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
Claim 12-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions of Group II and Group III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/7/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of the election/restriction in the reply filed on 11/7/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden because all cases have different classifications. This is not found persuasive because these claims have differences that when searched do require different search queries including terms for each of the independent claims.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Rejoinder will be evaluated at time of notice of allowance.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/24/2024 12/6/2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings Fig. 2-6 are objected to because the Examiner may require and is requiring descriptive text labels, “1. In bracket 1, insert the reason for the objection, for example the drawings do not show every feature of the invention specified in the claims-- or --the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels” [MPEP 608.02(b) examiner note]. 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 Interpretation
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.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “data collection module configured for”, “intelligent filtering and reprocessing module”, “prognostic module configured for”, “assessment module configured for”, “alert module configured for” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “module configured for” coupled with functional language the preceding descriptor and the follow verb without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-11 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: As to “data collection module configured for”, “intelligent filtering and reprocessing module”, “prognostic module configured for”, “assessment module configured for”, “alert module configured for” the specification uses only optional language with structure (“may”). There is not definite structure given.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. See 112f no structure given to meet the goals of the claim limitations.
Claim 1-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The claims are claimed broadly capturing both disclosed and non-disclosed matter in the electrical/computer arts for vehicle controls, vehicle controls is an evolving art incorporating more inputs and reactions than previously demanded by the art. Here a programmer is has a high level of skill, programing is predictable yet the effects on the other vehicle systems may be unpredictable for a programmer. It is unknown if there are working examples. Here the inventor provides only a broad generalization of the vehicle control implementation, a high quality of experimentation is needed, and creating a program from scratch requires experimentation to balance out the vehicle dynamics and other parameters.
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.
Claim 1-11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: no structure is given for the moduels.
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.
As to claim 1-11 the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the modules under112f can include transitory waves. Transitory waves are not patent eligible.
Alice type rejection – Abstract Idea Mental Process
As to claim 1-11 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.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are directed to a mental process of determining a motion trajectory (apparatus for claim 1-11).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea – mental process (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A system for assessing loss of isolation for rechargeable energy storage systems (RESSs), comprising:
a data collection module configured for determining isolation resistance data for a plurality of RESSs operating onboard a fleet of vehicles, the RESSs configured to store and supply electrical power for a traction motor of the vehicle associated therewith;
an intelligent filtering and reprocessing module configured for applying statistical methods and engineering rules to remove erroneous peaks and duplicate values from the isolation resistance data;
a prognostic module configured for generating isolation rules from healthy data included with the isolation resistance data, the isolation rules operable for assessing whether the isolation resistance data is representative of a loss of isolation; and
an assessment module configured for characterizing each loss of isolation. (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”)
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement (thresholds). Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea – mental process.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”) See above.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes a processing apparatus. Regarding the additional limitations of “modules” that merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose processing environment. The processing is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining process steps.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the mental process into a practical application, the additional element of using a module to perform the determining amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of processing with a processing apparatus are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the processing apparatus is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Here the collection of data.
Dependent claim(s) 2-11 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely add to the mental processing. Therefore, dependent claims 2-11 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-11 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101. Examiner recommends a controlling step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230109419 A1 hereinafter Tian in view of US 20240248138 A1 hereinafter Reiter.
As to claim 1, Tain discloses a system for assessing loss of isolation for rechargeable energy storage systems (RESSs), comprising [Tain: abstract]:
a data collection module configured for determining isolation resistance data for a plurality of RESSs [Tain: #11] the RESSs configured to store and supply electrical power for a traction motor of the vehicle associated therewith [Tain: see Traction battery];
an intelligent filtering and reprocessing module configured for applying statistical methods and engineering rules to remove erroneous peaks and duplicate values from the isolation resistance data [Tain: 0041 data filtered by regression lines and mean values];
a prognostic module configured for generating isolation rules from healthy data included with the isolation resistance data [Tain: 0041 uses mean and regression in baseline/prior healthy data for comparisons 0008], the isolation rules operable for assessing whether the isolation resistance data is representative of a loss of isolation [Tain: 0008, 0092]; and
an assessment module configured for characterizing each loss of isolation [Tain: 0011 risk levels] .
Tain discloses a single vehicle but uses a server. Reiter discloses a fleet of vehicles being monitored [Reiter: 0064, Fig. 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the process of Tain to be used in a fleet as disclosed in Reiter as it merely uses a known device in a known way with predictable results for the benefit of sharing data and computing power.
As to claim 2, Tain in view of Reiter discloses the prognostic module is configured for generating the isolation rules to include thresholds for determining whether the loss of isolation has occurred [Tain: 0008 “<” is a threshold].
As to claim 3, Tain in view of Reiter discloses the assessment module is configured for applying the isolation rules to the isolation resistance data to identify an isolation issue type for the RESSs determined to have the loss of isolation [Tain: 0011 risk levels, 0002 short circuit].
As to claim 4, Tain in view of Reiter suggests the assessment module is configured for determining the isolation issue type to correspond with a water intrusion event when the isolation resistance data exceeds a water intrusion resistance signature included as one of the isolation rules [Tain: 0011 risk levels, 0002 short circuit].It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to develop thresholds for short circuit as suggested in Tain:0002 to correspond to water intrusion (Takes Official Notice) as water intrusion is a known short circuit conditions in batteries. So, making thresholds that indicate that would be routine skill in the art modifying Tain in view of Reiter using a known device in a known way with predictable results and a good likelihood of success for the benefit of having better diagnostic data for repair.
As to claim 5, Tain in view of Reiter suggests the assessment module is configured for determining the isolation issue type to correspond with a cell corrosion event when the isolation resistance data exceeds a cell corrosion resistance signature included as one of the isolation rules [Tain: 0011 risk levels, 0002 short circuit]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to develop thresholds for short circuit as suggested in Tain:0002 to correspond to water intrusion (Takes Official Notice) as corrosion is a known short circuit conditions in batteries. So, making thresholds that indicate that would be routine skill in the art modifying Tain in view of Reiter using a known device in a known way with predictable results and a good likelihood of success for the benefit of having better diagnostic data for repair.
As to claim 6, Tain in view of Reiter suggests the intelligent filtering and reprocessing module is configured for performing a multiple pack processing, the multiple pack processing removing the isolation resistance data associated with each RESS having multiple packs showing similar erroneous behavior. A person of ordinary skill in the art would know to remove the erroneous behaving packs from the data as it would move the threshold for the other packs (uses mean and regression) without doing so the unhealthy data would be in the baseline/healthy data and used in future determinations.
As to claim 7, Tain in view of Reiter discloses the prognostic module is configured for performing distribution fitting [Tain: regression lines 0008] and threshold learning [Tain: thresholds based on the moving data 0008]to generate control limits and prognostic thresholds for the fleet [Reiter: 0064 used diagnostics in fleet.].
As to claim 8, Tain in view of Reiter discloses the assessment module is configured for employing a severity index and a severity assessment to determine a severity and provide an early warning to a customer of each vehicle having the loss of isolation [Tain: 0087 As an example, the content of the first alarm information may be “The current traction battery has the risk of insulation deterioration, please repair it in time”.].
As to claim 9, Tain in view of Reiter discloses an alert module configured for transmitting an alert to an operating system onboard each vehicle to be provided the early warning [Tain: 0087 As an example, the content of the first alarm information may be “The current traction battery has the risk of insulation deterioration, please repair it in time”.].
As to claim 10, Tain in view of Reiter discloses the alert module is configured for generating the alert to include instructions to request an operator to service the vehicle associated therewith [Tain: 0087 As an example, the content of the first alarm information may be “The current traction battery has the risk of insulation deterioration, please repair it in time”.].
As to claim 11, Tain in view of Reiter discloses alerts but not this particular information. However, changing the message content is something a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing could have done as it only requires routine skill with known devices, known process, predictable results, a good likelihood of success, to change the messaging as desired. the alert module is configured for generating the alert to notify an operator of the vehicle associated therewith that a shutdown command has been issued to prevent further use of the RESS associated therewith.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 9046559 B2 An isolation monitor is disclosed in which a switchable bias voltage is imposed on a chassis ground. An isolation voltage is measured when a bias voltage is applied. When there are no electrical faults, the isolation voltage swings up and down to known values. When a fault occurs, the isolation voltage will not to swing to the known values, and thus the isolation resistance can be measured and alarm generated if the isolation resistance falls below a threshold value.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK M BRUSHABER whose telephone number is (313)446-4839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/FREDERICK M BRUSHABER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/FREDERICK M BRUSHABER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665