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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant' s amendment and response filed 4/27/2026 has been entered and made record. This application contains 20 pending claims.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 12-15, and 19-20 have been amended.
Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Claim 21 has been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/27/2026 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 in claims 1, 5, and 10-11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Independent claim 1 has been amended and incorporated aspects of allowable claim 2, and thus, overcome the 103 rejections. Therefore, the 103 claims rejections in claims 1, 5, and 10-11 have been withdrawn.
Newly added claim 21 depends from claim 20, and thus, claim 21 is not subject to the 103 rejection.
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/27/2026 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 in claim 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on page 7 of the remark filed that “… Applicants have amended Claims 1, 12, and 20, to include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. Significantly more can be demonstrated by additional elements that are not well-understood and conventional that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, the claims do not recite them. The limitations of “at least one data storage configured to store computer program instructions”; “at least one processor communicatively coupled to the at least one data storage”, “the at least one processor is configured to execute the computer program instructions to perform the following, comprising: receiving battery data for at least one battery including a driving history of an associated electric vehicle”; and “wherein the associated vehicle adjusts a charging voltage of the at least one battery located on the associated electric vehicle based on the SoH via a battery management system, the battery management system is communicatively connected to the at least one battery” are routine in estimating a state of health (SoH) of a battery using experimental and model-based methods for improving the battery life; and are well-understood and conventional. Therefore, the claims 1, 12, and 20 do not contain additional elements that are not well-understood and conventional that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The applicant argues on pages 7-8 of the remark filed on 4/27/2027 that “… The additional elements clearly integrate the claimed invention into a practical application. …”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. Practical application can be demonstrated by additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements “at least one data storage configured to store computer program instructions”; “at least one processor communicatively coupled to the at least one data storage”, “the at least one processor is configured to execute the computer program instructions to perform the following”, and “wherein the associated vehicle adjusts a charging voltage of the at least one battery located on the associated electric vehicle based on the SoH via a battery management system, the battery management system is communicatively connected to the at least one battery” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. The additional elements “receiving battery data for at least one battery including a driving history of an associated electric vehicle” is considered necessary data gathering and thus, not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e., receiving battery data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, the current claims do not recite additional elements that are indicative of integration of an abstract idea into a practical application.
Hence, the Examiner submits that the rejections of Claims 1-20 are proper.
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, and 3-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “A computing system, comprising:
at least one data storage configured to store computer program instructions; and
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the at least one data storage,
the at least one processor is configured to execute the computer program instructions to perform the following, comprising:
receiving battery data for at least one battery including a driving history of an associated electric vehicle;
segmenting the received battery data into a plurality of subsequences;
generating node representations for the plurality of subsequences using at least one time series encoder;
determining a feature-distance adjacency matrix (FDAM) for the node representations;
generating a learned graph representation by applying a graph convolutional network (GCN) on a corresponding graph to the feature-distance adjacency matrix; and
generating one or more labels from the learned graph representation by using a node clustering layer;
determining at least one electric vehicle battery usage profile for the at least one battery based on the battery data based on the one or more generated labels; and
calculating a state of health (SoH) for the at least one battery based on the at least one electric vehicle battery usage profile;
wherein the associated vehicle adjusts a charging voltage of the at least one battery located on the associated electric vehicle based on the SoH via a battery management system, the battery management system is communicatively connected to the at least one battery.”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (apparatus for claim 1).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
In claim 1, the step identified in bold type are a mathematical concept, therefore, they are considered to be abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim comprises the following additional elements:
at least one data storage configured to store computer program instructions; at least one processor communicatively coupled to the at least one data storage, the at least one processor is configured to execute the computer program instructions to perform the following: receiving battery data for at least one battery including a driving history of an associated electric vehicle; and wherein the associated vehicle adjusts a charging voltage of the at least one battery located on the associated electric vehicle based on the SoH via a battery management system, the battery management system is communicatively connected to the at least one battery.
The additional elements “at least one data storage configured to store computer program instructions”; “at least one processor communicatively coupled to the at least one data storage”, “the at least one processor is configured to execute the computer program instructions to perform the following”, and “wherein the associated vehicle adjusts a charging voltage of the at least one battery located on the associated electric vehicle based on the SoH via a battery management system, the battery management system is communicatively connected to the at least one battery” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. The additional element “receiving battery data for at least one battery including a driving history of an associated electric vehicle” represents necessary data gathering and does not integrate the limitation into a practical application. In addition, a generic processor and a generic data storage are generally recited and therefore, not qualified as particular machines.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, receiving battery data for at least one battery including a driving history of an associated electric vehicle is considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. receiving data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
For example, adjusting a charging voltage of the at least one battery located on the associated electric vehicle based on the SoH via a battery management system, the battery management system is communicatively connected to the at least one battery is disclosed by “Kim US 20220281345”, FIG. 1, Abstract, [0049], [0076], [0130]; and “Kumar US 20190176639”, FIGs. 1B and 11, [0021], [0047], [0048], [0054], [0149], [0158].
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 12 and 20 recite subject matter that is similar or analogous to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claims are also patent ineligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 3-11, 13-19, and 21 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not eligible.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding Claims 1 and 3-21, the most pertinent prior arts are “Choudhary US 20220294027”, “Yang CN 114675186A”, “Kranski US 20220314434”, “Budan US 11705590 B1”, “Tu US 20210174170”, “Kranski US 20220318678”, “Kim US 20220281345”, and “Kumar US 20190176639”.
As to claims 1, 12, and 20, Choudhary teaches at least one data storage configured to store computer program instructions (Choudhary, [0064]); and
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the at least one data storage (Choudhary, FIG. 5, #520, #530 and #540),
the at least one processor is configured to execute the computer program instructions to perform (Choudhary, [0064]) the following, comprising:
receiving battery data for at least one battery (Choudhary, [0034], [0035]);
determining at least one usage profile for the at least one battery based on the battery data based on the one or more generated labels (Choudhary, [0029]); and
calculating a state of health (SoH) for the at least one battery based on the at least one usage profile (Choudhary, Abstract, [0029]).
Kim teaches teach receiving battery data for at least one battery including a driving history of an associated electric vehicle (Kim, [0067]);
one electric vehicle battery usage profile (Kim, [0004]); and
wherein the associated vehicle adjust a charging voltage of the at least one battery located on the associated electric vehicle based on the SoH via a battery management system, the battery management system is communicatively connected to the at least one battery (Kim, FIG. 1, Abstract, [0049] and [0076], [0130]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “segmenting the received battery data into subsequences”;
“generating node representations for the subsequences using at least one time series encoder”;
“determining a feature-distance adjacency matrix (FDAM) for the node representations”;
“generating a learned graph representation by applying a graph convolutional network (GCN) on a corresponding graph to the feature-distance adjacency matrix”;
“generating one or more labels from the learned graph representation by using a node clustering layer”;
“determining at least one electric vehicle battery usage profile for the at least one battery based on the battery data based on the one or more generated labels” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 3-11, 13-19 and 21 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claims 1, 12, and 20.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1, and 3-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Holme US 20200164763” teaches “A battery management system (BMS) for a vehicle includes a module for estimating the state of a rechargeable battery, such as its state of charge, in real time. The module includes a learning model for predicting the state of a battery based on the vehicle's usage and related factors unique to the
vehicle, in addition to a sensed voltage, current and temperature of a battery.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 EST.
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.
/LAL CE MANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights