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
Applicant' s amendment and response filed 12/15/2025 has been entered and made record. This application contains 12 pending claims.
Claims 1, and 3-8 have been amended.
Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Claims 9-13 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 have been amended, and thus, the claims 1, and 3-6 are no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation.
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/15/2025 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 in claim 1-8 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on pages 7-8 of the remark filed on 12/15/2025 that “… Applicant respectfully disagrees with the allegations because Claim 1 when considered as a whole is not directed to an abstract idea and is integrated into a practical application. … Even if Claim 1 involves some mathematical calculations, that is insufficient to reject the claims under Section 101. …”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. The steps of “create learning data by statistically processing the plural pieces of measurement data, which comprises abnormal measurement data, of an energy storage device”; “detects an abnormality or a sign of abnormality of the energy storage device based on the score output by inputting the plurality of pieces of measurement data to the model”; “group the plural pieces of measurement data based on a configuration of the energy storage device”, 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. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The applicant argues on pages 8-10 of the remark filed that “Applicant respectfully disagrees with the allegations because Claim 1 when considered as a whole is not directed to an abstract idea and is integrated into a practical application. … Rejecting Claim 1, which is directed to the real world and practical application of detecting an abnormality of an energy storage device is the very concern the Supreme Court had. … As such, Applicant respectfully submits that Claim 1 is not invalid under Section 101.”
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 “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”; “the processor is configured to cause the abnormality detection device”; 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 alleged improvement of a technical improvement to energy storage devices to make it better, and a specific way of improving management of an energy storage device using specific non-generic processing are routine in detecting an abnormality of an energy storage device, and 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 1-8 are proper.
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/15/2025 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 in claim 1-8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claims 1, and 7-8 have been amended and the amended claims limitations overcome the 103 rejections. Therefore, the 103 rejections in claims 1-8 have been withdrawn.
Newly added claim 9-13 depend from claim 1, and thus, the claims are not subject to the 103 rejections.
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:
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 by statistically processing the plural pieces of measurement data, which comprises abnormal measurement data, of an 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 processor is configured to cause the abnormality detection device to group the plural pieces of measurement data based on a configuration of the energy storage device, and
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 by statistically processing the plural pieces of measurement data, which comprises abnormal measurement data, of an energy storage device”;
“detects an abnormality or a sign of abnormality of the energy storage device based on the score output by inputting the plurality of pieces of measurement data to the model”;
“group the plural pieces of measurement data based on a configuration of the energy storage device”, 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:
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; the processor is configured to cause the abnormality detection device; and the creating the learning data.
The additional elements “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”; “the processor is configured to cause the abnormality detection device”; 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 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 non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores an abnormality detection program is disclosed by “Kwon US 20220052389”, [0021], [0057], [0069], [0071], [0072], [0083], Claim 8.; and “Park US 20170126027”, [0011], [0033], [0088], [0136], [0139], [0140].
For example, a storage unit that stores a model learned 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”, and “Aono US 20060224661”.
As to claims 1 and 7-8, Naha teaches create learning data by statistically processing plural pieces of measurement data, which may include abnormal measurement data, of an energy storage device (Naha, [0088]; FIG. 7C and [0091]);
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 “the processor is configured to cause the abnormality detection device to group the plural pieces of measurement data based on a configuration of the energy storage device”, and
“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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 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