis of Electric Vehicle Battery Management System: Based on AHP and Entropy Weight Method" has presented an analysis among 535 patents related to BMS, determining the aspects of BMS that were patented, and indicated room for innovation from now on. Some small issues need to be corrected, such as:

1) Line 24 - technologies and fuel alternatives.[1] - replace the final point to after the reference number, i.e. "technologies and fuel alternatives [1]. ". Make this adjustment all over the text. 

2) line 109 - trend analysis.[34? ] - correct this question mark. 

3) Figure 1 - "Construct Hierarchy Structure" appears twice. Is it correct?

4) Figure 6 - Is it possible to translate chinese sentences in the x-axis? 

5) line 364 - Patent application trends show that BMS technology peaked in 2020 but has gradually - Patent application trend shows that BMS technology peaked in 2020 but has gradually

 

Author Response

Comments 4:

1) Line 24 - technologies and fuel alternatives.[1] - replace the final point to after the reference number, i.e. "technologies and fuel alternatives [1]. ". Make this adjustment all over the text. 

2) line 109 - trend analysis.[34? ] - correct this question mark. 

3) Figure 1 - "Construct Hierarchy Structure" appears twice. Is it correct?

4) Figure 6 - Is it possible to translate chinese sentences in the x-axis? 

5) line 364 - Patent application trends show that BMS technology peaked in 2020 but has gradually - Patent application trend shows that BMS technology peaked in 2020 but has gradually

 

Response 4:

 

1.I have made changes to this part, thank you for your reminder and help.

2.I have made changes to this part.

3.Yes, I have also explained the process based on Figure 1 in the following paragraph.

4.I have revised the image.

5.Based on your suggestions, I have made modifications here, thank you so much!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Revised manuscript can be accepted