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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on -12/05/2023- is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 5, 6, 10, 13, 15 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.
Regarding Claim 5 “The evaluation device according to claim 4, wherein the controller obtains a measurement result of a measurement factor of a power storage device as a process target, and uses the obtained measurement factor as an explanatory variable to estimate characteristics of the power storage device as the process target from the characteristics estimation model.” is unclear, it unclear which power storage device that claim 5 is referring to. Applicant is suggested to clarify, obtains a measurement result of a measurement factor of which (first or second) power storage device’s measurement factor to estimate characteristics of which (first or second) power storage device. Claim one has two (first and second) power storage devices and claim 4 for refers to second power storage device.
Similarly, for claim 6 which power storage device’s degree of deterioration is determined? Applicant is suggested to clarify if degree of deterioration (i.e., evaluation) is determined for both the power storage devices or for only the second power storage device just like the evaluation is performed for second power storage device as recited in the last limitation of claim 1. Similarly, the term degree of deterioration is unclear. Applicant is suggested to define the degree of deterioration by adding or amending limitation in claim 6 or by adding a new dependent claim.
Similarly, for claim 10 applicant is suggested to clarify which power storage device (first or second) is evaluated using the process target.
Similarly, for claim 13 and 15, please specify which (first or second) power storage device the claim is referring to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, claim 1 recites:
An evaluation device that evaluates a power storage device including a plurality of types, the evaluation device comprising a controller including a first database that contains
data a measurement factor of a first type power storage device;
a second database that contains as data a measurement factor of a second type power storage device different from the first type power storage device; and
a conversion model that converts data by machine learning using the measurement factors of the power storage devices, the controller being configured to convert the data in the first database to the data in the second database using the conversion model,
obtain a post-conversion database with data points greater in number than data points of the second database, and
perform evaluation related to the second type power storage device using the post-conversion database.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above.
Under the step 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is determined whether the claims are drawn to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter fall 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 the statutory category of (machine).
Under the step 2A, prong one, it is considered 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 groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that cover mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental process – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, a step of “a conversion model that converts data by machine learning using the measurement factors of the power storage devices, the controller being configured to convert the data in the first database to the data in the second database using the conversion model, (is considered to be a mathematical step)
obtain a post-conversion database with data points greater in number than data points of the second database (is considered to be a mathematical step), and
perform evaluation related to the second type power storage device using the post-conversion database (is considered to be a mental step).
These mental or mathematical steps represent that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of the independent claims 16.
Next, under the step 2A, prong two, it is considered whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, it is evaluated whether the claim recites meaningful additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
In claim 1, the additional elements/steps are: “An evaluation device, first and second power storage device and controller. The above additional elements/steps are recited in generality and represent extra solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional element in the preamble of “An evaluation device that…” 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. The additional elements/steps “the evaluation device comprising a controller including first database as data…” and “a second database that contains as data…” are also recited in generality which seem to merely be gathering data and not really performing any kind of inventive to provide any meaningful additional element. Also, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. All uses of judicial exception require it.
In claim 16, the additional elements/steps recite the similar additional elements/steps as of claim 1. The additional element in the preamble of “An evaluation method…” 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. The additional elements/steps “wherein the first database that contains…” and “a second database that contains…” are also recited in generality which seem to merely be gathering data and not really performing any kind of inventive to provide any meaningful additional element. Also, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. All uses of judicial exception require it.
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.
Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way.
The independent claims 1 and 16, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, the claims 2-15 and 17 comprise the analogous subject matter and also comprise additional features/steps which are the part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claim 1 and 16 (additionally comprising mathematical relationship/mental process steps) and, therefore, the dependent claims are not eligible without additional elements that reflect a practical application and qualified for significantly more for substantially similar reason as discussed with regards to independent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
There are no prior art rejections for claims 1-17. However, examiner cannot comment on their allowability until the rejections under 35 USC, 112 and 101 are adequately addressed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hasler US 20220405222 A1
Hasler teaches an evaluation device that evaluates a power storage device including a plurality of types (para [0014] FIG. 1 shows a first example schematic view of a machine system 100 that includes a battery 102, a machine power system 104, and a battery data translator 106. The machine power system 104 receives energy 108 from the battery 102. The machine power system 104 also receives battery data, such as diagnostic data and other information, associated with the battery 102.), the evaluation device comprising a controller including a first database that contains as data a measurement factor of a first type power storage device (para [0014] However, the battery 102 may be configured to output native battery data 110 in a format that is different than the format used by the machine power system 104.
Para [0047] In some examples, the battery data translator 106 can generate or identify the translation map 130 associated with the battery 102 during an installation process for the battery 102. For example, when the battery 102 is connected to the machine, the battery data translator 106 can determine which pre-existing translation map to use in association with the newly-connected battery 102, or generate a new translation map to use in association with the newly-connected battery 102.
Examiner views the battery pre-existing format or translation map used by battery data translator or processor (i.e., controller) as the first database that contains data measurements factors of a first type battery or power storage device that was installed previously in the vehicle.
a second database that contains as data a measurement factor of a second type power storage device different from the first type power storage device (para [0047] Overall, as shown in FIG. 1, the battery data translator 106 receives native battery data 110 from the battery 102)
Examiner views the native battery data collected from the new battery 102 as the second database that contains data measurements factors of a second type battery or power storage device installed different than the previous battery.
; and a conversion model that converts data by machine learning using the measurement factors of the power storage devices, the controller being configured to convert the data in the first database to the data in the second database using the conversion model (para [0041] As yet another example, the translation manager 128 may be configured to generate the translation map 130 associated with the battery 102 automatically, without user input. The translation manager 128 may have one or more machine learning models, artificial intelligence systems, and/or rule-based models that can be configured to generate the translation map 130 based on the native battery data 110.
[0047] For example, when the battery 102 is connected to the machine, the battery data translator 106 can determine which pre-existing translation map to use in association with the newly-connected battery 102, or generate a new translation map to use in association with the newly-connected battery 102. Although FIG. 1 shows a single battery in a machine system 100 for a machine, the machine may be powered by more than one battery. In examples in which the machine receives power from multiple batteries, different battery data translators may be used to convert native battery data from different batteries into translated battery data that is compatible with the machine power system 104, as described below with respect to FIG. 2.)
Examiner views the translation map manager (i.e., conversion model) translates or converts the pre-existing translation map (i.e., first data base) to use in association with the newly-connected battery 102, or generate a new translation map to use in association with the newly-connected battery 102 (i.e., convert the first data into second data base for new battery 102) using a machine learning.
However no prior arts alone or in combination were found to teach the limitation “obtain a post-conversion database with data points greater in number than data points of the second database, and
perform evaluation related to the second type power storage device using the post-conversion database.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Severson et al US 20190113577 A 1 discusses the predicting the life of a new battery using the previously known degradation information of used batteries.
Hotta et al US 20130171481 A1 discusses inspecting degradation of secondary batteries based on the comparison with the second data string with the first data string.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARAD TIMILSINA whose telephone number is (571)272-7104. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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.
/SHARAD TIMILSINA/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights