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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant' s amendment and response filed 5/18/2026 has been entered and made record. This application contains 12 pending claims.
Claims 1 and 3-10 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 5/18/2026 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 in claim 1, and 3-13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on pages 7-9 of the remark filed on 5/18/2026 that “… Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea but, at the most, is merely based on or involves a mathematical concept. … Claim 1 has been amended to recite sufficient structure that is similar to the configuration of inertial sensors in Thales Visionix and therefore does not recite the abstract idea. Claim 1 recites in part: "an energy storage device comprising a plurality of energy storage cells; a plurality of sensors coupled to the energy storage device and configured to measure voltage of the plurality of energy storage cells; and a battery controller."
The applicant continue to argue that “The Office Action asserts that one of the limitations is a mental process. Specifically, the Office Action asserts that "output a score corresponding to whether or not abnormal measurement data is included in the plural pieces of measurement data when the plural pieces of measurement data is input" is a mental process. (Office Action, p. 8). Applicant respectfully disagrees. Claim 1, as amended, cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations. … A human mind is not equipped to determine whether or not abnormal measurement data is included in the plural pieces of measurement data. A human mind is not capable of: (1) processing plural pieces of measurement data, (2) creating learning data, and (3) using a model learned using the learning data, (4) to detect whether or not abnormal measurement data is included in the plural pieces of measurement data. …”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. The steps of “create learning data from plural pieces of measurement data, which comprises abnormal measurement data and normal measurement data, of the energy storage device such that the plural pieces of measurement data are grouped based on a configuration of the energy storage device”; “detect an abnormality or a sign of abnormality of the energy storage device based on the score output by inputting the plural pieces of measurement data to the model”; and “calculating an average for each group of the plural pieces of measurement data” are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea. The step of “output a score corresponding to whether or not abnormal measurement data is included in the plural pieces of measurement data when the plural pieces of measurement data is input” is a mental process, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea. A human mind can observe and evaluate of collected measurement data of a result of comparison between a normal measurement data and an abnormal measurement data, and make determination, judgment and have opinion about whether or not abnormal measurement data is included in the plural pieces of measurement input data based on the evaluation. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The applicant argues on pages 9-10 of the remark filed that “… Applicant respectfully asserts that the concepts of the claims are integrated into a practical application such that the claims are not directed toward an abstract idea. … In this instance, Applicant respectfully asserts that the claims are clearly a practical application, in that the claims generate and produce a tangible result that provides a meaningful improvement over existing technology as recognized by the specification. … Applicant respectfully submits that when considered as a whole, the claims are integrated into a practical application. … Therefore, as recited in claim 1, an improvement is provided. …”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. Practical application can be demonstrated by additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements “an energy storage device comprising a plurality of energy storage cells”; “a battery controller”, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores an abnormality detection program”; “a processor configured to execute the abnormality detection program and cause the abnormality detection device”; “store a model learned using the learning data”; and “the creating the learning data” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. The additional element “a plurality of sensors coupled to the energy storage device and configured to measure voltage of the plurality of energy storage cells” is considered necessary data gathering and thus, not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e., receiving measurement data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The alleged improvement of a meaningful improvement over existing technology relates to improvement to the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the current claims do not recite additional elements that are indicative of integration of an abstract idea into a practical application.
Hence, the Examiner submits that the rejections of Claims 1, and 3-13 are proper.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claims limitations are “configured to” in claims 1, 3, 7-8, and 13. The claims describe the various modules in functional terms of what they do, rather than how they do it. Under 35 USC 112(f), the Specification must identify a specific and readily-identifiable algorithm in the Specification associated with the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For example, [0055] discloses “The control unit 10 is a processor using a central processing unit (CPU), and executes processing by controlling each component using built-in memories such as a read only memory (ROM) and a random access memory (RAM).”
In order to exam the merit, Examiner interprets the above mentioned limitations performed by a generic computer.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, and 3-13 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.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “An abnormality detection device comprising:
an energy storage device comprising a plurality of energy storage cells;
a plurality of sensors coupled to the energy storage device and configured to measure voltage of the plurality of energy storage cells; and
a battery controller comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores an abnormality detection program; and
a processor configured to execute the abnormality detection program and cause the abnormality detection device to:
create learning data from plural pieces of measurement data, which comprises abnormal measurement data and normal measurement data, of the energy storage device such that the plural pieces of measurement data are grouped based on a configuration of the energy storage device;
store a model learned using the learning data to output a score corresponding to whether or not abnormal measurement data is included in the plural pieces of measurement data when the plural pieces of measurement data is input; and
detect an abnormality or a sign of abnormality of the energy storage device based on the score output by inputting the plural pieces of measurement data to the model,
wherein the creating the learning data comprises calculating an average for each group of the plural pieces of measurement data.”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process for claim 7, and apparatus for claims 1 and 8).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions).
In claim 1, the steps of “create learning data from plural pieces of measurement data, which comprises abnormal measurement data and normal measurement data, of the energy storage device such that the plural pieces of measurement data are grouped based on a configuration of the energy storage device”;
“detect an abnormality or a sign of abnormality of the energy storage device based on the score output by inputting the plural pieces of measurement data to the model”; and
“calculating an average for each group of the plural pieces of measurement data” are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea.
The step of “output a score corresponding to whether or not abnormal measurement data is included in the plural pieces of measurement data when the plural pieces of measurement data is input” is a mental process, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim comprises the following additional elements:
an energy storage device comprising a plurality of energy storage cells;
a plurality of sensors coupled to the energy storage device and configured to measure voltage of the plurality of energy storage cells; a battery controller; a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores an abnormality detection program; and a processor configured to execute the abnormality detection program and cause the abnormality detection device; store a model learned using the learning data; and the creating the learning data.
The additional elements “an energy storage device comprising a plurality of energy storage cells”; “a battery controller”, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores an abnormality detection program”; “a processor configured to execute the abnormality detection program and cause the abnormality detection device”; “store a model learned using the learning data”; and “the creating the learning data” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. Moreover, a generic processor is generally recited and therefore, not qualified as a particular machine. The additional element “a plurality of sensors coupled to the energy storage device and configured to measure voltage of the plurality of energy storage cells” represents necessary data gathering and does not integrate the limitation into a practical application.
The additional elements “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”; and “the abnormality detection device” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are considered a generic computer element. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, a plurality of sensors coupled to the energy storage device and configured to measure voltage of the plurality of energy storage cells is considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e., receiving measured data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
For example, store a model learned using the learning data to output a score is disclosed by “Naha US 20190120908”, [0012], [0042], [0046], [0064], [0090], FIG. 7C; FIG. 8; and “Kwon US 20220052389”, Abstract, [0014], [0021], [0057], [0064], [0083], Claim 8.
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 7 and 8 recite subject matter that are similar or analogous to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claims are also patent ineligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 3-6, and 9-13 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not eligible.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding Claims 1, and 3-13, the most pertinent prior arts are “Naha US 20190120908”, “Kwon US 20220052389”, “Haggblade US 20210271241”, “Park US 20170126027”, “Aono US 20060224661”, and “Itagaki US 20150044531”.
As to claims 1 and 7-8, Itagaki teaches an energy storage device comprising a plurality of energy storage cells (Itagaki, FIG. 4, C1, C2, C3, C4; [0038]);
a plurality of sensors coupled to the energy storage device and configured to measure voltage of the plurality of energy storage cells (Itagaki, [0099]; FIG. 4; FIG. 6 shows 2 voltage detectors, temperature detector, current detector, and current sensor); and
a battery controller comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores an abnormality detection program; and a processor configured to execute the abnormality detection program and cause the abnormality detection device (Itagaki,
FIG. 6, [0035], [0056], [0066], [0058]).
Naha teaches the abnormality detection device configured to create learning data from plural pieces of measurement data, which comprises abnormal measurement data and normal measurement data, of the energy storage device (Naha, [0088]; FIG. 7C and [0091]; Claims 13);
store a model learned using the learning data to output a score corresponding to whether or not abnormal measurement data is included in the plural pieces of measurement data when the plural pieces measurement data is input (Naha, [0012] and [0042]; [0090]; FIG. 7C); and
detect an abnormality or a sign of abnormality of the energy storage device based on the score output by the plural pieces of measurement data (Naha, [0042]).
Kwon teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores an abnormality detection program (Kwon, [0072]);
a processor configured to execute the abnormality detection program and cause the abnormality detection device (Kwon, [0021]);
detects an abnormality or a sign of abnormality of the energy storage device based on the score output by inputting the plural pieces of measurement data to the model (Kwon, [0014], [0083]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “create learning data from plural pieces of measurement data, which comprises abnormal measurement data and normal measurement data, of the energy storage device such that the plural pieces of measurement data are grouped based on a configuration of the energy storage device”, and
“wherein the creating the learning data comprises calculating an average for each group of the plural pieces of measurement data” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 3-6 and 9-13 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claim 1.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1, 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Leonard US 20210341539” teaches “A computer-based system for automatically detecting when a battery changeout occurs has an input device, a neural net trained to identify when said battery changeout occurs based on data from a battery monitor and an output device. The system reads in battery data points once per a data period. The system then formats multiple data points into a data vector for the neural net. The neural net then produces an output vector indicating when a battery changeout occurs. The output vector may show a detected changeout as a step change in a graph.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 EST.
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, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/LAL CE MANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights