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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are currently pending in application 18/535,746.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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.
Claims 4-6 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The term “electronic quantity” in claims 4-6 and 13-15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “electronic quantity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 4-6 and 13-15 recite “the electronic quantity”, all of which contain insufficient antecedent basis. Correction for proper antecedent basis is requested.
Claims 6 and 15 recite “the first threshold” and “the second threshold”, both of which contain insufficient antecedent basis. Correction for proper antecedent basis is requested.
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 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea.
Claims 10-15 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea), without providing a practical application, and without providing significantly more.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1,
Claims 10-15 recite a "task manager, comprising a controller..." which is a machine or apparatus. Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1],
Claims 10-15 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Independent claim 10 is directed specifically to the abstract idea of managing energy distribution based on load operating conditions (rule-based decision-making).
Regarding independent claim 10, the underlined limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
A task manager, comprising a controller, wherein the controller is configured to control a first battery unit and a second battery unit in a battery pack to respectively respond to a different operating state of a load, and control the first battery unit and the second battery unit to provide the electric energy required to the load. [Fundamental economic or operational principle (allocating resources) described at such a high level of generality that it could be performed mentally or with generic, off-the-shelf software logic]
As the underlined claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claim 10 is directed to the abstract idea of Certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk).
Dependent claims 11-15 provide further details to the abstract idea of claim 10 regarding the received data, therefore, these claims include certain methods of organizing human activities for similar reasons provided above for claim 10.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2],
Claims 10-15 fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a “controller”. However, this limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant’s claimed invention. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible (The phrase "wherein the controller is configured to..." recites a general result or function rather than a specific algorithmic or structural solution. It uses a generic controller to perform abstract control logic). Examples where the Courts have found selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated to be insignificant extra-solution activity include selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Applicant’s limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits. Dependent claims 11-15 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims respectively, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B,
Claims 10-15 fail to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a “controller”. However, this limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The controller and battery units are recited at such a high, functional level of generality, the claim lacks the specific hardware configuration, circuit topology, or specialized software algorithm.
Dependent claims 11-15 merely recite further additional embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claim 10, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claim 10; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits. The addition of another abstract concept to the limitations of the claims does not render the claim other than abstract. Under the Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (PEG 2019), it specifically states that narrowing an abstract idea of claims do not resolve the claims of being "significantly more" than the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements in the dependent claims only serve to further limit the abstract idea utilizing the computer components as a tool and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 10-15 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as a combination and as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aikens (US 2020/052349 A1).
As per independent Claims 1 and 16, Aikens discloses a battery pack (a vehicle, comprising: a battery pack) (See at least Figs.1-5; Para 0011, battery “housing”; Para 0016, “… a system 100 is depicted that includes an electrical power management system 102 for a vehicle 160, such an automobile, watercraft, aircraft, spacecraft, or other type of vehicle.”), comprising: a first battery unit, the first battery unit being configured to output electric energy in a first power range; and a second battery unit, the second battery unit being configured to output electric energy in a second power range, the second power range being larger than the first power range, and the first battery unit and the second battery unit being adapted to be controlled by a task manager to respectively respond to a different operating state of a load and provide electric energy required to the load (See at least Figs.1-5; Para 0017, “The first battery 104 has a first battery chemistry 120, and the second battery 106 has a second battery chemistry 122 that is distinct from the first battery chemistry 120. The first battery 104 and the second battery 106 have different battery characteristics due to the different battery chemistries. In a particular example, the first battery chemistry 120 is optimized or configured to have a first power density (PD 1) 136 and also has a first energy density (ED 1) 132, and the second battery chemistry 122 is optimized or configured to have a second energy density (ED 2) 134 and also has a second power density (PD 2) 138.”; Para 0018, “The first battery 104 having the first battery chemistry 120 is configured to have a first battery voltage (V 1) 174 (e.g., the first battery chemistry 120 corresponds to the first battery voltage 174) and the second battery 106 having the second battery chemistry 122 is configured to have a second battery voltage (V 2) 176 (e.g., the second battery chemistry 122 corresponds to the second battery voltage 176). …”; Para 0035, “… the first battery 104 may be more heavily used in conditions for which the first battery 104 is more suitable than the second battery 106, such as high-power demand conditions, and the second battery 106 may be more heavily used in conditions for which the second battery 106 is more suitable than the first battery 104, such as steady state operation conditions. …”; Para 0058, “Each of the batteries 104, 106, 520, and 522 may have a distinct battery chemistry from each of the other batteries. For example, batteries may be characterized according to a standardized set of characteristics such as specific energy, specific power, safety, performance, life span, and cost, as illustrative, non-limiting examples. Each of the batteries 104, 106, 520, and 522 may be selected to provide a distinct battery type that is well suited for particular operational conditions of the vehicle 160A. … ”; See also Para 0019-0020 (See below for task manager) and Para 0052-0053).
As per Claim 2, Aikens discloses wherein the first battery unit and the second battery unit are adapted to be electrically connected to a battery management system in the task manager, the battery management system detects state parameters of the first battery unit and the second battery unit, and controls power ranges of input electric energy and output electric energy of the first battery unit and the second battery unit according to the state parameters (See at least Para 0019-0020 and Para 0052-0053).
As per Claim 3, Aikens discloses a task bus, wherein the first battery unit and the second battery unit are connected in parallel to the task bus, the task bus is configured to receive a control instruction from the task manager and transmit the control instruction to the first battery unit and the second battery unit, the first battery unit or the second battery unit is adapted to be activated and output electric energy in the first power range or the second power range after receiving the control instruction, and the control instruction corresponds to a different operating state of the load (See at least Para 0022-0025).
As per Claim 4 (3), Aikens discloses wherein when the electric quantity of the first battery unit is greater than a first threshold, the first battery unit is adapted to receive the control instruction and be activated, to provide electric energy to the load (See at least Para 0028).
As per Claim 5 (3), Aikens discloses wherein when the electric quantity of the first battery unit is lower than a second threshold, the first battery unit receives the control instruction, and is disabled to stop outputting electric energy; and the second battery unit is activated to provide electric energy to the present load (See at least Para 0028).
As per Claim 6 (3), Aikens discloses wherein when the electric quantity of the first battery unit is less than the first threshold and greater than the second threshold, both the first battery unit and the second battery unit receive the control instruction and are activated, and both the first battery unit and the second battery unit provide electric energy to the load, where the first threshold is greater than the second threshold (See at least Para 0019-0020 and Para 0052-0053).
As per Claim 7, Aikens discloses wherein the first battery unit comprises at least one sub-master pack, the sub-master pack comprises at least one first battery core (11A), the first battery core (11A) has a first energy density and a first power density, the second battery unit comprises at least one sub-slave pack, the sub-slave pack comprises at least one second battery core, the second battery core has a second energy density and a second power density, the first energy density is greater than the second energy density, and the first power density is less than the second power density (See at least Para 0017, Equivalent features disclosed, although different terminology is used).
As per independent Claim 10, Aikens discloses a task manager (See at least Figs.1-5, and Para 0019, electric power management system (102), includes a control circuit (112)), comprising a controller, wherein the controller is configured to control a first battery unit and a second battery unit in a battery pack to respectively respond to a different operating state of a load, and control the first battery unit and the second battery unit to provide the electric energy required to the load (See at least Figs.1-5, and Para 0019, “The electrical power management system 102 includes a control circuit 112 coupled to a first coupler 114 and to a second coupler 116. The control circuit 112 is configured to be coupled to the battery bus 110 of the vehicle 160 and to monitor and control power to the battery bus 110. In a particular implementation, the control circuit 112 is configured to control the first coupler 114 and the second coupler 116 so that power 158 supplied to a load 130 via the battery bus 110 is predominately provided by the first battery 104 or the second battery 106 in response to at least one of a power demand 166 of the load 130, a type of the load 130, a voltage 168 of the battery bus 110, a first state of charge 170 of the first battery 104, a second state of charge 172 of the second battery 106, or a vehicle data input, as illustrative, non-limiting examples”; Para 0020, “The control circuit 112 is configured to detect a power demand 166 of the battery bus 110 indicative of a power demand of the one or more loads 130. …”; and Para 0021, “ … at least a portion of the data 140 is generated by one or more load devices coupled to the battery bus 110 and is routed to the control circuit 112, …”).
As per Claim 11, Aikens discloses wherein: the task manager further comprises a battery management system, the battery management system being adapted to be electrically connected to the first battery unit and the second battery unit, and configured to detect state parameters of the first battery unit and the second battery unit, and control the power ranges of input electric energy and output electric energy of the first battery unit and the second battery unit according to the state parameters (See at least Para 0019-0020 and Para 0052-0053).
As per Claim 12, Aikens discloses wherein the task manager is adapted to send a control instruction to the first battery unit and the second battery unit through a task bus, and control the first battery unit or the second battery unit to be activated according to the control instruction to output electric energy in a first power range or in a second power range, where the control instruction corresponds to a different operating state of the load (See at least Para 0022-0025).
As per Claim 13 (12), Aikens discloses wherein the task manager is used for outputting the control instruction when the electric quantity of the first battery unit is greater than a first threshold, and is used for activating the first battery unit according to the control instruction to provide electric energy to the load (See at least Para 0028).
As per Claim 14 (12), Aikens discloses wherein the task manager outputs the control instruction when the electric quantity of the first battery unit is less than a second threshold, disables the first battery unit according to the control instruction to stop outputting electric energy, and activates the second battery unit to provide electric energy to the present load (See at least Para 0028).
As per Claim 15 (12), Aikens discloses wherein the task manager outputs the control instruction when the electric quantity of the first battery unit is less than the first threshold and greater than the second threshold, and activates the first battery unit and the second battery unit according to the control instruction to control both the first battery unit and the second battery unit to provide electric energy to the load, where the first threshold is greater than the second threshold (See at least Para 0019-0020 and Para 0052-0053).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aikens (US 2020/052349 A1).
As per Claim 8-9, Aikens discloses the equivalent power range adjustment and capacity configuration functional capability (See at least Para 0017, Para 0054-0055); and furthermore, the specific claim limitations are design choices that are known in the battery monitoring, cell balancing, battery modules, and cell structure technological areas; and to modify Aikens to incorporate the limitations, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a desired result.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. The Examiner suggests the applicant review these documents before submitting any amendments.
Li et al. (US 2019/0226859 A1) – Discloses a vehicle that includes an electric motor and a battery operable to provide electrical power to the electric motor. The battery system includes a first battery pack and a second battery pack. The first battery pack has a relatively high power density, and the second battery pack has a relatively high energy density. An electronic controller determines a remaining driving range of the first battery pack, and a remaining driving range of the second battery pack. The vehicle has a human-machine interface (HMI) operatively connected to the electronic controller and configured to indicate the remaining driving range of the first battery pack and the remaining driving range of the second battery pack. The controller executes a method of monitoring the battery system (Abstract).
Ijaz (US 12,071,040 B2) – Discloses a power supply system that utilizes a hybrid architecture to enable low cycle-life, high energy density chemistries to be used in rechargeable batteries to extend the range of a traction battery (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN P OUELLETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6807. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda C Jasmin, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-6782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
June 4, 2026
/JONATHAN P OUELLETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights