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 6 recites the limitation “in the case that” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim use a definite article “the”, however, the claim 6 does not recite the claim limitation of “in a case that”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim I4nterpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance
with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption
that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient
structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
A target battery module in claims 1-3-6, and 8-10; and other battery modules in claims 1-2, and 6-7.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For example, [0004] discloses “… The electronic device includes a target battery module with a battery core group and a processor. The target battery module is configured with a first battery parameter set. The server is configured to collect multiple second battery parameter sets when the updating of multiple other battery modules is completed, classify the second battery parameter sets according to the collection conditions, and store them as multiple reference battery parameter sets. The processor determines whether the target battery module has not updated the first battery parameter set for a specified time. When the target battery module has not updated the first battery parameter set for a specified time, the electronic device notifies the server to select a suitable battery parameter set that is close to the use state of the target battery module from the reference battery parameter sets, and update the first battery parameter set of the target battery module according to the suitable battery parameter set.” [0024] discloses “By using the aforementioned method, through data classification performed by the server, it is possible to load battery parameters of other battery modules (whose production date, use situation, core materials and model are similar to the target battery module) when they are updated, directly into the electronic device where the target battery module is located. ... hereby, the updating time of the battery parameters may be saved, and the situation that the battery microprocessor may not update the battery parameters, for example, due to the inability of the gauge to meet the strict updating conditions may be overcome.”
In order to exam the merit, Examiner interprets the above mentioned limitations performed by a generic computer.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the
claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-10 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.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “A battery parameter updating method, adapted to update a first battery parameter set of a target battery module, and the battery parameter updating method comprising:
collecting a plurality of second battery parameter sets to a server when updating of a plurality of other battery modules being completed;
classifying the second battery parameter sets according to at least one collection condition and storing them as a plurality of reference battery parameter sets;
determining whether the target battery module has not updated the first battery parameter set for more than a specified time;
in case that the target battery module has not updated the first battery parameter set for more than the specified time, selecting a suitable battery parameter set that is close to a use state of the target battery module from the reference battery parameter sets; and
updating the first battery parameter set of the target battery module according to the suitable battery parameter set.”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed 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 above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process for claim 1, and apparatus for claim 6).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
In claim 1, the steps identified in bold type are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be abstract idea.
Next, under the 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.
The claim comprises the following additional elements:
collecting a plurality of second battery parameter sets to a server when updating of a plurality of other battery modules being completed; storing them as a plurality of reference battery parameter sets; in case that the target battery module has not updated the first battery parameter set for more than the specified time; and updating the first battery parameter set of the target battery module according to the suitable battery parameter set.
The additional element “collecting a plurality of second battery parameter sets to a server when updating of a plurality of other battery modules being completed “represents necessary data gathering and does not integrate the limitation into a practical application. The additional elements “storing them as a plurality of reference battery parameter sets”; “in case that the target battery module has not updated the first battery parameter set for more than the specified time”; and “updating the first battery parameter set of the target battery module according to the suitable battery parameter set.” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. In addition, a generic server or computer server is generally recited and therefore, not qualified as a particular machine.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, collecting a plurality of second battery parameter sets to a server when updating of a plurality of other battery modules being completed is considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e., collecting battery parameter) 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).
For example, storing them as a plurality of reference battery parameter sets is disclosed by “Wang CN 114580253A”, [0005], [0010], [0011], [0020], [0048]; and “Lan CN110749827B”, [0007], [0014], [0050], [0051], [0084], Claim 1.
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 6 recites subject matter that is similar or analogous to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claim is also patent ineligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-5 and 7-10 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not patent eligible.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding Claims 1-10, the most pertinent prior arts are “Wang CN 114580253A”, “Lan CN 110749827B”, “Lei CN 107153165A”, “Zhou CN202169252U”, “Deponte US 20150280274”, and “Lin US 20130342214”.
As to claims 1 and 6, Wang teaches an electronic device comprising a target battery module having a battery core group and a processor, and the target battery module configured with a first battery parameter set (Wang, [0013], [0083], FIG. 4);
collecting a plurality of second battery parameter sets to a server when updating of a plurality of other battery modules being completed (Wang, [0005], [0014] and [0016], [0086]);
classifying the second battery parameter sets according to at least one collection condition and storing them as a plurality of reference battery parameter sets (Wang, [0016], [0020], [0031], [0036]).
Aijun teaches selecting a suitable battery parameter set that is close to a use state of the target battery module from the reference battery parameter sets (Aijun, [0004]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “determining whether the target battery module has not updated the first battery parameter set for more than a specified time”; and
“updating the first battery parameter set of the target battery module according to the suitable battery parameter set.” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claims 1 and 6.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Chen US 20160096444” teaches “A method, apparatus, and system are disclosed for analyzing a vehicle battery system of a hybrid or electric vehicle that includes a battery pack and a battery controller. More specifically, a battery controller is disclosed for determining battery identification information of the battery pack based on a configuration of active and non-active pins in a connection module between the battery pack and the battery controller. It follows that the battery controller may identify the battery pack type in an efficient manner that does not require any additional components. The battery controller may further reference the battery identification to implement a battery operational strategy that may better realize an efficiency or durability of the identified battery.”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:00-12:00, 1:00-5:00 EST.
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, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/LAL CE MANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857