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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 27 August 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 1-8, 10-23 and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites generating a fusion model based on a plurality of models that comprise different types of models, wherein the generating comprises fusing at least some of the plurality of models, and wherein the fusing comprises fusing the at least some of the plurality of models at least at one or both of a feature level and a decision level; assessing, using the fusion model, one or both of state-of-charge (SOC) and a state-of-health (SOH) of the one or more cells. The specification discloses models that calculate the SOC and/or SOH (pars. 47, 50-59). This claim limitation falls into the mathematical concepts grouping.
The additional element in claim is controlling the one or more cells based on the assessing, wherein the controlling comprises setting or modifying one or more parameters of at least one cell.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element merely recites a field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as stated above, the additional element merely recites a field of use.
Claims 2-8 and 10-15 depend from claim 1 and merely recite further details of the abstract idea and do not recite any other additional elements. Therefore, claims 2-15 are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 16 recites an abstract idea similar to the abstract idea recited in claim 1. Claim 16 recites a similar additional element and further cites one or more circuits.
As discussed above the control step does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it merely recites a field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The circuit is disclosed as a conventional processor used to implement the recited functions, and amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). When considered in combination, the additional elements recite instructions to control a battery with a circuit or computer and do not provide any further than instructions to implement a control step that is a field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application individually or in combination.
The additional elements of claim 16 are not significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons they are not integrated into a practical application.
Claims 17-19 depend from claim 16 are recite further additional elements about the one or more cells. These additional elements merely recite a field of use and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 20-23 and 25-30 depend from claim 16 recite further details of the abstract idea and do not recite any other additional elements. Therefore, claims 20-30 are rejected for the same reason.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 June 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that none of claims 1-8, 10-23, and 25-30 is directed to a judicial exception enumerated as an “abstract idea” in the 2019 Guidance (Step 2A, Prong One). Applicant states that the Examiner fails to show that the generating of fused models, particularly as described in Applicant’s disclosure, involves only calculations.
When determining whether a claim recites a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), examiners should consider whether the claim recites a mathematical concept or merely limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), I). The claims recite using a fusion model that is a calculation of SOC and/or SOH (Specification, pars. 47, 50-59). The fusing of the multiple models may comprise feeding outputs of all (or at least some) into a separate model designed or configured for model fusion which is a calculation using the outputs of other models (Specification, par. 76, 110). The fusion model is a calculation of SOC and/or SOH (Specification, pars. 47, 50-59). The equivalent circuit model modeled with circuit elements that are time-varying or functions of relevant phenomena such as temperature or applied current (par. 51). The models that are fused are mathematical functions and resulting fusion model are mathematical functions, which do not merely involve mathematical calculations.
Applicant states that each of claims 1-8, 10-23, and 25-30 is directed to a practical application. Applicant states that the claims recite processes and systems for implementing and using improved techniques for managing and controlling battery packs, particularly by generating and using optimizing models that can be used in providing better assessment of the state-of-charge (SOC) and state-of-health (SOH) of cells within the batteries, allowing for enhanced setting of modifying of operating parameters of at least one cell. Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d), II). The additional elements are evaluated using the considerations found in MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h). The additional element in claim 1 is controlling the one or more cells based on the assessing, wherein the controlling comprises setting or modifying one or more parameters of at least one cell. This limitation doesn’t amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a field of use or technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Applicant states that the claims 1 and 16 are directed to improving the field of power storage (battery packs), particularly by improving control techniques and schemes used therein, in a manner that is more than what is “well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality.” However, the same consideration for integration into an abstract idea applies with regard to whether the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional element recited in the claims doesn’t amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a field of use or technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claims 2-8, 10-15, 20-23 and 25-30 do not recite any further additional elements. Claims 2-8, 10-15, 20-23 and 25-30 only recite further details of the abstract idea. As discussed above, the limitations recited in claims 17-19 recite further details about the cells in the battery. These additional elements are clearly generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use for types of battery cells.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL L BARBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5:30..
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 A Turner can be reached on 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.
/MANUEL L BARBEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857