DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-10 are pending and presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The representative claim 1 recites:
A state quantity estimation device comprising:
a sound collector that collects, in a vicinity of a secondary battery without contact with the secondary battery, a sound emitted from the secondary battery during charge or discharge of the secondary battery;
an estimator that estimates a state quantity indicating a state of the secondary battery, based on information on the sound collected by the sound collector; and
an outputter that outputs the state quantity estimated by the estimator.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under 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 claims are considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under 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 limitation that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Next, under 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations in the claim are only: a sound collector that collects, in a vicinity of a secondary battery without contact with the secondary battery, a sound emitted from the secondary battery during charge or discharge of the secondary battery; an estimator…; and an outputter that outputs the state quantity estimated by the estimator.
The limitation “a sound collector that collects, in a vicinity of a secondary battery without contact with the secondary battery, a sound emitted from the secondary battery during charge or discharge of the secondary battery” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering data using a generic sensor) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic sensor.
Further, the claim limitations “an estimator…; and an outputter that outputs the state quantity estimated by the estimator”, are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer structures performing a generic computer function of estimating and outputting information) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the additional limitations recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic sensor used to gather sound data and outputting data using a computer components). Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Schweitzer et al. US 2020/0371165 (hereinafter, Schweitzer), ([0073]-[0074], Fig. 6A, 11), and Shen et al. US 2019/0049518 (hereinafter, Shen), ([0047], Figs. 1-3). Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2 and 4-8, add further details of the identified abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 3, recites addition element of the additional element(s) of using generic AI/ML technology, i.e. “machine learning” to perform data evaluations or calculations, as identified under Prong 1 above. The claim does not recites any details regarding how the “machine learning” algorithm is trained. Instead, the claim is found to utilize the AI/ML algorithm as a tool that provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, the use of the “machine learning” merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the use of “machine learning” to perform steps that are otherwise abstract does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence; and Example 47, ineligible claim 2.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
6. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schweitzer et al. US 2020/0371165 (hereinafter, Schweitzer), in view of Shen et al. US 2019/0049518 (hereinafter, Shen).
7. Regarding claim 1, Schweitzer discloses a state quantity estimation device comprising:
a sound collector that collects, in a vicinity of a secondary battery without contact with the secondary battery, a sound emitted from the secondary battery ([0073]-[0074], Fig. 6A: instruct the ultrasonic sensor 635-1 to emit ultrasonic waves toward a battery 632-1 of the aerial vehicle 609-1. In addition, the control system may instruct the ultrasonic sensor 635-1 to receive echoes of emitted ultrasonic waves from a battery 632-1 of the aerial vehicle 609-1);
an estimator that estimates a state quantity indicating a state of the secondary battery, based on information on the sound collected by the sound collector ([0074]-[0075]: determine correlations between data associated with various properties of emitted ultrasonic waves, echoes of ultrasonic waves, and/or changes therebetween, and data associated with various changes to physical or mechanical characteristics, and/or chemical or material characteristics. In addition, various machine learning techniques or algorithms may be developed, trained, and utilized to determine correlations between data associated with various changes to physical or mechanical characteristics, and/or chemical or material characteristics, and data associated with states of charge and/or states of health of electrochemical cells of batteries); and
an outputter that outputs the state quantity estimated by the estimator ([0141]-[0157]).
Schweitzer does not disclose:
a sound emitted from the secondary battery during charge or discharge of the secondary battery.
However, Shen discloses:
a sound emitted from the secondary battery during charge or discharge of the secondary battery ([0049]-[0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schweitzer to use a sound emitted from the secondary battery during charge or discharge of the secondary battery as taught by Shen. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to analyze the state quantity during charging and discharge of the battery in real time (Shen, [0050]).
8. Regarding claims 9 and 10, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1.
9. Regarding claim 2, Schweitzer in view of Shen disclose the state quantity estimation device according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
Schweitzer further discloses wherein the estimator estimates the state quantity based on an output result obtained by inputting the information on the sound into a trained model that is a machine learning model having undergone training ([0075]).
10. Regarding claim 3, Schweitzer in view of Shen disclose the state quantity estimation device according to claim 2, as disclosed above.
Schweitzer further discloses wherein the machine learning model is trained using training data, and the training data is a data set including the information on the sound and an annotation indicating at least one of a remaining battery level or a degree of degradation of the secondary battery from which the sound has been collected ([0021], [0075], [0132]).
11. Regarding claim 4, Schweitzer in view of Shen disclose the state quantity estimation device according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
Schweitzer further discloses wherein the information on the sound is information including: a frequency band of the sound; and at least one of a duration of the sound, a sound pressure of the sound, or a waveform of the sound (Abstract, [0074]). See also Shen ([0018]).
12. Regarding claim 5, Schweitzer in view of Shen disclose the state quantity estimation device according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
Schweitzer further discloses wherein the information on the sound is in a form of time-series numerical data of the sound, a spectrogram image of the sound, or a frequency characteristic image of the sound ([0074], [0093]). See also Shen ([0022], [0045]).
13. Regarding claim 6, Schweitzer in view of Shen disclose the state quantity estimation device according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
Schweitzer further discloses wherein the state quantity is a value of an indicator indicating at least one of a state of charge of the secondary battery or a state of degradation of the secondary battery ([0021], [0075]).
14. Regarding claim 7, Schweitzer in view of Shen disclose the state quantity estimation device according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
Schweitzer further discloses wherein the state quantity is a value of at least one of a state of charge (SoC) or a state of health (SoH) ([0075]).
15. Regarding claim 8, Schweitzer in view of Shen disclose the state quantity estimation device according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
Schweitzer further discloses wherein the sound is a sound with a frequency in an ultrasonic band ([0075]).
Conclusion
16. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, and/or paragraphs, and/or pages in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYOB HAGOS whose telephone number is (571)272-3508. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Shelby Turner can be reached on 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 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.
/Eyob Hagos/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857