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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant' s amendment and response filed 6/11/2026 has been entered and made record. This application contains 8 pending claims.
Claims 3-4, 6-9, and 11-12 have been amended.
Claim 1 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/11/2026 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 in claim 1, 3-4, and 6-12 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on page- 6-7 of the remark filed on 6/11/2026 that “…Thus, the battery storage system of claim 12 is regarded as a technical device as such. The battery storage system of claim 12 is not an abstract idea at all, and its components and the computational means that are configured for performing steps of measuring, inputting, receiving, and calculating are also not abstract ideas but are technical features of the battery storage system. … .”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. The limitations of
“determining an assessment indicator for assessing at least one of the performance, the state, and the load condition of the battery storage, for an evaluation period while the battery storage is in operation”, “calculating a value of a reconstruction error based on the series of measurements and the reconstructed series of measurements”, “calculating an indicator that is indicative of the variance of at least some of the calculated values of the reconstruction error”, and “outputting an error signal to the user readable output device if the determined assessment indicator has reached the associated critical value” are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea. The limitations of “determining the indicator as an assessment indicator for assessing at least one of a performance, a state, and a load condition of the battery storage in operation”, and “repeating determining the assessment indicator for a new evaluation period while the battery storage is in operation, as long as the determined assessment indicator has not yet reached an associated critical value” are a combination of mathematical concept and mental process, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The applicant argues on pages 6-7 of the remark filed that “… Thus, the features of the battery storage system recited in new claim 12 improve the technical functionality of a battery storage system. In particular, the battery storage system has self-monitoring abilities as defined in claim 12 and explained above. Therefore, the claimed features of former method claim 1 (now canceled), which have been objected to as being mathematical concepts or a combination of mathematical concept and mental process, are regarded as being integrated into a practical application. Moreover, the features are recited in claim 12 not as steps of a method but as features of the components of the battery storage system. As mentioned above, it is noted that the battery storage system is regarded as a technical device as such.”
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 of “measuring means configured for measuring at least one physical parameter of the battery storage while the battery storage is in operation, wherein the at least one physical parameter includes at least one of voltage and current of the battery storage in operation”; and “measuring, by the measuring means, a series of measurements of at least one physical parameter of the battery storage while the battery storage is in operation, the measurements corresponding to successive points of time of a time segment” represent necessary data gathering and does not integrate the limitation into a practical application. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e., obtaining measurements of the battery storage) 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).
The additional elements “a user readable output device”; “computational means, wherein the computational means comprise an autoencoder”, “wherein the computational means; determining the assessment indicator by the computational means of the battery storage system”; “inputting the series of measurements to an encoder of the autoencoder”; “receiving a reconstructed series of measurements from a decoder of the autoencoder”; “the computational means of the battery storage system”; “wherein said steps of measuring, inputting, receiving, and calculating are performed by the computational means for multiple time segments of an evaluation period, wherein for each time segment, in the measuring step, a series of measurements of the at least one physical parameter of the battery storage is measured by the measuring means while the battery storage is in operation, the measurements corresponding to successive points of time of the time segment”; and “wherein determining the assessment indicator by the computational means of the battery storage system” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The alleged improvement of the technical functionality of a battery storage system is routine in monitoring and evaluating a state of health of the battery and relates to improvement of the abstract idea itself. 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, 3-4, and 6-12 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 3-4, 6-9, and 11-12 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 12, the claim recites “A battery storage system including a battery storage and configured for monitoring at least one of a performance, a state, and a load condition of the battery storage, the battery storage system comprising:
measuring means configured for measuring at least one physical parameter of the battery storage while the battery storage is in operation, wherein the at least one physical parameter includes at least one of voltage and current of the battery storage in operation;
a user readable output device; and
computational means, wherein the computational means comprise an autoencoder,
wherein the computational means are configured for determining an assessment indicator for assessing at least one of the performance, the state, and the load condition of the battery storage, for an evaluation period while the battery storage is in operation, determining the assessment indicator by the computational means of the battery storage system comprising:
measuring, by the measuring means, a series of measurements of at least one physical parameter of the battery storage while the battery storage is in operation, the measurements corresponding to successive points of time of a time segment; inputting the series of measurements to an encoder of the autoencoder;
receiving a reconstructed series of measurements from a decoder of the autoencoder;
calculating, by the computational means of the battery storage system, a value of a reconstruction error based on the series of measurements and the reconstructed series of measurements,
wherein said steps of measuring, inputting, receiving, and calculating are performed by the computational means for multiple time segments of an evaluation period, wherein for each time segment, in the measuring step, a series of measurements of the at least one physical parameter of the battery storage is measured by the measuring means while the battery storage is in operation, the measurements corresponding to successive points of time of the time segment; and
wherein determining the assessment indicator by the computational means of the battery storage system further comprises: calculating, by the computational means of the battery storage system, an indicator that is indicative of the variance of at least some of the calculated values of the reconstruction error and determining the indicator as an assessment indicator for assessing at least one of a performance, a state, and a load condition of the battery storage in operation,
wherein the computational means are further configured for:
repeating determining the assessment indicator for a new evaluation period while the battery storage is in operation, as long as the determined assessment indicator has not yet reached an associated critical value; and
outputting an error signal to the user readable output device if the determined assessment indicator has reached the associated critical value.”
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 12).
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) and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions).
In claim 12, the steps of “determining an assessment indicator for assessing at least one of the performance, the state, and the load condition of the battery storage, for an evaluation period while the battery storage is in operation”,
“calculating a value of a reconstruction error based on the series of measurements and the reconstructed series of measurements”,
“calculating an indicator that is indicative of the variance of at least some of the calculated values of the reconstruction error”, and
“outputting an error signal to the user readable output device if the determined assessment indicator has reached the associated critical value” are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea.
The steps of “determining the indicator as an assessment indicator for assessing at least one of a performance, a state, and a load condition of the battery storage in operation”, and
“repeating determining the assessment indicator for a new evaluation period while the battery storage is in operation, as long as the determined assessment indicator has not yet reached an associated critical value” are a combination of mathematical concept and mental process, therefore, they are considered to be an 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:
measuring means configured for measuring at least one physical parameter of the battery storage while the battery storage is in operation, wherein the at least one physical parameter includes at least one of voltage and current of the battery storage in operation; a user readable output device; and computational means, wherein the computational means comprise an autoencoder, wherein the computational means; determining the assessment indicator by the computational means of the battery storage system; inputting the series of measurements to an encoder of the autoencoder; receiving a reconstructed series of measurements from a decoder of the autoencoder; the computational means of the battery storage system; wherein said steps of measuring, inputting, receiving, and calculating are performed by the computational means for multiple time segments of an evaluation period, wherein for each time segment, in the measuring step, a series of measurements of the at least one physical parameter of the battery storage is measured by the measuring means while the battery storage is in operation, the measurements corresponding to successive points of time of the time segment; wherein determining the assessment indicator by the computational means of the battery storage system.
The additional elements “measuring means configured for measuring at least one physical parameter of the battery storage while the battery storage is in operation, wherein the at least one physical parameter includes at least one of voltage and current of the battery storage in operation”; and “measuring, by the measuring means, a series of measurements of at least one physical parameter of the battery storage while the battery storage is in operation, the measurements corresponding to successive points of time of a time segment” represent necessary data gathering and do not integrate the limitation into a practical application.
The additional elements “a user readable output device”; “computational means, wherein the computational means comprise an autoencoder”, “wherein the computational means; determining the assessment indicator by the computational means of the battery storage system”; “inputting the series of measurements to an encoder of the autoencoder”; “receiving a reconstructed series of measurements from a decoder of the autoencoder”; “the computational means of the battery storage system”; “wherein said steps of measuring, inputting, receiving, and calculating are performed by the computational means for multiple time segments of an evaluation period, wherein for each time segment, in the measuring step, a series of measurements of the at least one physical parameter of the battery storage is measured by the measuring means while the battery storage is in operation, the measurements corresponding to successive points of time of the time segment”; and “wherein determining the assessment indicator by the computational means of the battery storage system” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
The additional elements “measuring means”; “computational means”; “an encoder of an autoencoder”, “a decoder of the autoencoder”, and “a user readable output device” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are considered a generic computer element. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v.
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, measuring means configured for measuring at least one physical parameter of the battery storage while the battery storage is in operation, wherein the at least one physical parameter includes at least one of voltage and current of the battery storage in operation; and measuring, by the measuring means, a series of measurements of at least one physical parameter of the battery storage while the battery storage is in operation, the measurements corresponding to successive points of time of a time segment are 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, inputting the series of measurements to an encoder of an autoencoder is disclosed by “Atukalp US 20240010100”, Abstract, [0010], [0016], [0054], [0064], [0076], [0083], [0109]; and “Homayouni (“An Auto correlation-based LSM Autoencoder for Anomaly Detection on Time-Series Data”)”, Abstract, Page 1, Right, Lines 4-10, 20-24, 33-37; Page 2, Right, Lines 29-40; Page 3, Left, Lines 11-16.
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 3-4, 6-9, and 11 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 3-4, 6-9, and 11-12, the most pertinent prior arts are “Atukalp US 20240010100” “Lee US 20230044388”, “Homayouni (“An Auto correlation-based LSM Autoencoder for Anomaly Detection on Time-Series Data”)”, “Hindle US 20170199246”, “Li US 20230273265”, and "Cai CN 113917334A".
As to claim 12, Atukalp teaches measuring means configured for measuring at least one physical parameter of the battery storage while the battery storage is in operation, wherein the at least one physical parameter includes at least one of voltage and current of the battery storage in operation, (Atukalp, [0064], [0082]);
a user readable output device (Atukalp, [0053]);
computational means, wherein the computational means comprise an autoencoder (Atukalp, [0009], [0053], [0076]),
wherein the computational means are configured for determining an assessment indicator for assessing at least one of the performance, the state, and the load condition of the battery storage, for an evaluation period while the battery storage is in operation, determining the assessment indicator by the computational means of the battery storage system (Atukalp, [0012], [0043], [0064], [0067]),
inputting the series of measurements to an encoder of the autoencoder (Atukalp, Abstract, [0053], [0064], [0073], [0076]; [0097]),
receiving a reconstructed series of measurements from a decoder of the autoencoder (Atukalp, [0054]);
calculating, by the computational means of the battery storage system, a value of a reconstruction error based on the series of measurements and the reconstructed series of measurements (Atukalp, [0056], [0057]); and
wherein determining the assessment indicator by the computational means of the battery storage system (Atukalp, [0012], [0043], [0064], [0067]).
Lee teaches measuring, by the measuring means, a series of measurements of at least one physical parameter of the battery storage while the battery storage is in operation, the measurements corresponding to successive points of time of a time segment; inputting the series of measurements (Lee, [0022], [0046], [0048]); and
wherein said steps of measuring, inputting, receiving, and calculating are performed by the computational means for multiple time segments of an evaluation period, wherein for each time segment, in the measuring step, a series of measurements of the at least one physical parameter of the battery storage is measured by the measuring means while the battery storage is in operation, the measurements corresponding to successive points of time of the time segment (Lee, [0006], [0012], [0022], [0027], [0056]).
Hindle teaches repeating determining the assessment indicator for a new evaluation period while the battery storage is in operation, as long as the determined assessment indicator has not yet reached an associated critical value (Hindle, [0039], [0047]); and
outputting an error signal to the user readable output device if the determined assessment indicator has reached the associated critical value (Hindle, [0029], [0030], [0031], [0039], FIG. 1).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “calculating, by the computational means of the battery storage system, an indicator that is indicative of the variance of at least some of the calculated values of the reconstruction error and determining the indicator as an assessment indicator for assessing at least one of a performance, a state, and a load condition of the battery storage in operation” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 3-4, 6-9, and 11 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claim 12.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 3-4, 6-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights