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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-7,9-14,17, 19 and 22-24 are amended.
Claims 8, 15 and 20 are canceled.
Claim 18 and 21 are as previously presented.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/28/2025 has been entered.
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 1-7, 9-14, 17-19, 21-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) 1 and similarly 10 recite(s) “execute a battery cell heat generation model that determines a first output based on a first input indicative of a battery voltage measurement, a second input indicative of a voltage corresponding to a battery open-circuit voltage (OCV) model, and a third input indicative of a battery current measurement; execute a gas gauge and system heat generation model that determines a second output based on the third input; and execute a battery and gas gauge heat transfer model that determines a third output based on a fourth input indicative of a third output from a gas gauge temperature measurement; determine an estimated temperature of the battery cell based on the first output, the second output, and the third output;” which is directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “a battery, comprising: a battery cell; and processing circuitry configured to” and in claim 10 “one or more tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, are configured to” are considered to be generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The elements of “perform a control action to change an operational aspect of the battery cell based on the estimated temperature of the battery cell” are considered to be data outputting steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity based on applicant’s specification Par. 65 “sending an alert to the electric (e.g., electronic) device or some other device”.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “a battery, comprising: a battery cell; and processing circuitry configured to” and in claim 10 “one or more tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, are configured to” are considered to be well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). The elements of “perform a control action to change an operational aspect of the battery cell based on the estimated temperature of the battery cell” are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) (“A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula”. 437 U.S. at 590; 198 USPQ at 197; Id. (holding that step of adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was “post-solution activity”)”) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii).
Claim 17 recites “A method of determining an estimated temperature of a battery cell of a battery, the method comprising: determining a battery voltage measurement; determining a battery current measurement; determining a gas gauge temperature measurement; determining a voltage corresponding to a battery open-circuit voltage (OCV) model; and determining, via processing circuitry, the estimated temperature of the battery cell based on a plurality of models, the battery voltage measurement, the battery current measurement, the gas gauge temperature measurement, and the voltage corresponding to the battery OCV model” which is directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “processing circuitry” is considered to be generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The elements of “perform a control action to change an operational aspect of the battery cell based on the estimated temperature of the battery cell” are considered to be data outputting steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity based on applicant’s specification Par. 65 “sending an alert to the electric (e.g., electronic) device or some other device”.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “processing circuitry” is considered to be well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). The elements of “perform a control action to change an operational aspect of the battery cell based on the estimated temperature of the battery cell” are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) (“A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula”. 437 U.S. at 590; 198 USPQ at 197; Id. (holding that step of adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was “post-solution activity”)”) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii).
Claims 2-6, 11-14, 18-19, 21-22 and 24 further describe the abstract ideas above.
In claim 7, “comprising a gas gauge sensor communicatively coupled with the processing circuitry, wherein the gas gauge sensor is configured to detect a parameter indicative of the gas gauge temperature measurement” is not integrated into a practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and considered to be well-understood, routine, conventional activities as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(see US 20140062415 A1, US 20150234014 A1, US 11121415 B2).
In claim 9, “comprising at least one sensor communicatively coupled with the processing circuitry, wherein the at least one sensor is configured to detect the battery voltage measurement, or the battery current measurement, or both” is not integrated into a practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and considered to be well-understood, routine, conventional activities as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(see US 20140062415 A1, US 20150234014 A1, US 11121415 B2).
In claim 1, Barsukov discloses battery (Fig. 25, 18), comprising: a battery cell (Par. 32); and processing circuitry configured to execute a battery cell heat generation model (Fig. 15, Fig. 16 Par. 32 ‘model battery… temperature… during charging under predefined charging conditions given battery internal parameters”) that determines a first output based on a first input indicative of a battery voltage measurement (Par. 32 “internal parameters” “voltage profile”), a second input indicative of a voltage corresponding to a battery open-circuit voltage (OCV) model (Par. 55 “An open circuit voltage (OCV) and impedance based model”), and a third input indicative of a battery current measurement (Par. 32, 36, 66 “current”); execute a gas gauge (Fig. 25, 12, Par. 66) and system heat generation model that determines a second output based on the third input (Par. 43, 59, 61); and execute a battery and gas gauge heat transfer model that determines a third output based on a fourth input indicative of a gas gauge temperature measurement (Par. 30, 32-33, 68-69 “predicted temperature of the selected battery as a function of being charged according to the battery charging profile”, “system controller 12 is configured to be responsive to a received battery temperature measurement”); determine an estimated temperature of the battery cell based on the first output, the second output, and the third output (Par. 6, 30, 57 Fig. 14, “modeling of battery voltage, current and temperature is done using parameters obtained from actual cell characterization which is automated and is already widely adopted and tested in the field. Additional update of impedance and capacity parameters happens inside the system itself, which allows accounting for cell to cell deviation and changes due to battery aging”, “a battery cell temperature during a notebook operation” “temperature profile has to be known or calculated”); and perform a control action to change an operational aspect of the battery cell based on the estimated temperature of the battery cell (Par. 68, 75 “controller is configured to utilize a battery depth of discharge measurement to control the charging profile”, “charging profile parameters for a given battery are adjusted with battery aging according to battery impedance”).
In claim 2, Barsukov discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to execute the battery cell heat generation model that determines the first output based on the first input, the second input, the third input, a fifth input indicative of a coefficient corresponding to heat generation due to impedance (Par. 54), and a sixth input indicative of an additional coefficient corresponding to heat generation due to entropy (Par. 43 “temperature” “diffusion”).
In claim 3, Barsukov discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to execute the gas gauge and system heat generation model that determines the third output based on the third input (Fig. 25, 12, Par. 36), a fifth input indicative of a linear coefficient corresponding to gas gauge and system heat generation due to current (Par. 52, 70 Fig. 15, “a charging current approaching, but below, a value that would cause onset of active material plating effects of the selected battery 18 as a function of the present battery temperature” examiner notes that electric current flowing through a conductor and the heat generated by that current is directly proportional, i.e. Linear current which corresponds to the inherent temperature coefficient α), and a sixth input indicative of a non-linear coefficient corresponding to gas gauge and system heat generation due to current (Par. 70 76 “modeled using a non-linear equivalent circuit”).
In claim 4, Barsukov discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to configured to receive the estimated temperature of the battery cell as the function of the battery and gas gauge heat transfer model that receives the fourth input (Par. 30, 32-33, 69), a fifth input indicative of a coefficient corresponding to heat transfer between the battery cell and a gas gauge of the battery (Par. 43), and a sixth input indicative of an additional coefficient corresponding to temperature change due to heat capacity (Par. 56-57).
In claim 5, Barsukov discloses comprising thermal input determination logic that receives the first output of the battery cell heat generation model (Par. 32), the second output of the gas gauge and system heat generation model (Par. 43, 59, 61), the third output of the battery and gas gauge heat transfer model (Par. 30, 32-33, 69), the fourth input (Par. 30, 32-33, 69), a fifth input indicative of a coefficient corresponding to heat generation due to entropy (Par. 43), and a sixth input indicative of an additional coefficient corresponding to heat transfer between the battery cell and a gas gauge (Par. 43).
In claim 6, Barsukov discloses all of claim 5. Barsukov further discloses comprising battery temperature update logic configured to: receive a fourth output of the thermal input determination logic (Par. 30, 32-33, 69); receive a previous output of a previous iteration of the battery temperature update logic (Par. 34); and outputs the estimated temperature of the battery cell based on the fourth output and the previous output (Par. 34).
In claim 7, Barsukov discloses a gas gauge sensor (Fig. 25 12) communicatively coupled with the processing circuitry (Fig. 25 16), wherein the gas gauge sensor is configured to detect a parameter indicative of the gas gauge temperature measurement (See Fig. 25 12).
In claim 9, Barsukov discloses comprising at least one sensor communicatively coupled with the processing circuitry, wherein the at least one sensor is configured to detect the battery voltage measurement, or the battery current measurement, or both (See Fig. 25, 12).
In claim 10, Barsukov discloses one or more tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions (Par. 72 “memory”) thereon that, when executed by one or more processors (Fig. 25 16), are configured to cause the one or more processors to: execute a battery cell heat generation model (Fig. 15, Fig. 16 Par. 32) that determines a first output based on a first input indicative of a battery voltage measurement (Par. 32 ‘model battery… temperature… during charging under predefined charging conditions given battery internal parameters”) of a battery cell of a battery system (Par. 30 “cell” 32), a second input indicative of a voltage corresponding to a battery open-circuit voltage (OCV) model of the battery cell (Par. 55), and a third input indicative of a battery current measurement of the battery cell (Par. 36); execute a gas gauge (Fig. 25, 12) and system heat generation model that determines a second output based on the third input (Par. 43, 59, 61); execute a battery and gas gauge heat transfer model that determines a third output based on a fourth input indicative of a gas gauge temperature measurement of the battery (Par. 30, 32-33, 69); determine an estimated temperature of a battery cell of the battery system based on the first output, the second output, and the third output (Par. 6, 30-34, 57 69 Fig. 14, “modeling of battery voltage, current and temperature is done using parameters obtained from actual cell characterization which is automated and is already widely adopted and tested in the field. Additional update of impedance and capacity parameters happens inside the system itself, which allows accounting for cell to cell deviation and changes due to battery aging”, “a battery cell temperature during a notebook operation” “temperature profile has to be known or calculated”); and perform a control action to change an operational aspect of the battery cell based on the estimated temperature of the battery cell (Par. 68, 75 “controller is configured to utilize a battery depth of discharge measurement to control the charging profile”, “charging profile parameters for a given battery are adjusted with battery aging according to battery impedance”).
In claim 11, Barsukov discloses herein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are configured to cause the one or more processors to execute the battery cell heat generation model that determines the first output based on the first input, the second input, the third input, a fifth input indicative of a coefficient corresponding to heat generation due to impedance (Par. 54), and a sixth input indicative of an additional coefficient corresponding to heat generation due to entropy (Par. 43).
In claim 12, Barsukov discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are configured to cause the one or more processors to execute the gas gauge and system heat generation model that determines the second output based on the third input (Fig. 25, 12, Par. 36), a fifth input indicative of a linear coefficient corresponding to gas gauge and system heat generation due to current (Par. 52, 70 Fig. 15, “a charging current approaching, but below, a value that would cause onset of active material plating effects of the selected battery 18 as a function of the present battery temperature” examiner notes that electric current flowing through a conductor and the heat generated by that current is directly proportional, i.e. Linear current which corresponds to the inherent temperature coefficient α), and a sixth input indicative of a non-linear coefficient corresponding to gas gauge and system heat generation due to current (Par. 70 76 “modeled using a non-linear equivalent circuit”).
In claim 13, Barsukov discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are configured to cause the one or more processors to execute the battery and gas gauge heat transfer model that determines the third output based on the fourth input (Par. 30, 32-33, 69), a fifth input indicative of a coefficient corresponding to heat transfer between the battery cell of the battery system and a gas gauge of the battery system (Par. 43), and a sixth input indicative of an additional coefficient corresponding to temperature change due to heat capacity (Par. 56-57).
In claim 14, Barsukov discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are configured to cause the one or more processors to: determine a fourth output based on the first output, the second output, the third output, the fourth input, a fifth input indicative of a coefficient corresponding to heat generation due to entropy (Par. 43 “temperature” “diffusion”), and a sixth input indicative of an additional coefficient corresponding to heat transfer between the battery cell of the battery system and a gas gauge of the battery system (Par. 43); and determine the estimated temperature of the battery cell based on the fourth output and a previous estimated temperature of the battery cell (Par. 33-36, 43).
In claim 17, Barsukov discloses method of determining an estimated temperature of a battery (Par. 32) cell of a battery (Fig. 25, 18), the method comprising: determining a battery voltage measurement (see Fig. 25, 12); determining a battery current measurement (see Fig. 25, 12); determining a gas gauge temperature measurement (see Fig. 25, 12); determining a voltage corresponding to a battery open-circuit voltage (OCV) model (Par. 55); and determining, via processing circuitry, the estimated temperature of the battery cell based on a plurality of models, the battery voltage measurement, the battery current measurement, the gas gauge temperature measurement, and the voltage corresponding to the battery OCV model (par. 31-34); and performing, via the processing circuitry, a control action to change an operational aspect of the battery cell based on the estimated temperature of the battery cell (Par. 68, 75 “controller is configured to utilize a battery depth of discharge measurement to control the charging profile”, “charging profile parameters for a given battery are adjusted with battery aging according to battery impedance”).
In claim 18, Barsukov discloses a battery cell heat generation model of the plurality of models such that the battery cell heat generation model (Fig. 15, Fig. 16 Par. 32) receives a first input indicative of the battery voltage measurement (Par. 32), a second input indicative of the voltage corresponding to a battery open-circuit voltage (OCV) model (Par. 55), and a third input indicative of the battery current measurement (Par. 36); executing, via the processing circuitry, a gas gauge (Fig. 25, 12) and system heat generation model of the plurality of models such that the gas gauge and system heat generation model receives the third input (Par. 31-34 43, 59, 61); and executing, via the processing circuitry, a battery and gas gauge heat transfer model of the plurality of models (Par. 30, 32-33, 69) such that the battery and gas gauge heat transfer model receives a fourth input indicative of a gas gauge temperature measurement (See Fig. 25 12).
In claim 19, Barsukov discloses executing, via the processing circuitry, the battery cell heat generation model such that the battery cell heat generation model receives the first input, the second input, the third input, a first coefficient corresponding to heat generation due to impedance (Par. 54), and a second coefficient corresponding to heat generation due to entropy (Par. 43); executing, via the processing circuitry, the gas gauge and system heat generation model such that the gas gauge and system heat generation model receives the third input (Fig. 25, 12, Par. 36), a third linear coefficient corresponding to gas gauge and system heat generation due to current (Par. 52, 70 Fig. 15), and a fourth non-linear coefficient corresponding to gas gauge and system heat generation due to current (Par. 70 76 “modeled using a non-linear equivalent circuit”); and executing, via the processing circuitry, the battery and gas gauge heat transfer model such that the battery and gas gauge heat transfer model receives the fourth input (Par. 30, 32-33, 69), a fifth coefficient corresponding to heat transfer between the battery cell and a gas gauge of the battery system (Par. 43), and a sixth coefficient corresponding to temperature change due to heat capacity (Par. 56-57).
In claim 21, Barsukov discloses all of claim 18. Barsukov further discloses determining, via the processing circuitry, the estimated temperature as a function of: a first output from the battery cell heat generation model (Fig. 15, Fig. 16 Par. 32 ‘model battery… temperature… during charging under predefined charging conditions given battery internal parameters’), wherein the first output comprises a first characteristic indicative of battery cell heat generation (Par. 32, 56-59 “battery degradation modeling using modeled voltage and temperature” and “integral degradation” Examiner notes per Applicant’s specification Par. 2 states “During discharge and/or recharging, the battery cell may produce heat that can affect characteristics (e.g., performance, lifespan, or structure)” as degradation is a performance/lifespan characteristic the temperature which it is based on is considered to be said a first characteristic); a second output from the gas gauge and system heat generation model, wherein the second output comprises a second characteristic indicative of gas gauge and system heat generation (Par. 32, 56-59 “battery degradation modeling using modeled voltage and temperature” and “integral degradation” Examiner notes per Applicant’s specification Par. 2 states “During discharge and/or recharging, the battery cell may produce heat that can affect characteristics (e.g., performance, lifespan, or structure)” as degradation is a performance/lifespan characteristic the voltage which it is based on is considered to be said a second characteristic); and a third output from the battery and gas gauge heat transfer model, wherein the third output comprises a third characteristic indicative of heat transfer (Par. 32 69-70 “impedance” “active material plating effects” Examiner notes per Applicant’s specification Par. 2 states “During discharge and/or recharging, the battery cell may produce heat that can affect characteristics (e.g., performance, lifespan, or structure) as degradation is a performance/lifespan characteristic the “active material plating effects” which it is based on is considered to be said a third characteristic).
In claim 22, Barsukov discloses wherein: the first output comprises a first characteristic indicative of battery cell heat generation (Par. 32, 56-59 “battery degradation modeling using modeled voltage and temperature” and “integral degradation” Examiner notes per Applicant’s specification Par. 2 states “During discharge and/or recharging, the battery cell may produce heat that can affect characteristics (e.g., performance, lifespan, or structure)” as degradation is a performance/lifespan characteristic the temperature which it is based on is considered to be said a first characteristic); the second output comprises a second characteristic indicative of gas gauge and system heat generation (Par. 32, 56-59 “battery degradation modeling using modeled voltage and temperature” and “integral degradation” Examiner notes per Applicant’s specification Par. 2 states “During discharge and/or recharging, the battery cell may produce heat that can affect characteristics (e.g., performance, lifespan, or structure)” as degradation is a performance/lifespan characteristic the voltage which it is based on is considered to be said a second characteristic); and the third output comprises a third characteristic indicative of heat transfer (Par. 32 69-70 “impedance” “active material plating effects” Examiner notes per Applicant’s specification Par. 2 states “During discharge and/or recharging, the battery cell may produce heat that can affect characteristics (e.g., performance, lifespan, or structure) as degradation is a performance/lifespan characteristic the “active material plating effects” which it is based on is considered to be said a third characteristic).
In claim 24, Barsukov discloses all of claim 18. Barsukov further discloses wherein: the first output comprises a first characteristic indicative of battery cell heat generation (Par. 32, 56-59 “battery degradation modeling using modeled voltage and temperature” and “integral degradation” Examiner notes per Applicant’s specification Par. 2 states “During discharge and/or recharging, the battery cell may produce heat that can affect characteristics (e.g., performance, lifespan, or structure)” as degradation is a performance/lifespan characteristic the temperature which it is based on is considered to be said a first characteristic); the second output comprises a second characteristic indicative of gas gauge and system heat generation (Par. 32, 56-59 “battery degradation modeling using modeled voltage and temperature” and “integral degradation” Examiner notes per Applicant’s specification Par. 2 states “During discharge and/or recharging, the battery cell may produce heat that can affect characteristics (e.g., performance, lifespan, or structure)” as degradation is a performance/lifespan characteristic the voltage which it is based on is considered to be said a second characteristic); and the third output comprises a third characteristic indicative of heat transfer (Par. 32 69-70 “impedance” “active material plating effects” Examiner notes per Applicant’s specification Par. 2 states “During discharge and/or recharging, the battery cell may produce heat that can affect characteristics (e.g., performance, lifespan, or structure) as degradation is a performance/lifespan characteristic the “active material plating effects” which it is based on is considered to be said a third characteristic).
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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barsukov in view of LUO WEIXING (CN 205381155 U) see translation attached, hence forth Luo.
In claim 23, Barsukov discloses all of claim 1. Barsukov does not explicitly disclose wherein the control action comprises causing a switch to break a circuit associated with the battery in response to determining that the estimated temperature of the battery cell deviates from a target temperature by a threshold amount.
Luo teaches wherein the control action comprises causing a switch (Par. 29 “switch) to break a circuit associated with the battery (Par. 29 “protection unit”) in response to determining that the estimated temperature of the battery cell deviates from a target temperature by a threshold amount (Par. 29 “battery temperature is higher than first temperature threshold” examiner considers the target temperature to be less than the temperature threshold, and the threshold amount to be greater than or equal to zero).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the control action comprises causing a switch to break a circuit associated with the battery in response to determining that the estimated temperature of the battery cell deviates from a target temperature by a threshold amount as taught by Luo in Barsukov in order to improve safe handling of electrokinetic cell, effectively extend the service life of electrokinetic cel (Luo Par. 29) thus leading to an improved system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant arguments on pages 9-19, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Foremost, as noted above, the amended language does not overcome the 101 rejections as the applicant’s specification as cited above lists many possible control actions, the one cited above amount to data gathering/outputting which when interpreting the claim under BRI is not enough to overcome the rejection. Regarding applicants’ assertion that the claims do not recite a mathematical concept or a mental process, the examiner notes that per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) “a claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using mathematical methods or “performing” a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation”. Further, while some inputs may be indicative of a measurement or determine a measurement, under BRI no actual measuring is claimed as the claims do not specify how or from what the inputs are received. Thus under BRI a simply inputting data would qualify so long as said data is indicative or used to determine a measurement, therefore considered part of the abstract idea as inputting variables into a function or determining the results of a function are simply performing mathematical calculations. As recited above the battery, battery cell, processing circuitry on other recited components are generically recited computer components and considered to be well understood common and routine. Further, per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed “conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally,” i.e., “as a person would do it by head and hand.”);” and “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, “[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.” Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’)”. While the claim recites generic components, there is nothing that a human would not be capable of as it amounts to receiving the inputs and putting them into a function to make the determinations.
Regarding applicants’ assertion that the claim is integrated into a practical application, with the exception of claim 23 which examiner notes has not been rejected under 101, none of the claims could be construed to implement the abstract idea as they simply receive and output data to and from models to make determinations but do not apply the results in any way. Nor can they be construed to improving a technical field as for example no battery temperature sensor is actually claimed, with the exception of claims 7 and 9, however in those cases no changes, actions, or application is made to the sensors in regards to the cited abstract ideas. While applicant asserts (cited Par. 3 and Par. 66) “battery cell temperature may be inferred based on various characteristics, but traditional systems and methods that infer battery cell temperature are inaccurate, costly, and/or error prone.” and “Technical effects associated with the embodiments of the present disclosure include, relative to traditional systems and methods, more accurately determining the estimated temperature of the battery cell, reducing a cost of the battery, reducing a volume of the battery, improving an energy density of the battery, or any combination thereof” the claims do not claim such features nor is it clear how said statements are true and per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) “if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology”. And as previously stated, the battery, battery cell, processing circuitry on other recited components are generically recited computer components and considered to be well understood common and routine.
Regarding applicant’s 102 arguments on pages 18-24, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims are interpreted under their broadest reasonable interpretation, which the art of record falls within.
Applicant asserts that the “alleged inputs of Barsukov are not received by a single model” however Par. 32-37 describes the steps to determine said information. While it may not explicitly recite “model” it is functionally equivalent as it is taking inputs making determinations and outputting the results, which meets the bounds of the BRI. In addition, Par. 69 recites “battery fuel gauging system 10 that monitors battery voltage, current and temperature and determines state of charge and state of degradation of the battery 18”. The cited art discloses the claims under BRI.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20180254641 A1 DYNAMIC BATTERY CELL IMPEDANCE MONITORING; US 20180143252 A1 METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR REPORTING A RELATIVE STATE OF CHARGE OF A BATTERY; US 20170356963 A1 SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR BATTERY MONITORING AND PRESERVATION.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON J BECKER whose telephone number is (571)431-0689. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/B.J.B/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights