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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/26/26 has been entered. Currently claims 12, 13, are pending.
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 12, 13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a system and pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of outputting reuse applications for batteries based on battery history information and battery degradation information. This is claiming a process that is analyzing battery information to determine what to do with the battery, which is the claimed reuse application and is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activities.
For claim 12, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
wherein at a first time point, estimate[s] as a first state a state relating to performance of a battery at a second time point later than the first time point, and thereafter, measure[s] as a second state a state relating to performance of the battery at the second time point;
acquire[s], based on usage history information of the battery in a designated period, a degradation trend of a change in the state relating to performance of the battery during a period from the first time point to the second time point; and
output[s] information relating to a state of the battery after the second time point and to a reuse application based on the first state, the second state, and the degradation trend of the change in the state relating to performance
The above limitations are reciting a process that is analyzing battery information to determine what to do with the battery, which is the claimed reuse application, such as whether or not a battery owner should send the battery to recycling or if the battery should be re-leased another time. As the applicant has argued in the RCE remarks, the reuse application (whether or not the battery can practically be reused) may be such that the output is to recommend recycling of the battery. The claim is analyzing information about a battery to make a recommendation on whether or not the battery can be reused again and includes the possibility that the recommendation is to recycle the battery. This is determining the viability of reusing a battery in the context of recycling and battery disposition, and is reciting a certain method of organizing human activities type of abstract idea. Analyzing products such as batteries to judge their health status and to determine if they should be reused or recycled again is a business interaction (a commercial practice) that represents a certain method of organizing human activities. The claimed steps that define the abstract idea can be performed by human beings, where a person is making the claimed estimation of the first and second state for the battery based on data. A person can look at usage history and acquire a degradation trend as claimed, and a person can provide output of the state of the battery and the reuse application (the recommendation on if the battery can be lease again or should be recycled) on a paper report. The claimed elements are broadly recited such that they are claiming a functional end result to be achieved that is not done in any particular manner. People can perform the broadly recited functions/steps that defines the abstract idea.
For claim 12, the additional elements of the claims are the recitation to a processor, an input interface, and an output interface. These elements are reciting generic computing hardware that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that defines the abstract idea. All computers have interfaces that allow for data to be input/received and that allow for data to be output via a graphical user interface. The additional elements are a general link to computer implementation for the abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination, amount to the use of a computer (processor, interfaces) that is being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited processor and the input and output interface, all of which are generically recited and are noting more than a general link to using computers to perform the abstract idea. The extent of the use of the processor and the interfaces is that they are being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea. The claims recite what the processor or the interfaces do stepwise, but the claim does not recite how the claimed elements are involved in executing the claimed step such that it cannot be performed by a person or would amount to more than a general link to computer implementation for the abstract idea. The additional elements do not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) with interfaces, which is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(F). The claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner for these reasons.
For step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a processor and input/output interfaces as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The reasoning set forth above for the 2nd prong is equally applicable to step 2B. The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited processor and the input and output interface, all of which are generically recited and do not amount to more than a general link to using computers to perform the abstract idea. The extent of the use of the processor and the interfaces is that they are being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea. The claims recite what the processor or the interfaces do stepwise, but the claim does not recite how the claimed elements are involved in executing the claimed step such that it cannot be performed by a person or would amount to more than a general link to computer implementation for the abstract idea. This does not render the claims as being eligible by reciting significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The considerations at the 2nd prong and step 2B overlap substantially when the issue at hand is mere computer implementation (“apply it”) with a generic computer. Therefore, claim 12 is not found to be reciting significantly more and is not eligible.
For claim 13, the abstract idea is being further defined by the elements of:
a degradation trend determination model with the usage history information of the battery as input and the degradation trend of the battery as output,
learn[s], as training data, the usage history information of the battery and the degradation state of the battery after being used as indicated by the usage history information, and
update[s] the degradation trend determination model regularly or irregularly, and
acquire[s] the degradation trend of the battery using the usage history information and the degradation trend determination model
The claimed elements are considered to be part of the abstract idea. A person can be the one creating the model. The model as an element is part of the abstract idea because it is a methodology or a scheme for doing something. This is part of the abstract idea. For the learn as training data limitation, this limitation can be a person learning the data because the learn limitation is not linked to the model in any manner. A person can learn the data and can update the model manually, such as by changing weights used by the model. The elements that define the abstract idea can be performed by people and are part of the process by which the reuse application is being recommended to a user. The claimed processor is the only additional element and has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claim 12 to which the applicant is referred. The processor is simply being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea which does not render claim 13 as eligible, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
Therefore, for the above reasons, claims 12, 13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishizawa (20140019001).
For claim 12, Nishizawa discloses a system and method for predicting the performance state of a battery at a future time by using battery information and historical information to predict the degradation of a battery, so that a reuse application can be determined (should the battery be used again, should it be recycled, etc.). See paragraph 001-003, 008-009 for a general overview. Disclosed is that it is desirable to forecast battery performance because battery performance degrades over time and it is desirable to determine battery performance at a future time so that decisions can be made regarding reuse of the batteries.
Nishizawa discloses the claimed use or a processor to estimate (at a first time) a state relating to the performance of a battery at a second point in time (a later time) and that measures a battery state relating to battery performance at the second time. Nishizawa teaches that the system includes a server 20 that is used to forecast (estimate) battery performance at a future time, see paragraphs 020, 021, 033, 041. Disclosed is that a server 20 (satisfies the claimed processor) uses battery data and battery history data to make a prediction (a prediction is an estimation as claimed) regarding the battery state (performance) at a later time. Paragraph 034 discloses that it is known in the art that battery performance degrades over time, and paragraph 041 teaches the analysis of battery information to determine a battery state for a future time.
Nishizawa discloses the claimed usage history information being used to determine a degradation trend for a battery that relates to a change in state for battery performance from a first time to a second time point. See paragraph 047-050, and figure 6. Nishizawa teaches that battery degradation data is graphed, and based on the battery degradation data that indicates a trend in the degradation for the battery, a predicted performance of the battery can be estimated as claimed. Nishizawa discloses that the performance of a battery degrades over time, and teaches that the degradation data can be used to determine an estimate of the performance for a battery at a future time. Disclosed is that data can be extrapolated, which is the use of a trend for the degradation for the battery. The data that is stored in the database of Nishizawa includes data that is historical data for a battery and its use, see paragraph 039, 050 where it is disclosed that the database is updated with data such as updated battery information that is indicative of the performance of the battery.
Nishizawa discloses that information is output to a user that “relates to” the state of the battery after the second time point and a reuse application for the battery based on the first state, second state, and the degradation trend. Nishizawa teaches that the system will analyze the battery information to determine if a battery can be reused, or should be disposed of, or should be recycled, see paragraphs 027, 029, 055. The system of Nishizawa uses the battery degradation information to determine if a battery can be reused or if the battery should be recycled. This satisfies the claimed reuse application that is determined and that is output to the user by the interface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizawa (20140019001) in view of Viswanathan et al. (20220057451, provisional was filed 08/21/2020).
For claim 13, Nishizawa teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Nishizawa discloses that a battery degradation trend is determined based on battery usage information used as input and a degradation trend as an output (graph of degradation and extrapolation of the data to the future is using trend data).
Not disclosed is that the system of Nishizawa uses a degradation trend model where training data is learned and the model is updated as claimed. This is claiming the use of machine learning and training of a model to perform the step of determining the degradation of the battery, where the model is trained and learns (is adjusted, is modified, is updated).
Viswanathan teaches a system and method for estimating battery health that uses machine learning. Viswanathan is analogous to Nishizawa because the reference also deals with batteries and determining battery health. Viswanathan teaches in paragraph 102 that machine learning is used to predict battery degradation. Machine learning by definition includes training of models and updating of models as they learn. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Nishizawa with the ability to use a machine learning battery degradation model to estimate the battery degradation, as taught by Viswanathan, so that the advantages of machine learning can be utilized in the system of Nishizawa. This would yield the predictable result of using machine learning models that are trained and updated as they learn so that the degradation estimation made in Nishizawa would be more accurate through the use of machine learning technology. This would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and is simply adopting the use of machine learning for the system of Nishizawa.
Response to arguments
The traversal of the 35 USC 101 rejection is not persuasive. On page 6 of the reply the applicant argues that the claimed invention includes a processor that performs actions at different times which is the estimating and measuring of the battery states. The applicant argues that the invention also acquires a degradation trend that is based on usage history from the claimed first time point to the second time point. The applicant also argues that the invention outputs information relating to the state of the battery and a reuse application based on the first state, second state, and degradation trend. What has been argued are the elements that define the abstract idea, which is not persuasive to show that the claims are integrated into a practical application or recite significantly more. The fact that the processor is involved in the execution of the estimation and measurement of the performance is an instruction for one to use a computer to perform the abstract idea, and does not provide for integration into a practical application or significantly more. This is a link to a particular technological environment that is the use of computers. This does not render the claims eligible for the reasons set forth in the rejection of record, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
On page 8 of the reply the applicant argues that the reuse application of the claim is not a guaranteed result of the output information. The applicant argues that based on the degradation trend, there may be no reuse application for the battery such that the battery cannot be reused, and the applicant argues that a recommendation to recycle the battery is made. This is not persuasive and does not seem to be commensurate with the scope of the claims because it is not recited that there is no reuse application determined. Regardless, the applicant is arguing the elements of the claim that defines the abstract idea. The analysis of the information to determine a reuse application for the battery is what defines the abstract idea. Determining whether or not a battery can be reused or should be recycled is what defines the abstract idea. There is no argument directed at additional elements that would somehow render the claim eligible.
On pages 7-8 the applicant argues that the reuse application not only determines a rental fee for the battery but performs an overall determination of the viability of continuing to lease the battery. If the battery is not to be leased further, the applicant argues that the battery is to be recycled and this fact is output as information on the output interface. The examiner notes that this argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims that does not recite determining a rental fee and determining a viability of continuing to lease the battery, other than broadly reciting that a reuse application is determined. However, the argument is still not persuasive because the applicant is just arguing the elements that defines the abstract idea. Determining a reuse application as claimed is what defines the abstract idea. The argument is not persuasive.
The applicant also argues on pages 7-8 that end of useful life conditions are determined, such as if the battery is no longer financially viable to continue to lease because the battery is not expected to be fully functional during an expected lease term. While the claims do not recite anything about lease terms, the applicant is arguing the abstract idea of the claim, which is not persuasive. The applicant is not pointing to any additional elements that are believed to render the claim eligible. All that has been argued are the elements that define the abstract idea.
The applicant argues on page 8 that the claims recite a technical improvement in how battery prognosis, diagnostics, and automated life cycle management are performed. This is not persuasive because the claims do not recite anything about improving the functioning or operation of a battery. Estimating whether or not one should re-lease a battery for another lease term based on estimations of battery state (degradation) is not improving any of the technology recited in the claims and does not serve to improve the functioning or operation of a battery. The argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626