DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1 – 22 are presented for examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 602 and 702. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
The drawing also the drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5), because the reference characters in Fig. 5C-1 I and j was not mentioned on the specification.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
- 6. storage device should refer to 1006 not 1008
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3, 13 and 21 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 line 12 “ the predicted degradation pattern” should be “ the predicted full degradation pattern”
Claim 13 line 17 “ the predicted degradation pattern” should be “ the predicted full degradation pattern”
Claim 21 line 4 “a physical based model” should be “ the physical based model” since it was defined on claim 13.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. On claim 2, It said “physics-inspired evolution” which is not supported by the specification or there is no written description that supports this phrase. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, it is considered as a physics-based model for the rest of the claims.
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.
Claim 2, 8, 9, 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "sensor measurement" in 4.
Claim 8 recites the limitation pre-processed sensor " in line 3.
Claim 18 recites the limitation pre-processed sensor " in line 3.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note: claim 9 and 19 are also rejected under USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 8 and 9 respectively.
Claim 1-2 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.
On claim 1 it is claimed as a method which is fall into a statutory category of process based on broadest reasonable interpretation. According to MPEP, 2106.03 A process defines "actions", i.e., an invention that is claimed as an act or step, or a series of acts or steps. As explained by the Supreme Court, a "process" is "a mode of treatment of certain materials to produce a given result. As of claim one there is no clear step or action on how to perform the specified claim limitations other than what the specified method does. Attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness. For example, a claim which read: "[a] process for using monoclonal antibodies of claim 4 to isolate and purify human fibroblast interferon" was held to be indefinite because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Ex parte Erlich, 3 USPQ2d 1011 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986) (MPEP 2173.05(q)).
Claim 2 is also rejected on the same rational as claim 1.
Therefore claim 1 and 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) by being indefinite.
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.
Claim 3-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 3:
Step1: Yes, a claim fall into a statutory category of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Yes , the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a mental. The claim recited:
in response to determining, based on the measured sensor signals, one or more fundamental degradation modes being active, this can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. As it was listed on the specification “Regardless of specifications of engineering systems at different domains of application, they may share similar degradation modes. These modes, which are called fundamental degradation modes in this disclosure, are unifying part of degradation over different domains and essence of developing a transferrable degradation model. The disclosed inventive method identifies, analyzes, and encapsulates these widely observed degradation modes in the prognostics...” (Paragraph 2 , line 12 -21). It says those degradation modes are widely observed , so a human mind can perform the limitation with the aid of pen and paper. On Fig 1 the fundamental process is represented by a time graph based on the gathered values, so some one in ordinary skill can performer this by using pen and paper as well.
extracting a set of features associated with the measured sensor signals, this also fall into a mental process. The set of features which are extracted from the measured signals are invariant and informative about fault progression and degradation ( Paragraph 81, The input for model 624 can be a set of features which are invariant and informative about fault progression and degradation). Based on broadest reasonable interpretation there are a set of features a person of ordinary skill in art can do it with pen and paper. For example, a rate of change of temperature , pressure can be observed and evaluate by one of ordinary skill in the art.
updating a physics-based model associated with the target system; The physics-based model can be empirical model (paragraph, 03, the physics-based models can be electrochemical models, multi-physics models, empirical models or molecular/ atomist model). Updating one of those models can be done by human mind with the help of pen and paper. For example, empirical models are mathematical, so one of ordinary skill in the art can update the model, by judgement and evaluation(paragraph 66, Empirical model 606 can represent the degradation in a mathematical framework), though this calm limitation is also fall under mental process.
time simulation of the updated physics-based model to predict a full degradation pattern of the target system; a person of ordinary skill in the art can able to show the voltage decrease in lithium-ion battery per time from the measured sensor signals( paragraph 106, At operation 908 the system may perform time simulation based on the output of the machine learning model and the updated PBM to predict a degradation pattern for the target system (e.g., the voltage discharge trajectory when the target system is a lithium-ion battery)). So, this claim limitation is also fall in mental process.
estimating, based on the predicted degradation pattern, a remaining useful life of the target system: this can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, in a lithium-ion battery, a person of ordinary skill in the art can check how fast the battery is draining, and based on this, using pen and paper a person can gave opinion on how long the battery will last before it dies (Paragraph 115, Prognosis module 1036 may use the predicted degradation pattern to determine a RUL about target system 1044, e.g., in the case of lithium-ion battery module 1036 may predict the end-of-discharge time and reaming time before the full charge depletion).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, those limitations are process steps that cover a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of a physical aid but for the recitation of a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) under mental process a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Step 2A Prong 2: No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply , rely on , or use the judicial exception in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
The claim recited a computer implemented method for estimating remaining useful life of a target system. This is not indicative of integrating abstract idea into practical application this is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. There is no improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The computer is used as a tool. MPEP 2106.05 (d)(2), Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
While the claim recited gathering data by measuring via a set of sensors, measuring, via a set of sensors associated with the target system, sensor signals; This is mere data gathering that is considered as pre solution under insignificant extra solution activity MPEP 2106.05(g). This step merely collects information to use for the proceed limitations that recite abstract idea. So, this limitation doesn’t integrate the judicial exception in to a practical application.
While the claim also recited a machine learning model output, this is also generating output which is considered as post-solution under insignificant extra solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g). The output is merely used as input for the proceed limitations that recite abstract idea. Therefore, this limitation doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: No, the claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As outlined above on step 1A prong 2, the claim merely recites a computer implemented method as a tool for implementing the abstract idea but merely using a computer does not make an improvement to the functioning of the computer. Collecting information and using output for the rest of the claim is adding extra solution without integrating the abstract idea into practical application. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
Therefore, it is concluding that the claim is not found eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding dependent claims
Claim 4 is also add amental process from the above claim. It recites identifying fundamental degradation modes shared in different domains of application, the fundamental degradation modes are widely observed degradation modes in the prognostics so a person of ordinary skill can identify, this widely observed degradation mode with pan and paper or physical aids. (These modes, which are called fundamental degradation modes in this disclosure, are unifying part of degradation over different domains and essence of developing a transferrable degradation model. The disclosed inventive method identifies, analyzes, and encapsulates these widely observed degradation modes in the prognostics...” (Paragraph 2 , line 12 -21). After identifying those widely observed degradation, using the identified shared fundamental degradation modes for transferring prognostics knowledge between the different application domains. a person with ordinary skill in the art can also use this result in order to transfer the findings into a different application mode by using human mind’s ability of evaluating, observing and making judgment for other applications. This claim further defines the abstract idea identified above and it doesn’t have any additional elements besides of limitations listed on claim 3.
While under the same rationales as claim 3, claim 4 is also a mental process without reciting additional element to integrate into practical application.
Therefore, it is concluding that the claim is not found eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 5 is adding a mental process from the independent claim. The claim recited an intersection of the predicted degradation pattern and an end-of-life threshold indicates a predicted end-of-life of the target system; this can be performed by a person of ordinary skill in the art with pan and paper. The claim merely evaluates information’s to find the point where predicted degradation pattern and end of life threshold met without integrating in to a practical application. While it also recites the remaining useful life of the target system corresponds to the difference between a current time and the predicted end-of-life of the target system: this can also be performed by a person of ordinary skill in the art using pen and paper or physical aid. Based on the evaluation and observation on the independent claim, a person can perform judgment ,or opinion on when the amount of time left before the system dead( paragraph 48, In an engineering sense, RUL can be interpreted as an estimation of the amount of time before a system is to be repaired or replaced ). a claim to collecting and comparing known information, which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
While under the same rationales as claim 3, claim 5 is also a mental process without reciting additional element to integrate into practical application.
Therefore, it is concluding that the claim is not found eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
.
Claim 6 is additional element from the independent claim. It recited the set of features include a set of invariant features and a set of degradation sensitive features. This claim limitation specifies what the set of features which is extracted in claim 3 include, so it gets more specific but this claim do not integrate abstract idea in to a practical application. It merely defines the type of data being used for the abstract idea in claim 3 without adding any technological limitation. This limitation further defines the abstract idea identified above. This limitation does not improve the functionality or a physical transformation other than defining, so it is does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application.
While under the same rationales as claim 3, claim 6 is also a mental process without reciting additional element to integrate into practical application.
Therefore, it is concluding that the claim is not found eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 7, adds a mental process from independent claim and it defines what the target systems are. This claim recites the target system degrades over time, a person of ordinary skill in the art can evaluate and observe the decline of engineering system. A person can mentally recognize changes and can record the performance over time using pen and paper or with physical aid and can observe and make a judgment or opinion. In this claim besides of the computer which is covered on claim 3, it defines what the target systems include, the target system includes one or more of: a battery; a power storage device; a rotating machine; a chemical plant; an automotive component; a biomedical component; an aerospace component; a nuclear power component; a maritime component; a mining component; a medical equipment component; a manufacturing system component; a civil engineering related system; and an electrical engineering related system, these are additional elements introduced in the claim which are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. On this a mental process is applied on a target system which is listed above, and as it listed as tagged above, merely indicating a field of use or technological environment which is the target system , doesn’t amount to significantly more than the exception.
While under the same rationales as claim 3, claim 7 is also a mental process without reciting additional element to integrate into practical application.
Therefore, it is concluding that the claim is not found eligible under 35 U.S.C 101
Claim 8: have abstract idea which falls under mental process . It recites applying a set of signal processing techniques to the measured sensor signals to obtain pre-processed sensor data. This claim limitation can be performed by a person of ordinal skill in the art. Signal processing techniques are disclosed on claim 9, and under broadest reasonable interpretation, a person of ordinary skill can observe, evaluate the gathered data on claim 3 in order to get a preprocessed data. Using pen and paper, gathered data features from the sensor , can be ranked them based on their value or can make analysis by a person of ordinary skill. Therefore, this limitation can be performed by human mind.
As of claim 8, claim 9 is disclosed on the same reason as above, since the claim limitation on claim 9 was stated on the above explanation.
Therefore claim 8 and 9 are mental process, which can be performed by human mind with pan and paper or physical aid.
Therefore, it is concluding that the claim is not found eligible under 35 U.S.C 101
Claim 10; have abstract idea which falls under mental process. It recited elbow point detection, based on the measured sensor signals, to determine a transition point on a degradation progression trajectory for the target system, a person of ordinary skill in the art can draw a graph on paper using a measured data, in order to find a point where the curve bends noticeably, so based on human judgment and evaluation a person with ordinary skill in the art can observe this point of transition. The transition point indicates a point at which the target system degradation transitions from a slow quasi-linear phase to an accelerated phase, this merely creates a picture that a human can able to notice the change and find the point where it changed from slow to fast phase. According to FIG. 5C, a person with ordinary skill in the art can perform the algorithm to find the elbow point with pen and paper. This claim further defines the abstract idea identified above without additional elements to integrate into practical application besides a computer implemented which is covered on claim 3.
While under the same rationales as claim 3, claim 10 is also a mental process without reciting additional element to integrate into practical application.
Therefore, it is concluding that the claim is not found eligible under 35 U.S.C 101
Claim 11: have abstract idea which falls under mental process. It recites determining, based on the measured sensor signals, that the target system is subject to a first loading cycle, a person of ordinary skilling the art can observe the measured sensor signal and evaluate , or make a judgment about first load phase judgment. for example, for lithium-ion battery fist load cycle is discharge, so human mind can remove a battery charge by using physical aids or can recognize when the battery is out of charge. (paragraph 111, … which can calibrate the PBM parameters based on the pre-processed sensor data from a first loading cycle (or discharge for lithium-ion battery). It also performs calibrating a set of parameters of a physics-based model associated with the target system, based a broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can manually adjust and evaluate the parameters of the model. On paragraph 92, Specifically, PBM calibration module 802 may use the measured voltage data related to one full discharge trajectory for the first discharge cycle (n=l) to calibrate the PBM. In this case a human can adjust the voltage data in the first cycle by using pen and paper. In this claim there is no any additional elements besides a computer which is disclosed on claim 3 that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
While under the same rationales as claim 3, claim 11 is also a mental process without reciting additional element to integrate into practical application.
Therefore, it is concluding that the claim is not found eligible under 35 U.S.C 101
Claim 12: further introduce abstract idea which falls under mental process and mathematical concepts. The claim recited during a quasi-linear degradation phase of a fundamental degradation mode in the target system, minimizing error between outputs of the time simulated physics-based model and measured sensor signals during a next cycle of loading of the target system; this claim further defines abstract idea identified above. In this claim limitation, error minimization was performed between the claim limitations which are abstract and disclosed in the above claims. Error minimization can is based on a mathematical concept, and one of the ordinal skills in the art can perform this process with the aid pen and paper or physical aid. FIG. 6C illustrates the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm for solving a minimization problem. minimization can be defined as:
PNG
media_image1.png
26
224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(paragraph 71)
This is a mathematical equation using summation operation and it can be calculated by a human using pen and paper to find optimal value by using mental evaluation. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (b) the Arrhenius equation, Diamond v. Diehr; 450 U.S. 175, 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981) (ln v = CZ + x); The claim also recites, generating, based on the error minimization, a new set of parameters; this can be performed by human mind with the help of pen and paper by adjusting the parameters. Using the above minimization equation, a person with ordinary skill can evaluate the values of different parament and create a new set of parameters by human observation and judgment.
This claim further recites, updating, based on the new set of parameters, the physics-based model, under broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim limitation can be performed by human mind using pen and paper. A person of ordinal skill in the art can replace the old parameter values the new set of values which is evaluated above using minimization equation. See claim 3 above on updating physics-based model.
In this claim there is no any additional elements besides a computer which is disclosed on claim 3 that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. So, under the same rationales as claim 3, claim 12 is also a mental process and mathematical concept without reciting additional element to integrate into practical application.
Therefore, it is concluding that the claim is not found eligible under 35 U.S.C 101
Claim 13: recited additional elements of a processor; and a storage device storing instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to perform a method for estimating health condition of a target system besides of claim 3.
A processor and a storage device are merely used to implement, to store instructions or steps to perform abstract idea on a computer and the mere use of computer was not practical as it was listed on claim 3. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone);
Other claim limitations are similar to claim 3, therefore under the same rational as claim 3, Therefore, claim 13 is not found eligible under 35 U.S.C 101 .
Claim 14 is similar in scope to that of claim 4, and is therefore rejected under similar rational, therefore, claim 14 is not found eligible under 35 U.S.C 101 .
Claim 15 is similar in scope to that of claim 5, and is therefore rejected under similar rational, therefore, claim 15 is not found eligible under 35 U.S.C 101 .
Claim 16 is similar in scope to that of claim 6, and is therefore rejected under similar rational, therefore, claim 16 is not found eligible under 35 U.S.C 101 .
Claim 17 is similar in scope to that of claim 7, and is therefore rejected under similar rational, therefore, claim 17 is not found eligible under 35 U.S.C 101 .
Claim 18 is similar in scope to that of claim 8, and is therefore rejected under similar rational, therefore, claim 18 is not found eligible under 35 U.S.C 101 .
Claim 19 is similar in scope to that of claim 9, and is therefore rejected under similar rational, therefore, claim 19 is not found eligible under 35 U.S.C 101 .
Claim 20 is similar in scope to that of claim 10, and is therefore rejected under similar rational, therefore, claim 20 is not found eligible under 35 U.S.C 101 .
Claim 21 is similar in scope to that of claim 11, and is therefore rejected under similar rational, therefore, claim 21 is not found eligible under 35 U.S.C 101 .
Claim 22 is similar in scope to that of claim 12, and is therefore rejected under similar rational, therefore, claim 22 is not found eligible under 35 U.S.C 101 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gujar; Gujar ("Gujar", US 20240026836) in view of Budan ( “Budan; Gokhan”, US 11527786)
As to claim 1 Gujar teaches, A computer-implemented method for estimating remaining useful life of a target system( Fig.2 label 204 “ server”, paragraph 24, line 8-10 , The server can use the model to subsequently predict the health( e.g. remaining useful life or time failure).
Gujar doesn’t explicitly teach a degradation model that represents fundamental degradation modes shared in different domains of application. But it also teaches failure mode indication of a sensor. (Fig. 2 label 212, “other relevant data” , Paragraph 62, one or more of the failure modes (e.g. heater degradation harness…can be a progressive failure mode).
However, Budan teaches teach a degradation model that represents fundamental degradation modes shared in different domains of application(Col. 6 line 20-30, historical data and current data may be used from an array of similar assets or batteries(egg, combination of several manufacture using different battery technology ... etc. ) Col. 10 line 42-55, it also listed the type of data used including information pertaining to acceleration, deceleration, braking speed or some combination thereof).
Gujar and Budan are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are system and method of indicating useful life assets. Therefore it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have applied Budan teaching of different health indicators of assets or batteries for example, acceleration, deceleration, braking or some combination of thereof to the server and data from array of similar assets or batteries(data from different battery technologies) shows degradation properties., so applying this taught to Gujar taught in order to estimate the remaining useful life of the target system. Examiner note: Budan disclosed a target system as assets/batteries.
The motivation would have been to more accurately predict remaining useful life estimation by using degradation characteristics from different domain applications learned from different domain as it taught by Budan(Col. 11 line 15-20)
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gujar; ("Gujar", US 20240026836) in view of Budan ( “Budan; Gokhan”, US 11527786) and further on the view of L. Liao and F. Köttig, "Review of Hybrid Prognostics Approaches for Remaining Useful Life Prediction of Engineered Systems, and an Application to Battery Life Prediction," in IEEE Transactions on Reliability, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 191-207, March 2014.
Claims 2 - 4, 6–9, 11, 13-14, 16-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budan ( “Budan; Gokhan”, US 11527786) in view of Gujar ("Gujar", US 20240026836), and further on the view of L. Liao and F. Köttig, "Review of Hybrid Prognostics Approaches for Remaining Useful Life Prediction of Engineered Systems, and an Application to Battery Life Prediction," in IEEE Transactions on Reliability, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 191-207, March 2014,
As to claim 2 the combination of Gujar and Budan teaches the limitation of claim 1. Wherein claim 2, Gujar teaches a combination of physics-inspired evolution of the degradation modes towards a failure threshold( page 7, paragraph 61, the server identified or obtains various parameters for which sensor prognostics follow. On page 13, paragraph 103 , based on the failure mode of the sensor the one or more features can be used to develop or train the model to predict that failure based on underlying physics.).
The combination of Gujara and Budan do not teach a data-driven mapping of features derived from sensor measurement into the degradation modes. However, L. Liao teaches a data-driven mapping of features derived from sensor measurement into the degradation modes( page 198, col. 2 , Using a data-driven model to establish a mapping from the measurement to the internal state makes it possible to use a mathematically sound physics-based model to predict the system internal health).
Gujar, Budan and L. Liao are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are on prognostics approaches to indicating useful life assets. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date to have applied L. Liao teaching of a data-driven model to establish a mapping from the measurement to the internal state on combined taught of Gujar and Budan to combine physics-inspired evolution of the degradation modes towards a failure threshold.
The motivation would have been combining the physics inspired evolution of the degradation model towards failure with the data driven mapping of the sensor features to minimize inaccuracy in predicting the remaining useful life as it taught by Gujar(page 16, paragraph 124)
As claim 3, Gujar teaches, A computer-implemented method for estimating remaining useful life of a target system( Fig.2 label 204 “ server”, paragraph 24, line 8-10 , The server can use the model to subsequently predict the health( e.g. remaining useful life or time failure).
Budan teaches during operation of the target system, measuring, via a set of sensors associated with the target system, sensor signals(Fig. 2 , label 202, and Col. 8 line 1 -5, the processing device of the vehicle 117 may receive the measurements from the one or more sensors 131 and use them, along with other data (e.g., a user battery usage profile), to predict the RUL of the battery pack 121 and/or asset 119.)
based on the measured sensor signals, one or more fundamental degradation modes being active( Col. 9 line 6-15, The training engine 130 may use a base training data set including inputs of cell manufacturer battery data, battery lab experiment data (e.g., if simulation fails), user battery usage profile data, solid electrolyte interface (SEI) thickness data, battery pack current data, cell voltages data, cell temperatures data, fleet data pertaining to the battery data, among other things. One or more combinations of the inputs may be mapped to an output pertaining to a remaining useful life of each cell of the battery pack.)
extracting a set of features associated with the measured sensor signals(Fig. 7 label 614, Col. 16 Line 15-17, Once the data is pre-processed, feature extraction 614 may be performed to identify and extract one or more features)
updating a physics-based model associated with the target system( Fig. 6, label 600, 612, Col. 15 line 25- 35, … sensor data related to battery pack current, cell current, cell voltages, and cell temperatures, which is continuously updated as the current battery pack ages or degrades.)
performing, based on machine learning model outputs(Fig. g label 131 and Col 10 line 28-35, to perform the one or more operations, the processing device may execute the one or more machine learning models.)
Budan doesn’t teach estimating, based on the predicted degradation pattern, a remaining useful life of the target system. While L. Liao teaches estimating, based on the predicted degradation pattern, a remaining useful life of the target system(page 193, paragraph 2, similarity-based pattern matching methods have also been proposed for RUL prediction… The key point of those methods was to match the degradation pattern, which was represented by a signal or modeled health indicator, to the historical run-to failure datasets. The best matching pattern was found to derive RUL, or weighted multiple patterns were used to calculate the RUL).
Budan and L. Liao are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are on prognostics approaches to indicating useful life assets. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date to have applied L. Liao teaching based on degradation pattern and using sensor data in order to estimate the remaining useful life of the target system. Examiner note: target system is assets/ batteries as it stated by Budan.
The motivation would have been combining of degradation pattern on measuring via a set of sensors to increase the accuracy of estimating remaining useful life using extracted sensor features as Budan taught(Col. 11 line 15-20).
Regarding claim 13 is similar in scope to that of claim 3 with additional limitations which: Budan teaches A computer system a processor; a storage device storing instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to perform a method for estimating health condition(Col 40, line 27 -30, A system comprising: a memory device storing instructions; and a processing device communicatively coupled to the memory device, wherein the processing device executes the instructions).
developing a degradation model that represents fundamental degradation modes for the target system(Col. 6 line 20-30, historical data and current data may be used from an array of similar assets or batteries(egg, combination of several manufacture using different battery technology ... etc. ) Col. 10 line 42-55, it also listed the type of data used including information pertaining to acceleration, deceleration, braking speed or some combination thereof).
Therefore claim 13 is rejected under similar rationale to claim 3.
As to claim 4, the combination of Budan, Gujar and L. Liao teaches a computer implemented method of claim 3. Where claim 4 ,Budan also teaches identifying fundamental degradation modes shared in different domains of application(Col. 11 line 28-40, The one or more properties may include an internal state of the battery pack and/or cell including over-potentials related to an electrode, a loss of cyclable lithium, a loss of active material, a change in solid electrolyte interphase thickness, a state of health, a capacity loss, a resistance increase due to degradation, or some combination thereof.)
using the identified shared fundamental degradation modes for transferring prognostics knowledge between the different application domains( Col. 6 line 20-29, … Also, historical data from many assets may reveal strengths and weaknesses of assets or batteries in the field at different stages of their lifespan. Further, historical data and current data may be used from an array of similar assets or batteries (e.g., sometimes a single manufacturer, sometimes combining several manufacturers using different battery technologies, etc.)
Claim 14 is similar in scope to that of claim 4, and is therefore rejected under similar rational.
As to claim 6, the combination of Budan, Gujar and L. Liao teaches a computer implemented method of claim 3. Wherein claim 6, Budan teaches the set of features include a set of invariant features and a set of degradation sensitive features(Col. 16 line 49-60, For lithium ion-based batteries such properties may include, but not limited to, diffusion constant of the cathode/anode, rate constant of the main li-insertion reaction at the cathode/anode, DC resistance of the battery, SEI (solid electrolyte interphase) thickness and others.)
Claim 16 is similar in scope to that of claim 6, and is therefore rejected under similar rational.
As to claim 7, the combination of Budan, Gujar and L. Liao teaches a computer implemented method and all limitations of claim 3. Wherein claim 6, Budan teaches, the target system degrades over time, and wherein the target system includes one or more of: a battery.(Col.5 Line 35 -49, RUL and degradation in batteries may be an implicit state quantity that may not be directly measured The majority of the description refers to a battery but a battery should be understood to be a species of a genus “asset”. ); a power storage device; a rotating machine; a chemical plant; an automotive component; a biomedical component; an aerospace component; a nuclear power component; a maritime component; a mining component; a medical equipment component; a manufacturing systems component; a civil engineering related system; and an electrical engineering related system.
Claim 17 is similar in scope to that of claim 7, and is therefore rejected under similar rational.
As to claim 8, the combination of Budan, Gujar and L. Liao teaches a computer implemented method and all limitations of claim 3. Wherein claim 8, Gujan teaches applying a set of signal processing techniques to the measured sensor signals to obtain pre-processed sensor data(Fig. 2, label 216, Page 5, paragraph 48, The data preprocessing circuit 168(Fig.1) is configured to filter, remove, or sanitize undesired data from the signal. The undesired data includes, for example, null values, data sampling irregularities (e.g., sampling error), among other data points with quality issues)
Gujar, Budan and L. Liao are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are on prognostics approaches to indicating useful life assets. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date to have applied Gujan teaching of applying a set of signal processing techniques to the measure’s sensor signal on combined taught of Budan and L. Liao to obtain preprocessed sensor data.
The motivation would have been to minimize inaccuracy in predicting the remaining useful life as it taught by Gujar(page 16, paragraph 124)
Claim 18 is similar in scope to that of claim 8, and is therefore rejected under similar rational.
As to claim 9, the combination of Budan, Gujar and L. Liao teaches a computer implemented method and all limitations of claim 3 and claim 8. Wherein claim 9, Budan, teaches the signal processing techniques include one or more of: data scrubbing; feature extraction (Fig.7 Label 614 “feature extraction), Col. 16 line 15 -19, Once the data is pre-processed, feature extraction 614 may be performed to identify and extract one or more features for the machine learning model 132.); feature sensitivity analysis; feature ranking; feature reduction or fusion; and data transformation.
Claim 19 is similar in scope to that of claim 9, and is therefore rejected under similar rational.
As to claim 11, the combination of Budan, Gujar and L. Liao teaches a computer implemented method and all limitations of claim 3. Wherein claim 18, Budan disclose. the target system is subject to a first loading cycle, calibrating a set of parameters of a physics-based model associated with the target system( Fig 4, label 406 and Col 13 Line 59 -66, At 406, responsive to determining the threshold is satisfied, determine a trigger event has occurred and calibrate one or more parameters of the physics-based model, a machine learning model, or both. The physics-model may output one or more properties pertaining to the battery pack of the vehicle…) Examiner Note: calibration is performed when the target system(battery) is going through a loading cycle. Since this condition occurs during a normal Battey use.
Claim 21 is similar in scope to that of claim 11, and is therefore rejected under similar rational.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budan ( “Budan; Gokhan”, US 11527786) in view of Gujar ("Gujar", US 20240026836), ), L. Liao and F. Köttig, "Review of Hybrid Prognostics Approaches for Remaining Useful Life Prediction of Engineered Systems, and an Application to Battery Life Prediction," in IEEE Transactions on Reliability, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 191-207, March 2014, and further on the view of K. Goebel, B. Saha, A. Saxena, J. R. Celaya and J. P. Christophersen, "Prognostics in Battery Health Management," in IEEE Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 33-40, August 2008
As to claim 5, the combination of Budan, Gujar and L. Liao teaches a computer implemented method and the limitations of claim 3. Budan also teaches, the remaining useful life of the target system corresponds to the difference between a current time and the predicted end-of-life of the target system(Col. 29 line 18- 22, The computer-implemented method of any preceding claim, further comprising transmitting the remaining useful life of each cell of the battery pack as a number of full cycles left to be used before the battery pack reaches an end-of-life state)
However, the combination of Budan, Gujar and L. Liao fails to teach the intersection of the predicted invariant features and an end-of-life threshold indicates a predicted end-of-life of the target system.
While, Goebel teaches intersection of the predicted invariant features and an end-of-life threshold indicates a predicted end-of-life of the target system(Fig. 7, intersection of failure threshold and capacity prediction which decreases as time goes.)
Goebel is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention and combination of Budan, Gujar and L. Liao taught because they are on prognostics approaches to indicating useful life assets. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date to have applied Goebel teaching finding intersection of the predicted features and an end-of-life threshold to the combined model of Budan, Gujar and L. Liao to predict end-of-life of the target system.
The motivation of combining Goebel with the combined model of Budan, Gujar and L. Liao teaching is to get more accurate and precise accurate estimation of the remaining useful life of a target system.(Goebel, page 37)
Claim 15 is similar in scope to that of claim 5, and is therefore rejected under similar rational.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budan ( “Budan; Gokhan”, US 11527786) in view of Gujar ("Gujar", US 20240026836), L. Liao and F. Köttig, "Review of Hybrid Prognostics Approaches for Remaining Useful Life Prediction of Engineered Systems, and an Application to Battery Life Prediction," in IEEE Transactions on Reliability, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 191-207, March 2014, and further in view of Rigamonti, M., Baraldi, P., Zio, E., Roychoudhury, I., Goebel, K. and Poll, S. 2016. Echo State Network for the Remaining Useful Life Prediction of a Turbofan Engine. PHM Society European Conference. 3, 1 (Jul. 2016).
As to claim 10, the combination of Budan, Gujar and L. Liao teaches a computer implemented method and all limitations of claim 3. But They doesn’t expressly teach ”performing elbow point detection, based on the measured sensor signals; to determine a transition point on a degradation progression trajectory for the target system wherein the transition point indicates a point at which the target system degradation transitions from a slow quasi-linear phase to an accelerated phase”.
Wherein claim 10, Rigamonti, teaches