Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant's argument on page 5 pertaining to “Applicant respectfully submits that one of ordinary skill in the art, when reading the claims in light of the specification, would clearly understand that the claim recitations referenced in the Office Action, such as "N," "L," "M," and "K," refer to numbers of variables, and the other recitations from Equation 1 referenced in the Office Action would also be clearly understood as elements of the multiple regression equation (Equation 1) included in independent claim 1.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not define the variables "N," "L," "M," and "K,". The Applicant should define the variables to show how equation 1 is distinct from the equation disclosed by Paulose. Without defining the variables, equation 1 recited in claim 1 is a generic multiple regression equation that is indistinguishable from any multiple regression equation.
In response to Applicant's argument on page 8 – 9 pertaining to “The Office Action at pages 4 and 5 concedes that Paulose fails to teach or suggest at least the third, fifth, and sixth steps included in original independent claim 1. Nonetheless, the Office Action apparently relies on Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0040], [0063], [0064], and [0066] of Shimura for an alleged disclosure of the features conceded to be missing from Paulose. Applicant respectfully submits that this is incorrect. … Applicant respectfully submits that Shimura does not cure the conceded deficiencies of Paulose, and the combination of Paulose and Shimura fails to teach or suggest at least the above-quoted and claimed third, fifth, and sixth steps included in amended independent claim 1, and hence dependent claims 2-4.”.
The argument is persuasive and the limitations in combination with the rest of the limitations in the claim are indicated as allowable in this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 22 – 25 recite “ a fifth step of determining the correlation coefficients and a constant by substituting each of a number K of sets of the historical data among the L sets of the historical data into the independent variables of the Equation 1 and substituting K of the first estimated values into a left side of Equation 1;”. The Examiner recommends re-writing equation 1 to include K and L after performing the fifth step.
Lines 26 – 31 recite “a sixth step of correcting the correlation coefficients in such a manner that a correlation between each of (L - K) of the second estimated values and a corresponding first estimated value becomes stronger, the (L - K) second estimated values being obtained by substituting (L - K) sets of the historical data into a right side of the Equation 1 including the determined correlation coefficients and the determined constant;”. The Examiner recommends re-writing equation 1 to include (L – K) after performing the sixth step.
lines 32 – 33 recite “a seventh step of obtaining the Equation 1 as the estimating equation using the corrected correlation coefficients”. The Examiner recommends re-writing equation 1 after performing the seventh step.
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 – 4 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.
Regarding claim 1, lines 6, 15, recite “N variables”. N is not defined. Lines 10, 12 – 14, 23, 27 – 29 recite “L”; L is not defined. Line 15, recites “M”; M is not defined. Lines 23, 24, 27 – 29 recite “K”; K is not defined.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected for depending on claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected for depending on claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) series of steps and therefore is a process.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
1. (Currently Amended) A method of creating an estimating equation for a full charge capacity after degradation of a battery mounted in a battery electric vehicle, the method comprising:
a first step of obtaining a degradation contribution relation through an experiment or simulation, the degradation contribution relation representing a relation between each of a number N of independent variables that are related to a state of the battery and that contribute to degradation of the battery and a decrease from an initial value of the full charge capacity of the battery mounted in the battery electric vehicle;
a second step of collecting historical data on the independent variables from a number L of battery electric vehicles, and obtaining, by using the degradation contribution relation, a first estimated value of the full charge capacity after degradation for each of the L battery electric vehicles;
a third step of calculating correlation coefficients between the L sets of the historical data on each independent variable and the L first estimated values, and selecting, among the independent variables, a number M (where M < N) of the independent variables, each having a correlation coefficient that exceeds a predetermined threshold value;
a fourth step of formulating, by using the selected independent variables, a multiple regression equation (Equation 1 below) by which a second estimated value of the full charge capacity of the battery after degradation is obtained;
a fifth step of determining the correlation coefficients and a constant by substituting each of a number K of sets of the historical data among the L sets of the historical data into the independent variables of the Equation 1 and substituting K of the first estimated values into a left side of Equation 1;
a sixth step of correcting the correlation coefficients in such a manner that a correlation between each of (L - K) of the second estimated values and a corresponding first estimated value becomes stronger, the (L - K) second estimated values being obtained by substituting (L - K) sets of the historical data into a right side of the Equation 1 including the determined correlation coefficients and the determined constant; and
a seventh step of obtaining the Equation 1 as the estimating equation using the corrected correlation coefficients
Second Estimated Value = initial full charge capacity -
∑
1=1
M
coefficient
i
×variable
i
+constant
…
Equation 1
.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
The limitation of “
Second Estimated Value = initial full charge capacity -
∑
1=1
M
coefficient
i
×variable
i
+constant
…
Equation 1
.
” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts and/or mental steps. That is, “
Second Estimated Value = initial full charge capacity -
∑
1=1
M
coefficient
i
×variable
i
+constant
…
Equation 1
.
” constitutes performing a mathematical or mental step, and nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by pen and paper.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation the fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers performing mathematics or mental steps.
The highlighted limitation/steps are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mental process grouping or mathematical grouping or the combination of both groupings.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner notes that since the claimed methods are not tied to a particular machine or apparatus, they do not represent an improvement to another technology or technical field. Similarly there are no other meaningful limitations linking the use to a particular technological environment. “a fourth step of formulating, by using the selected independent variables, a multiple regression equation (Equation 1 below) by which a second estimated value of the full charge capacity of the battery after degradation is obtained;
a fifth step of determining the correlation coefficients and a constant by substituting each of a number K of sets of the historical data among the L sets of the historical data into the independent variables of the Equation 1 and substituting K of the first estimated values into a left side of Equation 1;
a sixth step of correcting the correlation coefficients in such a manner that a correlation between each of (L - K) of the second estimated values and a corresponding first estimated value becomes stronger, the (L - K) second estimated values being obtained by substituting (L - K) sets of the historical data into a right side of the Equation 1 including the determined correlation coefficients and the determined constant; and
a seventh step of obtaining the Equation 1 as the estimating equation using the corrected correlation coefficients” is not a significant improvement to an existing technological process.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, the limitations “a first step of obtaining a degradation contribution relation through an experiment or simulation, the degradation contribution relation representing a relation between each of a number N of independent variables that are related to a state of the battery and that contribute to degradation of the battery and a decrease from an initial value of the full charge capacity of the battery mounted in the battery electric vehicle;
a second step of collecting historical data on the independent variables from a number L of battery electric vehicles, and obtaining, by using the degradation contribution relation, a first estimated value of the full charge capacity after degradation for each of the L battery electric vehicles;
a third step of calculating correlation coefficients between the L sets of the historical data on each independent variable and the L first estimated values, and selecting, among the independent variables, a number M (where M < N) of the independent variables, each having a correlation coefficient that exceeds a predetermined threshold value;” are well understood, routine and conventional elements in the art that cover the process of necessary data gathering as recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. receiving data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Claims 2 – 4 further limit the abstract ideas without integrating the abstract concept into a practical application or including additional limitations that can be considered significantly more than the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The closest prior art considered is Paulose (US 2019/0353711 A1) (herein after Paulose), and SHIMURA et al (US 2016/0252586 A1) (herein after Shimura).
Regarding claim 1, Paulose discloses, 1. (Currently Amended) A method of creating an estimating equation (Fig. 1, ¶ 9 derive a multiple linear regression (MLR) model) for a full charge capacity after degradation of a battery mounted in a battery electric vehicle (Fig. 1, ¶ 9 derive a multiple linear regression (MLR) model), the method comprising:
a first step of obtaining a degradation contribution relation through an experiment or simulation (Fig. 1, ¶ 21 Qdecay = β0 + β1 * Xk + β2 * XDE + β3 * XQE + β4 * XI wherein Xk, XDE, XQE and XI are variables), the degradation contribution relation representing a relation between each of a number N of independent variables that are related to a state of the battery and that contribute to degradation of the battery and a decrease from an initial value of the full charge capacity (Fig. 1, ¶ 9 determining, for a battery, at least two discharge parameters from among a plurality of discharge parameters) of the battery mounted in the battery electric vehicle;
a second step of collecting historical data on the independent variables from a number L of battery electric vehicles (Fig. 1, ¶ 30 one or more rechargeable batteries 12), and obtaining, by using the degradation contribution relation, a first estimated value (Fig. 1, ¶ 28 determine a prediction regarding its remaining useful life) of the full charge capacity after degradation for each of the L battery electric vehicles (Fig. 1, ¶ 28 an estimated time quantity in which the battery 12 is capable of being charged);
Shimura discloses, a third step of calculating correlation coefficients (Fig. 3, ¶ 40 correlation coefficient) between the L sets of the historical data on each independent variable and the L first estimated values, and selecting, among the independent variables, a number M (where M < N) of the independent variables, each having a correlation coefficient (Fig. 3, ¶ 63 a correlation linear line indicative of a relationship between each explanatory variable and an objective variable) that exceeds a predetermined threshold value (Fig. 3, ¶ 40 which is a high value);
The prior art does not teach or suggest, alone or in combination with the rest of the limitations in the claim: ”a fourth step of formulating, by using the selected independent variables, a multiple regression equation (Equation 1 below) by which a second estimated value of the full charge capacity of the battery after degradation is obtained;
a fifth step of determining the correlation coefficients and a constant by substituting each of a number K of sets of the historical data among the L sets of the historical data into the independent variables of the Equation 1 and substituting K of the first estimated values into a left side of Equation 1;
a sixth step of correcting the correlation coefficients in such a manner that a correlation between each of (L - K) of the second estimated values and a corresponding first estimated value becomes stronger, the (L - K) second estimated values being obtained by substituting (L - K) sets of the historical data into a right side of the Equation 1 including the determined correlation coefficients and the determined constant; and
a seventh step of obtaining the Equation 1 as the estimating equation using the corrected correlation coefficients
Second Estimated Value = initial full charge capacity -
∑
1=1
M
coefficient
i
×variable
i
+constant
…
Equation 1
.
”
Claims 2 and 3 are allowable due to their dependencies on claim 1.
Claim 4 is allowable due to its dependency on claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rhines et al. (US 8,805,764 B1) teaches, A method of estimating a full charge capacity after degradation of the battery by using the estimating equation (Fig. 3, Col. 10, Ln. 6 – 11 Yi + β0 + β1xi,1 + β2 xi,2 + … + βkxi,k + εi where βk represents the k-th model coefficient, xi,k represents the k-th element of an aggregated attribute vector for an i-th observation, and εi represents an error term).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH O. NYAMOGO whose telephone number is (469)295-9276. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 A to 5:00 P CT.
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, EMAN ALFAKAWI can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/JOSEPH O. NYAMOGO/
Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/FARHANA A HOQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights