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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on 05/19/2026. Claims 1-20 were previously pending, of which no claims have been amended, cancelled, or newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Appellant's remarks, see pages 9-26, filed 05/19/2026; Appellant’s arguments in the “Appeal Brief” have been fully considered. The arguments against the previously applied prior art were found persuasive. Specifically, the previously applied Cella reference did contain many of the indicated elements of the claims but did not appear to provide the supporting organization of those elements that would be reasonably combined to teach the final limitation of the independent claim in its entirety. Proper motivation could not be determined for combining the two references without improper hindsight. Therefore, prosecution has been reopened including new search and consideration. The renewed search of the claims in light of the specification did not find new art that reasonably can be combined to teach to the claim language in its entirety. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 2B (1) includes a spelling error in block 205 it should be “Power Function and Temperature Function Determination” with capitalized letters for each case of function to remain consistent with the other blocks of the figure. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims refer to a type of the at least one vehicle, the specification does not appear to explicitly differentiate what qualifies as a type of vehicle. It refers to vehicles having similar types of powertrains and vehicle having similar components. But that does not appear to suggest different types of vehicles. It is unclear whether they are talking about tractors vs. sedans, or electric vs. hybrid, or based on a make or model of the vehicle. Without clear recitation of what how the types are delineated the claim is rendered indefinite. The interpretation in prior office action appears to rely on the types of components within the vehicle rather than the type of vehicle itself; this interpretation will be maintained until clarification is given.
Claims 2, 4, 6-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent on rejected claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified system Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the limitations of (additional elements emphasized in bold and are considered to be parsed from the remaining abstract idea):
A computer system comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to cause the computer system to obtain sensor data, the sensor data corresponding to measurements of at least one component of an electric powertrain system of at least one vehicle,
and generate a first digital twin based on the obtained sensor data, the first digital twin associated with a type of the at least one vehicle,
wherein the first digital twin comprises a degradation model, the degradation model including a reduced order physical model based on a power function, a loading function, and a stress function, the power function indicating power handled by a power conversion system of the electric powertrain system.
which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a mathematical concept and/or a mental process (concept performed in the human mind) but for the recitation of generic computer elements. For example, the data from a component could be compiled into a table or spreadsheet and then the data could be used to create a degradation estimate based on power, loading, and stress formulas. This model could be updated periodically and the result or spreadsheet sent out to those who determine maintenance requirements.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong II, this judicial exception is not practically integrated. The claim recites the additional elements of a memory and one or more processors. These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2B, the aforementioned additional elements are all generic computer elements have been held to be not significantly more than the abstract idea by Alice. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of using the processors to receive information, make decisions, and supply instructions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 11 and 18 cite the similar limitations to that in claim 1, with the exception of adding more generic computer components, and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 further define characteristics of the system. However, these characteristics do not add limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 2-4 recite limitation step of “sending the digital twin;” which is not more than the judicial exception, because as detailed in Electric Power Group, additional elements that are used to simply output results do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, these claims are also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are currently rejected under 112(b) and 101, but would be allowable if the rejections were overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, teach the entirety of the claims including the specific limitations describing a degradation model being determined based on a power function that indicates the power handled by a conversion system in addition to the loading function and stress function, as stated in the independent claims.
The following references are the most relevant prior art and are representative of the current state of the art:
Govindappa et al. (US 2018/0257683 A1) discloses a digital twin system for monitoring the subsystem of a vehicle which can be updated and used for predicting remaining life of the subsystem by using degradation data. However, it does not explicitly recite how the degradation data is determined. There is no clear recitation of a model determined using power input and output from a conversion system.
Singh et al. (US 2017/0102437 A1) discloses a system for monitoring a power electronic inverter by developing a degradation model. The model is determined by established stress patterns indicated by temperature changes due to voltage rate of rise, peaks, and pulse trains. Although the application considers the current and voltage entering and exiting the inverter to control the pulse width modulation, it does not explicitly use those values to determine the degradation model. Singh further does not disclose the generation of a digital twin.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY MARIE OSTERHOUT whose telephone number is (703)756-1595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:30 AM - 5:30 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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571) 272-7691. 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.
/S.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights