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 § 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.
MPEP 2106 outlines a two-part analysis for Subject Matter Eligibility as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
Step 2, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. If the claim does not recite a judicial exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), then the claim cannot be directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO), and thus the claim is eligible at Pathway B without further analysis. Abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B.
Claims 1-8 and 10 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.
Regarding claim 1, Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes.
Step 2A: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions)? Yes (see analysis below).
Prong one: Whether the claim recites a judicial exception? (Yes). The claim recites the limitations beginning from “selecting a negative electrode region or a positive electrode region of the electrochemical model as a calculation region” to the end of the claim. These limitations are directed to mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (or with a pen and paper).
Prong two: Whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception? (No). The claim recites no additional elements. Accordingly, No additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements (other than the judicial exception) that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No (see analysis below).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception. Considered as a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-8, and 10 when analyzed as a whole respectively are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they either extend (or add more details to) the abstract idea or the additional recited limitation(s) (if any) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as discussed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that sufficiently integrates the abstract idea into a practical application of, or makes the claims significantly more than, the judicial exception (abstract idea). The additional element(s) (if any) are mere instructions to apply an except, field of use, and/or insignificant extra-solution activities (applied to Step 2A_Prong Two and Step 2B; see MPEP 2016.05(f)-(h)) and/or well-understood, routine, or conventional (applied to Step 2B; see MPEP 2106.05(d)) to facilitate the application of the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
The objections to the specification have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
The objections to the claims have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
The rejections under 112(a) and (b) have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Regarding 35 USC 101, Applicant argued: Step 2A, Prong One - The Claims Are Not "Directed To" Any Judicial Exception … A. The claims do not recite math in the abstract; they recite a specific multi-unit target-shooting architecture tightly bound to a physical electrochemical P2D model. Claim 1 requires, inter alia (emphases added): selecting electrode regions of a lithium-ion electrochemical model; selecting solid/liquid phase currents and potentials as observed variables and costate variables; segmenting the physical electrode region into N spatial discrete units; constructing nested calculation units where "a spatial region of the i-th unit is a subset of the (i+1)-th unit" (claim 1); performing progressive target shooting "starting from the first calculation unit" and iteratively propagating costate variable convergence across physical space; and computing electric-field physical quantities (solid & liquid phase currents, potentials, exchange current densities, overpotential, etc.) of each spatial point based on real electrochemical governing equations. These are not abstract "calculations." They are steps that explicitly model physical charge transport, phase potentials, electrode conductivity, exchange current density, overpotential, current distribution, and spatially discretized electrode physics-each grounded in real chemical and electrodynamic relationships.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the argued steps recited in the claim are algorithm for processing model data. They can be a combination of mental process (i.e., selecting…; selecting…; inserting…; constructing N calculation units…) and mathematical operations (i.e., sequentially completing target shooting…; obtaining, according to the observed quantity of the starting point at the present time and the deterministic solution of the costate variable, the electric field physical quantity of each spatial point in the calculation region…). Therefore, the claim recites abstract idea.
Applicant argued: B. The claims solve a concrete problem in electrochemical modeling: failure of standard shooting methods to converge due to nonlinear, coupled PDEs under extreme conditions (high temperature & large current). This is not a long-standing abstract math problem; it is a battery-engineering problem where conventional processors overflow when computing P2D-model fields. The specification repeatedly explains that conventional shooting methods overflow or fail to converge on real hardware when initial conditions are far from the solution [citation omitted].
The Examiner respectfully submits that the argued problem solving solution is the abstract idea (i.e., modeling algorithm). Any improvement in the modeling is an improvement in the abstract idea. However, even if the claims are distinguishable as compared to prior art techniques, “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” See MPEP 2106.05(I), citing Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation, 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Applicant argued: C. The multi-unit progressive-tracking shooting architecture is not a mathematical concept; it is a non-conventional computational control flow designed specifically for P2D electrochemical physics. The claims do not seek to protect numerical mathematics. They claim a specific arrangement of physical nodes, unit-construction rules, progressive convergence behavior, and model-governed updating of electrochemical state variables, all embedded in the physics of the P2D model. As in Enfish, McRO, and Thales, these claims recite a specific improvement to computer modeling of a physical system. Therefore, the claims do not "recite" an abstract idea under Prong 1.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the argued computational control flow is the data processing algorithm (i.e., “computational control flow” as argued above). As discussed above, it is a combination of mental process (which can be implemented by as computer program routines) and mathematical operations (such as the target shooting process and the calculation of the electric filed physical quantity). Enfish is claimed to a self-referential table for a computer database. McRO is claimed to a computer animation. Both are improvement in computer functionality. Thales recites, among others, particular arrangement inertial sensors as additional elements. It is claimed to an improvement in a motion tracking system. In contrast, the instant claim is to an improvement in the modeling algorithm, not a computer functionality, and definitely not a technical system.
Applicant argued: Step 2A, Prong 2 - Even If Considered to "Recite" an Abstract Idea, the Claims Are Not Directed to It - To be "directed to" a judicial exception, the claim must be focused on the exception itself, rather than on a technological solution using the exception. Here, even if some sub-steps involve mathematical relationships, the claims, as a whole, are directed to improved electrochemical modeling. A. The claims improve the functioning of the computer by enabling stable, non-overflowing computation of nonlinear, coupled electrochemical PDEs. The specification explains that prior methods fail: "Non-convergence or the exceeding of the expression range of the data type occurs easily during calculation... because the initial value is far away from the real solution." [citation omitted]. The claimed invention eliminates overflow and non-convergence via: multi-unit tracking length segmentation, ordering of unit convergence, unit-specific target values, propagating convergent solutions, and adaptive re-meshing. These modifications directly improve how the processor executes the shooting algorithm, making previously infeasible physics computations tractable-mirroring the eligibility reasoning in Enfish, McRO, and CardioNet.
The Examiner respectfully submits that Enfish and McRO are claimed to improvement in specific computer functionalities, as discussed above. CardioNet recites, among others, a beat detector, and a ventricular beat detector as additional elements, which make the claim, as a whole, an improved medical device. In contrast, the instant claim is focused on the improvement in the modeling algorithm (abstract idea), and is apparently not an improvement in a computer functionality or a technical system.
Applicant argued: B. The claims improve a technological field: electrochemical battery modeling (P2D models). The P2D model is a physical electrochemical model, not an abstract one. Improvements to such models have been held eligible when tied to physical systems or improved measurement/estimation (see Thales, and CardioNet). The Examiner's approach improperly isolates mathematical snippets while ignoring the overall physical, technological focus.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the improvement is in the abstract idea (i.e., the modeling algorithm), rather than an improvement in a practical application of the abstract idea. Thales recites, among others, particular arrangement inertial sensors as additional elements. CardioNet recites, among others, a beat detector, and a ventricular beat detector as additional elements. Both are to improvement in specific technical systems. Unlike Thales and CardioNet, the instant claim recites no additional elements outsides the abstract idea, and is merely an improvement in the abstract idea.
Applicant argued: C. The claimed method recites imposes meaningful, technical limitations that integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application -Examples include, but are limited to: Physical structure of electrodes ("negative electrode region," "positive electrode region"). Real electrochemical variables: solid-phase current, liquid-phase current, potentials, overpotential q(x, t), exchange current density jo, am, conductivity k, mobility tc, etc. " Governing physical equations and Runge-Kutta propagation of chemical state variables across real spatial coordinates. Adaptive unit reconstruction when overflow or non-convergence occurs. Under MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(h), every hallmark of "practical application" is met. Thus, under Prong 2, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the argued meaningful limitations are in the abstract idea. Without more, the claim is still focused on the abstract idea.
Applicant argued: Step 2B - The Claims Recite an Inventive Concept - Even if Step 2A were somehow failed, Step 2B is plainly satisfied. A. The multi-unit progressive shooting framework is not conventional No prior art teaches or suggests: constructing N nested calculation units with progressively increasing tracking length, performing sequential target shooting where each unit's convergent solution becomes the initial trial for the next, performing adaptive spatial discretization when any unit fails to converge, applying these mechanics to stabilize nonlinear P2D electrochemical PDEs, or solving potential/current distributions using this architecture with Runge-Kutta propagation across physical electrode space. These features, individually and together, form an inventive concept.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the argued improvement over prior art (or inventive concept) is in the abstract idea. Without meaningful non-abstract limitations, an improvement in the abstract idea does not make the claim significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant argued: B. The ordered combination is unconventional - Even if individual sub-steps (interpolation, numerical integration) are known, their ordered combination is not. Under Bascom, a novel arrangement of known elements constitutes an inventive concept. The ordered combination produces a new capability: allowing electric-field decoupling "under extreme working conditions of large current, high temperature" without overflow or non-convergence. (See, e.g., paragraphs from page 7, lines 22-28 of the specification). This technical effect cannot be achieved by prior shooting methods. C. The claims do not merely automate a known manual process -Conventional shooting methods cannot be performed by a human for a full P2D model with coupled PDEs, nonlinear kinetics, and hundreds-thousands of spatial nodes. These computations exceed human capacity, making mental-process jurisprudence inapplicable.
The Examiner respectfully submits that, as discussed above, the improvement or unconventional algorithm is in the abstract idea. No additional elements are found in the claim to make the claim significantly more than the abstract idea. The shooting method being not conventionally performed by a human does not necessarily mean it is a non-abstract technical field. Here, the computer is merely involved for its computing power to facilitate the computation and algorithm involved in the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). BASCOM involves an inventive concept found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements, i.e., the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. Unlike BASCOM, the current claim does not recite non-generic arrangement of additional elements.
Applicant argued: D. There is no evidence of conventionality on the record - The Examiner has provided no factual support (as required by Berkheimer and the 2019 Guidance) that the claimed architecture is "well-understood, routine, and conventional." The specification, in fact, teaches the opposite: the method solves failures of conventional approaches. Claims 2-8 adds further specific physical/mathematical constraints to further confirm technical integration They add further eligibility-supporting limitations, for example, Physical linear interpolation tied to electrode thickness and distance from collector (claim 3, Explicit real-world physical geometry, not abstract math), Adaptive increase of spatial units upon overflow (claim 4, Non-conventional error- recovery mechanism improving computational robustness), Using prior-time physical solution as initial trial (claim 5, Time-coupled electrochemical state propagation-technical modeling improvement), Overpotential, exchange current density, conductivity, mobility, liquid-phase volume fraction, Runge-Kutta propagation (claim 6-8, Deep integration of electrochemical physics (not an abstract algorithm). Claim 10 recites a non-transitory tangible computer-readable medium executing the method.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the additional limitations are either adding more details to the abstract idea (claims 2-8) or insignificant additional elements (claim 10), as discussed in the rejections above. There is no need to determine whether an element is “well-understood, routine, and conventional” or insignificance for the additional details of the abstract idea, because it is only needed for “additional elements” outsides the abstract idea. Claim 10 does recite “additional elements” (i.e., “computer-readable storage medium”). However, it is merely to invoke conventional computer components, and is insignificant according to MPEP 2016.05(d) and (f)-(h)) cited in the rejections previously and currently. As such, the Office has made a prima facie case with sufficient supports.
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