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 .
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.
With respect to claim 1 the limitation(s):
identifying a plurality of heterogeneous devices, each device comprising a battery to power the device;
monitoring a battery status of each device of the heterogeneous devices over a period of time to generate historical battery status information;
using the historical battery status information, utilizing machine learning to predict remaining battery life for each device of the heterogeneous devices; and
presenting the remaining battery life of each of the heterogeneous devices on a unified dashboard.
These limitation(s) highlighted in (bold) is/are directed to an abstract idea and would fall within the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. The above portion(s) of the claim(s) constitute(s) an abstract idea because:
The limitation(s) regarding “identifying a plurality of heterogeneous devices, each device comprising a battery to power the device”, as drafted, is an act of observation and evaluation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim language precludes the Step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually identifying a battery powered device.
The limitation(s) regarding “using the historical battery status information, utilizing machine learning to predict remaining battery life for each device of the heterogeneous devices”, as drafted, is an act of observation and evaluation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim language precludes the Step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example “predict” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually predict a remaining battery life using battery status information.
Further, the limitation regarding “using the historical battery status information, utilizing machine learning to predict remaining battery life for each device of the heterogeneous devices”, as drafted, falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. This interpretation is supported by the recitation of a mathematical operation acting on one or more variables to determine another. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Further, referring to the MPEP 2106.04, the claim limitations are analogous to a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations, then it fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the non- abstract additional elements of the claims do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s) recited in the preceding claim(s). In particular, the claims recited the additional elements of:
The limitation(s) regarding “each device comprising a battery to power the device” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because it is recited at such a high-level of generality that it is viewed as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to battery powered devices. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, fails to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to.
The limitation(s) regarding “monitoring a battery status of each device of the heterogeneous devices over a period of time to generate historical battery status information” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to. Rather the limitation is recited at such a high-level of generality that it amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e. data gathering. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are regarded as data gathering steps necessary or routine to implement the abstract idea.
The limitation(s) regarding “presenting the remaining battery life of each of the heterogeneous devices on a unified dashboard” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to. Rather the limitation is recited at such a high-level of generality that it amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e. insignificant application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are regarded as data outputting steps necessary or routine to implement the abstract idea. Further, referring to the MPEP 2106.05(g), the claim limitations are analogous to a claim to Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55.
As such Examiner does NOT view that the claims:
-Improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field;
-Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b);
-Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c); or
-Apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
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 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) data gathering functions.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “a battery to power the device” is/are seen as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Linking a judicial exception to a technological environment cannot provide an inventive concept. Similarly, with regards to the additional element(s) of “monitoring a battery status” and “presenting the remaining battery life” is/are viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity, such as mere data gathering in a conventional way and, therefore, does not provide an inventive concept.
Examiner further notes that such additional elements are viewed to be well- understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) as evidenced by: Shuster et al. (US 20150323974 A1); Pantazis et al. (US 20210123982 A1); Ayyadurai et al. (US 20190260853 A1); Przybylski et al. (US 20230356677 A1); and Chandra et al. (US 20170108906 A1).
Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way. As currently claimed, Examiner views that the additional elements do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, because the claims fails to recite clearly how the judicial exception is applied in a manner that does not monopolize the exception because the limitation regarding “a battery to power the device,” “monitoring a battery status,” and “presenting the remaining battery life” can be viewed as a field of use, necessary data gathering, and any device and do not impose a meaningful limitation describing what problem is being remedied or solved.
Independent claims 8 and 15 are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additionally recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an Abstract idea. Claims 8 and 15 recite the additional elements of:
The limitation(s) regarding “a computer-readable storage medium,” “at least one processor,” and “at least one memory device” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to. Rather the limitation is recited at such a high-level of generality that it amounts to a generic computer component performing the generic computer function of receiving, storing, and comparing data such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additionally recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below: there are no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that adds a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea to make the claims significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea).
Claims 3-4, 6-7, 10-11, 13-14, 17-18, and 20 recite limitations regarding data gathering steps and insignificant application necessary or routine to implement the abstract idea and thus are not significantly more than the abstract idea and viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by the prior art shown above.
Claims 5, 7, 12, 14, and 19 further limit the abstract idea with an abstract idea, such as an “Mental Processes”, and thus the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2, 6, 9, 13, 16, 20 recites generic computer components performing the generic computer function of receiving, storing, and comparing data such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
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) 1, 4-6, 8, 11-13, 15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuster et al. (US 20150323974 A1) in view of Pantazis et al. (US 20210123982 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15. Shuster teaches:
A method for unifying battery-status observability across a plurality of heterogeneous devices, the method comprising:
identifying a plurality of heterogeneous devices, each device comprising a battery to power the device (See para[0092]: Alternatively (or in addition), data may be provided to the system (for example, the type of device and/or its power characteristics). In some aspects, the power profile gleaned from the device may be utilized to determine the likely device type by reference to a database of power profiles and associated devices.);
monitoring a battery status of each device of the heterogeneous devices over a period of time to generate historical battery status information (See Fig. 2, para[0010], para[0047], and para[0049]: Past usage history. Declining battery capacity over time and/or other battery characteristics may be utilized to further refine the system.); and
presenting the remaining battery life of each of the heterogeneous devices on a unified dashboard (See Fig. 1A, Fig. 8, para[0009], and para[0091]: In some aspects of the invention, the charge level, status, current usage rate, etc., for a plurality of devices are displayed on one or more devices so that a user may, for example, pull up his desktop computer and see that his phone is charged to 72%, his laptop to 45% and his camera batteries are each charged to 81%, prior to leaving home without the necessity for an alert.).
Shuster is silent as to the language of:
using the historical battery status information, utilizing machine learning to predict remaining battery life for each device of the heterogeneous devices.
Nevertheless Pantazis teaches:
using the historical battery status information, utilizing machine learning to predict remaining battery life for each device of the heterogeneous devices (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, para[0005]: predicting, by using a machine learning algorithm, a remaining battery life of the device on which a specific application is to be executed.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shuster by using the historical battery status information, utilizing machine learning to predict remaining battery life for each device of the heterogeneous devices such as that of Pantazis. Pantazis teaches, “To help users to plan accordingly, devices typically provide a generic estimation of the remaining battery life based on current conditions” (See para[0003]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Shuster, because using machine learning to predict remaining battery life would have helped a user to better plan device usage, as recognized by Pantazis.
Regarding Claims 4, 11, and 18. Shuster teaches:
The method of claim 1, the computer program product of claim 8, or the system of claim 15,
further comprising alerting a user in the event the remaining battery life of a device of the heterogeneous devices falls below a selected threshold (See para[0039]: However, while Amy may set her cellular phone to alert when dropping below 50%.).
Regarding Claims 5, 12, and 19. Shuster teaches:
The method of claim 1, the computer program product of claim 8, or the system of claim 15,
wherein the remaining battery life is represented as an estimated time until discharge of the battery (See Fig. 1, Fig. 5, para[0036], and para[0066]: current usage 102g, 112g, 122g . . . 172g (see also, digital dashboard 800 of FIG. 8). In addition, the predicted usage 502e to complete calendar-based tasks (e.g., 105 minutes) may be displayed.).
Regarding Claims 6, 13, and 20. Shuster teaches:
The method of claim 1, the computer program product of claim 8, or the system of claim 15,
further comprising converting the battery status of each device of the heterogeneous devices into a standard format prior to presentation on the unified dashboard (See Fig. 1A, Fig. 8, para[0035], and para[0097]: a standardized display may be provided (standardized in terms of appearance and/or in terms of the type of data provided) to show overall power status for a plurality of items.).
Claim(s) 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuster et al. (US 20150323974 A1) in view of Pantazis et al. (US 20210123982 A1) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Ayyadurai et al. (US 20190260853 A1).
Regarding Claims 2, 9, and 16. Shuster is silent as to the language of:
The method of claim 1, the computer program product of claim 8, or the system of claim 15,
further comprising installing a monitoring agent on each device of the heterogeneous devices.
Nevertheless Ayyadurai teaches:
installing a monitoring agent on each device of the heterogeneous devices (See Fig. 5, para[0072], and para[0074]: In an embodiment, the monitoring agent 408 may also monitor and measure the performance of an application of the client device 302 and/or a portion of the client agent 321 as a function of power requirements and/or battery discharge such as total battery usage, battery usage per user session and/or battery usage per process.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shuster by installing a monitoring agent on each device of the heterogeneous devices such as that of Ayyadurai. Ayyadurai teaches, “For example, the monitoring agent 408 may monitor the rate of power consumption by a client device while executing an application (e.g., application for streaming video and/or audio, an application for facilitating real-time-data communications, or the like) during a local and/or a remote session” (See para[0072]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Shuster, because installing a monitoring agent would have helped to remotely monitor power consumption of a device, as recognized by Ayyadurai.
Regarding Claims 3, 10, and 17. Shuster is silent as to the language of:
The method of claim 2, the computer program product of claim 9, or the system of claim 16,
wherein monitoring a battery status of each device comprises monitoring a battery status of each device with the device's monitoring agent.
Nevertheless Ayyadurai teaches:
wherein monitoring a battery status of each device comprises monitoring a battery status of each device with the device's monitoring agent (See Fig. 5, para[0072], and para[0074]: In an embodiment, the monitoring agent 408 may also monitor and measure the performance of an application of the client device 302 and/or a portion of the client agent 321 as a function of power requirements and/or battery discharge such as total battery usage, battery usage per user session and/or battery usage per process.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shuster wherein monitoring a battery status of each device comprises monitoring a battery status of each device with the device's monitoring agent such as that of Ayyadurai. Ayyadurai teaches, “For example, the monitoring agent 408 may monitor the rate of power consumption by a client device while executing an application (e.g., application for streaming video and/or audio, an application for facilitating real-time-data communications, or the like) during a local and/or a remote session” (See para[0072]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Shuster, because installing a monitoring agent would have helped to remotely monitor power consumption of a device, as recognized by Ayyadurai.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuster et al. (US 20150323974 A1) in view of Pantazis et al. (US 20210123982 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Przybylski et al. (US 20230356677 A1).
Regarding Claims 7 and 14. Shuster is silent as to the language of:
The method of claim 1 or the computer program product of claim 8,
further comprising accessing crowdsourced data to determine battery life associated with each device of the heterogeneous devices and using the crowdsourced data in addition to the historical battery status information to predict the remaining battery life for each of the heterogeneous devices.
Nevertheless Przybylski teaches:
accessing crowdsourced data to determine battery life associated with each device of the heterogeneous devices and using the crowdsourced data in addition to the historical battery status information to predict the remaining battery life for each of the heterogeneous devices (See para[0004], para[0010], and para[0040]: A battery SoC prediction algorithm, which may operate on the user's device and/or a vehicle controller with a wired or wireless connection to the device, evaluates historical battery use data, bench test data, and/or crowdsourced battery data to estimate an expected battery usage for the device.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shuster by accessing crowdsourced data to determine battery life associated with each device of the heterogeneous devices and using the crowdsourced data in addition to the historical battery status information to predict the remaining battery life for each of the heterogeneous devices such as that of Przybylski. Przybylski teaches, “A battery SoC prediction algorithm, which may operate on the user's device and/or a vehicle controller with a wired or wireless connection to the device, evaluates historical battery use data, bench test data, and/or crowdsourced battery data to estimate an expected battery usage for the device “ (See para[0004]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Shuster, because using crowdsourced data would have helped to estimate an expected battery usage for a device, as recognized by Przybylski.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chandra et al. (US 20170108906 A1) discloses collecting measurements from multiple heterogeneous energy storage devices and displaying on a user interface energy storage representations (See Abstract, Fig. 3 and para[0037]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARTER W FERRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-0551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 am - 8 pm.
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, Catherine T. Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/CARTER W FERRELL/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857