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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Under step 1, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a method claim. Likewise, claim 5 is a method claim, claims 10 and 11 are device claims, and claims 12-13 are non-transitory storage medium claims.
Under step 2A, prong 1: this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates wether the claim recites a judicial exception as explained in MPEP 2106.4, subsection II, a claim recites a judicial exception when the judicial exception is set forth or described in the claim.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. “mathematical relationships” which the court has identified as abstract) without significantly more. Claims 1, 5 and 10-13 are directed to the abstract idea of computing peak frequencies before and after the test from arc-shaped curves in graphs plotting the impedances at the respective frequencies represented by the measurement data;
based on the computed peak frequencies before and after the test and the states found in advance, obtaining a model that represents a relationship between the peak frequencies and the states; computing a peak frequency from an arc-shaped curve in a graph plotting the impedances at the respective frequencies represented by the measurement data; and estimating a state of the estimation target rechargeable battery from the peak frequency of the estimation target rechargeable battery, the estimating including using the model. These limitations fall under mathematical concepts. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are acquiring measurement data and states of a reference rechargeable battery before and after a test that causes deterioration to progress, the measurement data being impedances at respective frequencies that are measured by an impedance method, and the states being found in advance; and acquiring measurement data of an estimation target rechargeable battery, the measurement data being impedances at respective frequencies that are measured by the impedance method; which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and a processor coupled to a memory, a non-transitory storage medium and a computer, which are conventional or generic equipment which do not add anything significant to the judicial exception because these instruments are needed in order to estimate the state of the rechargeable battery. The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The data gathering and processing are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than e.g., “computing a peak frequency from an arc-shaped curve in a graph plotting the impedances at the respective frequencies represented by the measurement data”) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system/method. For instance, nothing is done with the estimated state of the rechargeable battery.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 6-9 merely expand upon the abstract idea further defining the abstract steps of claims 1 and 5 respectively, and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857