DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently presented for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted has been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "110" in the drawings and "102" in the specification have both been used to designate battery reconstructed specification sheet. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. 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 drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 202. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. 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 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: 110. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the battery latent spaces” when the first recitation is “one or more battery latent spaces”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a vector representations” which is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the battery latent spaces” when the first recitation is “one or more battery latent spaces”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “each battery” without properly referring back to the one or more batteries. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the battery” without properly referring back to “each battery of the one or more batteries”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the battery latent spaces” when the first recitation is “one or more battery latent spaces”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a vector representations” which is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the battery latent spaces” when the first recitation is “one or more battery latent spaces”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “each battery” without properly referring back to the one or more batteries. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the battery” without properly referring back to “each battery of the one or more batteries”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Regarding claims 1-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-12 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 13-20 are directed to a system, which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1 and 13 recite the abstract idea of choosing a battery for an application, constituting an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of " deriving one or more battery latent spaces describing characteristics of one or more batteries;” covers mental processes including judging how to describe a data set about one or more batteries. Additionally, the limitation of “deriving an application latent space describing requirements of the application; and” covers mental processes including evaluating the requirements of an application and making a judgement about how to describe it. Additionally, the limitation of “choosing a best fit between the one or more batteries and the application based on a comparison of the battery latent spaces and the application latent space” covers mental processes including evaluating a dataset to determine the best fit and making a judgment on what to select. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claims 3 and 15 the additional element of “an auto encoding network trained to create the battery latent spaces”, as well as “the application latent space is derived using an auto network trained to create the application latent space” in claims 5 and 15, as well as “a trained neural network” in claims 12 and 20 merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claims 1 and 13 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In Claims 3 and 15 the additional element of “an auto encoding network trained to create the battery latent spaces”, as well as “the application latent space is derived using an auto network trained to create the application latent space” in claims 5 and 15, as well as “a trained neural network” in claims 12 and 20 merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claims 2 and 14 are directed to further defining the representations as vectors, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes”, alternatively this could be viewed as a “Mathematical Concept.”
Dependent claims 4 and 14 are directed to further defining the derivation of the latent space using vectors, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes”, alternatively this could be viewed as a “Mathematical Concept.”
Dependent claims 6 and 16 are directed to further defining the use of a performance model, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 7 and 17 are directed to further defining the output of the system, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 8 and 18 are directed to further defining the use of a score in the selection process, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 9 and 19 is directed to further defining the use of a physics model, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 10 and 19 is directed to further defining the use of a data driven model, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 11 and 19 is directed to further defining the use of a fusion model, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 20 is directed to further defining the use of partial differential equations in the model, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes”, alternatively this could be viewed as a “Mathematical Concept.”
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
The closest prior art references of record are Prat, Herring, Chakraborty, Bucher and Plett. These references alone or in combination do not disclose the limitations including the creation of a battery latent space that is matched to an application latent space using a best fit, in combination with the remaining limitations. Therefore, claims 1-20 as drafted, are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the prior art of the record and the available field of prior art. The claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 101 rejection of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chehade et al. “A Multi-Output Convolved Gaussian Process Model for Capacity Estimation of Electric Vehicle Li-ion Battery Cells”: Also teaches the use of a gaussian process to estimate the life of batteries in an electric vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571-272-4071. 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.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188