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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-11 and 13-15 are pending
Claim 1 has been amended
Claim 12 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 8/11/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn. However, applicant's arguments filed 8/11/2026 regarding the rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues that the claim is not directed to a mental process and further elaborates the categorizing and calculation steps involve statistical analysis of sensor data (pages 6-7); but according to MPEP 2106.04(a), this is still viewed as an abstract idea because it involves mathematical concepts and mental processes. Applicant further argues the claim integrates the abstract ideas into a practical application of permitting increased utilization of the electrical energy storage cell using a flat C-rate aging process (page 7-8). However, in light of MPEP 2106.05(a), there’s not enough concrete elements in the claim that show an improvement to a computer, other technology or technical field. Applicant states the allowance of increased utilization is a concrete measurable improvement achieved through specific technical means, yet, the claim does not disclose any specific elements involved in the steps; which leads to the natural assumption that they are achieved (or can be achieved) with generic sensors and processors(controllers). Thus, the claim does not recite enough to be integrated into a practical application to be considered an improvement to a computer, other technology or technical field. Applicant further argues the claim recites significantly more through the acquisition and controlling steps. However, for the same reasons regarding the integration into a practical application and according to MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(g), these steps are merely seen as data gathering steps (for data tied to geographic locations) and outputting (for controlling and applying) based on collected and processed data. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract and the 101 rejection is maintained.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a method for estimating a power or current limit for an electrical energy storage system, the method comprising: acquiring, by a control unit, vehicle fleet data from a server, the vehicle fleet data indicating power usage of a fleet of vehicles operating in a specific geographical area, wherein the vehicle fleet data reflects vehicle usage under conditions specific to the geographical area including at least one of road topology, traffic conditions, vehicle density, and climate; categorizing, by the control unit, the vehicle fleet data into a set of power usage profiles depending on an expected amount of power usage determined from the vehicle fleet data; calculating, by the control unit, a time dependent averaged current profile from a distribution of the set of power usage profiles, wherein the distribution of the set of power usage profiles represents aggregated usage behaviour of the fleet vehicles within the specific geographical area; controlling, by the control unit, an electrical current or power supply source to apply the time dependent averaged current profile to an electrical energy storage cell to age the electrical energy storage cell physically to a predetermined state of health; determining, by the control unit, the power or current limit for the electrical energy storage cell once the energy storage cell has been aged to the predetermined state of health using the time dependent averaged current profile derived from the specific geographical area, wherein the determined power or current limit permits increased utilization of the electrical energy storage cell relative to a power or current limit determined using a flat C-rate aging process, and applying, by the control unit, the determined power or current limit to a battery management system for controlling charging or discharging of the electrical energy storage system.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method; therefore, it is a process
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of categorizing the vehicle fleet data into a set of power usage profiles depending on an expected amount of power usage determined from the vehicle fleet data; This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed mentally. For example, categorizing the vehicle fleet data into a set of power usage profiles depending on an expected amount of power usage determined from the vehicle fleet data can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of calculating a time dependent averaged current profile from a distribution of the power usage profiles, wherein the distribution of the set of power usage profiles represents aggregated usage behaviour of the fleet vehicles within the specific geographical area. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed mentally. For example, calculating a time dependent averaged current profile from a distribution of the power usage profiles can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of determining the power or current limit for the electrical energy storage cell once the energy storage cell has been aged to the predetermined state of health, wherein the determined power or current limit permits increased utilization of the electrical energy storage cell relative to a power or current limit determined using a flat C-rate aging process, This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed mentally. For example, determining the power or current limit for the electrical energy storage cell once the energy storage cell has been aged to the predetermined state of health can be done by a human with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. the claims recites the additional elements:
the control unit, a server, an electrical energy storage cell and a fleet of vehicles;
The electrical energy storage cell in the claim is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic battery cell performing a generic function of storing charge. This generic battery cell limitation is known to someone ordinary in the art, and does not improve the technology. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The fleet of vehicles in the claim is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic plurality of vehicles. This generic plurality of vehicles limitation is known to someone ordinary in the art.
The examiner finds that each of the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea:
Control unit and server
The following references disclose the conventionality of the additional elements:
US 20090210357 A1; PUDAR; NIKOLA J. et al. teaches the control unit (controller 152), a server (remote command center 112), an electrical energy storage cell (onboard energy storage system 202) and a fleet of vehicles (vehicles 102 and 103);
US 20170355268 A1; Roberts; Daniel Paul et al. teaches the control unit (system controller 148), a server (electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) 138; most modern EV charging stations connect to servers to manage operations, communication, and data exchange), an electrical energy storage cell (traction battery 124, auxiliary battery 130) and a fleet of vehicles (par.38 teaches implicitly teaches fleet of vehicles through the plurality of vehicles having many maintenance modes);
US 9026347 B2; Gadh; Rajit et al. teaches the control unit (fig.7 microcontroller 708), a server (fig.8 central controller 806), an electrical energy storage cell (fig.7 battery pack 702) and a fleet of vehicles (col.5 ln 66 – col.6 ln 1 teaches electric vehicles 114a);
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea:
acquiring, by a control unit, vehicle fleet data from a server, the vehicle fleet data indicating power usage of a fleet of vehicles operating in a specific geographical area, wherein the vehicle fleet data reflects vehicle usage under conditions specific to the geographical area including at least one of road topology, traffic conditions, vehicle density, and climate; wherein the distribution represents aggregated usage behaviour of the fleet within the specific geographical area. These are viewed as mere data gathering by the courts:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
controlling, by the control unit, an electrical current or power supply source to apply the time dependent averaged current profile to an electrical energy storage cell to age the electrical energy storage cell physically to a predetermined state of health; using the time dependent averaged current profile derived from the specific geographical area; applying, by the control unit, the determined the power or current limit to a battery management system for controlling the electrical energy storage system. These are viewed as insignificant activities because the courts view it is the insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated:
Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
the additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a control unit and a server. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a control unit and a server, because they are well known in the art by an ordinary examiner, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 2 is 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. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “… determining state of charge limits from the vehicle fleet data, and applying the time dependent averaged current profile with limits according to the state of charge limits.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 3 is 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. Claim 3 depends on claim 2, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “… categorizing state of charge usage from the vehicle fleet data into a set of state of charge profiles depending on state of charge usage derived from the vehicle fleet data, and determining state of charge limits from the categorized state of charge usage.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 4 is 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. Claim 4 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “… determining depth of discharge limits from the vehicle fleet data, and applying the time dependent averaged current profile with limits according to the depth of discharge limits.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 5 is 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. Claim 5 depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “… categorizing depth of discharge from the vehicle fleet data into a set of depth of discharge limits profiles depending on depth of discharge usage derived from the vehicle fleet data, and determining depth of discharge limits from the categorized depth of discharge limits usage.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 6 is 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. Claim 6 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “… determining a charging behaviour from the vehicle fleet data, and applying charging to the battery cell according to the charging behaviour.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 7 is 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. Claim 7 depends on claim 6, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the charging behaviour includes a distribution of charging rates including at least two different charging rates.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 8 is 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. Claim 8 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein calculating a time dependent averaged current profile comprises calculating a root-mean-square of the categorized vehicle fleet data.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 9 is 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. Claim 9 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 9 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the set of profiles comprises three types or levels of vehicle usage.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 10 is 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. Claim 10 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 10 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the vehicle fleet data is retrieved from a server.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 11 is 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. Claim 11 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 11 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the vehicle fleet data is field data collected from vehicles operating in real-world conditions operated by multiple drivers in the geographical area.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 13 is 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. Claim 13 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 13 is further recites the element(s) “A non-transitory computer readable medium carrying a computer program comprising program code for performing the steps of claim 1 when said program code is run on a computer.”, which are/is simply more conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 14 is 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. Claim 14 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 14 is further recites the element(s) “A control unit for estimating a power or current limit for an electrical energy storage system, the control unit is configured to perform the steps of the method according to claim 1.”, which are/is simply more conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 15 is 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. Claim 15 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 15 is further recites the element(s) “An electrical energy storage system comprising at least one electrical energy storage cell, wherein a power or a current limit for the electrical energy storage cell is determined using the steps of the method according to claim 1.”, which are/is simply more conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20090210357 A1; PUDAR; NIKOLA J. et al. is a remote power usage management for plug-in vehicles.
US 20170355268 A1; Roberts; Daniel Paul et al. isa variable wakeup of a high-voltage charger based on low-voltage system parameters
US 9026347 B2; Gadh; Rajit et al. is a Smart electric vehicle (EV) charging and grid integration apparatus and methods.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3991. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am -5:00am.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/RAUL J RIOS RUSSO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights