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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed December 18, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Copies of WO 2020131948, WO 2018192190, WO 2021134746, and WO 2022065813 have not been submitted.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: US Application 18/498,996 (page 11, line 3) is now US patent 12,429,527.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: motor generating unit (claim 13).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-10 and 13-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 13, “the estimated battery capacity for at least one of the time points” (claim 1, line 11; claim 13, line 17) lacks antecedent basis. “[T]he estimated battery capacity for at least one of the time points” should be – the estimated battery capacity at each of the plurality of the time points --.
The remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claims 1, 11, and 13 recite an abstract idea of “estimating battery capacity at each of the plurality of time points” (mathematical concept/mental process), “applying a first model of battery capacity to generate a first set of battery capacity estimates” (mathematical concept), “estimating a first time to EOL from the first model” (mathematical concept), “applying a second model of battery capacity to generate a second set of battery capacity estimates” (mathematical concept), “estimating a second time to EOL from the second model” (mathematical concept), “selecting the estimated time to EOL from the first time to EOL and the second time to EOL” (mental process), “determining which of the first set of battery capacity estimates and the second set of battery capacity estimates is more accurate, using the estimated battery capacity for at least one of the time points”.(mathematical concept/mental process).
The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor (controller) does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III)).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the claim limitations are not integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)). [O]btaining a plurality of state of charge measurements and current measurements from the battery over a plurality of time points is directed to an insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The motor generator unit (MGU) for providing motive power to the vehicle and the rechargeable battery configured to provide electric power to the MGU are particular machines but they do not perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(b)) or apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Thus, they are not indicative of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The motor generator unit (MGU) for providing motive power to the vehicle and the rechargeable battery configured to provide electric power to the MGU are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements known in the industry.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claims do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claims 9, 12 are directed to conventional insignificant extra solution activities.
Claims 2-8, 10, 12, and 14-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1, 11, and 13 and their respective dependent claims 2-10, 12, and 14-20, respectively, are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Prior Art Note
Claims 1-20 do not have prior art rejections.
The combination as claimed wherein a method of estimating time to end of life (EOL) for a battery, comprising selecting the estimated time to EOL from the first time to EOL and the second time to EOL by determining which of the first set of battery capacity estimates and the second set of battery capacity estimates is more accurate, using the estimated battery capacity for at least one of the time points.(claim 1, 11, 13) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Examiner interprets that regardless of which of the first set of battery capacity estimates and the second set of battery capacity estimates is more accurate, both the estimated time to EOL from the first time to EOL and the second time to EOL are selected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Budan et al. (US 2023/0307731) discloses a method of estimating time to end of life (EOL) for a battery, comprising:
obtaining a plurality of a plurality of state of charge measurements (paragraph 0129, lines 7-9) and current measurements from the battery over a plurality of time points (Abstract, lines 1-6);
estimating battery capacity at each of the plurality of time points (sensor data are inputted to a model to output battery capacity, paragraph 0099, lines 8-13);
applying a first model of battery capacity to generate a first set of battery capacity estimates (predicting a remaining useful life of the battery pack of the vehicle by using a hybrid model comprising a physics-based model that receives the first and generates properties pertaining to the battery pack, Abstract, lines 6-9), and
applying a second model of battery capacity to generate a second set of battery capacity estimates (a machine learning model that uses the properties to predict the remaining useful life of each cell of the battery pack, Abstract, lines 9-11), and
It would have been obvious to estimate a first time to EOL from the first model based on the predicted remaining useful life of the battery pack and it would have been obvious to estimate a second time to EOL from the second model based on the predicted remaining useful life of the battery pack.
Budan et al. discloses selecting the estimated time to EOL from the first time to EOL and the second time to EOL (Abstract, lines 6-11).
Budan et al. further discloses using a rule-based evaluator to determine a plurality of first scores for the one or more machine learning models; using a machine learning based metric evaluator to determine a plurality of second scores for the one or more machine learning models; using a model selection inference engine to select, based on the first and second scores for the one or more machine learning models (paragraph 0010, lines 5-12).
However, Budan et al. does not disclose selecting the estimated time to EOL from the first time to EOL and the second time to EOL by determining which of the first set of battery capacity estimates and the second set of battery capacity estimates is more accurate, using the estimated battery capacity for at least one of the time points.
Porcellato (WO 2010/055271) discloses a method for assessing the remaining service life of an electrochemical power source (3) for electric traction (Abstract, lines 1-3). Porcellato further discloses estimating the remaining service life of the electrochemical source, according to a reference service life when not in use, estimated under reference conditions (Abstract, lines 9-13).
Burchardt (WO 2021/014406) discloses a self-learning algorithm implemented by the diagnostic device, which uses historical data and diagnostic information from the battery pack, determines a condition of the battery and provide recommended operational conditions for future use of the battery (Abstract, lines 7-10).
Garcia et al. (US 10,209,314) discloses a decision fusion algorithms can be used to combine the internal battery parameters and the battery health metrics to develop state-of-health estimations, state-of-charge estimations, remaining-useful-life predictions, and end-of-life predictions for the battery (Abstract, lines 13-18).
Lin et al. (US 2015/0147608) discloses a method and a system of estimating core temperatures of battery cells in a battery pack (Abstract, lines 1-2).
Newman et al. (US 2018/0304765) discloses an autonomous vehicle can precondition the battery before the autonomous vehicle arrives at the charging station (Abstract, lines 11-13).
However, the references above do not disclose selecting the estimated time to EOL from the first time to EOL and the second time to EOL by determining which of the first set of battery capacity estimates and the second set of battery capacity estimates is more accurate, using the estimated battery capacity for at least one of the time points.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 June 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights