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
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 9/29/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Chinese application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The USPTO attempt to electronically retrieve this information was unsuccessful as communicated to the Applicant on 2/29/2024.
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 1-10 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.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“A method for monitoring battery cell data, comprising:
continuously collecting a first set of the battery cell data in real time from working lithium-ion batteries in an energy storage station through a battery management system; retrieving estimation parameter data based on the first set of the battery cell data from a battery cell parameter database in real time, wherein the battery cell parameter database is constructed by: establishing a preliminary battery cell parameter database, wherein the preliminary battery cell parameter database comprises an observation parameter field and an estimation parameter field; acquiring a third set of battery cell data; performing parameter estimation on each battery cell based on the third set of battery cell data and the battery model to acquire third estimation parameter data; and updating the preliminary battery cell parameter database based on the third set of battery cell data and the third estimation parameter data; based on the estimation parameter data and based on the first set of the battery cell data, processing the first set of the battery cell data through a battery model to acquire second set of the battery cell data in real time; acquiring an error value between the first set of the battery cell data and the second set of the battery cell data in real time; and adjusting a monitoring result of the first set of the battery cell data in real time based on the error value and an error threshold, wherein the monitoring result is either the error value being greater than the error threshold, or being equal to or less than the error threshold.”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are 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).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted 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 groupings of subject matter that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “based on the estimation parameter data based on the first set of the battery cell data, processing the first set of the battery cell data through a battery model to acquire second set of the battery cell data in real time; acquiring an error value between the first set of the battery cell data and the second set of the battery cell data in real time; and adjusting a monitoring result of the first set of the battery cell data in real time based on the error value and an error threshold” are treated as belonging to the mathematical concepts grouping while the step of “… based on the error value and an error threshold” and “wherein the monitoring result is either the error value being greater than the error threshold, or being equal to or less than the error threshold” is treated as belonging to mental process grouping. These mental steps represents a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. In the context of this claim, it encompasses a user evaluating/acquiring data based on a calculated error value and a known threshold and then making an evaluation/judgement about an error value as compared to an appropriate threshold.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 8.
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 above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: A method for monitoring battery cell data; continuously collecting a first set of the battery cell data in real time from working lithium-ion batteries in an energy storage station through a battery management system; retrieving estimation parameter data based on the first set of the battery cell data from a battery cell parameter database in real time, wherein the battery cell parameter database is constructed by: establishing a preliminary battery cell parameter database, wherein the preliminary battery cell parameter database comprises an observation parameter field and an estimation parameter field; acquiring a third set of battery cell data; performing parameter estimation on each battery cell based on the third set of battery cell data and the battery model to acquire third estimation parameter data; and updating the preliminary battery cell parameter database based on the third set of battery cell data and the third estimation parameter data;
In Claim 8: An apparatus for monitoring battery cell data of a battery cell, comprising: a first-battery-cell-data acquisition module, which continuously collects a first set of the battery cell data in real time from working lithium-ion batteries in an energy storage station through a battery management system; an estimation-parameter-data acquisition module, which retrieves estimation parameter data corresponding to the first set of the battery cell data from a battery cell parameter database in real time based on the first set of the battery cell data, wherein the battery cell parameter database is constructed by: establishing a preliminary battery cell parameter database, wherein the preliminary battery cell parameter database comprises an observation parameter field and an estimation parameter field; acquiring a third set of battery cell data; performing parameter estimation on each battery cell based on the third set of battery cell data and the battery model to acquire third estimation parameter data; and updating the preliminary battery cell parameter database based on the third set of battery cell data and the third estimation parameter data; a second-battery-cell data acquisition module, which processes the estimation parameter data corresponding to the first set of the battery cell data through a battery model to acquire second set of the battery cell data in real time; a data-error-value acquisition module, which acquires an error value between the first set of the battery cell data and the second set of the battery cell data in real time; and a monitoring-result acquisition module.
The additional elements in the preambles of the claims are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
The additional elements in the claims such an apparatus for monitoring a battery cell and functional modules (Claim 8) are examples of generic computer equipment (components) that are generally recited and, therefore, are not qualified as particular machines. The limitations that generically collecting/retrieving data (Claims 1 and 8) represent insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of mere data gathering. According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance such steps are “performed in order to gather data for the mental analysis step, and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”. The limitations that generically recite creating/updating databases correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g): “Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated”).
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record (Yang, Tao, Fantham, Tang).
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-5, 7, and 9-10 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (additionally comprising abstract idea steps) and/or additional elements that are not meaningful. Therefore, these claims are not eligible without additional elements that reflect a practical application and/or qualified for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
For example, additional elements in Claim 9 (A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program, wherein when the computer program is executed by a processor) and Claim 10 (An electronic device, comprising: a memory, comprising a computer program; and a processor, communicatively connected to the memory, wherein the processor controls the computer program) are recited in generality and are not meaningful to indicate a practical application and/or qualify for significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues (p.7) : In this response, claims 1 and 8 have been amended to recite, in part, "continuously collecting a first set of the battery cell data in real time from working lithium-ion batteries in an energy storage station through a battery management system". The above limitations specify that the claims are directed to the practical application of power station battery management, and does not monopolize the alleged judicial exception.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The steps of collecting data corresponds to mere data gathering that is an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The features of “working lithium-ion batteries” and “power station” also correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity of a “field of use”. These limitations are not meaningful as recited in generality. They do not indicate a practical application.
The Applicant argues (p.7): Further, the above limitations, among others, improve the maintenance of power station battery cells, especially those that repeatedly switch between different working conditions, so as to better prevent issues such as over-discharge, over-charge, over- heating, and degradation of such battery cells.
The claims are silent with regards to battery cells that “repeatedly switch between different working conditions”. The improvement should be demonstrated by meaningful additional elements or combination thereof. However, Therefore, this “improvement” argument is unpersuasive (Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
Examiner Note with regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are distinguished over the prior art made of record based on the reasons below.
In regards to Claims 1 and 8, the claims differ from the closest prior art, Yang, Gao, Fantham, and Tang, either singularly or in combination, because the references fails to anticipate or render obvious establishing a preliminary battery cell parameter database, wherein the preliminary battery cell parameter database comprises an observation parameter field and an estimation parameter field; acquiring third set of battery cell data third set of battery cell data; performing parameter estimation on each battery cell based on the third set of battery cell data and the battery model to acquire third estimation parameter data of the estimation parameter data based on the first set of the battery cell data; and updating the preliminary battery cell parameter database based on the third set of battery cell data and the third estimation parameter data, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
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 extension fee 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 ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (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 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.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857