DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Prosecutorial Standing
2. This communication is in response to the Preliminary Amendment filed on 11.20.2023. Claims 4, 6, 8-10, 14, 16, 18-21 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-21 are currently pending in this application. Claims 1-21 will be subject to further examination and evaluation in due course, and will be presented for examination, as detailed below.
Oath/Declaration
3. The Applicant’s oath/declaration has been reviewed by the Examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the Applicant' s submission of the Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 01.07.2024 and 03.19.2025 have been acknowledged by the Examiner. The cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C (2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed, signed and dated by the Examiner is attached to the instant Office action.
Priority / Filing Date
5. Applicant's claim for priority of the PRO Application 63/190,952 filed on 05.20.2021 is acknowledged. The Examiner takes the PRO date of 05.20.2021 into consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-21 are directed to a process, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
The examiner has identified independent method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites limitations that fall within one or more of the abstract idea groupings, including: mathematical modeling and data analysis. The claim recites steps for modeling a battery to match the battery to a task, including:
Selecting a battery;
testing the battery for charge rate and discharge rate at different temperatures;
collecting results;
interpolating in between and extrapolating around said collected results to produce a model.
The limitations “interpolating” and “extrapolating constitute mathematical calculations and relationships, which fall within the category of mathematical concepts, one of the three groupings of abstract ideas. Interpolation and extrapolation are well-known mathematical techniques used to derive estimated values from data sets. Producing a model from collected data using mathematical manipulation constitutes the application of mathematical relationships to generate information.
Therefore, the claim 1 recites a mathematical concept, which is an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: a battery and a model. These elements are recited at a high-level of generality and function as generic computer components (data gathering activity, pre-solution activity, and insignificant extra-solution activity) such that it amounts no more than instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The testing and data collection steps merely gather information for use in the mathematical operations. Gathering data for use in a mathematical calculation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea without a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality, and does not improve the functioning of a computer, battery, or other technology. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element, which are well-understood, routine, and conventional, comprise: selecting a battery, testing charge/discharge rates at different temperatures, and collecting results to aid in performing the aforementioned steps and thus amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely append conventional data gathering to a mathematical analysis. Limiting an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (battery testing) does not render the claim patent eligible. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
The claim does not amount to provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 1 is directed to a mathematical concept (interpolation and extrapolation of data to produce a model) and does not integrate the exception into a practical application. The additional elements constitute routine data gathering and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the claim does not include an inventive concept and therefore is not patent eligible under 35 USC § 101.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS).
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-21, further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 10 and thus correspond to a mathematical concept and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. In addition, they recite additional elements repeating said discharge and repeating said testing. The elements repeating said discharge and repeating said testing are recited at a high-level of generality such that that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. These claims are not patent eligible.
Additionally, the dependent claims do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, the claims 1-21 are not patent-eligible, and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS). To address this rejection, the examiner suggests reviewing the recent Federal Circuit Court decisions and USPTO guidelines related to U.S.C. 101 for guidance on what is considered statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holme, WO 2019017991 in view of Hendricks et al., Pub. No.: US 2017/0117725.
As per claim 1, Holme disclose a method of modeling a battery to match the battery to a task [see at least the abstract (e.g., learning model for predicting the state of a battery)], the method comprising:
selecting a battery [see at least ¶0036 (e.g., the phrase "battery management system (BMS)" refers to the various components of the battery system, which can include a member selected from battery cells of various types)];
testing the battery for charge rate [see at least the abstract (e.g., such as its state of charge, in real time)] and discharge rate at different temperatures [see at least ¶003 (e.g., low self- discharge, and long shelf life)];
collecting results [see at least ¶0055 (e.g., the phrase "telematics device" and "telematics" is a computing device installed in a vehicle and/or BMS and the information received, sent or collected by such a device, respectively)]; and
interpolating in between around said collected results to produce a model of behavior of said battery [see at least ¶00131 (e.g., the BMS may interpolate SOC values from a lookup table stored in memory)].
Holme discloses all elements per claimed invention as explained above. Holme does not explicitly recite extrapolating around said collected results to produce a model of behavior of said battery. However, Hendricks discloses extrapolating around said collected results to produce a model of behavior of said battery [see at least ¶0035 (e.g., it is possible to interpolate between the points in the subset or extrapolate beyond the points to obtain an estimate of the temperature conditions in the battery pack)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Hendricks in order to monitoring of a battery pack that consists of using modeling to determine temperature distributions representative of safe battery operating conditions and a technique is described for comparing sensor measurements to a look-up table of the pre-modeled temperature profiles under various operating conditions. In one embodiment a simplified model of temperature distribution [see at least Hendricks: abstract].
As per claim 2, Holme discloses repeating said discharge rate tests for different types of discharge [see at least the rejection of claim 1. In light of the preceding examination, claim 2 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 2. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 3, Holme discloses wherein said discharge types comprise one member of the group consisting of: a constant current discharge at a given discharge rate, a constant voltage discharge, discharge with a fixed Ohmic load, and a constant power discharge [see at least the rejection of claim 1. In light of the preceding examination, claim 3 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 3. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 4, Holme discloses repeating said testing the battery for charge rate, for different charging processes [see at least the rejection of claim 1. In light of the preceding examination, claim 4 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 4. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 5, Holme discloses wherein said charging processes comprise a constant current charging period followed by a constant voltage charging period [see at least the abstract (e.g., sensed voltage, current and temperature of a battery)].
As per claim 6, Holme discloses wherein said collecting results comprises tabulating said results in a database [see at least ¶0066 (e.g., Data also may refer to information contained in a database or other structured data, or unstructured data representation in transitory or non-transitory memory. Data herein may include filtered data (e.g. phase dependent data) or sub-sets of other data groups)].
As per claim 7, Holme discloses wherein said database is a three- dimensional database of power, temperature and current [see at least ¶0065 (e.g., three-dimensional NAND technologies)].
As per claim 8, Holme discloses wherein said interpolation and extrapolation comprises using a linear point slope algorithm [see at least the rejection of claim 1. In light of the preceding examination, claim 8 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 8. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 9, Holme discloses wherein said interpolation and extrapolation comprises finding a polygonal approximation formed by secants crossing and re-crossing in a given curve [see at least the rejection of claim 1. In light of the preceding examination, claim 9 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 9. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 10, Holme discloses wherein said interpolation and approximation provides a prediction of a battery operating point between points in said database or outside of but in proximity to said points in said database [see at least the rejection of claim 1. In light of the preceding examination, claim 10 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 10. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
10. Claims 11-21, which are parallel to claims 1-10 in terms of scope,
limitations, and share similar characteristics, as discussed and examined
above. Consequently, they are rejected based on the same logical and
underlying reasoning, and justification that apply to claims 1-10. The
similarity between these claims necessitates the same grounds for rejection, as explained in detail above [note the discussion of claims 1-10].
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The PTO-1449 forms have been reviewed and considered.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Garcia Ade whose telephone number is (571)272-5586. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached on 517-272-6790. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Garcia Ade/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
GARCIA ADE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/GA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627