DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 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.
Claim limitation “Charging sample information collection module, Discharge sample information collection module, Data sorting and fusion module, Estimation module, The health level evaluation module (as cited in Claim 7),” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function, where it describes an electronic device, including a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored on the memory (e.g. modules) and executable on the processor. When the processor executes the computer program Implement the method for hybrid energy storage battery status monitoring based on big data processing. (see, [0029] of current application PgPub).
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.
Drawings
The drawings (figs. 1-3) are objected to because marking of drawing overlap with another language and unclear.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
PNG
media_image1.png
832
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
278
774
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Underline term should be lowercase. Appropriate correction is required. Similar to Claims 2-7(Appropriate correction is required).
Claims 2-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: the term “A method” should be changed to “the method”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation [..]the discharge state at different times to form a discharge information element matrix X2. The information elements of the row vector [..] should be changed to “[..]a discharge information element matrix X2;”
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.
Claims 4-5 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. Claims are described as “
PNG
media_image3.png
588
730
media_image3.png
Greyscale
”
Firstly, same sets forth that
PNG
media_image4.png
86
694
media_image4.png
Greyscale
is average function, but likewise sets forth that the aforementioned equation is the average function, and the two are contradictory; secondly, the equation does not relate to a state of health (SOH),whereas a trained state of health model is used for SOH prediction, and a person skilled in the art would not know how to use the state of health model trained by the above equation to predict the SOH, but the specific type of model parameter thereof is not set forth.
Secondly , same sets forth that K(x,X;) = Ф(x;)¹ф(x;) is the kernel function, but likewise sets forth that the aforementioned equation is the kernel function, and the two are contradictory; secondly, the equation does not relate to a state of health (SOH),whereas a trained state of health model is used for SOH prediction, and a person skilled in the art would not know how to use the state of health model trained by the above equation to predict the SOH; moreover, w is a model parameter, but the specific type of model parameter thereof is not set forth.
The examining purpose, the Examiner fails to conclude any decision and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 3 contains the trademark/trade name “MySQL”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a programming language and, accordingly, the identification/ description is indefinite.
Claims 1-7 recite the limitation (underline portion(claim 1))
PNG
media_image5.png
832
820
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
278
774
media_image6.png
Greyscale
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Similar to claims 2-7(There are insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Regarding claim 3: Claim 3 sets forth "calculating related adjustment factors by means of the initial state of health model", but does not set forth specifically what type of model the initial health model is, and the adjustment factors only appear in claim 2, so that when claim 3 refers to claim 1, specifically which adjustment factors are calculated is not clearly set forth; moreover, if claim 3 refers to claim 2, same sets forth the use of a support vector machine method to train the state of health model, and then performing prediction, however, this is contradictory to performing SOH prediction by using a hybrid verification method as is specified in claim 2; in summary, it can be seen that claim 3 is unclear and indefinite.
The remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims1-7 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 1-6 fall within category of process; For example, each of claim 7falls within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863));
Regarding Claims 1-6
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of monitoring and characterized hybrid energy storage battery.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. A method for monitoring hybrid energy storage state of battery based on big data processing, characterized in that a hybrid energy storage battery status monitoring system applied to big data processing, the method includes:
Charging sample information collection step: Obtain the health state parameters of multiple hybrid energy storage batteries in different charging states at different times to form a charging information element matrix X1. The information elements of the row vector of the charging information element matrix X1 include: charging voltage Ui1, recharging current Ai1, Charging power Wi1, Charging temperature Ti1, Charging internal resistance Ri1, Expressed as xi1={Ui1, Ai1, Wi1, Ti1, Ri1)}, xil Represents health status data at different moments during charging;
Discharge sample information collection step: Obtain the health state parameters of multiple hybrid energy storage batteries in the discharge state at different times to form a discharge information element matrix X2. The information elements of the row vector of the discharge information element matrix X2 include: discharge voltage Ui2. Discharge current Ai2, Discharge power Wi2, Discharge temperature Ti2, Discharge internal resistance Ri2, Expressed as xi2={Ui2, Ai2, Wi2, Ti2, Ri2}, xi2 Represents the health status data at different moments during discharge;
Data sorting and fusion steps: Preprocess the health status data in the charging state and the health status data in the discharge state, including:
S1. Select the status data in the corresponding proportion space according to the preset threshold ratio, and delete obviously unqualified data;
S2. Complete the null value data through the average method;
S3. Fusion of the charging sample data and discharge sample data at the corresponding time, expressed as
PNG
media_image7.png
60
404
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Get the health status matrix X at the corresponding moment;
Estimation steps of hybrid energy storage battery SOH: input the data in the health state matrix X into the pre-trained health state model to predict the SOH of the hybrid energy storage battery;
The steps to evaluate the health level of the hybrid energy storage battery: According to the SOH of the hybrid energy storage battery, search the corresponding health level from the preset database.
The italicized limitations above represent combination of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “Data sorting and fusion steps [..]; Estimation steps of hybrid energy storage battery SOH: [..];” are mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea).
For example, the limitations “The steps to evaluate the health level of the hybrid energy storage battery: [..]” are mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment).
Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, first additional first element is “Charging sample information collection step:[..]; Discharge sample information collection step:” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
The 2nd additional element is “hybrid energy storage state of battery”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic battery with computer components, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the above, the two “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic device with computer component with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
.
Step 2B
Claims1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of Claim 1 contains additional elements that are, i.e. hybrid energy storage state of battery”, generic device, which are well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and MPEP 2106.05(d))The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
.
Dependent Claims 2-6
Dependent claims 2-6 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-6 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For example, the limitations of Claims 2-6: a combination of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Regarding Claim 7
Claim 7 contains language similar to claims 1 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea).
Furthermore, Claim 7, recites additional element is “A system for monitoring hybrid energy storage state of battery based on big data processing. The system is applied to the hybrid energy storage battery status monitoring method based on big data processing of claim 1, including a data collection platform, wherein the data collection The platform includes: hybrid energy storage battery pack, wireless gateway, cloud server, and edge nodes”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic monitoring system of hybrid battery and computer system which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Examiner Notes
Due numerous antecedent base indefiniteness, the Examiner failed to figure out the claim invention or any art rejection. The Examiner believes the closes prior arts, Wang et al. (US 20240385253) disclose the invention as a method and apparatus for determining a state of health of a battery are disclosed. The apparatus comprises means for sensing a voltage of the battery, means for sensing a current through the battery, means for estimating a value of an equivalent circuit model parameter of the battery from the sensed voltage and current, wherein the equivalent circuit model parameter is based at least in part on an internal capacitance of the battery, means for storing a predetermined relationship between the equivalent circuit model parameter and the battery state of health, and means for calculating a state of health of the battery based on the estimated value of the equivalent circuit model parameter using the predetermined relationship, see figs 10-11 and 13(what the Examiner understood and Under 102(a)(ii)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Kim et al. (US 2023/0182575) disclose a battery service providing system and method, battery service providing system including a battery service server for collecting diagnostic analysis data including operation characteristic information of a battery and driving characteristic information of an electric vehicle from an electric vehicle control device and providing update information of a charging/discharging control logic of the battery according to the degree of degradation determined from the diagnostic analysis data to the electric vehicle control device, determining a residual value or a usage fee of the battery based on the determined degree of degradation, transmitting the usage fee or the residual value of the battery to an external server, or setting a warranty flag for the battery whose charging and discharging is controlled according to the update information of the charging/discharging control logic.
b) Park et al. (US 2018/0172777) disclose In hybrid vehicles, a high-voltage battery charges and discharges electrical energy and performance of the battery may deteriorate due to chemical degradation, distinguished from general mechanical parts. Chemical degradation of a battery is caused by deterioration due to charging and discharging and deterioration due to negligence without charging and discharging. A method of using the battery to suppress such deterioration may depend on the cause of deterioration. Accordingly, when deterioration of a high-voltage battery applied to a hybrid vehicle occurs, a management strategy for suppressing additional deterioration by estimating a major cause of deterioration is required.
c) Joe (US 2016/0252583) disclose the hybrid secondary battery often has a voltage profile that includes a point of inflection, when the constituent batteries have different operating voltage ranges from one another. This is because, when the constituent batteries have different operating voltage ranges, dominant reaction kinetics will change during charging or discharging of the hybrid secondary battery. Meanwhile, when the voltage profile of the hybrid secondary battery has a point of inflection, the state of charge changes considerably even with a slight voltage variation. Accordingly, directly using voltage to estimate the state of charge of the hybrid secondary battery near the point of inflection is accompanied with a disadvantage of increasing state of charge estimation error. Accordingly, the technical field of the present disclosure demands new ways to estimate the state of charge of a hybrid secondary battery. The present disclosure is designed to solve the problems of the related art, and therefore the present disclosure is directed to providing an apparatus and a method for estimating a state of a hybrid secondary battery in which secondary batteries with different electrochemical characteristics from each other are connected in parallel, using Extended Kalman Filter. According to the present disclosure, there is provided an apparatus for estimating a state of a hybrid secondary battery, which estimates the state of the hybrid secondary battery including a first secondary battery and a second secondary battery having different electrochemical characteristics from each other and being connected in parallel with each other, using Extended Kalman Filter. According to the present disclosure, the ‘state’ of the hybrid secondary battery refers to a parameter which cyclically changes during charging or discharging.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857