DETAILED ACTION
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
The amendment filed on 11/12/2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-14, 16-19 is/are now pending in the application. Applicant's amendments have addressed all informalities as previously set forth in the non-final action mailed on 08/12/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-14, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (See 2019 Update: Eligibility Guidance).
Independent Claim(s) 1, 11, 12 recites
estimating a state of health of a battery,
storing
a pre-trained artificial neural network
and
input data generated
by
measuring at least one parameter of the battery,
wherein
the pre-trained artificial neural network includes:
a first convolution laver
that
receives the input data;
an inverted bottleneck network;
a second convolution laver;
and
a GAP layer,
and
wherein
the GAP laver
outputs the health state estimation value and the attention map;
and
input the input data into the pre-trained artificial neural network
to
obtain a health state estimation value of the battery and an attention map,
to
calculate an attention score based on the attention map,
and to
determine whether to trust the health state estimation value based on the attention score
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation].
In combination with Independent Claim(s) 1, 12, Claim(s) 2, 3, 5-10, 13, 14, 16-19 recite(s)
wherein
the at least one parameter includes
a voltage and a current of the battery.
wherein
the generating input data includes:
measuring a voltage value and a current value of the battery by using every preset sampling cycle;
and
generating normalized voltage values and normalized current values as the input data by normalizing voltage values and current values of the battery, respectively.
wherein
the inverted bottleneck network includes
a first pointwise convolution layer,
a depthwise convolution layer, and
a second pointwise convolution layer.
wherein
the attention map indicates points on which the pre-trained artificial neural network concentrates and is generated by
PNG
media_image1.png
44
146
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein h is a channel number of the second convolutional layer, fh(t) is an output of an hth channel of the second convolutional layer at time t, (oh is a weight of the hth channel used in the GAP layer, and M(t) is an attention value at time t.
wherein
the attention score is calculated by
PNG
media_image2.png
50
242
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein Sattention is the attention score, H(-) is a high-pass filter function, V(t) is a voltage value at time t, M(t) is the attention value at time t, and T is a sampling period.
further comprising
outputting the health state estimation value when the attention score exceeds a preset reference value.
further comprising
calculating reliability of the health state estimation value based on the attention score.
wherein
the preparing a pre-trained artificial neural network includes:
estimating parameters of a pseudo-2-dimensional (P2D) model from actual charge/discharge measurement data of the battery;
generating the P2D model by changing over time at least one preset parameter related to aging from among the parameters;
generating synthetic data by using the P2D model;
and
training the artificial neural network by using the synthetic data
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation].
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (i.e. a memory; at least one processor configured to);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) (i.e. generic data acquisition and output); or
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) (i.e. a battery).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) (i.e. See Alice Corp. and cited references for evidence of additional elements (i.e., generic computer structure)).
Allowable Subject Matter (over Prior Art)
See prior OA, mailed 08/12/2025, for the statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed on 11/12/2025, have been entered and fully considered. In light of the applicant’s amendments changing the scope of the claimed invention, the rejection(s) have been withdrawn or updated. However, upon further consideration, a new or updated ground(s) of rejection(s) have been made, and applicant's argument(s)/remark(s) pertaining to the amended language have been rendered moot.
Applicant's argument(s)/remark(s), see page(s) 9-10, filed 11/12/2025, with respect to the 101 rejection(s) has/have been fully considered.
-Applicant states
“B. Rejection of Claim 11 as Being Directed to Non-Statutory Subject Matter
In the outstanding Office Action, claim 11 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. In response, applicant has amended claim 11 to recite a non-transitory medium storing a program to execute the method of claim 1. As amended, applicant submits amended claim 11 is statutory subject matter, such that the rejection of claim 11 should be withdrawn.”.
Examiner agrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
Said rejection(s) has/have been withdrawn.
-Applicant states
“C. Rejection of Claims 1-18 as Being Directed to a Judicial Exception
In the outstanding Office Action, claims 1-18 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection as it applies to the amended claims.
Amended claim 1 now recites, among other things, "wherein the pre-trained artificial neural network includes: a first convolution layer that receives the input data; an inverted bottleneck network; a second convolution layer; and a global average pooling (GAP) layer, and wherein the GAP layer outputs the health state estimation value and the attention map."
The Office Action cites, in part, to the mental processes judicial exception, meaning that the claim limitations can allegedly be performed in the human mind. However, applicant submits that not all limitations of amended claim 1 can be performed in the human mind. For example, applicant submits that generating synthetic data, in the quantities needed for training an artificial neural network (e.g., millions of data - see paragraph 0092 of the specification, noting that about six million synthetic data was generated for training), is not something the human mind can practically perform. Applicant submits that since generating the synthetic data cannot practically be performed in the human mind, claim 1 is patentable subject matter, such that the rejection thereof should be withdrawn.
The remainder of claims 2-10 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. At least based on the dependence from claim 1, applicant submits that claims 2, 3, 5-9 (claims 4 and 10 have herein been canceled without prejudice).
Applicant has amended claim 12 similar to claim 1. Thus, the argument for claim 1 applies equally to claim 12, such that claim 12 is patentable subjection matter and the rejection thereof should be withdrawn. The remainder of claims 13-18 depend directly or indirectly from claim 12. At least based on the dependence from claim 12, applicant submits that claims 13-18 are also allowable, such that the rejection of those claims should be withdrawn.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
Examiner reminds the applicant that a mathematical concept is also an abstract idea. Applicant fails to argue that there is no abstract idea present in the claim language to pass step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility guidelines. Even if it is determined that POSITA would not be able to mentally perform the claim language in the human mind, Examiner reasserts that there is at least a mathematical concept present in the claim language, therefore an abstract idea has been identified. Further, applicant has failed to argue steps 2A Prong 2 and 2B. See updated rejection(s) above necessitated by amendment(s).
Applicant's argument(s)/remark(s), see page(s) 10-11, filed 11/12/2025, with respect to the art rejection(s) has/have been fully considered.
-Applicant states
“D. Asserted Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1,2, 8,9, 11-13 and 18
In the outstanding Office Action, claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 11-13 and 18 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the Qian reference. Applicant respectfully traverses the noted rejection.
Claims 4 and 15 were indicated as allowable over the art of record. Thus, applicant has herein amended claim 1 to include the substance of claim 4 (now canceled without prejudice) and amended claim 12 (now canceled without prejudice) to include the substance of claim 15. As such, amended independent claims 1 and 12 are not anticipated by the Qian reference, such that the rejection thereof should be withdrawn.
Dependent claims 2, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 18 depend from claims 1 and 12. For at least that reason, as well as their individual limitations, applicant submits dependent claims 2, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 18 are also allowable, such the rejection thereof should be withdrawn.”.
Examiner agrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
Said rejection(s) has/have been withdrawn.
-Applicant states
“E. Asserted Obviousness Rejection of Claims 3, 10 and 14
In the outstanding Office Action, claims 3, 10 and 14 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the Qian reference in view of the Jin reference. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Claims 3 and 10 depend from independent claim 1 and claim 14 depends from independent claim 12. For at least that reason, as well as the individual limitations, applicant submits dependent claims 3, 10 and 14 are also allowable, such the rejection thereof should be withdrawn.”.
Examiner agrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
Said rejection(s) has/have been withdrawn.
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 extension fee 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 RAYMOND NIMOX whose telephone number is (469)295-9226. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 10am-8pm CT.
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.
RAYMOND NIMOX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/RAYMOND L NIMOX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit
Prosecution Insights