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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 objected to because of the following informalities: The use of acronyms/initialisms . Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1: an electronic device, a power storage device, a control portion, a server device, a first part, a second part, a third part, and a fourth part;
Claim 7: a power storage device, a control portion;
Claim 8: a control portion.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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 § 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 1-6 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.
Claim 1 recites: wherein the server device has a third part configured to create first data at a second point in time. It is not clear whether the created first data is the same or distinct from the first data used by the first part.
Claims 2-6 are rejected for their dependence on claim 1.
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 1-8 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.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A power storage device management system comprising:
an electronic device comprising a power storage device; and
a server device,
wherein the power storage device comprises a control portion and a storage battery,
wherein the control portion has a first part configured to create second data utilizing first data at a first point in time and a second part configured to transmit the second data to the server device,
wherein the server device has a third part configured to create first data at a second point in time utilizing the second data and a fourth part configured to transmit the first data at the second point in time to the control portion, and
wherein the first part, the second part, the third part, and the fourth part are repeatedly used in the power storage device management system.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are 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 (machine).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted 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 limitation, that covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “create second data utilizing first data at a first point in time (select desired data),
transmit the second data to the server device (share selected data),
create first data at a second point in time utilizing the second data (select desired data),
transmit the first data at the second point in time to the control portion (share selected data), and
wherein the first part, the second part, the third part, and the fourth part are repeatedly used in the power storage device management system (repeat steps)” are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mental process grouping.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 7 and 8, which both involve selecting desired data.
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 above claims comprise the following additional elements:
Claim 1: A power storage device management system, an electronic device, a power storage device, a control portion, a storage battery, a server device, a first part, a second part, a third part, and a fourth part;
Claim 7: An electronic device, a power storage device, a control portion;
Claim 8: An electronic device, a control portion.
The additional element in the preamble of “A power storage device management system” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. A storage battery broadly represents a mere data gathering step and only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (The Examiner notes that the battery has no function in the claim as written.). A server device (generic memory) and an electronic device, a power storage device, a control portion, a first part, a second part, a third part, and a fourth part (generic processor) are generally recited and are not qualified as particular machines. Additionally, the memory, processor, battery, and transmission of data are all considered mere instructions to apply an exception, as they are all invoked as tools performing their expected tasks (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.).
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-5 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aykol et al. (US 20200269722 A1), hereinafter “Aykol”.
Regarding Claim 1, Aykol teaches a power storage device management system comprising:
an electronic device comprising a power storage device (Aykol [0027] Still referring to FIG. 2, in some embodiments, the battery pack 200 may be shaped and/or sized to correspond to a vehicle in which it is installed, and may be configured to house a plurality of the cells 220 and/or the modules 210 therein. The battery pack 200 may include a cover that defines an interior in which the cells 220 and/or modules 210 are contained, along with various other components such as (but not limited to) pack sensor hardware 230 having one or more sensors and/or one or more battery management system (BMS) hardware components 240.); and
a server device (Aykol [0018] Referring now to the drawings, FIG. 1 depicts an illustrative network, generally designated 100, of devices and systems for continuously optimizing a battery pack for use according to embodiments shown and described herein. As illustrated in FIG. 1, the network 100 may include […] one or more machine learning servers 150),
wherein the power storage device comprises a control portion and a storage battery,
wherein the control portion has a first part configured to create second data utilizing first data at a first point in time and a second part configured to transmit the second data to the server device (Aykol [0065] At block 504, operational data may be received. That is, the battery configuration system 110 may receive data from the battery pack 200 (e.g., the BMS hardware components 240) that pertains to how the various cells 220 are operating when the battery pack 200 is used (e.g., charged and discharged). As such, the operational data contains data from various sensors (e.g., the pack sensor hardware 230, the module BMS device 212, and/or the like) that are configured to monitor various electrical characteristics of each of the cells 220, the modules 210, and/or the like. And [0066] The operational data may generally be received directly from the vehicle 122 containing the battery pack 200 (e.g., via a data connection between the vehicle 122 and the battery configuration system 110) and/or from at least one of the one or more user computing devices 130 and the one or more mobile devices 140 (e.g., when the vehicle 122 is connected to a user computing device 130 or a mobile computing device by the OBD port in the vehicle 122). The data is collected/determined over the lifetime of the battery),
wherein the server device has a third part configured to create first data at a second point in time utilizing the second data and a fourth part configured to transmit the first data at the second point in time to the control portion (Aykol [0071] At block 510, the battery configuration system 110 may receive the predictive model from the one or more machine learning servers 150 (or retrieve the predictive model from data storage) and may transmit the predictive model to one or more vehicles 122 in the fleet of vehicles 120 at block 512. The data is collected/determined over the lifetime of the battery), and
wherein the first part, the second part, the third part, and the fourth part are repeatedly used in the power storage device management system (Aykol [0077] The feedback loop that is created by repeating the processes described with respect to FIG. 5 ensures that the battery packs 200 in existing vehicles, as well as newly installed battery packs 200, are continuously optimized for use, even as the conditions in which the battery packs 200 are used, as the components wear out, and/or the like.).
Regarding Claim 7, Aykol teaches An electronic device comprising a power storage device,
wherein the power storage device comprises a control portion and a storage battery (Aykol [0027] Still referring to FIG. 2, in some embodiments, the battery pack 200 may be shaped and/or sized to correspond to a vehicle in which it is installed, and may be configured to house a plurality of the cells 220 and/or the modules 210 therein. The battery pack 200 may include a cover that defines an interior in which the cells 220 and/or modules 210 are contained, along with various other components such as (but not limited to) pack sensor hardware 230 having one or more sensors and/or one or more battery management system (BMS) hardware components 240.),
wherein the control portion comprises a plurality of pieces of SOC-OCV characteristic data (Aykol [0033] In some embodiments, the BMS hardware components 240, in conjunction with the pack sensor hardware 230, may monitor and/or control various battery operating parameters of the battery pack 200, the modules 210 thereof, and/or the cells 220 thereof. For example, the BMS hardware components 240 may monitor and/or control […] state of charge (SOC) or depth of discharge (DOD)), and
wherein the control portion is configured to select data that most closely shows a state of the storage battery from the plurality of pieces of SOC-OCV characteristic data (Aykol [0034] In some embodiments, the BMS hardware components 240 may calculate various values, including, but not limited to, maximum charge current as a charge current limit (CCL), maximum discharge current as a discharge current limit (DCL), energy (e.g., kilowatt-hours (kWh)) delivered since last charge or charge cycle, internal impedance of a module 210 and/or a cell 220, open circuit voltage, charge delivered or stored (e.g., Coulomb counter). SOC and OCV are calculated from the data received.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aykol et al. (US 20200269722 A1), hereinafter “Aykol”.
Regarding Claim 8, Aykol teaches An electronic device comprising a power storage device,
wherein the power storage device comprises a control portion and a storage battery (Aykol [0027] Still referring to FIG. 2, in some embodiments, the battery pack 200 may be shaped and/or sized to correspond to a vehicle in which it is installed, and may be configured to house a plurality of the cells 220 and/or the modules 210 therein. The battery pack 200 may include a cover that defines an interior in which the cells 220 and/or modules 210 are contained, along with various other components such as (but not limited to) pack sensor hardware 230 having one or more sensors and/or one or more battery management system (BMS) hardware components 240.),
wherein the control portion comprises a plurality of pieces of SOC-OCV characteristic data (Aykol [0033] In some embodiments, the BMS hardware components 240, in conjunction with the pack sensor hardware 230, may monitor and/or control various battery operating parameters of the battery pack 200, the modules 210 thereof, and/or the cells 220 thereof. For example, the BMS hardware components 240 may monitor and/or control […] state of charge (SOC) or depth of discharge (DOD) Also see [0034] In some embodiments, the BMS hardware components 240 may calculate various values, including, but not limited to, maximum charge current as a charge current limit (CCL), maximum discharge current as a discharge current limit (DCL), energy (e.g., kilowatt-hours (kWh)) delivered since last charge or charge cycle, internal impedance of a module 210 and/or a cell 220, open circuit voltage, charge delivered or stored (e.g., Coulomb counter)),
wherein the control portion is configured to select data that most closely shows a state of the storage battery from the plurality of pieces of SOC-OCV characteristic data (The calculated SOC and OCV values will be “selected” by default).
Aykol does not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of pieces of SOC-OCV characteristic data is formed of a combination of first bit data corresponding to an SOC value and second bit data corresponding to an OCV value, and
wherein the number of bits of the first bit data and the number of bits of the second bit data are equal to each other.
However, Aykol teaches determining both SOC and OCV values (Aykol [0033] In some embodiments, the BMS hardware components 240, in conjunction with the pack sensor hardware 230, may monitor and/or control various battery operating parameters of the battery pack 200, the modules 210 thereof, and/or the cells 220 thereof. For example, the BMS hardware components 240 may monitor and/or control […] state of charge (SOC) or depth of discharge (DOD) Also see [0034] In some embodiments, the BMS hardware components 240 may calculate various values, including, but not limited to, maximum charge current as a charge current limit (CCL), maximum discharge current as a discharge current limit (DCL), energy (e.g., kilowatt-hours (kWh)) delivered since last charge or charge cycle, internal impedance of a module 210 and/or a cell 220, open circuit voltage, charge delivered or stored (e.g., Coulomb counter)), and transmitting those values using processors with defined communication protocols (Aykol [0040] For example, the data port 206 may be communicatively coupled to a vehicle's CAN bus (or other similar local interface) such that the data from the components within the battery pack 200 are transmitted via the CAN bus where it is retrieved via a connection between the vehicle's CAN bus and another component (e.g., a user computing device 130 or a mobile device connected to the CAN bus via an access port such as the vehicle's OBD port).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Aykol to explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of pieces of SOC-OCV characteristic data is formed of a combination of first bit data corresponding to an SOC value and second bit data corresponding to an OCV value, and
wherein the number of bits of the first bit data and the number of bits of the second bit data are equal to each other, because using the determined SOC and OCV data together would provide a better insight into the eventual battery analysis, and having the data formatted together and be the same size is consistent with being able to interpret the data and use the communication protocol.
The Examiner notes there is no prior art rejection for claims 2-6.
Specifically, regarding Claim 2, Aykol, as best understood by the Examiner, does not seem to fairly teach or suggest wherein the server device is configured to create at least one of the plurality of pieces of SOC-OCV characteristic data utilizing the second data and the first algorithm, and
wherein the control portion is configured to select first SOC- OCV characteristic data that most closely shows a state of the storage battery from the plurality of pieces of SOC-OCV characteristic data utilizing the second algorithm. Although the processor components inherently operate on algorithms, the disclosure of Aykol teaches the BMS of the device calculating the SOC and OCV components, while the server interprets those parts for optimization. The server does not calculate SOC-OCV data then transmit it back to the electronic device for further selection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mikami et al. (WO 2020026058 A1) discloses a Power Storage System And Method For Operating Power Storage System.
Naito et al. (US 20220003822 A1) discloses a Battery Control Device.
Shiraishi et al. (CN 103389466 B) discloses a Storage Element Management Device, Storage Element, Recording Medium And SOC Estimating Method.
Imoto et al. (US 20200386815 A1) discloses an Open Circuit Voltage Measuring Method, Open Circuit Voltage Measuring Device, And Recording Medium Recording Program.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN T BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-4194. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and Alternate Fridays 7:00-4:30.
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 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.
/CHRISTIAN T BRYANT/Examiner, Art Unit 2863