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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues
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, 6, 7, 9, and 11 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 computer-implemented method for monitoring a device battery in a technical device and adapting an operation of the device battery based on the monitoring, comprising:
providing a temporal operating variable curve of several operating variables of a specific device battery;
ascertaining from the temporal operating variable curve at least one operating feature point which characterizes a battery state and/or an operating history in a time period between a most recent and a second most recent change point time in the temporal operating variable curve;
providing a trace graph model comprising nodes each having a respective characteristic operating feature point connected via directed transitions, each having a respective transition probability, wherein at least one of the nodes corresponds to an anomaly node associated with an operating feature point corresponding to a particular fault of the device battery;
assigning the ascertained operating feature point to one of the nodes of the trace graph model as a monitoring node;
ascertaining an overall probability of occurrence of a determined fault as a sum of all path probabilities of all possible paths through the trace graph model from the monitoring node to the anomaly node,
wherein the path probability is given by a product of the respective transition probabilities along the nodes of the respective path; and
detecting and signaling the determined fault based on the overall probability; and when the determined fault is detected, adapting operation of the device battery by controlling the device battery in accordance with at least one operating-variable limitation so as to reduce stress exerted on the device battery by one or more stress factors.”
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 tStep 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 “ascertaining from the temporal operating variable curve at least one operating feature point which characterizes a battery state and/or an operating history in a time period between a most recent and a second most recent change point time in the temporal operating variable curve; providing a trace graph model comprising nodes each having a respective characteristic operating feature point connected via directed transitions, each having a respective transition probability, wherein at least one of the nodes corresponds to an anomaly node associated with an operating feature point corresponding to a particular fault of the device battery; ascertaining an overall probability of occurrence of a determined fault as a sum of all path probabilities of all possible paths through the trace graph model from the monitoring node to the anomaly node, wherein the path probability is given by a product of the respective transition probabilities along the nodes of the respective path” are treated as belonging to the mathematical concepts grouping while the steps of “assigning the ascertained operating feature point to one of the nodes of the trace graph model as a monitoring node”, “detecting and signaling the determined fault based upon on the overall probability”, and a step of “when the determined fault is detected” are treated as belonging to mental process grouping. These mental steps represent a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The steps of “assigning” and “detecting”, in the context of this claim, encompasses a user observing/evaluating the feature point on the trace graph in order to detect fault based on calculated overall probability. These steps, under the BRI, alternatively/additionally are treated as mathematical relationship steps (MPEP 2106.04.II: “construing the claims in accordance with their broadest reasonable interpretation”).
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the above claims that recites a judicial exception are integrated into a practical application.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: A computer-implemented method for monitoring a device battery in a technical device, comprising: providing a temporal operating variable curve of several operating variables of a specific device battery; signaling the determined fault; adapting operation of the device battery by controlling the device battery in accordance with at least one operating-variable limitation so as to reduce stress exerted on the device battery by one or more stress factors.
The additional elements in the preamble 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 as providing a temporal operating variable curve of several operating variables of a specific device battery represents insignificant extra-solution activity 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 additional element “signaling the determined fault” is also recited in generality, non-meaningful, and represents insignificant extra-solution activity that does not indicate a practical application. Similarly, a step of “adapting operation of the device battery by controlling the device battery in accordance with at least one operating-variable limitation so as to reduce stress exerted on the device battery by one or more stress factors” is recited in generality and not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
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.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9, and 11 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (additionally comprising abstract idea steps) and, therefore, these claims are not eligible without meaningful additional elements that reflect a practical application and/or additional elements that qualify for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
For example, additional elements in Claims 4 and 11 (a warning or a recommendation is issued to a user of the technical device and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium) are all recited in generality and not meaningful to indicate a practical application and/or qualify for significantly more.
Examiner Note:
Claim 12 is found eligible as it recites meaningful additional elements that indicate a practical application: “controlling the device battery in accordance with the at least one operating-variable limitation comprises at least one of imposing a temperature limit for the device battery, imposing a current-throughput limit for the device battery, or limiting a frequency at which fast-charging processes are performed for the device battery.”
Analysis of Closest Prior Art
SAINT-MARCOUX ANTOINE et al. (FR 3021613) discloses providing a temporal operating variable curve of several operating variables of a specific device battery; ascertaining from the temporal operating variable curve at least one operating feature point which characterizes a battery state and/or an operating history in a time period between a most recent and a second most recent change point time in the temporal operating variable curve (an iso-power curve representing in said plane the points of operation of the battery enabling it to substantially deliver said minimum power level required, p.4; the step of estimating the duration of said charging phase comprises steps of: determining the value of the current supplied to the battery during said charging phase; and from a point of operation of the battery defined by the temperature of the battery and the state of charge of the battery at the moment of activation of the charging phase, p.4).
BECKER JENS et al. (EP 3159708) discloses providing a trace graph having a respective characteristic operating feature points (Fig.2, points 33-1, 33-2).
Li Zhang et al. (WO 2014173275) discloses operating feature point connected via directed transitions, each having a respective transition probability and wherein the path probability is given by a product of the respective transition probabilities along the nodes of the respective path ("Operation node ^'s perceived success probability ^" and the operator from node ^ .sup.-1 transfer to the node actor monitor the transfer success probability and take the probability product of the two to get the node (1) operator monitoring success probability. Based on the Boolean algebraic logic operation rule, the probability of failure of the entire monitoring process (^) is the sum of the failure probability of each monitoring node; the probability of failure of each node can be obtained by taking the logical complement of the monitoring success probability ( ^. ) of the node, and The success probability of each node is determined by the probability of successful transition between the two types of monitoring behaviors directly related to the node, p.7).
George Lapiotes et al. (US 20110185229) discloses detecting and signaling the determined fault based upon on the probability (diagnoses faults using probabilities and time windows learned during the actual operation of a system being monitored [0004]).
Samantha Kleinberg et al. (US 20110167031) discloses determining an overall probability [0040].
Examiner Note with Regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, and 11 are distinguished over the prior art made of record based on the reasons below.
In regards to Claim 1, the claim differs from the closest prior art, ANTOINE, Jens, Zhang, Laoiotes, and Kleinberg, either singularly or in combination, because the art fails to anticipate or render obvious providing a trace graph model comprising nodes each having a respective characteristic operating feature point connected via directed transitions, each having a respective transition probability, wherein at least one of the nodes corresponds to an anomaly node associated with an operating feature point corresponding to a particular fault of the device battery; assigning the ascertained operating feature point to one of the nodes of the trace graph model as a monitoring node; ascertaining an overall probability of occurrence of a determined fault as a sum of all path probabilities of all possible paths through the trace graph model from the monitoring node to the anomaly node, wherein the path probability is given by a product of the respective transition probabilities along the nodes of the respective path, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Concetta Semeraro et al., “Battery monitoring and prognostics optimization techniques: Challenges and opportunities”, Energy, Volume 255, 15 September 2022, 29 pages, discloses SOC and SOH and RUL estimation techniques for all battery types. A novel framework is developed and presented to compare all battery techniques based on three dimensions: battery performance (Z dimension), approaches (X dimension), and criteria (Y dimension) to fulfil. This work uses BN (Bayesian network) graphical model composed of nodes and direct links representing random variables and their probabilistic dependencies.
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
Prosecution Insights