DETAILED ACTION
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
2. 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 1-17 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.
In view of the new 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019), the Examiner has considered the claims and has determined that under step 1, claims 1-12 and 16-17 are to a process, claim 13 is to a machine, and claims 14-15 are to an article of manufacture* (see further rejections in sections 4 and 5 below). Next under the new step 2A prong 1 analysis, the claims are considered to determine if they recite an abstract idea (judicial exception) under the following groupings: (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, or (c) mental processes. The independent claim contains at least the following bolded limitations that fall into the grouping of mathematical concepts and/or mental processes:
1. A method for initially preparing an at least partly data-based aging state model for an electrical energy storage means, comprising:
providing a number of energy storage means on a test bench for measurement depending on a respective load profile, wherein the load profiles are different and characterize a chronological trend of at least one load-imposing operational variable for the energy storage means;
operating the number of energy storage means having the respective associated load profile and recording chronological operational variable trends;
at a predetermined evaluation timepoint, respectively determining an aging state of a subset of the energy storage means as a label based on an input vector, and generating a training data set which includes the operational variable trends and the determined label for each energy storage means of the subset of the energy storage means; and
selecting the subset of energy storage means having the respective associated load profile based on an information measure for the subset of the energy storage means, the measure being determined using a predictive covariance of the data-based aging state model at at least one future timepoint.
It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula."(see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I.). Thus, the limitations of "initially preparing an at least partly data-based aging state model for an electrical storage means" amounts to a description in words of creating a mathematically-based aging model. The limitations of "wherein the load profiles are different and characterize a chronological trend of at least one load-imposing operational variable for the energy storage means" amounts to a description in words for describing a mathematically-based profile or model for characterizing a chronological trend according to a mathematical variable. The limitations of "at a predetermined evaluation timepoint, respectively determining an aging state of a subset of the energy storage means as a label based on an input vector" describes mathematical calculations to determine an aging state value according to an input vector. The limitations of "generating a training data set which includes the operational variable trends and the determined label for each energy storage means of the subset of the energy storage means," which when given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the background, amount to carrying out mathematical calculations to derive training data. For instance, the published specification paragraph [0081] recites "training data sets are established which assign operational variable trends of a vehicle battery operated based on a load profile to an empirically-determined or model-based-determined aging state as a label…this can be achieved via the combination of electrochemically-modeled cause-effect chains as well as machine learning)", which supports the plain meaning of the claim limitation terms as mathematical-based calculations to generate training data. The claim limitations of "selecting the subset of energy storage means having the respective associated load profile based on an information measure for the subset of the energy storage means, the measure being determined using a predictive covariance of the data-based aging state model at at least one future timepoint" amounts to carrying out a mathematical calculations of a predictive covariance of the aging state model data, as well as a mental process to select the subset of energy storage means that meet an information measure criteria for selection. Taken together, the bolded claim limitations describe a sequence of algorithmic steps to generate training data sets and calculate an information measure for use as a criteria in selecting a subset of energy storage means, where such a selection amounts to an informational-based identification in the abstract realm.
Next in step 2A prong 2, the independent claim is analyzed to determine whether there are additional elements or combination of elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, in order to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These limitations have been identified and underlined above, and are not indicative of integration into a practical application because: (1) "providing a number of energy storage means on a test bench for measurement depending on a respective load profile" and "operating the number of energy storage means having the respective associated load profile and recording chronological operational variable trends" amount to adding insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next in step 2B, the independent claims are considered to determine if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. The limitations of "providing a number of energy storage means on a test bench for measurement depending on a respective load profile" and "operating the number of energy storage means having the respective associated load profile and recording chronological operational variable trends" do not add something significantly more because they amount to adding insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and do not describe any gathering of data in an unconventional way. It would be expected that each energy storage means is operating according to its own characteristic load profile in order for "operational" data (that must be gathered in any case) to be recorded. The MPEP states that when “Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output)”, the limitations can be mere data gathering or data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra- Solution Activity, in particular item (3)).
Dependent claims 2-7, 10-12, and 16-17 contain additional limitations that fall under the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts, as they contain additional details regarding the calculations involved. Dependent claims 8-9 amount to adding insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), as they describe general conditions for carrying out data measurements. Dependent claims 13-15 do not amount to an integration into a practical application as they merely describe a device, computer program, or machine-readable storage medium, where such limitations amount to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
3. An invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. Applications of such concepts "to a new and useful end" remain eligible for patent protection (see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67)). However, "a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea" (see Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics Corp. _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q. 2d1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). There needs to be additional elements or combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception or render the claim as a whole to be significantly more than the exception itself in order to demonstrate “integration into a practical application” or an “inventive concept.” For instance, particular physical arrangements for actively obtaining the measurement data, or further physical applications using the abstract information of a selection of energy storage means to drive a transformation, change in physical operation, or repair/maintenance of a technology or technical process could provide integration into a practical application to demonstrate an improvement to the technology or technical field.
4. Claim 14 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claim 14 is directed a computer program, but a computer program per se is not directed towards a statutory category because a program is merely instructional data. However, a "non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program" falls under the statutory category of an article of manufacture, and thus the claim preamble can be rewritten to recite "A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program comprising instructions…".
5. Claim 15 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the term "machine-readable storage medium," where the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a machine-readable storage medium, as presented in the claim, covers both forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of machine-readable storage media, particularly when the specification is silent (see MPEP 2111.01). Because the broadest reasonable interpretation covers a signal per se, a rejection under 35 USC 101 is appropriate as covering non-statutory subject matter. See 351 OG 212, Feb 23 2010.
The Examiner suggests that the Applicant replaces “machine-readable storage medium” in claim 15 with "non-transitory machine-readable storage medium."
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 1-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.7. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In regards to claim 1, the closest prior art, Srinivasan et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0349155, hereinafter "Srinivasan") at least teaches a method for initially preparing an at least partly data-based aging state model for an electrical energy storage means (Srinivasan abstract teaches preparing a battery state model for a battery (energy storage means), and Srinivasan paragraph [0106] teaches where the characterization of the battery takes into account battery aging), comprising:
providing a number of energy storage means on a test bench for measurement (Srinivasan paragraph [0088] teaches providing one or more batteries in a controlled setting such as a characterization facility or laboratory (test bench) for carrying out measurements of battery properties) depending on a respective load profile, wherein the load profiles are different and characterize a chronological trend of at least one load-imposing operational variable for the energy storage means (Srinivasan paragraphs [0058] and [0070] teach where each battery has a respective load profile (for charging and discharging), wherein the load profiles are different and include a historic (chronological trend) profile of at least one control input (load-imposing operational variable) of the battery);
operating the number of energy storage means having the respective associated load profile (Srinivasan paragraphs [0069]-[0070] teach operating the battery according to its associated load profile) and recording chronological operational variable trends (Srinivasan paragraphs [0090]-[0092] teach recording battery property measurements during battery operation to form a characterization dataset according to the different battery profiles over a time span (to record chronological operational variable trends));
at a predetermined evaluation timepoint (Srinivasan paragraph [0075] teaches performing validation of a model and state estimator at predetermined times). However, claim 1 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Srinivasan et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0349155) fails to anticipate or render obvious the method comprising: respectively determining an aging state of a subset of the energy storage means as a label based on an input vector, and generating a training data set which includes the operational variable trends and the determined label for each energy storage means of the subset of the energy storage means; and selecting the subset of energy storage means having the respective associated load profile based on an information measure for the subset of the energy storage means, the measure being determined using a predictive covariance of the data-based aging state model at at least one future timepoint, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
8. Dependent claims 2-17 depend from claim 1 and contain allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as given for claim 1.
Pertinent Art
9. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
B. Kawamura et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0181256) discloses an Estimation System, Estimation Device, Estimation Method, Program, and Storage Medium. C. Holz et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2008/0208494) discloses Method and Device for Determining the Charge and/or Aging State of an Energy Store.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1598. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F, 9:30 am to 6 pm.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/PAUL D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 2/3/2026