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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “10” has been used to designate both “system 10” (see Specification [0082]) and “battery performance model 10” (see [0084]). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 16e (see [0129]) and 16f (see [0130]). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because:
In FIGs 1-2, boxes or simple shapes are labeled only with reference numbers, without descriptive legends. The Examiner directs the applicant to 37 C.F.R. 1.84(n) and 1.84(o) which state, “Graphical drawing symbols may be used for conventional elements when appropriate” while “[o]ther symbols which are not universally recognized may be used, subject to approval by the Office” and that “[s]uitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing”. Since the boxes or simple shapes in FIGs 1-2 are not universally recognized for the elements they represent, the Examiner may require descriptive legends for better understanding of the drawings. See MPEP 608.02.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 4, “a specific device battery” should be --a device battery-- to avoid creating another antecedent basis and for better clarity--.
In claim 1, line 16, there should be a conjunction “and” in the end of the line to correct a grammatical error.
In claim 3, line 8, “the period” should be --a period-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 5, lines 4-5, “the input side” should be --an input side-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 5, line 6, “the output side” should be --an output side-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 6, lines 3-4, “the temporal historical and/or predicted operating variable curves of the plurality of device batteries” should be --temporal historical and/or predicted operating variable curves of the plurality of device batteries-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 8, line 4, “the corresponding fault class” should be --a corresponding fault class-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 10, line 2, “the central processing unit” should be --a central processing unit-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
The other claim(s) not discussed above, or depending on the above claim(s), are objected to for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 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, it recites “each of which assigns to a time series of input variable vectors” in lines 14-15. The limitation “a time series of input variable vectors” introduces another antecedent basis, making the “the time series of input variable vectors” recited thereafter (e.g., lines 16 and 19 of claim 1) unclear as to which antecedent basis is referred to. Note that the term “each of which” is interpreted as “each of the training data sets.”
For examination purpose, “each of which assigns to a time series of input variable vectors” in lines 14-15 is assumed to be --each of which assigns to a training time series of input variable vectors--. As a result, “after a last time step of the time series of the input variable vectors” in line 16 is assumed to be --after a last time step of the training time series of the input variable vectors--.
Regarding claim 7, it recites “a thermal event such as a thermal runaway” in line 2. It is unclear whether the “thermal event” must comprise the “thermal runaway.” For examination purpose, the limitation “such as a thermal runaway” is disregarded.
The other claim(s) not discussed above, or depending on the above claim(s), are rejected for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
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.
MPEP 2106 outlines a two-part analysis for Subject Matter Eligibility as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
Step 2, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. If the claim does not recite a judicial exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), then the claim cannot be directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO), and thus the claim is eligible at Pathway B without further analysis. Abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B.
Claims 1-13 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.
Regarding claim 1, Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes.
Step 2A: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions)? Yes (see analysis below).
Prong one: Whether the claim recites a judicial exception? (Yes). The claim is directed to an abstract idea because it recites the limitations beginning from “determining a time series of input variable vectors each with elements which comprise one or more operating variables and/or one or more variables derived therefrom for a time step” to the end of the claim. These limitations are directed to mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (or with a pen and paper).
Prong two: Whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception? (No). The claim recites additional elements of “providing a historical temporal operating variable curve of several operating variables of a specific device battery; providing a predicted temporal operating variable curve dependent on a usage pattern model, the usage pattern model dependent on a usage behavior characterizing a type of use of the device battery.” However, these are recited at a high level of generality to collect data necessary for the abstract idea, which are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements (other than the judicial exception) that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No (see analysis below).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two above, the additional element(s) in the claim are insignificant extra-solution activities. Considered as a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-13 when analyzed as a whole respectively are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they either extend (or add more details to) the abstract idea or the additional recited limitation(s) (if any) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as discussed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that sufficiently integrates the abstract idea into a practical application of, or makes the claims significantly more than, the judicial exception (abstract idea). The additional element(s) (if any) are mere instructions to apply an except, field of use, and/or insignificant extra-solution activities (applied to Step 2A_Prong Two and Step 2B; see MPEP 2016.05(f)-(h)) and/or well-understood, routine, or conventional (applied to Step 2B; see MPEP 2106.05(d)) to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. Note that claim 6 recites “wherein: the anomaly prediction model is trained in a device-external central processing unit which is in communication connection with a plurality of device batteries in order to evaluate the temporal historical and/or predicted operating variable curves of the plurality of device batteries, and the model parameters of the anomaly prediction model are transmitted to the corresponding technical devices after the training.” The central processing unit, the communication connection with a plurality of device batteries, and the transmission of model parameters are to invoke generic computer components for their conventional computer functionalities. See MPEP 2106.05(f). They are not sufficient to make the claim eligible. Claim 8 recites “the detection of the occurrence of the certain fault is signaled by issuing a warning to a user.” However, this is recited at a high level of generality to communicate a result (warning), which is an extra-solution activity.
Notes
Claim 1 distinguishes over the closest prior art of record as discussed below.
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art of record fails to teach the features: “evaluating a data-based anomaly prediction model comprising a data-based time series transformer model and a data-based prediction model, the anomaly prediction model trained as a classification model based on training data sets, each of which assigns to a time series of input variable vectors a probability of occurrence of a certain fault of the device battery after a certain period of time after a last time step of the time series of the input variable vectors; performing predictive detection of an occurrence of a specific fault of the device battery after a specific period of time based on an evaluation of the anomaly prediction model depending on the time series of the input variable vectors,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant. In essence, the above indicated features involve a time-series Transformer neural network and a fault prediction model to process both historical time series battery data and predicted time series battery data, and output a fault type and a time period leading to the fault event.
SONG (US 20240210482 A1) teaches a method of battery diagnosis, involving generating, by using a profile prediction model, a voltage profile of a predefined section based on a partial voltage waveform generated when charging or discharging a battery, and predicting a deterioration state of the battery based on the voltage profile using a state prediction model.
Budan et al. (US 11527786 B1) teaches a method of predicting remaining useful life (RUL) of a battery in a vehicle, involving receiving battery sensor data; receiving simulation data of the battery; receiving historical data on a fleet of vehicle that use the battery; and predicting the RUL using the received data with battery suage profiles. The simulation data is to supplement missing sensor data.
LONG et al. (CN 110069810 A) teaches a method for predicting a battery fault, involving obtaining battery data in a preset historical time period; predicting battery data in a preset future time using a time sequence prediction model; predicting a battery fault based on the predicted battery data using a machine leaning model.
ZHAO (CN 114167284 A) teaches a method for predicting lithium battery RUL, involving calculating IC curve, DV curve in a plurality of charging period, voltage curve and temperature differential curve; extracting characteristic vector sequence; predicting feature vector based on the extracted feature vector sequence; and predicting the RUL based on the predicted feature vector (as input).
SATO (US 20230375633 A1) teaches a method of predicting a degree of deterioration of a battery, involving a neural network model for generating future time series SOHs based on historical time series SOHs and expected characteristics of the battery.
Li et al. ("STTEWS: A sequential-transformer thermal early warning system for lithium-ion battery safety" Applied Energy 328 (2022) 119965) teaches a sequential-transformer thermal early warning system (STTEWS), involving constructing a temporal convolution-recurrent diagnosis network (TCRDN) by combining LSTM and temporal convolution network (TCN) using an adaptive boosting algorithm; establishing a complete transformer thermal diagnosis network (TTDN) by fusing information from lithium-ion battery thermal images; and integrating the prediction results from TCRDN to achieve an early warning function.
None of the prior art of record, singly or in combination, teaches or suggests the above indicated features as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C KUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7066. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/JOHN C KUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights