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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1, 3, 4, 6-10, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, it recites “submitting a second set of input values to the first state of charge estimation model, the second set of input values including (i) the second set of values, (ii) the first state of charge estimate, and (iii) a time interval between the first set of values and the second set of values; receiving a second state of charge estimate from the first state of charge estimation model” in lines 23-29. This is new matter not supported by the disclosure.
Specification [059] provides “An example process 300 for combining estimates from multiple state of charge techniques is shown in FIG. 3. Input values (such as cell voltage, a presently measured current, a recently measured current, and a temperature) are received at 310, and a state of charge is determined at 314 from the input values using a disclosed state of charge estimation technique.” This indicates a first model (at step 314) to estimate a first SOC using cell voltage, measured current, recently measured current, and a temperature as input. It does not use “a time interval” as the input.
Specification [060] provides “For another state of charge estimation technique, such as a coulomb counting technique, input values are received at 318. The input values can include a presently measured (such as a charge/discharge current), a prior state of charge estimate, a time between the prior estimate and the current estimate, and a measure of the capacity of the battery cell. A state of charge estimate is determined at 322 from the input values received at 318.” This indicates a second model (technique) (at step 322) for estimating a second SOC using measured current, prior SOC estimate, a time step (interval), and a capacity as the input.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the first state of charge estimation model comprises a machine learning model.”
Claim 7 recites “training the first state of charge estimation model.”
Claim 14 recites “combining the first state of charge estimate with at least a second state of charge estimate.”
Here, the elected claims 6-10 belong to a species using a machine learning model. On the other hand, the second estimation model (technique) at step 322 is a “coulomb counting technique”, which requires a time interval as the input, but does not need the training of the model. Claim 14, when viewed in light of the specification and FIG. 3, indicates that the first SOC estimate and the second SOC estimate are outputted from two different models respectively.
Accordingly, the disclosure supports that the first state of charge estimation model is a machine learning model, corresponding to the model in step 314 as disclosed. However, the disclosure lacks support that this machine learning model requires “a time interval” as an input for the model to estimate any SOC (see specification [059]). Also, the second set of input values is recited to include “(ii) the first state of charge estimate.” This is a feedback of the output of the first model as an input to the first mode, not supported by the specification, either.
Therefore, the above indicated features are not supported.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected by analogy to claim 1.
The other claim(s) not discussed above, or depending on the above claim(s), are rejected for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
Claims 7-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, it recites “a given training data set of the plurality of training data sets comprising… a second set of input values, the second set of input values comprising …” This creates another antecedent basis for “the second set of input values” in addition to the antecedent basis in claim 1. It is unclear whether they are the same “second set of input values.” For examination purpose, --a given training data set of the plurality of training data sets comprising… a third set of input values, the third set of input values comprising …-- is assumed.
The other claim(s) not discussed above, or depending on the above claim(s), are rejected for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
Notes
Claims 1, 19, and 20 distinguish over the closest prior art of record as discussed below.
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, the closest prior art of record fails to teach the features of claim 1: “submitting a second set of input values to the first state of charge estimation model, the second set of input values including (i) the second set of values, (ii) the first state of charge estimate, and (iii) a time interval between the first set of values and the second set of values; receiving a second state of charge estimate from the first state of charge estimation model,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant. None of the closest prior art of record, singly or in combination, teaches or suggests the features as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 USC 101, the rejection has been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Regarding 35 USC 103, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. No prior art rejection has been found.
The objections to the claims and the specification have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOHN C KUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7066. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/JOHN C KUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights