DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
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 amendments, filed 06/05/2026 to claims are accepted. In this amendment, claims 1, 4-9, 11-16 have been amended. Regarding Claims 2-3 and 10: cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation, i.e. “wherein, the battery management apparatus is configured to transmit, upon determining the battery to be in the anomaly state, the compressed state data to the server and wherein the battery management apparatus is configured to transmit the compressed state data to a server for determination on whether the battery is defective” should be changed to “wherein, the battery management apparatus is configured to transmit, upon determining the battery to be in the anomaly state, the compressed state data to a server and wherein the battery management apparatus is configured to transmit the compressed state data to the server for determination on whether the battery is defective”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-9, 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims1, 4-9, 11-16 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 1, 4-9, 11-16 falls within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)).
Regarding Claims 1and 3-8
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of determines the state of the battery.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. (Currently Amended) A battery management apparatus comprising:
a first controller configured to obtain state data comprising a measurement value corresponding to a state of a battery;
a second controller configured to generate prediction data for predicting the state of the battery by applying at least a part of the state data to machine learning,
wherein the second controller is configured to determine the state of the battery by comparing the prediction data with the state data;
wherein the second controller is further configured to compress, upon determining the battery to be in an anomaly state, the state data obtained for a predetermined time before and after determining the anomaly state; and
a communication unit configured to transmit the compressed state data to a server for determination on whether the battery is defective..
The italicized limitations above represent combination of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “[..] predicting the state of the battery [..]; [..]determines the state of the battery by comparing the prediction data [..];” are combination of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment), see 2106.04(a)(2). Limitations (are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, additional first element is “a first controller configured to obtain state data comprising a measurement value corresponding to a state of a battery; wherein the second controller is further configured to compress, upon determining the battery to be in an anomaly state, the state data obtained for a predetermined time before and after determining the anomaly state; and a communication unit configured to transmit the compressed state data to a server for determination on whether the battery is defective ” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering and /or field of use) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
The 2nd additional element of “a machine learning in limitations are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept and it is recited a computer component at a high level of generality. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)..
The 3rd additional element is “A battery management apparatus comprising: a first controller, a second controller, server”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic battery monitoring system with computer component, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the “additional element” individually does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a generic system with extra solution activity. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claims1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of Claim 1 contains additional elements that is, i.e. A battery management apparatus, controllers, server”, generic devices, which are well understood, routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and MPEP 2106.05(d))
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Dependent Claims 4-8
Dependent claims 2-8 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-8 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For example, the limitations of Claims 4: insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering)
For example, the limitations of Claim 6 in limitations are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas to machine learning, which cannot provide an inventive concept and it is recited a computer component at a high level of generality.
For example, the limitations of Claims 5, 7-8 are a combination of mental step and mathematical concept(abstract idea).
Regarding Claims 9 and 11-16
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea of determining whether the battery is in an anomaly state.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
9. A battery testing system comprising:
a battery management apparatus configured to generate prediction data for predicting a state of a battery by applying at least a part of state data comprising a measurement value resulting from measuring the state of the battery to machine learning,
wherein the battery management apparatus is configured to determine the state of the battery by comparing the prediction data with state data of the battery,
wherein the battery management apparatus is further configured to compress, upon determining the battery to be in the anomaly state, the state data obtained for a predetermined time before and after determining the anomaly state,
wherein, the battery management apparatus is configured to transmit, upon determining the battery to be in the anomaly state, the compressed state data to the server and wherein the battery management apparatus is configured to transmit the compressed state data to a server for determination on whether the battery is defective; and
a server configured to determine whether the battery is in an anomaly state based on the compressed state data of the battery.
The italicized limitations above represent combination of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “[..] predicting a state of a battery [..]; [..]determines the state of the battery [..];[..]determining whether the battery is in an anomaly state[..]” are combination of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment), see 2106.04(a)(2). Limitations (are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 9 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, additional first element is “a measurement value resulting from measuring the state of the battery; wherein the battery management apparatus is further configured to compress, upon determining the battery to be in the anomaly state, the state data obtained for a predetermined time before and after determining the anomaly state, wherein, the battery management apparatus is configured to transmit, upon determining the battery to be in the anomaly state, the compressed state data to the server and wherein the battery management apparatus is configured to transmit the compressed state data to a server for determination on whether the battery is defective” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering and/or field on use) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
The 2nd additional element of “a machine learning” in limitations are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept and it is recited a computer component at a high level of generality. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)..
The 3rd additional element is “A battery testing system comprising: a battery management apparatus, server”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic battery monitoring system with computer component, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the “additional element” individually does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a generic system with extra solution activity. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claims 9 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of Claim 9 contains additional elements that is, i.e. battery testing system, server”, generic devices, which are well understood, routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and MPEP 2106.05(d))
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Dependent Claims 10-16
Dependent claims 11-16 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 9 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 10-16 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For example, the limitations of Claims 11 (the state data comprises a measurement value comprising voltage, current, and temperature of the battery, wherein the voltage, current, and temperature of the battery are measured cumulatively,), 15: insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering)
For example, the limitations of Claim 12 and 16 in limitations are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas to machine learning, which cannot provide an inventive concept and it is recited a computer component at a high level of generality.
For example, the limitations of Claims 11(wherein the state data comprises the measurement value and a state of health (SOH) of the battery, and wherein the SOH of the battery is calculated based on the measurement value), 13-14: are a combination of mental step and mathematical concept(abstract idea).
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect 101 rejection, specially claims 1, The applicant did not agree with it, see, pages 1-3. Applicant Argus that “The Claims Are Not Directed to a abstract idea; The Claims Merely Involve a Judicial Exception; The Claims Integrate the Alleged Judicial Exception into a Practical Application”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree because limitations of claims, specifically , 1 and 9 represent combination of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment)). Therefore, the limitations, specifically claim1, above fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. In view of the above, the two “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic device with computer component with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the additional element does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Claim invention only recite the idea of a solution or outcome “outputting an analysis result” and do not include any details about how the “outputting a analysis result” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect 102/103 has been considered and withdrawn.
Examiner Notes
There is no prior art rejection over claims 1, 4-9, 11-16 (specifically 1 and 9 ), however there are 101 over the claims.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Crymble et al. (US 20240288501) disclose BMS 1330 time shifts communications with external systems 1340 and/or IOT cloud 1350 concerning the fault detected by CMD 1320. For example, BMS 1330 first may store data received from CMD 1320 for later retrieval and passing on of such data to external systems 1340 and/or IOT cloud 1350. In some embodiments, BMS 1330 transmits data concerning faults detected at the monitored battery system to external systems 1340 and/or IOT cloud 1350 upon receiving a respective request from external systems 1340 and/or IOT cloud 1350.
b) Kami (US 20210091581) disclose a control circuit that acquires battery information including information related to a status of the battery, a storage that stores the acquired battery information, and an interface circuit that communicates with a management server via a network. The control circuit transmits the battery information stored in the storage to the management server via the interface circuit. The control circuit receives control information related to control of the battery from the management server via the interface circuit. The control circuit controls the battery according to the received control information.
c) Werner et al. (US 20200088796) disclose Predictive rechargeable battery management is provided, which includes obtaining performance data on a battery cell of multiple rechargeable battery cells within a product, and comparing the performance data of the battery cell to statistical data on battery cell performance of a plurality of battery cells of similar type to the battery cell, and in corresponding condition(s) to the battery cell. Further, the managing includes determining, based on the comparing, that performance of the battery cell is trending away from the statistical data of battery cell performance of the plurality of battery cells. Further, the managing includes performing a battery-related action based on the performance of the battery cell trending away from that of the plurality of battery cells of similar type and in corresponding condition(s) to the battery cell.
d) Srinivasan et al. (US 12055597) disclose determining a battery state can include generating a set of models based on a measured response of a plurality of batteries to an applied load, measuring battery properties of a battery, and using a state estimator to determine a battery state associated with a battery.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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 A 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights