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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 12 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 1. Claim 12 recites the limitations of triggering, using a Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controller module communicatively coupled to a trained convolutional neural network - long-short-term memory (CNN-LSTM) module, the trained CNN-LSTM module to generate refined predicted series of real temperature sequences across the battery based on a set of optimized PID parameters (K*,K[*,K ), predicted error sequences, and a series of measured temperature sequences of the battery, whereby the CNN-LSTM module was trained based on a training set of spatial- temporal temperature measurements of the battery, and whereby the optimized PID parameters were generated based on a training set of measured temperature sequences and a series of known output temperature sequences.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as mathematical concepts. Computing spatial-temporal temperature measurements of a battery recites mathematical relationships. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mathematical relationship, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The battery, a Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controller module, a trained convolutional neural network - long-short-term memory (CNN-LSTM) module in Claims 1 and 12 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. Claim 1 is also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite battery, a Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controller module, a trained convolutional neural network - long-short-term memory (CNN-LSTM) module in Claims 1 and 12. The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1 and 12 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0073-0076] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Even assuming there was a technical problem, the claims, as written, fail to recite the details of how a technical solution to the technical problem was accomplished. If there was a technical problem (e.g., existing technology was incapable of performing the claimed functions) then the claims should recite the details of the technical solution (e.g., how existing technology was improved to overcome this inability). However, the claims, as written, provide no such details and merely recite that the claimed functions (i.e., the outcome) are being performed. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1 and 12 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 12 and thus correspond to Mathematical Concepts and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 2-4, 6, 11, 13-15, and 17 further detail the optimization of the PID controller without adding significantly more; Claims 5 and 16 add that the predicted error sequences are computed using a linear regression model; Claims 7 and 18 further define the training set of spatial-temporal measurements; Claims 8, 9, 19, and 20 further define the triggering of the CNN-LSTM module without adding significantly more; Claim 10 adds that the CNN-LTSM is configured to use an Adam optimizer without adding significantly more to the inventive concept. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 2-11 and 13-20 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References A-D included on PTO-892 illustrate the field of invention at the time of filing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY M MAGUIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-6039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
Lindsay Maguire
6/26/26
/LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights