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 .
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12 AUG 2025, 05 JUL 2024, 13 FEB 2024, and 30 JAN 2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs are being considered by the Examiner.
CLAIM STATUS
Claims 1-20 were pending.
Claims 1 and 9 are currently amended.
Claim 21 remains canceled.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined again herein.
RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S AMENDMENTS/ARGUMENTS
– 35 USC § 112(a) –
Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 USC § 112(a).
Re claim 1, Applicant argues,
“the application and the claims clearly describe that machine learning programs are used to make the prediction…the application clearly describes that ‘capacity factor learning data’ is learning data for making accurate capacity measurement results using machine learning…the application and claims clearly describe example algorithms of machine learning program…therefore, one skilled in the art would have clear direction as to how to arrive at the capacity predictions described in the application.”
While the Examiner does not dispute that the application and claims describe that machine learning program “are used to make the prediction”, the Examiner asserts that such is not the test for sufficient written description. Particularly in largely mathematical processing algorithms, it is imperative that Applicant disclose the specific algorithm for their specific claimed features. Reciting a general mathematical technique such as “machine learning” is not akin to disclosing the algorithm required to accomplish the claimed features. Generic language like this does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the full scope of the claim.1 In other words, arguing that generally applying “machine learning” to a dataset merely reflects a black box processing feature, as there are nearly infinite algorithms that may applying. Furthermore, applying the general “machine learning” to a particular dataset, does not sufficiently limit the algorithm to ensure that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the subject matter claimed, as required. Assuming, arguendo, that Applicant’s asserted test for sufficient written description were true, Applicant’s own reasoning could be construed as an admission that the claimed invention is obvious since both the data and the alleged algorithm are such that “one skilled in the art is well informed…as to the data on which the machine learning programs are trained” and “one skilled in the art would have clear direction as to how to arrive at the capacity predictions described in the application”. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and claims 1-20 remain rejected under 35 USC §112(a).
– 35 USC § 112(b) –
Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 USC § 112(b).
Re claims 9-16, the Examiner appreciates the Applicant’s prompt attention to antecedent basis deficiencies and, in view of Applicant’s amendments, hereby withdraws such rejections.
Re claims 1-8 and 17-20, Applicant argues,
“the term ‘processor’ is a well-known and well-understood term that refers to a physical circuit that performs operations on external data.”
While the Examiner concedes the term “processor” is a well-known and well-understood term, the Examiner asserts that under its BRI, absent a specific, limiting definition in the Specification, such term is not limited to physical embodiments, as Applicant alleges, and is routinely used as a nonce term to describe functional features of a claim, as is the case here. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and claims 1-8 and 17-20 remain rejected under 35 USC §112(b).
– 35 USC § 101 –
Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Re claim 1, Applicant argues,
“claim 1 is amended to recite ‘an output interface configured to output the calculated capacity prediction data…Applicant submits that the claims are now eligible.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Merely generally providing a data element as an output does not sufficiently integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. More specifically, the claim, at a very high level, receives data, processes data, and outputs a data element, only loosely tied to battery technology. The claim does not incorporate the battery itself or any of the elements necessary to accomplish the measurements that may sufficiently integrate the abstract idea. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and claims 1-20 remain rejected under 35 USC §101.
– 35 USC § 102/103 –
Claims 1-5, 9-13, and 17-20 were rejected under 35 USC § 102 as being anticipated by SUNG.
Claims 6-8 and 14-16 were rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over SUNG/PAJOVIC.
Re newly amended claim 1, Applicant argues,
“The Office Action relies on paragraphs 88, 124 and 125 of Sung as teaching deriving a capacity distribution and performing different machine learning programs from each battery capacity range. The cited passages describe, at most, "machine learning classification model," that "the inferring of the battery state probability value ... may be performed based on a single set of the segment data, or an average value of probability values inferred from successive sets of the segment data," and that "the battery state estimating apparatus may determine whether the segment data extracted from the battery sensor signal follows a normal state probability pattern or an abnormal state probability pattern based on the prelearned battery state estimation model." To be clear, the "segments" described in Sung refer to "sets of segment data at a predetermined time interval." (Sung, Abstract (emphasis added).) There is no discussion of using multiple machine learning models in these passages or any other portion of Sung. Furthermore, there is no discussion of dividing learning data into multiple groups based on battery capacity ranges, such that each group is provided to a different machine learning model. At best, Sung describes segmenting data at predetermined time intervals, which does not relate to classifying the data according to battery capacity ranges.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the Applicant appears to be improperly narrowing the scope of the claim elements “different respective machine learning program” and “battery capacity range”, and thus misinterpreting SUNG. SUNG is clear at [0088] that any of the exemplary machine learning models may be used for the battery estimation model 440 for each battery state (emphasis added). This model, is based on SUNG’s probability density model which is used to infer the battery state (i.e., a measure of the battery capacity range). Thus, for each state of the battery, SUNG is clear that any of the machine learning models may be used. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and claim 1 remains rejected over SUNG. Additionally, claim 9 recites substantially the same features embodied in a method and therefore remains rejected for substantially the same reasons discussed above.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-20 are argued as allowable based solely on their respective dependencies to claims 1 and 9. Accordingly, claims 2-8 and 10-20 remain rejected.
– Additional Remarks –
Applicant is reminded that in order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims, be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The Applicant’s or patent owner’s reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section2.
Should the Applicant believe that a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant is invited to call the Examiner.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
Claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph3:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “one or more processors configured to: … derive… perform… calculate…” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or
present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, for failing to disclose a sufficient algorithm to satisfy the written description requirement.
Re claim 1, Applicant’s recitation does not comply with the written description requirement because it sets forth a computer-implemented feature without an algorithm disclosed for achieving the particular computer-implemented feature. This rejection applies regardless of whether § 112(f) is invoked.4
Particularly, claim 1 recites the following computer-implemented feature:
“one or more processors configured to: … derive a capacity distribution… perform a different respective machine learning program… calculate capacity prediction data...”
Applicant is respectfully reminded, for computer-implemented claims, “examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter.” MPEP § 2161.01(I).
Applicant’s specification does not describe an algorithm that performs these functions in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. For example, Applicant’s specification discloses various “models” without disclosing any of the particulars of such models. However, such disclosure is not an algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed feature in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter.
Applicant is also reminded, “[i]f the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 USC 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 USC 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.” MPEP § 2161.01(I).
Therefore, because an algorithm for the computer-implemented feature is not disclosed in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter, and in accordance with MPEP § 2161.01, claim 1 is rejected for lack of written description.
Dependent claims 2-8 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth directly above) and are rejected accordingly.
Claims 9-20 contain language similar to claims 1-8 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 9-20 are also rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION - The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the Applicant), regards as the invention.
Re claim 1, as mentioned above, the limitation “one or more processors configured to: … derive… perform… calculate…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claims 2-8 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth directly above) and are rejected accordingly.
Claims 17-20 contain language similar to claims 1-8 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 17-20 are also rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) as 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 REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Following the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (89 FR 58128 and MPEP § 2106, hereinafter 2024 GUIDANCE), the claim(s) appear to fall into one of the enumerated statutory categories and recites at least one judicial exception, as explained in the Step 2A, Prong I analysis below. Furthermore, the judicial exception(s) does/do not appear to be integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong II analysis below. Further still, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
STEP 2A, PRONG I:
Step 2A, prong I, of the 2024 GUIDANCE, first looks to whether the claimed invention recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
Re claim 1, Applicant recites the following limitations:
derive a capacity distribution of the prediction battery from the capacity factor learning data;
for each battery capacity range of the capacity distribution of the prediction battery derived from the capacity factor learning data, perform a different respective machine learning program; and
calculate capacity prediction data of the prediction battery based on results of the plurality of different respective machine learning programs;
These steps are directed to a mathematical concept, such as determining a mathematical relationship or performing a mathematical calculation, and/or a mental process. The 2024 GUIDANCE expressly recognizes such mathematical relationships/calculations and mental processes as constituting patent-ineligible abstract ideas. Accordingly, these limitations can reasonably be characterized as reciting a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
STEP 2A, PRONG II:
Step 2A, prong II, of the 2024 GUIDANCE, next analyzes whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that individually or in combination integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the 2024 GUIDANCE identifies various considerations indicative of whether an additional element or combination of elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, such as an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Re claim 1, in addition to reciting the above-noted abstract idea(s), the judicial exception recited in the claim is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited, namely “A device for measuring battery capacity, the device including: an input interface configured to receive: capacity factor learning data measured in a first charging and discharging process performed for a specific time on a single learning battery selected as a learning target; capacity factor measurement data measured in a second charging and discharging process performed for a specific time of a prediction battery selected as a prediction target; one or more processors configured to: and an output interface configured to output the calculated capacity prediction data.”, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, these additional elements merely reflect insignificant extra-solution activity. An example such activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process. Here, the “configured to receive…learning data…measurement data” steps merely represent data gathering while the “configured to output” step merely represents insignificant post-solution activity. Furthermore, nothing in the claim reasonably indicates that anything other than a generic computer (i.e., “input interface” and “one or more processors”) needs to be used to carry out the abstract idea.
STEP 2B:
Step 2B of the 2024 GUIDANCE, next analyzes whether the claimed invention adds any specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that, either alone or as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field.
Re claim 1, the additional limitation(s) recited above only generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological field. Furthermore, these additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they again merely reflect insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., obtaining and transmitting data) while only generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological field (i.e., performed by a “one or more computer processors”). Further still, this/these additional limitation(s) does/do not, as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter for at least these reasons.
Re claims 2-8, these claims do not cure the deficiencies noted above with regard to claim 1, from which they depend, as they merely add further mathematical/mental processing steps and/or other extra-solution activity. Accordingly, they are rejected under the same or substantially similar analysis, as outlined above.
Re claims 9-20, Applicant recites language similar to claims 1-8, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 12-20 are also rejected under 35 USC § 101 as failing to recite patent-eligible subject matter.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 9-13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sung, US 20160239759 (hereinafter “SUNG”).
Re claim 1, SUNG discloses a device for measuring battery capacity ([0009]), the device including:
an input interface configured to receive ([0055]):
capacity factor learning data measured in a first charging and discharging process performed for a specific time a single learning battery selected as a learning target ([0120-0121]); and
capacity factor measurement data of measured in a second charging and discharging process performed for a specific time of a prediction battery selected as a prediction target ([0124-0125]);
one or more processors configured to ([0088], [0108-0109]):
derive a capacity distribution of the prediction battery from the capacity factor learning data ([0088], [0124-0125])
for each battery capacity range of the capacity distribution of the prediction battery derived from the capacity factor learning data, perform a different respective machine learning program ([0088], [0124-0125]); and
calculate capacity prediction data of the prediction battery based on results of the plurality of different respective machine learning programs ([0088], [0124-0125]); and
an output interface configured to output the calculated capacity prediction data ([0088], [0124-0125])
Re claim 2, SUNG discloses the device of claim 1, as shown above. SUNG further discloses:
wherein the capacity factor learning data of the learning battery includes battery charge capacity and battery discharge capacity which are measured during charging, discharging, and resting of the learning battery by corresponding to the capacity measurement value for a rated capacity of the learning battery, wherein the capacity factor learning data further includes one or more of battery charge voltage, battery discharge voltage, battery open International circuit voltage (OCV), battery charge current, battery discharge current, battery impedance, and battery temperature ([0063], [0104])
Re claim 3, SUNG discloses the device of claim 1, as shown above. SUNG further discloses:
wherein the capacity factor measurement data of the learning battery includes one or more of battery charge voltage, battery discharge voltage, battery open circuit voltage (OCV), battery charge current, battery discharge current, battery charge capacity, battery discharge capacity, battery impedance, and battery temperature which are measured during charging, discharging, and resting of the prediction battery ([0104])
Re claim 4, SUNG discloses the device of claim 1, as shown above. SUNG further discloses:
wherein the plurality of different respective machine learning programs is a plurality of different respective regression model algorithms ([0088])
Re claim 5, SUNG discloses the device of claim 4, as shown above. SUNG further discloses:
wherein the plurality of different respective regression model algorithms include one or more of a decision tree, support vector machine (SVM), random forest, partial least square regression, quantile regression, gradient boosting machine, deep neural networks, and generalized linear/nonlinear regression ([0088])
Re claims 9-13, 17, and 19, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claims 1-5. Accordingly, claims 9-13, 17, and 19 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claims 1-5.
Re claim 18, SUNG discloses the device of claim 17, as shown above. SUNG further discloses:
a battery management system (BMS) device including the device according to claim 1 ([0126])
Re claim 20, SUNG discloses the mobile apparatus of claim 19, as shown above. SUNG further discloses:
wherein at least one of: the input interface; the one or more processors; or the output interface is embedded in the mobile apparatus ([0126])
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.
Claims 6-8 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over SUNG in view of Pajovic et al., US 20170350944 (hereinafter “PAJOVIC”).
Re claim 6, SUNG discloses the device of claim 1, as shown above. SUNG further discloses:
memory configured to store data measured under a rated capacity condition of the prediction battery ([0125-0126])
wherein the one or more processors are configured to diagnose a capacity and state of the prediction battery ([0079-0082])
SUNG fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to compare the battery capacity prediction data and results of the data measured under the rated capacity condition of the prediction battery to determine a reliability of the battery capacity prediction data
control battery operation depending on the diagnosis of the capacity and state of the prediction battery
However, PAJOVIC, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches:
one or more processors configured to compare battery capacity prediction data and results of the data measured under a rated capacity condition of a prediction battery to determine a reliability of battery capacity prediction data ([0064-0065])
control battery operation depending on a diagnosis of the capacity and state of the prediction battery ([0002]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify the battery capacity estimation system of SUNG to include the particular estimation reliability operations of PAJOVIC. One would have been motivated to do so in order to protect the battery from over-charge and over-discharge events (see PAJOVIC [0002]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, PAJOVIC merely teaches that it is well-known to calculate a reliability of battery capacity estimates. Since both SUNG and PAJOVIC disclose similar battery capacity estimation and management systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 7, SUNG/PAJOVIC renders obvious the device of claim 6, as shown above.
SUNG fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the reliability of the battery capacity prediction data based on the capacity distribution measured under the rated capacity condition of the prediction battery stored in the memory, a coefficient of determination, a mean absolute error, a root mean square error, or a mean absolute percentage error
However, PAJOVIC, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein one or more processors are configured to determine a reliability of the battery capacity prediction data based on the capacity distribution measured under the rated capacity condition of the prediction battery stored in the memory, a coefficient of determination, a mean absolute error, a root mean square error, or a mean absolute percentage error ([0092])
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify the battery capacity estimation system of SUNG to include the particular estimation reliability operations of PAJOVIC. One would have been motivated to do so in order to protect the battery from over-charge and over-discharge events (see PAJOVIC [0002]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, PAJOVIC merely teaches that it is well-known to calculate a reliability of battery capacity estimates. Since both SUNG and PAJOVIC disclose similar battery capacity estimation and management systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 8, SUNG discloses the device of claim 1, as shown above.
SUNG fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein each battery capacity range of the capacity distribution of the prediction battery is determined by an integer multiple or a real number multiple of a standard deviation based on a mean or median of the capacity distribution
However, PAJOVIC, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein each battery capacity range of the capacity distribution of the prediction battery is determined by an integer multiple or a real number multiple of a standard deviation based on a mean or median of the capacity distribution ([0092], [0059-0062])
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify the battery capacity estimation system of SUNG to include the particular estimation reliability operations of PAJOVIC. One would have been motivated to do so in order to protect the battery from over-charge and over-discharge events (see PAJOVIC [0002]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, PAJOVIC merely teaches that it is well-known to calculate a reliability of battery capacity estimates. Since both SUNG and PAJOVIC disclose similar battery capacity estimation and management systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claims 14-16, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claims 6-8. Accordingly, claims 14-16 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claims 6-8.
CONCLUSION
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M HAMMOND III whose telephone number is (571)272-2215. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached on 571-272-2375. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. For more information about the PAIR system, see: https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Respectfully,
/Thomas M Hammond III/Primary Examiner, GAU 2855
1 MPEP 2161.01
2 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b)
3 MPEP § 2181, subsection I
4 This rejection does not rely on 35 USC § 112(f) being invoked. See MPEP § 2161.01 (“[C]laims with computer-implemented functional claim limitations may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. […]. Even if a claim is not construed as a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), computer-implemented functional claim language must still be evaluated for sufficient disclosure under the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).” (emphasis added)).