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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election of group II (Claims 8-14, 16-18 and 20) without traverse is
acknowledged. Claims 1-7, 15 and 19 are withdrawn from consideration.
Drawings Objections
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because figures 4, 6 and 7 are low resolution and are difficult to read. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepare new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 8-14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Under step 1, claim 8 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a method claim. Likewise, claim 16 is a device claim.
Under step 2A, prong 1: this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception as explained in MPEP 2106.4, subsection II, a claim recites a judicial exception when the judicial exception is set forth or described in the claim.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. “mathematical relationships/algorithms/concepts” or “mental process and concepts performed in the human mind” which the court has identified as abstract) without significantly more. Claims 8 and 16 are directed to the abstract idea of predicting, via said prediction model, the energy of said equipment, using, as input for said model, a result of a first measurement of said current energy of an electromechanical equipment and data representing a context of said equipment during and/or since the first measurement, said prediction being carried out before and/or during a second measurement subsequent to said first measurement and carried out while complying with said obtained measurement frequency with respect to said first measurement; and varying the measurement frequency of at least one measurement of the energy of said equipment, subsequent to said second measurement, as a function of a difference between said predicted energy and said second measurement. These limitations fall under mathematical concepts and mental processes (i.e. predicting). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are obtaining a first model for predicting said current energy of said equipment, and a measurement frequency of said energy; which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and a processor, electromechanical equipment and an electronic device, which are conventional or generic equipment which do not add anything significant to the judicial exception because these elements are needed in order to vary the measurement frequency. The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The generic data gathering and processing are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than e.g., “varying the measurement frequency of at least one measurement of the energy of said equipment, subsequent to said second measurement, as a function of a difference between said predicted energy and said second measurement”) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, nothing is done with the measured frequency variation.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
Dependent claims 9-14, 17-18 and 20 merely expand upon the abstract idea further defining the abstract steps of claims 1 and 16 respectively, and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-14 and 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "said current energy" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “said equipment” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9-14 and 20 depend from, and inherit the limitations of claim 8. Thus, claims 9-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 112 second paragraph for at least the same reasons specified above with respect to claim 8.
Relevant Cited Art
The following publications are prior art made of record not relied upon is
considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Srinvasan et al. US 2021/0349157 A1.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, the prior art Srinvasan et al. discloses a method implemented by an electronic device and comprising:
obtaining a first model for predicting said current energy (i.e. battery state/properties) of said equipment, and a measurement frequency of said energy (see figure 6, and para. 0044 and 0095);
predicting, via said prediction model, the energy of said equipment, using, as input for said model, a result of a first measurement of said current energy of an electromechanical equipment and data representing a context of said equipment during and/or since the first measurement (see figure 2, para. 0039, 0087, 0153), said prediction being carried out before and/or during a second measurement subsequent to said first measurement and carried out while complying with said obtained measurement frequency with respect to said first measurement (see para. 0085, 0102).
However, the prior art fails to disclose varying the measurement frequency of at least one measurement of the energy of said equipment, subsequent to said second measurement, as a function of a difference between said predicted energy and said second measurement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights