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 references listed in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on 08/14/2023, 05/31/2024 and 06/17/2025 have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449 forms).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 17 and 18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
b) Claims 17 and 18 recite the limitation “being worse than” and “being better than”. The term “worse” and “better” renders the claims indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed or clearly defined in the specification and it is a broad term, thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05.
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 non-statutory subject matter.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a system, located on an electric vehicle (EV), comprising: a memory that stores computer executable components; and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable components comprise: a monitoring component configured to receive respective measurements regarding a respective operating condition of individual modules in a set of modules electrically coupled in a battery pack, wherein the battery pack is located on the EV; a degradation component configured to: determine a current operating condition for each module in the set of modules; and based on the respective operating condition of each module, identify one or more modules having an operating condition below a threshold condition to facilitate assessment of overall condition of the battery pack…
Claim 10 recites a computer-implemented method for mitigating degradation of a set of modules in a battery pack located on an electric vehicle (EV) comprising: generating an operational condition for each module in the set of modules; and based on the operational condition determined for each module in the set of modules, selecting a first module to provide electrical energy to a component located onboard the EV…
Claim 17 recites a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to: determine degradation of a module, wherein the module is located in a battery pack located on board an EV and configured to provide power to a component located on the EV; compare the module degradation with a threshold degradation value; and based on the module degradation being worse than the threshold degradation value, select the module to provide electrical energy to the component…
and thus grouped as Mental Processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, the data gathering step, (claim 1) “a monitoring component configured to receive respective measurements regarding a respective operating condition of individual modules in a set of modules electrically coupled in a battery pack” (claim 10) “generating an operational condition for each module” are mere data gathering that do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the additional elements (claims 1, 10, and 17) “a memory, a processor, component and modules” are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions amount to no more than using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. All of which are considered not indicative of integration into a practical application (see “Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4/ Monday, January 7, 2019 / Notices” – page 55, second column).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of the data gathering steps are mere data collect steps which fall under insignificant extra solution activity and deemed insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” - see MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional elements of the processors and modules are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and deemed insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-16 and 18-20 when analyzed as a whole are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea as they are directed mental processes and/or insignificant extra solution activity that do not add significantly more.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory matter.
The claims are drawn to a “computer readable medium”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent (see MPEP 2111.01). Because the broadest reasonable interpretation covers a signal per se, a rejection under 35 USC 101 is appropriate as covering non-statutory subject matter.
The Examiner suggests that Applicant amends the claims as follows: “non-transitory computer readable medium containing computer instructions stored therein for causing a computer processor to perform steps of”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Uchida [US 2011/0218703 A1].
Regarding claim 1, Uchida teaches a system (vehicle diagnosis system - 0038), located on an electric vehicle (EV) (vehicle may also be an electric motor vehicle - 0047), comprising: a memory that stores computer executable components (stores results of the diagnosis in a diagnostic result database – 0035); and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory (a battery ECU 44, a vehicle-mounted ECU 12 – 0043), wherein the computer executable components comprise:
a monitoring component configured to receive respective measurements regarding a respective operating condition (voltage value of the battery 11 is measured by the voltage sensor 42, and the current value is measured by the current sensor 43 – 0044, 0046) of individual modules in a set of modules electrically coupled in a battery pack (the battery 11 includes battery modules 16-1 to 16-n that are connected in series - 0048), wherein the battery pack is located on the EV (the vehicle 10 includes driving wheel 22, a travel motor 41, an engine 24, and inverter 29, and a battery 11 - 0042);
a degradation component configured to:
determine a current operating condition for each module in the set of modules (making a determination regarding the degradation of each module - 0053); and
based on the respective operating condition of each module, identify one or more modules having an operating condition below a threshold condition to facilitate assessment of overall condition of the battery pack (determination regarding each of the battery modules 1 to n as to whether the battery module is good (OK) or no good (NG) on the basis of a reference threshold value are displayed - figure 6, 0054, 0055).
Regarding claim 2, Uchida teaches the degradation component is further configured to select the one or more modules having an operating condition below the threshold condition (number of and the positions of battery units whose degrees of degradation - 0055, 0075) to provision energy to a component located on the EV (The battery 11 supplies electric power to the inverter 29 that drives and controls the travel motor 41 - 0042).
Regarding claim 3, Uchida teaches the degradation component is further configured to generate the threshold condition based upon determining a range of module degradation in the set of modules derived from the current operating condition for each module (recognizes the number of and the positions of modules whose degrees of degradation are larger than the predetermined threshold value - 0055, 0075).
Regarding claim 4, Uchida teaches a presentation component configured to provide a visual representation of the battery pack and location of the modules with their respective current operating condition (figure 4 - 0074, figure 6 - 0075, figure 7 – 0075) (The data about NG modules are shown in double-line frames, or highlighted in different colors, for example, red, yellow, green, etc. – 0062).
Regarding claim 5, Uchida teaches an alarm system configured to generate a first alarm (double-line frames or highlighted), displayed on the presentation component, that one or more of the modules are in an inferior operating condition compared to an operating condition of other modules presented in the visual representation (The data about NG modules are shown in double-line frames, or highlighted in different colors, for example, red, yellow, green, etc. – figure 7, 0062).
Regarding claim 6, Uchida teaches the alarm system is further configured to generate a second alarm (double-line frames or highlighted), displayed on the presentation component (The data about NG modules are shown in double-line frames, or highlighted in different colors, for example, red, yellow, green, etc. – figure 7, 0062), to replace a module to enable the battery pack to remain at an acceptable level of overall operational condition (entire replacement plan – 0058, 0064, replaced according to the plan - 0065).
Regarding claim 7, Uchida teaches a scheduling component configured to determine at least one of a time or a location for replacement of the module (user can select any one of the three plans – 0056, 0064).
Regarding claim 8, Uchida teaches an artificial intelligence (AI) component configured to determine a future operating condition (remaining service life) for each module in the set of modules based on operational use of the EV (the remaining service life estimation portion 112 that estimates the remaining service life of the battery - 0076) (figure 8, display the remaining service life – 0077).
Regarding claim 9, Uchida teaches the AI component is configured to determine a future condition of the one or more modules based upon at least one of a weather prediction, a route, a parking location, charge cycling, calendar ageing, time of day, a user profile (display formats for a plurality of recipients of the information, for example, the user – 0039) (whereby the user can select any one of the three choices – 0056) (the plurality of information recipients include the users of vehicles – 0078).
Regarding claim 10, Uchida teaches a computer-implemented method (a battery ECU 44, a vehicle-mounted ECU 12 – 0043) for mitigating degradation of a set of modules in a battery pack located on (the vehicle 10 includes driving wheel 22, a travel motor 41, an engine 24, and inverter 29, and a battery 11 - 0042) an electric vehicle (EV) (vehicle may also be an electric motor vehicle - 0047) comprising:
generating an operational condition for each module (making a determination regarding the degradation of each module - 0053) in the set of modules (the battery 11 includes battery modules 16-1 to 16-n that are connected in series - 0048); and
based on the operational condition determined for each module in the set of modules (determination regarding each of the battery modules 1 to n as to whether the battery module is good (OK) or no good (NG) on the basis of a reference threshold value are displayed - figure 6, 0054, 0055), selecting a first module to provide electrical energy to a component located onboard the EV (The battery 11 supplies electric power to the inverter 29 that drives and controls the travel motor 41 - 0042).
Regarding claim 11, Uchida teaches the first module is selected based upon an operational condition for the first module being below a first threshold value (determination regarding each of the battery modules 1 to n as to whether the battery module is good (OK) or no good (NG) on the basis of a reference threshold value are displayed - figure 6, 0054, 0055).
Regarding claim 12, Uchida teaches presenting a visual representation of the battery pack with the location and operating condition of the first module identified (figure 4 - 0074, figure 6 - 0075, figure 7 – 0075) (The data about NG modules are shown in double-line frames, or highlighted in different colors, for example, red, yellow, green, etc. – 0062); and indicating on the visual representation which of the modules in the set of modules have been selected (figure 4 - 0074, figure 6 - 0075, figure 7 – 0075) (The data about NG modules are shown in double-line frames, or highlighted in different colors, for example, red, yellow, green, etc. – 0062) to provide electrical energy to the component (The battery 11 supplies electric power to the inverter 29 that drives and controls the travel motor 41 - 0042)..
Regarding claim 13, Uchida teaches presenting an indication (double-line frames or highlighted) that the operating condition of the first module requires replacement of the first module (figure 4 - 0074, figure 6 - 0075, figure 7 – 0075) (The data about NG modules are shown in double-line frames, or highlighted in different colors, for example, red, yellow, green, etc. – 0062), (entire replacement plan – 0058, 0064, replaced according to the plan - 0065).
Regarding claim 14, Uchida teaches scheduling replacement of the first module (user can select any one of the three plans – 0056, 0064).
Regarding claim 15, Uchida teaches determining a future operational condition for the EV; determining a future operational condition for each module in the set of modules based on the future operational condition of the EV (display formats for a plurality of recipients of the information, for example, the user – 0039) (whereby the user can select any one of the three choices – 0056) (the plurality of information recipients include the users of vehicles – 0078); determining a second threshold value; and re-selecting which modules in the set of modules are to be utilized to provide electrical energy to the component based upon the second threshold value (figure 4 - 0074, figure 6 - 0075, figure 7 – 0075) (The data about NG modules are shown in double-line frames, or highlighted in different colors, for example, red, yellow, green, etc. – 0062), (recognizes the number of and the positions of modules whose degrees of degradation are larger than the predetermined threshold value - 0055, 0075).
Regarding claim 16, Uchida teaches the future operational condition of the EV is based upon at least one of driving condition, driving route, user profile (display formats for a plurality of recipients of the information, for example, the user – 0039) (whereby the user can select any one of the three choices – 0056) (the plurality of information recipients include the users of vehicles – 0078).
Regarding claim 17, Uchida teaches a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to (a battery ECU 44, a vehicle-mounted ECU 12 – 0043) cause the processor to:
determine degradation of a module (making a determination regarding the degradation of each module - 0053), wherein the module is located in a battery pack located on board an EV (the vehicle 10 includes driving wheel 22, a travel motor 41, an engine 24, and inverter 29, and a battery 11 - 0042) and configured to provide power to a component located on the EV (The battery 11 supplies electric power to the inverter 29 that drives and controls the travel motor 41 - 0042);
compare the module degradation with a threshold degradation value; and
based on the module degradation being worse than the threshold degradation value (determination regarding each of the battery modules 1 to n as to whether the battery module is good (OK) or no good (NG) on the basis of a reference threshold value are displayed - figure 6, 0054, 0055), select the module to provide electrical energy to the component (figure 6, 0054, 0055).
Regarding claim 18, Uchida teaches the program instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the processor to: based on the module degradation being better than the threshold degradation value, not utilize the module to power the component (determination regarding each of the battery modules 1 to n as to whether the battery module is good (OK) or no good (NG) on the basis of a reference threshold value are displayed - figure 6, 0054, 0055).
Regarding claim 19, Uchida teaches the program instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the processor to: display a visual representation of the battery pack with an indication of the location and operational condition of the module within the battery pack (figure 4 - 0074, figure 6 - 0075, figure 7 – 0075) (The data about NG modules are shown in double-line frames, or highlighted in different colors, for example, red, yellow, green, etc. – 0062); and indicate whether the module has been selected to provide electrical energy to component (The data about NG modules are shown in double-line frames, or highlighted in different colors, for example, red, yellow, green, etc. – figure 7, 0062).
Regarding claim 20, Uchida teaches the program instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the processor to schedule replacement of the module (user can select any one of the three plans – 0056, 0064).
Relevant Prior Art / Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Haag et al. (US Patent Number 9,851,412 B2) discloses a method for performance analysis of a battery module. The battery module includes a multitude of interconnected battery cells and a battery management system with a plurality of dedicated analysis/control units (ACUs) that analyze performance of the battery module;
Hyde et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0332370 A1) discloses a replaceable battery valuation system with a controller configured to determine a monetary value of at least one replaceable battery module based upon sensor data regarding the at least one characteristic of the at least one replaceable battery module;
Cornelli et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0249279 A1) discloses a method for diagnosing battery pack faults by measuring battery parameters using one or more electrical sensors, including a voltage of each cell/cell group.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICKY GO whose telephone number is (571)270-3340. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arleen M. Vazquez can be reached on (571) 272-2619. 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/RICKY GO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857