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 .
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, 6-11 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under step 1, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a method claim. Likewise, claim 9 is a system claim. Claim 16 is a device claim but fails to fall into a statutory class and will be discussed below..
Under step 2A, prong 1: claims 1, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. “mathematical relationships” which the court has identified as abstract) without significantly more. Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of (b) respectively inputting the plurality of sensing data of each of the multiple types to a temperature prediction model, wherein the temperature prediction model comprises a plurality of model encoders, a reweighting model, and a model decoder; respectively computing a plurality of time-series features related to the type based on the plurality of sensing data of the type; (e) computing, by the reweighting model, a predicted temperature feature by using the plurality of time-series features and outputting the predicted temperature feature to the model decoder; (f) reconstructing, by the model decoder, the predicted temperature feature to generate a predicted temperature of the electronic component; and (g) estimating an error value between the predicted temperature and a current temperature; (h) accumulating an abnormal count when the error value is greater than a threshold value; and (i) when the abnormal count within a detection period is greater than a tolerance value, determining that the electronic component operates abnormally and issuing an anomaly notification to a supervisory system to enable countermeasures to be taken prior to system failure, wherein the method further comprises, before performing step (b):
respectively training a plurality of autoencoders according to a plurality of training-sensing data, wherein each of the plurality of autoencoders comprises a training- encoder and a training-decoder and each of the plurality of autoencoders is respectively related to a respective one of the multiple types; determining that each of the plurality of autoencoders is well-trained when a difference value between training-reconstruction data of each of the plurality of autoencoders and each of the plurality of input training-sensing data is less than a training threshold; and
setting the plurality of training-encoders to be the plurality of model encoders. These limitations fall under mathematical concepts. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are (a) receiving a plurality of sensing data of multiple types retrieved from an electronic component of the energy storage system, wherein each of the plurality of sensing data is respectively related to one of the multiple types; (c) for each of the multiple types, receiving, by a corresponding one of the plurality of model encoders, the plurality of sensing data of same type; which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and (d) outputting the plurality of time-series features of each of the multiple types to the reweighting model; which is an extra solution activity (outputting data). The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 9 is directed to the abstract idea of model encoders and a reweighting model, connected to the plurality of model encoders; and a model decoder, connected to the reweighting model; perform operations by using the temperature prediction model, comprising steps of: computing a plurality of time-series features related to the type by using the plurality of sensing data of same type; computing, by the reweighting model, a predicted temperature feature based on the plurality of time-series features and outputting the predicted temperature feature to the model decoder; reconstructing, by the model decoder, the predicted temperature feature to generate a predicted temperature of the electronic component; and determining whether the electronic component operates abnormally by estimating an error between the predicted temperature and a current temperature; accumulating an abnormal count when the error value is greater than a threshold value; and when the abnormal count within a detection period is greater than a tolerance value, determining that the electronic component operates abnormally and issuing an anomaly notification to the supervisory system to enable countermeasures to be taken prior to system failure, wherein the computation device is further configured to perform steps of:
respectively training a plurality of autoencoders according to a plurality of training-sensing data, wherein each of the plurality of autoencoders comprises a training- encoder and a training-decoder and each of the plurality of autoencoders is respectively related to a respective one of the multiple types; determining that each of the plurality of autoencoders is well-trained when a difference value between training-reconstruction data of each of the plurality of autoencoders and each of the plurality of input training-sensing data is less than a training threshold; and setting the plurality of training-encoders to be the plurality of model encoders. These limitations fall under mathematical concepts. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are model encoders configured to retrieve or receive a plurality of sensing data of multiple types of an electronic component, wherein each of the plurality of sensing data of the multiple types is respectively related to one type; for each of the multiple types, receiving, by a corresponding one of the plurality of model encoders, the plurality of sensing data of same type ; which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and a storage medium connected to the sensor module and configured to store a temperature prediction model and outputting the plurality of time-series features of each type to the reweighting model; which is an extra solution activity such as outputting and storing data. Other additional elements: a sensor module; a supervisory system, a storage medium, a computation device and electronic component are conventional or generic equipment which do not add anything significant to the judicial exception because these elements are needed in order to determine an abnormality in the component.
Claim 16 is directed to the abstract idea of respectively inputting the plurality of sensing data of each of the multiple types to a temperature prediction model, wherein the temperature prediction model comprises a plurality of model encoders, a reweighting model, and a model decoder; computing a plurality of time-series features related to the type based on the plurality of sensing data of same type; computing, by the reweighting model, a predicted temperature feature by using the plurality of time-series features and outputting the predicted temperature feature to the model decoder and reconstructing, by the model decoder, the predicted temperature feature to generate a predicted temperature of the electronic component; estimating an error value between the predicted temperature and a current temperature; accumulating an abnormal count when the error value is greater than a threshold value; and when the abnormal count within a detection period is greater than a tolerance value, determining that the electronic component operates abnormally and issuing an anomaly notification to a supervisory system to enable countermeasures to be taken prior to system failure, wherein the processor is further configured to perform operations comprising steps of: respectively training a plurality of autoencoders according to a plurality of training-sensing data, wherein each of the plurality of autoencoders comprises a training- encoder and a training-decoder and each of the plurality of autoencoders is respectively related to a respective one of the multiple types; determining that each of the plurality of autoencoders is well-trained when a difference value between training-reconstruction data of each of the plurality of autoencoders and each of the plurality of input training-sensing data is less than a training threshold; and setting the plurality of training-encoders to be the plurality of model encoders. These limitations fall under mathematical concepts. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are receiving a plurality of sensing data retrieved from an electronic component of an energy storage system and receiving, by each of the plurality of model encoders, the plurality of sensing data of the type; which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and storing program code and outputting the plurality of time-series features of each of the multiple types to the reweighting model; which is an extra solution activity such as outputting and storing data. Other additional elements: a storage medium, a processor, and an electronic component, are conventional or generic equipment which do not add anything significant to the judicial exception because these elements are needed in order to determine an abnormality in the component.
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, and other elements, are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than e.g., “reconstructing the predicted temperature feature to generate a predicted temperature of the electronic component.”) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, nothing is done with the predicted temperature of the electronic component.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity. Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Dependent claims 2-3, 6-8 and 10-11 and 14-15 merely expand upon the abstract idea further defining the abstract steps of claims 1 and 9 respectively, and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-11 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 9 and 16 recite, “each of the plurality of input training-sensing data is less than a training threshold;”; in lines 36, 40 and 37 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-3, 6-8, 10-11 and 14-15 depend from, and inherit the limitations of claims 1 and 9 respectively. Thus, claims 2-3, 6-8, 10-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 USC 112 second paragraph for at least the same reasons specified above with respect to claims 1 and 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible because they do not recite a judicial exception and integrate the claims into a practical application.
In response the Examiner respectfully disagrees and points to the rejection above. The fact that the claims do not recite a mathematical equation, formula or equation, does not equate to the claims not reciting an abstract idea. See Applicant’s paragraph 0053-0055, the system computes relationships among the time series features and computes a temperature. This is an example of an algorithm using mathematical equations, therefore considered abstract.
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the claims into a practical application.
The claims now recite issuing a anomaly notification to enable countermeasures to be taken prior to system failure. However, there is no mention of what and how these countermeasures are being done. In its broadest reasonable interpretation; a countermeasure can be just changing a value in the system to enable the system to output an alert which will be considered an extra solution activity and not patentable under 101.
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 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 MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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 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.
/MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
