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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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, 3, 5-8, 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 8 (and dependent claims 10 and 12-14) recite “A defect type classifying method comprising: learning, by a defect type predicting module that is realized as a processor, to classify a defect type according to a cause of a short-circuit defect of a battery based on learning data; measuring, by a measurer, at least one of electrical characteristics of the battery for a test period and generating measured data, the measurer having a memory that stores the measured data, the measured data being based on a result obtained by measuring a battery voltage that is a voltage at respective ends of the battery for the test period; converting, by a converter, the measured data and generating input data; and determining, by the defect type predicting module, a defect type of the battery based on the input data, wherein the input data are appropriate for an input node of the defect type predicting module, and wherein the input data include a number of peaks of the battery voltage and at least one of a maximum value, a minimum value, a mean value, or a center value of the battery voltage.”
Claims 8, 10 and 12-14, in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of “learning, by a defect type predicting module that is realized as a processor, to classify a defect type according to a cause of a short-circuit defect of a battery based on learning data; measuring, by a measurer, at least one of electrical characteristics of the battery for a test period and generating measured data, the measurer having a memory that stores the measured data, the measured data being based on a result obtained by measuring a battery voltage that is a voltage at respective ends of the battery for the test period; converting, by a converter, the measured data and generating input data; and determining, by the defect type predicting module, a defect type of the battery based on the input data, wherein the input data are appropriate for an input node of the defect type predicting module, and wherein the input data include a number of peaks of the battery voltage and at least one of a maximum value, a minimum value, a mean value, or a center value of the battery voltage.”
As a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited “learning, by a defect type predicting module that is realized as a processor, to classify a defect type according to a cause of a short-circuit defect of a battery based on learning data; measuring, by a measurer, at least one of electrical characteristics of the battery for a test period and generating measured data, the measurer having a memory that stores the measured data, the measured data being based on a result obtained by measuring a battery voltage that is a voltage at respective ends of the battery for the test period; converting, by a converter, the measured data and generating input data; and determining, by the defect type predicting module, a defect type of the battery based on the input data, wherein the input data are appropriate for an input node of the defect type predicting module, and wherein the input data include a number of peaks of the battery voltage and at least one of a maximum value, a minimum value, a mean value, or a center value of the battery voltage.”; therefore, the claims recite mental processes. Accordingly, the claims recite a mental process, and thus, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of“[a] computer- implemented method” and “the method is carried out by one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions” as recited in claim 1, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 3 and 5-7 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Additionally, these recitations as an ordered combination, simply append the abstract idea to recitations of generic computer structure performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field as evinced by Applicant’s Specification at [0051] (describing that the disclosure is not limited to the disclosed implementations, but, on the contrary, is intended to cover modifications and equivalent arrangements that are within the spirit and scope of the appended claims). Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 3, 5-7, 10 and 12-14 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea. Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that are used to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed 12 February 2026, with respect to claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10 and 12-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102 rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10 and 12-14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserted that each and every limitation of amended claims 1 and 8 are not merely abstract ideas not tied to physical structure. However, this argument is not found persuasive because the claimed “learning”, “measuring”, “converting” and “determining” steps are still directed towards the abstract idea and they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claims 1 and 8 and dependent claims 3, 5-7, 10 and 12-14 thereon are remained rejected under 101 rejection as mentioned above.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN H DO whose telephone number is (571)272-2143. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached on 571-272-5960. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AN H DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights