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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 10/08/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-10, & 13-15 remain pending. Claims 1-4, 6-10, & 13-15 have been amended. Claims 11-12 have been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 7 lines 10-11, filed 10/08/2025, with respect to 112(b) rejections of claims 1 & 12 due to the terms "period of time" and "time period" have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1 & 12 due to "period of time" and "time period" has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 7 lines 7-22, filed 10/08/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections due to lack of clarity of "how [successive] cycles were determined" & "how "assigning" was done" have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 7 lines 12-14):
“Further regarding claim 1, recitation of how the successive cycles are determined [h]as been clarified to be based on the temporal operating variable profile of at least one operating variable of the device battery,”
The Examiner respectfully responds that:
This does not clarify how successive cycles are determined, only that they are “based on temporal operating variable profiles”. This effectively says no more than that future cycles are based on past data.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 7 lines 7-22, filed 10/08/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections due to lack of clarity of "how profiles can be assigned to "profile operating profiles"" have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 7 lines 15-17):
“Considering further claim 1, the recited “assigning” and the determining of the predicted aging state” using the ‘predetermined aging state model” has been clarified,”
The Examiner respectfully responds that:
The amended claim does not say significantly more than “determining the predicted aging state based on the predicted operating variable profile”. It is not clear how the “predicted operating variable profile” was predicted or how this is used to determine a “predicted aging state”.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 7 lines 7-22, filed 10/08/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections due to "insufficient disclosure of the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function" have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 7 lines 18-20):
“Regarding the indefiniteness rejections of claims 13-15, claim 13 has been amended to recite the structure of a “controller” that is configured to perform the method. The controller is the structure required by the rejection.”
The Examiner respectfully responds that:
This amendment overcomes the 112(f) interpretation due to a ‘controller’ being well understood rather than a nonce. However, It is still unclear what an “apparatus” is. The term ‘apparatus’ has no definite structure and makes it unclear what is intended to be claimed. It might be no more than generic computing elements, or a battery, or voltage meter, or etc.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 8 lines 1-10, filed 10/08/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 8 lines 3-5):
“It is respectfully submitted that the limitations resulting in the written description rejection have been addressed and clarified by the above-described amendments to claims 1 and 13 in response to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections.”
The Examiner respectfully responds that:
It is still unclear how "assigning profile operating variable profiles" assigned to "the cycle profiles" or to "predicted sequence of cycle profiles" to obtain a "predicted operating variable profile" and the Specification does not state significantly more than para 0041: " to assign a profile operating variable profile corresponding to an artificial predicted operating variable profile to each of the predefined cycle profiles."
Applicant argues that (page 8 lines 6-8):
“Moreover, regarding the statement that there are no sensors or detectors recited (Office Action at page 15), it is respectfully submitted that obtaining data about a battery is known and that the sensors or detectors are not required to be recited in a method claim.”
The Examiner respectfully responds that:
One of ordinary skill in the art would likely come up with a way to collect the necessary data (possibly requiring experimentation). However, without disclosure in the specification one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the intended scope of the claim(s). That one of ordinary skill in the art could determine a means to achieve intended required elements does not mean that claimed invention does not need to be clearly claimed. See MPEP 2173.02(I): “During examination, after applying the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification to the claim, if the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear, the claim is indefinite and should be rejected.”.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 line 11- page 9 line 23, filed 10/08/2025, with respect to 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 8 lines 19-21):
“Claims that are not “directed to” a judicial exception are patent eligible. (Id.). It can be determined that a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception when the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.”
And (page 9 lines 2-7):
“Specifically, it is indicative that a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application when the claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. (Id.). Based on this guidance, it is respectfully submitted that the amended claims satisfy 35 U.S.C. 101 because any recited judicial exception is integrate into a practical application, based on the recited improvement to technology.”
The Examiner respectfully responds that:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I): “In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool.”
See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2): “if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”.
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: Mere Data Gathering:”
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.”
Analysis:
The Applicant states (page 8 lines 6-8): “Moreover, regarding the statement that there are no sensors or detectors recited (Office Action at page 15), it is respectfully submitted that obtaining data about a battery is known and that the sensors or detectors are not required to be recited in a method claim.”
The only elements in the claims which are not judicial exceptions are “a device battery”, “electrochemical unit”, & “a vehicle”. These elements are not significantly more than ‘technological environment or field of use’ limitations corresponding to at least the CPC symbols G01R31/392: “. . Determining battery ageing or deterioration, e.g. state of health” or G01R31/367 “. .Software therefor, e.g. for battery testing using modelling or look-up tables”.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application. The claims are not significantly more than judicial exception(s), generic well known ‘field of use’ elements, ‘extra solution activity of data gathering’. With or without the explicit recitation of “computer” the claim is directed towards judicial exceptions which would be performed by generic computing elements which are used “merely as a tool”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-10, & 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because:
Claim 1 in lines 28-30 recites the limitation "operating the device battery of the vehicle according to the predicted aging state or the predicted aging state profile to supply electrical energy to the vehicle for operation of the vehicle". One of ordinary skill in the art would not know 'how the application intends to, according to the predicted aging state profile electrical energy is supplied to vehicle operation'; an ‘aging state profile’ is data and a vehicle is a device but it is unclear what sort of device takes the data and somehow operates the vehicle by supplying electrical energy (presumably from a battery).
Claim 1 in line 31 recites the limitation "moving the vehicle using the electrical energy". One of ordinary skill in the art would not know ‘how application intends to move the vehicle using electrical energy’. Possibilities could include a battery (or an electric generator, or a solar panel or a hydrogen fuel cell, or etc.) applied to an electric motor or to spark plugs.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “assigning at least one profile operating variable profile of a plurality of profile operating variable profiles” "assigning profile operating variable profiles assigned to the cycle profiles to the predicted sequence of cycle profiles to obtain a predicted operating variable profile" in lines 23-24.
It is unclear how “assigning” is achieved.
It is unclear how profiles can be assigned to “profile operating variable profiles” then can be assigned “to the cycle profiles” and then “to the predicted sequence of cycle profiles”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "and determining a predicted aging state or a predicted aging state profile based on the predicted operating variable profile using a predetermined aging state model" in lines 26-27.
It is unclear how “determining a predicted aging state or aging state profile” is done. It is unclear where from or how a “predetermined aging state model” is obtained. A POSITA would not know how a “predetermined aging state model” is obtained or how it is used to predict a “aging state or aging state profile”.
Claims 13-15:
Claims 13-15 in line 1 (each claim) recites the limitation "An [The] apparatus". However, it is not clear what the apparatus is other than that it comprises a controller.
Claims 2-10, & 13-15 are rejected for inheriting the rejected limitations of a parent claim without rectifying the issue(s) for which the parent claim was rejected.
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.
Regarding “Description requirement and new matter situations”:
Claim 1 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.
Amendments to claim 1 include at least the new matter of: “operating the device battery of the vehicle according to the predicted aging state or the predicted aging state profile to supply electrical energy to the vehicle for operation of the vehicle; and moving the vehicle using the electrical energy, wherein determining the predicted aging state based on the predicted operating variable profile is performed using the predetermined aging state model, in order to determine a residual service life of the vehicle and a residual range of the vehicle.”. Support for these limitations was not found within the originally filed specifications. See MPEP 608.04(a): “Matter not present on the filing date of the application in the specification, claims, or drawings that is added after the application filing is usually new matter”.
Claims 1-10, & 13-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, It is unclear how "assigning profile operating variable profiles" assigned to "the cycle profiles" or to "predicted sequence of cycle profiles" to obtain a "predicted operating variable profile". Specification does not state significantly more than para 0041: " to assign a profile operating variable profile corresponding to an artificial predicted operating variable profile to each of the predefined cycle profiles.". For instance, 'how was "profile operating variable profiles" obtained?’.
Regarding .
Regarding .
Regarding Claims 2-10 & 13-15 are rejected for inheriting the rejected limitations of the parent claim 1, without rectifying the issue(s).
Note: there is no disclosure of sensors or detectors or means of getting data from a physical battery to a computing system. A POSITA would not know how the claimed invention is to be implemented beyond the judicial exceptions which would be performed by generic computing elements.
Note: As per MPEP 2161(I)(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.”
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
529
685
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Flow diagrams from MPEP 2106(III) and 2106.04(II)(A)
Claim 1-10, & 13-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Claim 1:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes; the claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
“determining successive cycles of the device battery based on a temporal operating variable profile of at least one operating variable of the device battery, the successive cycles including at least one charging cycle of the device battery”
“assigning each of the successive cycles to a respective cycle profile of a plurality of cycle profiles so that a sequence of cycle profiles is obtained, each cycle profile characterizes a type of use of the device battery and/or an amount of a load on the device battery during corresponding assigned successive cycle”
“determining a frequency distribution of transitions from one cycle profile to a subsequent cycle profile in the sequence of cycle profiles as a hidden Markov model;”
“creating a predicted sequence of cycle profiles by successively, randomly selecting cycle profiles from the sequence of cycle profiles according to the frequency distribution of transitions starting from a most recently selected cycle profile,”
“obtaining a predicted operating variable profile by assigning at least one profile operating variable profiles to the cycle profiles to the predicted sequence of cycle profiles;”
“determining a predicted aging state or a predicted aging state profile based on the predicted operating variable profile using a predetermined aging state model.”
“wherein determining the predicted aging state based on the predicted operating variable profile is performed using the predetermined aging state model, in order to determine a residual service life of the vehicle and a residual range of the vehicle”
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No; the additional elements are:
“device battery”, “electrochemical unit”, “a vehicle”, & “technical device”
These amount to no more than ‘Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use’ (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) & MPEP 2106.05(h))
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No; the additional elements listed in Revised Step 2A Prong Two are no more than generic elements which are well understood, routine, conventional activity recited at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Definition for USPC 702/063 includes “Subject matter wherein the measured electrical parameter is related to a condition or a state of charge (e.g., temperature, life-state, voltage, charging, or discharging current) of a battery or a series of batteries.” Which established that the elements are well understood, routine, and conventional in the field.
Evidentiary Requirements (see MPEP 2106.07(a)(III) “(C) A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)””):
US 20220200293 A1 (Lee) “Method and Apparatus with Battery Short Circuit Detection” see Fig. 1 – 101 Battery Data & para 0091: “the electronic apparatus 1400 may be embodied as …, and a vehicle (e.g., an autonomous vehicle, a smart vehicle, etc.), as non-limiting examples.”
US 20230288489 A1 (Jin) “Predicting Battery State of Health” see Fig. 2 -18 Battery & Fig. 1 – 10: “electric vehicles”
Note: see MPEP 2106.05(I): “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself."”
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 2:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes; the claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 2 additionally recites:
“wherein the plurality of cycle profiles comprises(i) one or more operating cycle profiles characterizing a type of use of the device battery and/or an amount of load on the device battery during the at least one operating cycle of the device battery,
(ii) one or more rest cycle profiles characterizing a type of use of the device battery and/or an amount of a load on the device battery during the at least one rest cycle of the device battery and,
(iii) one or more charging cycle profiles characterizing a type of use of the device battery and/or an amount of load on the device battery during the at least one charging cycle.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims these limitations are no more than “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No; the claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No; the claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 3:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes; the claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 3 additionally recites:
“wherein: assigning the successive cycles to the respective cycle profile takes place using a rule-based classification method or a clustering method based on load features;”
“and the load features comprise at least one aggregated variable from the temporal operating variable profile.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims these limitations are no more than “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No; the claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No; the claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 4:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes; the claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 3 and thereby from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 4 additionally recites:
“wherein assigning the successive cycles to the respective cycle profile includes:”
This limitation is directed towards a judicial exception of “mathematical concepts” see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”. At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “a profile” is a plot of mathematical values vs other mathematical values (typically time).
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Claim 4 additionally recites:
“detecting at least one rest cycle during which there is no current flow from the device battery.”
This limitation is directed towards extra-solution activity of data gathering” see MPEP 2106.05(g): “Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: Mere Data Gathering:”
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No; the claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 5:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes; the claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 5 additionally recites:
“wherein the at least one operating variable of the device battery comprises a battery current, a battery temperature, a battery voltage and a charging state.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims these limitations are no more than “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No; the claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No; the claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 6:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes; the claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 6 additionally recites:
“wherein the plurality of profile operating variable profiles respectively indicate a profile of a battery current and a battery temperature;”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims these limitations are no more than “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No; the claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No; the claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 7:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes; the claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 7 additionally recites:
“wherein the plurality of profile operating variable profiles assigned to the cycle profiles respectively correspond to an operating variable profile of a most recent cycle assigned to a corresponding cycle profile of the plurality of cycle profiles.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims these limitations are no more than “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No; the claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No; the claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 8:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes; the claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 3.
Claim 8 additionally recites:
“wherein the plurality of profile operating variable profiles assigned to the cycle profiles respectively correspond to an operating variable profile of the successive cycles assigned to a corresponding cycle profile of the plurality of cycle profiles and closest to centroid of an associated cluster from the clustering method.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims these limitations are no more than “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No; the claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No; the claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 9:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes; the claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 9 additionally recites:
“wherein for determining the frequency distribution of transitions from one cycle profile to a subsequent cycle profile in the sequence of cycle profiles, a hidden Markov model is created in which cycle profiles form nodes that are interconnected via edges, to which are assigned frequencies of transitions from one cycle profile to a subsequent cycle profile.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims these limitations are no more than “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No; the claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No; the claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 10:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes; the claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 10 additionally recites:
“wherein determining the predicted aging state or of the predicted aging state profile based on the predicted operating variable profile is performed using an aging state model comprising an electrochemical model which is formed by a non-linear differential equation system and can be solved via time integration.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims these limitations are no more than “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No; the claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No; the claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 13:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes; the claim is directed towards an apparatus, which is a machine and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No; the claim recites the additional element of:
. “an apparatus comprising a controller ”
Note: “apparatus” is a computer as demonstrated by at least claim 1 “computer-implemented method”.
This amount to no more than instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): “Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No; the additional elements listed in Revised Step 2A Prong Two are no more than generic elements which are well understood, routine, conventional activity recited at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Evidentiary Requirements (see MPEP 2106.07(a)(III) “(C) A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)””):
US 20220200293 A1 (Lee) “Method and Apparatus with Battery Short Circuit Detection” see Fig. 14 – 1400 & para 0091: “1400 may be embodied as a portion of a mobile device (e.g., a mobile phone, a smartphone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a netbook, a tablet computer, a laptop computer, etc.)” & para 0095: “Examples of hardware components that may be used to perform the operations described in this application where appropriate include controllers,”.
US 20230288489 A1 (Jin) “Predicting Battery State of Health” see Fig. 3 & para 0069: “The vehicle route profile generator 40, vehicle digital twin 42, battery model 44, SOH profile generator 48, vehicle performance manager 50 and fleet scheduling module 52 may be implemented, for example, as software modules running on a processor.”. Where running on a processor implies a computer. & Fig. 2 – 28 “System Control Module”.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 14:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes; the claim is directed towards an apparatus, which is a machine and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 13 and thereby from claim 1.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No; the claim recites the additional element of:
. “data processing device”
Note: “data processing device” is a computer since at least because it executes a program.
This amount to no more than instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): “Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No; the additional elements listed in Revised Step 2A Prong Two are no more than generic elements which are well understood, routine, conventional activity recited at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Evidentiary Requirements (see MPEP 2106.07(a)(III) “(C) A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)””):
US 20220200293 A1 (Lee) “Method and Apparatus with Battery Short Circuit Detection” see Fig. 14 – 1400 & para 0091: “1400 may be embodied as a portion of a mobile device (e.g., a mobile phone, a smartphone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a netbook, a tablet computer, a laptop computer, etc.)”
US 20230288489 A1 (Jin) “Predicting Battery State of Health” see Fig. 3 & para 0069: “The vehicle route profile generator 40, vehicle digital twin 42, battery model 44, SOH profile generator 48, vehicle performance manager 50 and fleet scheduling module 52 may be implemented, for example, as software modules running on a processor.”. Where running on a processor implies a computer.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 15:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes; the claim is directed towards an apparatus, which is a machine and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 13 and thereby from claim 1.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No; the claim recites the additional element of:
. “non-transitory machine readable storage medium”
Note: “non-transitory machine readable storage medium” is a computer element at least because it comprises instructions which are executed by a processing device.
This amounts to no more than instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): “Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No; the additional elements listed in Revised Step 2A Prong Two are no more than generic elements which are well understood, routine, conventional activity recited at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Evidentiary Requirements (see MPEP 2106.07(a)(III) “(C) A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)””):
US 20220200293 A1 (Lee) “Method and Apparatus with Battery Short Circuit Detection” see Fig. 14 – 1400 & para 0091: “1400 may be embodied as a portion of a mobile device (e.g., a mobile phone, a smartphone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a netbook, a tablet computer, a laptop computer, etc.)”
US 20230288489 A1 (Jin) “Predicting Battery State of Health” see Fig. 3 & para 0069: “The vehicle route profile generator 40, vehicle digital twin 42, battery model 44, SOH profile generator 48, vehicle performance manager 50 and fleet scheduling module 52 may be implemented, for example, as software modules running on a processor.”. Where running on a processor necessarily implies a computer.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Regarding claim 1:
No prior art or obvious combination of prior art was found to teach the combination of the limitations of at least:
“determining successive cycles of the device battery based on a temporal operating variable profile of at least one operating variable of the device battery, the successive cycles including at least one operating cycle of the device battery, at least one rest cycle of the device battery, and at least one charging cycle of the device battery; assigning at least a portion of the temporal operating variable profile to each successive cycle; assigning each of the successive cycles to a respective cycle profile of a plurality of cycle profiles so that a sequence of cycle profiles is obtained, each cycle profile characterizes a type of use of the device battery and/or an amount of a load on the device battery during a corresponding assigned successive cycle; determining a frequency distribution of transitions from one cycle profile to a subsequent cycle profile in the sequence of cycle profiles as a hidden Markov model; creating a predicted sequence of cycle profiles by successively, randomly selecting cycle profiles from the sequence of cycle profiles according to the frequency distribution of transitions starting from a most recently selected cycle profile; obtaining a predicted operating variable profile by assigning at least one profile operating variable profile of a plurality of profile operating variable profiles to the cycle profiles of the predicted sequence of cycle profiles”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11691518 B2 "Predictive Model For Estimating Battery States" (Holme) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1, 4, & 6.
US 20220252675 A1 "Estimation Apparatus, Estimation Method, and Computer Program" (Ukumori) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1-3, 7, & 15.
NPL "Deep Reinforcement Learning-Based Energy Storage Arbitrage With Accurate Lithium-Ion Battery Degradation Model" (J. Cao) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 2-5 & section III).
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 MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. 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.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858