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 Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: Line 10 recites “receives sensor data”, it is recommended to amend to recite “receives the sensor data” in order to avoid confusion. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a system for battery monitoring and managing comprising: a battery; a plurality of sensors electrically coupled to the battery and configured to generate sensor data associated with the battery, wherein the plurality of sensors include at least a temperature sensor, a voltage sensor, and a current sensor, and wherein the sensor data includes temperature sensor data generated by the temperature sensor, voltage sensor data generated by the voltage sensor, and current sensor data generated by the current sensor; a controller electrically coupled to the plurality of sensors, wherein the controller is configured to: receive sensor data from the plurality of sensors; compact the sensor data into coefficient data; generate one or more performance indicators based on the coefficient data; and generate at least one alarm based on the performance indicators.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a system; therefore, it is a machine
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation, receive sensor data. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, receive sensor data can be done by a human or pen and paper
The claim recites the limitation, compact the sensor data into coefficient data. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, compacting sensor data into coefficient data can be done by a human or pen and paper, through Mathematical Transformations, Statistical Analysis, Dimensionality Reduction, Hand-crafted Feature Extraction and Data Structuring
The claim recites the limitation, generate one or more performance indicators based on the coefficient data. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, generating one or more performance indicators based on the coefficient data can be done by a human or with pen and paper. For example, State of health can be estimated using coefficients from voltage/current series, such as the coefficient of variation (COV) or through polynomial regression analysis of aging data (SOH(C) =
a
C
2
+
b
C
+
c
,
Capacity fade and resistance rise can be derived from fitting experimental data to models, where coefficients represent parameters like internal resistance (ESR) or charge transfer resistance.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: a controller electrically coupled to the plurality of sensors
the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: generate at least one alarm based on the performance indicators.
the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of implementing a utility meter management system are performed: a plurality of sensors electrically coupled to the battery and configured to generate sensor data associated with the battery, wherein the plurality of sensors include at least a temperature sensor, a voltage sensor, and a current sensor, and wherein the sensor data includes temperature sensor data generated by the temperature sensor, voltage sensor data generated by the voltage sensor, and current sensor data generated by the current sensor; receive sensor data from the plurality of sensors
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving data, compacting data into coefficient data and generating performance indicators based on the coefficient data, all done in a computer environment. The claimed computer and sensor components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform battery monitoring and managing. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving data, compacting data into coefficient data and generating performance indicators based on the coefficient data in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 2 is 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. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the controller is further configured to transmit the at least one alarm to a user interface and cause the alarm to be rendered on a user interface.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 3 is 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. Claim 3 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the alarm is further based on one or more performance indicators exceeding a priority threshold.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 4 is 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. Claim 4 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the controller is configured to compact the sensor data into coefficient data is based on a polynomial equation.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 5 is 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. Claim 5 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the performance indicators include a deviation rate.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 6 is 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. Claim 6 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the battery is comprised of a plurality of battery modules, and wherein the plurality of sensors include a second plurality of sensors for each of the plurality of battery modules, wherein the second plurality of sensors include at least a temperature sensor, a voltage sensor, and a current sensor.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 7 is 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. Claim 7 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the controller is further configured to: generate a table of performance indicators for display on a user interface; and render the table on the user interface.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites a method for battery monitoring and managing comprising: generating, with a plurality of sensors, sensor data associated with a battery, wherein the plurality of sensors are electrically coupled to the battery, wherein the plurality of sensors include at least a temperature sensor, a voltage sensor, and a current sensor, and wherein the sensor data includes temperature sensor data generated by the temperature sensor, voltage sensor data generated by the voltage sensor, and current sensor data generated by the current sensor; receiving, at a controller, the sensor data from the plurality of sensors; compacting the sensor data into coefficient data; generating one or more performance indicators based on the coefficient data; and generating at least one alarm based on the performance indicators.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method; therefore, it is a process.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation, receiving sensor data. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, receiving sensor data can be done by a human or pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation, compacting the sensor data into coefficient data. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, compacting sensor data into coefficient data can be done by a human or pen and paper, through Mathematical Transformations, Statistical Analysis, Dimensionality Reduction, Hand-crafted Feature Extraction and Data Structuring.
The claim recites the limitation, generating one or more performance indicators based on the coefficient data. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, generating one or more performance indicators based on the coefficient data can be done by a human or with pen and paper. For example, State of health can be estimated using coefficients from voltage/current series, such as the coefficient of variation (COV) or through polynomial regression analysis of aging data (SOH(C) =
a
C
2
+
b
C
+
c
, capacity fade and resistance rise can be derived from fitting experimental data to models, where coefficients represent parameters like internal resistance (ESR) or charge transfer resistance.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: a controller.
the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: generating at least one alarm based on the performance indicators.
the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of implementing a utility meter management system are performed: generating, with a plurality of sensors, sensor data associated with a battery, wherein the plurality of sensors are electrically coupled to the battery, wherein the plurality of sensors include at least a temperature sensor, a voltage sensor, and a current sensor, and wherein the sensor data includes temperature sensor data generated by the temperature sensor, voltage sensor data generated by the voltage sensor, and current sensor data generated by the current sensor;
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving data, compacting data into coefficient data and generating performance indicators based on the coefficient data, all done in a computer environment. The claimed computer and sensor components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform battery monitoring and managing. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving data, compacting data into coefficient data and generating performance indicators based on the coefficient data in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 9 is 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. Claim 9 depends on claim 8, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 9 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising: transmitting the at least one alarm to a user interface and cause the alarm to be rendered on a user interface.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 10 is 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. Claim 10 depends on claim 8, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 10 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the alarm is further based on one or more performance indicators exceeding a priority threshold.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 11 is 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. Claim 11 depends on claim 8, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 11 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein compacting the sensor data into coefficient data is based on a polynomial equation.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 12 is 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. Claim 12 depends on claim 8, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 12 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the performance indicators include a deviation rate.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 13 is 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. Claim 13 depends on claim 8, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 13 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the battery is comprised of a plurality of battery modules, and wherein the plurality of sensors include a second plurality of sensors for each of the plurality of battery modules, wherein the second plurality of sensors include at least a temperature sensor, a voltage sensor, and a current sensor.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 14 is 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. Claim 14 depends on claim 8, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 14 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising: generating a table of performance indicators for display on a user interface; and rendering the table on the user interface.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites computer program product for battery monitoring and managing, the computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code portions stored therein, the computer-readable program code portions comprising an executable portion configured to: receive, from a plurality of sensors, sensor data associated with a battery, wherein the plurality of sensors are electrically coupled to the battery, wherein the plurality of sensors include at least a temperature sensor, a voltage sensor, and a current sensor, and wherein the sensor data includes temperature sensor data generated by the temperature sensor, voltage sensor data generated by the voltage sensor, and current sensor data generated by the current sensor; receive, at a controller, the sensor data from the plurality of sensors; compact the sensor data into coefficient data; generate one or more performance indicators based on the coefficient data; and generating at least one alarm based on the performance indicators.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a program; therefore, it is a process
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation, receive the sensor data. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, receive the sensor data can be done by a human or pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation, compact the sensor data into coefficient data. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, compacting sensor data into coefficient data can be done by a human or pen and paper, through Mathematical Transformations, Statistical Analysis, Dimensionality Reduction, Hand-crafted Feature Extraction and Data Structuring.
The claim recites the limitation, generate one or more performance indicators based on the coefficient data. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, generating one or more performance indicators based on the coefficient data can be done by a human or with pen and paper. For example, State of health can be estimated using coefficients from voltage/current series, such as the coefficient of variation (COV) or through polynomial regression analysis of aging data (SOH(C) =
a
C
2
+
b
C
+
c
,
Capacity fade and resistance rise can be derived from fitting experimental data to models, where coefficients represent parameters like internal resistance (ESR) or charge transfer resistance.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: A computer program product for battery monitoring and managing, the computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code portions stored therein, the computer-readable program code portions comprising an executable portion, a controller.
the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: generating at least one alarm based on the performance indicators.
the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of implementing a utility meter management system are performed:
receive, from a plurality of sensors, sensor data associated with a battery, wherein the plurality of sensors are electrically coupled to the battery, wherein the plurality of sensors include at least a temperature sensor, a voltage sensor, and a current sensor, and wherein the sensor data includes temperature sensor data generated by the temperature sensor, voltage sensor data generated by the voltage sensor, and current sensor data generated by the current sensor;
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving data, compacting data into coefficient data and generating performance indicators based on the coefficient data, all done in a computer environment. The claimed computer and sensor components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform battery monitoring and managing. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving data, compacting data into coefficient data and generating performance indicators based on the coefficient data in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 16 is 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. Claim 16 depends on claim 15, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 16 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the computer-readable program code portions comprising an executable portion are further configured to: transmit the at least one alarm to a user interface and cause the alarm to be rendered on a user interface.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 17 is 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. Claim 17 depends on claim 15, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 17 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the alarm is further based on one or more performance indicators exceeding a priority threshold.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 18 is 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. Claim 18 depends on claim 15, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 18 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein compacting the sensor data into coefficient data is based on a polynomial equation.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 18 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 19 is 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. Claim 19 depends on claim 15, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 19 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the performance indicators include a deviation rate.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 19 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 20 is 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. Claim 20 depends on claim 15, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 20 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the computer-readable program code portions comprising an executable portion are further configured to: generate a table of performance indicators for display on a user interface; and render the table on the user interface.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 20 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by SHI, Deng-jian et al. (Chinese Publication #CN 210577909 U; translation provided by the examiner; hereinafter Shi).
Regarding claim 1, Shi teaches,
A system for battery monitoring and managing (abstract) comprising:
a battery (abstract);
a plurality of sensors electrically coupled to the battery and configured to generate sensor data associated with the battery (par.19 “monitors the ambient temperature and humidity through temperature and humidity sensors installed outside the backup power supply. The sensors include voltage sensors, current sensors, and temperature sensors.”), wherein the plurality of sensors include at least a temperature sensor, a voltage sensor, and a current sensor, and wherein the sensor data includes temperature sensor data generated by the temperature sensor, voltage sensor data generated by the voltage sensor, and current sensor data generated by the current sensor (par.19 “The sensors include voltage sensors, current sensors, and temperature sensors.”; these sensors respectively generate voltage, current and temperature data);
a controller electrically coupled to the plurality of sensors (par.24-25), wherein the controller is configured to:
receive sensor data from the plurality of sensors (par.20 “the control unit obtains the charging and discharging status of the battery pack through the current sensor”);
compact the sensor data into coefficient data (Par.20 teaches coefficient data “calculates the ratio of the remaining capacity of the battery pack after a period of use or long-term disuse to its fully charged capacity through the data monitored by the current sensor and voltage sensor”; Coefficient data refers to calculated, derived values (e.g., regression coefficients, calibration factors) representing the relationships, trends, or calibration scaling between sensor inputs and desired outputs.);
generate one or more performance indicators based on the coefficient data (par.21 “display various parameters and performance indicators”); and
generate at least one alarm based on the performance indicators (par.57 teaches alarm triggered which is based on the performance indicators obtained; par.114 battery level indicator is also an alarm).
Regarding claim 2, Shi teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to transmit the at least one alarm to a user interface (par.128 teaches a communication interface; an RS-485 communication interface can act as a user interface (UI) for monitoring and controlling) and cause the alarm to be rendered on a user interface (par.134-135 teach remote control and adjustment both of which must be done on an interface, thus, inherently teaches an alarm to be rendered on a user interface).
Regarding claim 3, Shi teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the alarm is further based on one or more performance indicators exceeding a priority threshold (par.80 “When the battery temperature reaches the alarm point, an alarm will be triggered”).
Regarding claim 4, Shi teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to compact the sensor data into coefficient data is based on a polynomial equation (par.14 “calculation of parameters such as SOC”; polynomial equations are frequently used within Battery Management Systems (BMS) or Battery Control Units (BCUs) to model and control battery behavior, particularly for estimating State of Charge (SOC), State of Health (SOH), and voltage dynamics.).
Regarding claim 5, Shi teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the performance indicators include a deviation rate (par.44 teaches monitoring performance indicators, which naturally/inherently include a deviation rate of a quantity; according to the BRI, Battery Management System (BMS) deviation refers to the difference between measured battery parameters (voltage, current, temperature) and the actual, real-time values of the cells).
Regarding claim 6, Shi teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the battery is comprised of a plurality of battery modules (par.44, 47, 99 and figs.2-3 teaches battery packs), and wherein the plurality of sensors includes a second plurality of sensors for each of the plurality of battery modules, wherein the second plurality of sensors include at least a temperature sensor, a voltage sensor, and a current sensor (par.19 “The sensors include voltage sensors, current sensors, and temperature sensors.”).
Regarding claim 7, Shi teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: generate a table of performance indicators for display on a user interface; and render the table on the user interface (par.49 teaches a table, which can be easily displayed on the display unit; par.49 and par.52-97 teaches the numerous quantities indicating performance factors; thus the touch display 6 can generate the same table 1, which has the performance indicators(the translated version omits the table 1)).
Regarding claim 8, Shi teaches,
A method for battery monitoring and managing (abstract) comprising:
generating, with a plurality of sensors, sensor data associated with a battery, wherein the plurality of sensors are electrically coupled to the battery (par.19 “monitors the ambient temperature and humidity through temperature and humidity sensors installed outside the backup power supply. The sensors include voltage sensors, current sensors, and temperature sensors.”), wherein the plurality of sensors include at least a temperature sensor, a voltage sensor, and a current sensor, and wherein the sensor data includes temperature sensor data generated by the temperature sensor, voltage sensor data generated by the voltage sensor, and current sensor data generated by the current sensor (par.19 “The sensors include voltage sensors, current sensors, and temperature sensors.”; these sensors respectively generate voltage, current and temperature data);
receiving, at a controller, the sensor data from the plurality of sensors (par.20 “the control unit obtains the charging and discharging status of the battery pack through the current sensor”);
compacting the sensor data into coefficient data (Par.20 teaches coefficient data “calculates the ratio of the remaining capacity of the battery pack after a period of use or long-term disuse to its fully charged capacity through the data monitored by the current sensor and voltage sensor”; Coefficient data refers to calculated, derived values (e.g., regression coefficients, calibration factors) representing the relationships, trends, or calibration scaling between sensor inputs and desired outputs.);
generating one or more performance indicators based on the coefficient data (par.21 “display various parameters and performance indicators”); and
generating at least one alarm based on the performance indicators (par.57 teaches alarm triggered which is based on the performance indicators obtained; par.114 battery level indicator is also an alarm).
Regarding claim 9, Shi teaches the method of claim 8 further comprising: transmitting the at least one alarm to a user interface (par.128 teaches a communication interface; an RS-485 communication interface can act as a user interface (UI) for monitoring and controlling) and cause the alarm to be rendered on a user interface (par.134-135 teach remote control and adjustment both of which must be done on an interface, thus, inherently teaches an alarm to be rendered on a user interface).
Regarding claim 10, Shi teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the alarm is further based on one or more performance indicators exceeding a priority threshold (par.80 “When the battery temperature reaches the alarm point, an alarm will be triggered”).
Regarding claim 11, Shi teaches the method of claim 8, wherein compacting the sensor data into coefficient data is based on a polynomial equation (par.14 “calculation of parameters such as SOC”; polynomial equations are frequently used within Battery Management Systems (BMS) or Battery Control Units (BCUs) to model and control battery behavior, particularly for estimating State of Charge (SOC), State of Health (SOH), and voltage dynamics.).
Regarding claim 12, Shi teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the performance indicators include a deviation rate (par.44 teaches monitoring performance indicators, which naturally/inherently include a deviation rate of a quantity; according to the BRI, Battery Management System (BMS) deviation refers to the difference between measured battery parameters (voltage, current, temperature) and the actual, real-time values of the cells).
Regarding claim 13, Shi teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the battery is comprised of a plurality of battery modules (par.44, 47, 99 and figs.2-3 teaches battery packs), and wherein the plurality of sensors include a second plurality of sensors for each of the plurality of battery modules, wherein the second plurality of sensors include at least a temperature sensor, a voltage sensor, and a current sensor (par.19 “The sensors include voltage sensors, current sensors, and temperature sensors.”).
Regarding claim 14, Shi teaches the method of claim 8 further comprising: generating a table of performance indicators for display on a user interface; and rendering the table on the user interface (par.49 teaches a table, which can be easily displayed on the display unit; par.49 and par.52-97 teaches the numerous quantities indicating performance factors; thus the touch display 6 can generate the same table 1, which has the performance indicators(the translated version omits the table 1)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi in view of Stafl; Erik (US Publication # US 20230198276 A1; hereinafter Stafl).
Regarding claim 15, Shi teaches,
receive, from a plurality of sensors, sensor data associated with a battery, wherein the plurality of sensors are electrically coupled to the battery (par.19 “monitors the ambient temperature and humidity through temperature and humidity sensors installed outside the backup power supply. The sensors include voltage sensors, current sensors, and temperature sensors.”), wherein the plurality of sensors include at least a temperature sensor, a voltage sensor, and a current sensor, and wherein the sensor data includes temperature sensor data generated by the temperature sensor, voltage sensor data generated by the voltage sensor, and current sensor data generated by the current sensor (par.19 “The sensors include voltage sensors, current sensors, and temperature sensors.”; these sensors respectively generate voltage, current and temperature data);
receive, at a controller, the sensor data from the plurality of sensors (par.20 “the control unit obtains the charging and discharging status of the battery pack through the current sensor”);
compact the sensor data into coefficient data (Par.20 teaches coefficient data “calculates the ratio of the remaining capacity of the battery pack after a period of use or long-term disuse to its fully charged capacity through the data monitored by the current sensor and voltage sensor”; Coefficient data refers to calculated, derived values (e.g., regression coefficients, calibration factors) representing the relationships, trends, or calibration scaling between sensor inputs and desired outputs.);
generate one or more performance indicators based on the coefficient data (par.21 “display various parameters and performance indicators”); and
generating at least one alarm based on the performance indicators (par.57 teaches alarm triggered which is based on the performance indicators obtained; par.114 battery level indicator is also an alarm).
Shi fails to teach A computer program product for battery monitoring and managing, the computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code portions stored therein, the computer-readable program code portions comprising an executable portion configured to:
Stafl does teach a computer program product for battery monitoring and managing, the computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code portions stored therein, the computer-readable program code portions comprising an executable portion configured to (par.5 teaches “the BMS includes a processor and a memory, where the memory has a machine-readable medium having encoded thereon machine-executable instructions that cause the processor to perform one or more process steps in the operation of the BMS.”):
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shi to include the teachings of Stafl; which would provide an embodiment for an intelligent battery cell system as described by Stafl(par.5).
Regarding claim 16, Shi in view of Stafl teaches the computer program product of Claim 15, Stafl further teaches wherein the computer-readable program code portions comprising an executable portion are further configured to: transmit (par.41 “the master controller 118 may also be configured to transmit information (e.g., command signals) to an individual BMS (i.e., 138, 140, and/or 142) to disconnect the cell, discharge the cell, heat up the cell, etc. In this example, the master controller 118 is capable of turning on or off cell balancing, heating, and performing a full internal disconnect within the cell itself.”) the at least one alarm (par.40 “a failure alarm may be triggered”) to a user interface (par.38 “warnings or other messaging that is transmitted via the BUS interface” A bus interface, typically used for machine-to-machine communication, can function as a user interface (UI) when paired with software, screens, or tools that interpret, visualize, and allow human interaction with the data) and cause the alarm to be rendered on a user interface (par.38 “warnings or other messaging that is transmitted via the BUS interface” A bus interface, typically used for machine-to-machine communication, can function as a user interface (UI) when paired with software, screens, or tools that interpret, visualize, and allow human interaction with the data).
Regarding claim 17, Shi in view of Stafl teaches the computer program product of Claim 15, Shi further teaches wherein the alarm is further based on one or more performance indicators exceeding a priority threshold (par.80 “When the battery temperature reaches the alarm point, an alarm will be triggered”).
Regarding claim 18, Shi in view of Stafl teaches the computer program product of Claim 15, Shi further teaches wherein compacting the sensor data into coefficient data is based on a polynomial equation (par.14 “calculation of parameters such as SOC”; polynomial equations are frequently used within Battery Management Systems (BMS) or Battery Control Units (BCUs) to model and control battery behavior, particularly for estimating State of Charge (SOC), State of Health (SOH), and voltage dynamics.).
Regarding claim 19, Shi in view of Stafl teaches the computer program product of Claim 15, Shi further teaches wherein the performance indicators include a deviation rate (par.44 teaches monitoring performance indicators, which naturally/inherently include a deviation rate of a quantity; according to the BRI, Battery Management System (BMS) deviation refers to the difference between measured battery parameters (voltage, current, temperature) and the actual, real-time values of the cells).
Regarding claim 20, Shi in view of Stafl teaches the computer program product of Claim 15, wherein the computer-readable program code portions comprising an executable portion are further configured to: generate a table of performance indicators for display (par.49 teaches a table, which can be easily displayed on the display unit) on a user interface (par.128 teaches a communication interface; an RS-485 communication interface can act as a user interface (UI) for monitoring and controlling); and render the table on the user interface; (par.49 and par.52-97 teaches the numerous quantities indicating performance factors; thus the touch display 6 can generate the same table 1, which has the performance indicators(the translated version omits the table 1)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20230142690 A1; MULDOON; Steven E. et al. Battery cell temperature estimation using both cell impedance estimation and module temperature sensor measurement.
US 20160363632 A1; PARK; SangDo et al. is a method and apparatus for estimating state of battery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3991. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am -5:00am.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858