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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, “x” or “(x)” are not defined, rendering the equations indefinite and thereby the scope of the claim indefinite.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, “L” is not defined, rendering the equations indefinite.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, it is unclear what
“
η
j
l
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
i
v
e
o
f
∂
y
∂
η
j
l
“
means or indicates. Furthermore, “y” and
”
η
j
l
”
are not defined rendering the equations indefinite.
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, “at a final layer L(
η
i
L
)” and “at a first layer M(
η
i
M
)” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the variables in the parentheses represent, e.g. two possible interpretations are that they could be replacements for the corresponding capital letter or they could be interpreted as the capital letter multiplied by the quantity in parentheses.
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, “an activation function” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if antecedence is claimed to the already recited activation function in the respective independent claim or if the input layer is recited as having a different activation function.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are indefinite by virtue of dependency on an indefinite claim.
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.
Claim 1
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 1 is drawn to a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 1 recites the following abstract ideas:
“recursively computing in a first direction, …, a partial derivative at each node of the plurality of network layers comprised in the FFN” – This is a recitation of a mathematical concept, which is an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
“identifying, …, a recursive relationship between outputs associated with to successive network layers from the plurality of layers, wherein the recursive relationship is identified using the equation:
y
j
l
+
1
x
=
S
(
∑
i
=
1
n
l
w
i
j
l
y
i
l
x
+
w
0
j
l
)
,
wherein
y
j
l
+
1
is an output of jth node at layer l+1 from the plurality of network layers of the FFN, S is a continuously differentiable activation function, nl is number of nodes associated with a layer l from the plurality of network layers of the FFN, i is an iteration number,
w
i
j
l
is a weight between the ith node of the layer l and jth node of the layer l+1,
y
i
l
is an output of the ith node of the layer l, and
w
0
j
l
is a bias for jth node from the layer l” – This is a recitation of a mathematical concept, which is an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) coupled with an evaluation, observation, judgement, and/or opinion, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
“applying a partial derivative function on the equation identifying the recursive relationships, with respect to a specific input xq, to obtain a set of partial derivatives, wherein the partial derivative function is applied on the equation identifying the recursive relationship, using the equation:
∂
y
j
l
+
1
∂
x
q
=
S
'
(
η
j
l
+
1
)
(
∑
i
=
1
n
l
w
i
j
l
∂
y
i
l
∂
x
q
)
,
wherein
η
j
l
+
1
=
∑
i
=
1
n
l
w
i
j
l
y
i
l
x
+
w
0
j
l
serves as an input to the jth node at the layer l+1, and S’ is a derivative of the continuously differentiable activation function” - This is a recitation of a mathematical concept, which is an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) coupled with an evaluation, observation, judgement, and/or opinion, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
“a processor” – This amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, i.e. merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including 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).
“obtaining, a feed forward network (FFN) via one or more hardware processors, wherein the FFN comprises a plurality of network layers, wherein each of the plurality of network layers comprises one or more nodes” – This amounts to mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g), and/or merely storing and retrieving information from memory, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
“via the one or more hardware processors” – This amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, i.e. merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including 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).
Each additional element therefore fails to incorporate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
“a processor” – This amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, i.e. merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including 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).
“obtaining, a feed forward network (FFN) via one or more hardware processors, wherein the FFN comprises a plurality of network layers, wherein each of the plurality of network layers comprises one or more nodes” – This amounts to mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g), and/or merely storing and retrieving information from memory, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
“via the one or more hardware processors” – This amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, i.e. merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including 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).
Each additional element therefore fails to provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Mutatis mutandis, claims 8 and 15 are ineligible for the same reasons as claim 1, where the additional elements of a system, memory, communications interfaces, hardware processors, and/or non-transitory computer readable media fail to integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application or provide significantly more on the same basis as the processor of claim 1.
Claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-19
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes. Claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-19 to the statutory category of their respective independent claim.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-19 recite the abstract idea(s) of their respective independent claims and further define the mathematical concepts with additional formulas and calculations.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-19 do not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-19 do not recite additional elements.
Claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-19 are therefore ineligible.
Claims 7, 14, and 20
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes. Claims 7, 14, and 20 are directed to the statutory category of their respective independent claim.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claims 7, 14, and 20 recite the abstract idea(s) of their respective independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claims 7, 14, and 20 recite that the FFN is used as at least one of a state equation and an observation equation in an Extended Kalman Filter (EKF). This type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claims 7, 14, and 20 recite that the FFN is used as at least one of a state equation and an observation equation in an Extended Kalman Filter (EKF). This type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are therefore ineligible.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bai (Bai, Guangxing, et al. "A generic model-free approach for lithium-ion battery health management." Applied Energy 135 (2014): 247-260.)
Regarding claim 1, Bai teaches a processor implemented method, comprising:
obtaining, a feed-forward network (FFN) via one or more hardware processors, wherein the FNN comprises a plurality of network layers, wherein each of the plurality of network layers comprises one or more nodes (see §3.2 and Equation 9, where G-NN() represents the measurement function approximated by a feed-forward network. See Figure 1, which shows a graphical representation of the FNN with a plurality of nodes for the input and hidden layers and a node for the output payer); and
recursively computing in a first direction, via the one or more hardware processors, a partial derivative at each node of the plurality of network layers comprised in the FFN (see §3.3, “Implementation of recursive routine derivative computation”, where the partial derivative of Vk is recursively calculated.) by:
identifying, via the one or more hardware processors, a recursive relationship between outputs associated with to successive network layers from the plurality of layers, wherein the recursive relationship is identified using the equation:
y
j
l
+
1
x
=
S
(
∑
i
=
1
n
l
w
i
j
l
y
i
l
x
+
w
0
j
l
)
,
wherein
y
j
l
+
1
is an output of jth node at layer l+1 from the plurality of network layers of the FFN, S is a continuously differentiable activation function, nl is number of nodes associated with a layer l from the plurality of network layers of the FFN, i is an iteration number,
w
i
j
l
is a weight between the ith node of the layer l and jth node of the layer l+1,
y
i
l
is an output of the ith node of the layer l, and
w
0
j
l
is a bias for jth node from the layer l (see Equation 11,
h
k
j
=
φ
(
∑
i
=
1
I
q
k
i
a
k
i
j
+
a
k
0
j
)
where
h
k
j
corresponds to
y
j
l
+
1
,
a
k
i
j
t
o
w
i
j
l
,
q
k
i
to
y
i
l
x
and
a
k
0
j
to
w
0
j
l
); and
applying a partial derivative function on the equation identifying the recursive relationships, with respect to a specific input xq, to obtain a set of partial derivatives, wherein the partial derivative function is applied on the equation identifying the recursive relationship (see Equation 16,
∂
V
k
∂
q
k
i
), using the equation:
∂
y
j
l
+
1
∂
x
q
=
S
'
(
η
j
l
+
1
)
(
∑
i
=
1
n
l
w
i
j
l
∂
y
i
l
∂
x
q
)
,
wherein
η
j
l
+
1
=
∑
i
=
1
n
l
w
i
j
l
y
i
l
x
+
w
0
j
l
serves as an input to the jth node at the layer l+1, and S’ is a derivative of the continuously differentiable activation function (see Equations 10-13 and 16.
S
'
(
η
j
l
+
1
)
is represented by zk(1-zk), which is the derivative of the continuously differentiable activation function, see Equations 10 (the activation function) and 12, which provides the equation for zk which corresponds to
η
j
l
+
1
. Further,
∑
i
=
1
n
l
w
i
j
l
∂
y
i
l
∂
x
q
is represented by
∑
j
=
1
J
b
k
j
∂
h
k
j
∂
q
k
i
, see Equation 16. Finally,
∂
V
k
∂
q
k
i
of Equation 16 corresponds to
∂
y
j
l
+
1
∂
x
q
. As seen in Equation 16, the corresponding components are multiplied in the same manner as claimed, resulting in the same equation albeit with different denotations for variables).
Regarding claim 7, Bai teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, wherein the feed- forward network (FFN) is used as at least one of a state equation and an observation equation in an Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) (see §3.2 and Equation 9, where G-NN() represents the measurement function approximated by a feed-forward network).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bai (Bai, Guangxing, et al. "A generic model-free approach for lithium-ion battery health management." Applied Energy 135 (2014): 247-260.)
Regarding claim 8, Bai according to claim 1 teaches the steps of claim 8 and further teaches a system including a memory storing instructions, including one or more communication interfaces, one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory via the one or more communication interfaces configured to carry out the instructions (see §4, where experiments are carried out utilizing a computer to compile and display results, thereby requiring memory to hold instructions, a processor to carry out the instructions, and thereby a communications interface between the memory and processor), thereby anticipating claim 8.
Regarding claim 14, Bai teaches all of the limitations of claim 8, wherein the feed- forward network (FFN) is used as at least one of a state equation and an observation equation in an Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) (see §3.2 and Equation 9, where G-NN() represents the measurement function approximated by a feed-forward network).
Regarding claim 15, Bai according to claim 1 teaches the steps of claim 15 and further teaches one or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums comprising one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors cause the steps of claim 1 to be executed (see §4, where experiments are carried out utilizing a computer to compile and display results, thereby one or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums comprising one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors cause the steps of claim 1 to be executed), thereby anticipating claim 15.
To the extent that Applicant argues that Bai fails to disclose a system including a memory storing instructions, including one or more communication interfaces, one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory via the one or more communication interfaces configured to carry out the instructions and/or one or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums comprising one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors cause the steps of claim 1 to be executed, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the art to, when executing an algorithm, to utilize a memory storing instructions, including one or more communication interfaces, one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory via the one or more communication interfaces configured to carry out the instructions and/or one or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums comprising one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors cause the steps of the algorithm to be carried out in order to efficiently run the necessary calculations. In short, it is old and well known to utilize a computer to run an algorithm in order to process myriad calculations quickly and efficiently.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a system including a memory storing instructions, including one or more communication interfaces, one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory via the one or more communication interfaces configured to carry out the instructions and/or one or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums comprising one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors cause the steps of claim 1 to be executed in order to allow the methodology of Bai to be carried out quickly and efficiently.
Regarding claim 14, Bai as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 8, wherein the feed- forward network (FFN) is used as at least one of a state equation and an observation equation in an Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) (see §3.2 and Equation 9, where G-NN() represents the measurement function approximated by a feed-forward network).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, each recites the computation of a particular partial derivative in a second direction, i.e. in a direction which is different than the first direction because “first direction” and “second direction” cannot refer to the same direction.
Psiaki (Psiaki, Mark L. "Backward-smoothing extended Kalman filter." Journal of guidance, control, and dynamics 28.5 (2005): 885-894.) represents the closest prior art to what is performed via claims 2, 9, and 16 – a backward smoothing process. However, it is not clear that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would arrive at the particular application of the backward smoothing process because the process as claimed is not immediately apparent from the prior art and the generic application of a backward smoothing process would not necessarily result in the claimed invention.
Each of claims 3-6, 10-13, and 17-20 depends from one of claims 2, 9, and 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCHYLER S SANKS whose telephone number is (571)272-6125. The examiner can normally be reached 06:30 - 15:30 Central Time, M-F.
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, Michael Huntley can be reached at (303) 297-4307. 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.
/SCHYLER S SANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2129