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 and have been examined.
Claims 1-16 have been rejected.
Priority
The instant application does not claim the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. § 120, 121, or 365(c) to any prior applications. Accordingly, the effective filing date for the instant application is 20 February 2024.
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 1-16 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.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories of Invention:
Claims 1-16 are drawn to a system or method, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 1:
Independent claim 1 recites a system for estimating a state of charge for a battery system of a vehicle. Independent claim 9 recites a method for estimating a state of charge for a battery system of a vehicle.
These independent claims recite the following steps best characterized as a mental process under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes in general:
receive the plurality of measurement signals
determine whether one or more of the plurality of measurement signals is corrupt or invalid
when one or more of the plurality of measurement signals is corrupt or invalid:
(i) temporarily pause a Kalman filter configured to estimate a SOC of the battery system, and
(ii) utilize a previously-estimated SOC of the battery system by the Kalman filter as the estimated SOC of the battery system; and
when the plurality of measurement signals are valid or no longer corrupt, resume operation of the Kalman filter to estimate the SOC of the battery system based on the plurality of measurement signals.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations for determining when to cease the state of charge for a battery utilizing a Kalman filter based on an operational error from a signal and resuming the calculation when the sensor signal is valid again, these limitations are best characterized as applying a mental process to a generic computing environment - see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c)(2).
Each of these steps of the preceding dependent claims only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claims 1 or 9 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same mental process abstract idea grouping as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements analyzed below in the expected manner.
Dependent claims 2 & 10 recite, in part, enable the Kalman filter for estimating the SOC of the battery system when all of the plurality of measurement signals are valid or not corrupt.
Dependent claims 3 & 11 recite, in part, wherein the measured parameters of the battery system include a voltage, a current, and a temperature.
Dependent claims 4 &12 recite, in part, wherein the one or more corrupt or invalid measurement signals of the plurality of measurement signals are not used by the Kalman filter to estimate the SOC of the battery system.
Dependent claims 5 & 13 recite, in part, wherein one or more of the plurality of measurement signals becomes corrupt or invalid due to a malfunction of a respective sensor of the set of sensors.
Dependent claims 6 & 14 recite, in part, wherein one or more of the plurality of measurement signals becomes corrupt or invalid due to a malfunction of a controller area network (CAN) configured for communication between the control system and the set of sensors.
Dependent claims 7 & 15 recite, in part, utilize the previously-estimated SOC of the battery system as the estimated SOC of the battery system to prevent overcharging of the battery system.
Dependent claims 8 & 16 recite, in part, utilize the previously-estimated SOC of the battery system as the estimated SOC of the battery system for determining…., to a driver of the vehicle, a current range of the vehicle.
Each of these steps of the preceding dependent claims only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claims 1 or 9 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements analyzed below in the expected manner.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Claims 1 and 9 recite a set of sensors. The instant specification notes does not have any specific hardware or configuration requirement for the sensors, only noting an optional intelligent battery sensor embodiment and generic measurement values (see the instant specification in ¶ 0018 and ¶ 0020). The limitations are only recited as a tool which only serves to input data for use by the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(g) - insignificant pre-solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering to obtain input) and is therefore not a practical application of the recited judicial exception.
Claims 1 and 9 recite a control system. The specification provides the intended function of the control system and that it “is shown to be a general control system for the vehicle” along with some listed optional module embodiments (instant specification in ¶ 0018) and is “any suitable control device” including one or more processors (instant specification in ¶ 0025). The use of a control system, in this case to receive data and determine when to pause and/or resume the Kalman filter, only recites the control system as a tool to apply data to an algorithm and report the results (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case involving a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer within the “Other examples.. i.”) amounting to instruction to implement the abstract idea using a general purpose computer. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357 (2014).
Claims 1 and 9 recite a store a previously-estimated SOC of the battery system. The limitations are only recited as a tool which only serves as display/output of the data determined from the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(g) - insignificant post-solution activity that amounts to post-solution output on a well-known display device) and is therefore not a practical application of the recited judicial exception.
Claims 8 and 16 recite a conveying, to a driver of the vehicle, a current range of the vehicle. The limitations are only recited as a tool which only serves as display/output of the data determined from the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(g) - insignificant post-solution activity that amounts to post-solution output on a well-known display device) and is therefore not a practical application of the recited judicial exception.
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More:
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Claims 1 and 9 recite a control system. Each of these elements is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea, such as the use of the storage mediums to store data, the computer and data processing devices to apply the algorithm, and the display device to display selected results of the algorithm. These additional elements therefore only amount to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception”).
Each additional element under Step 2A, Prong 2 is analyzed in light of the specification’s explanation of the additional element’s structure. The claimed invention’s additional elements do not have sufficient structure in the specification to be considered a not well-understood, routine, and conventional use of generic computer components. Note that the specification can support the conventionality of generic computer components if “the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” (MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A) integrating the evidentiary requirements in making a § 101 rejection as established in Berkheimer in III. Impact on Examination Procedure, A. Formulating Rejections, 1. on p. 3).
Claims 1 and 9 recite a set of sensors. Collecting battery operational data utilizing sensors – including intelligent battery sensors, is considered well understood, routine, and conventional before the effective filing date of the instant application. This position is supported by Komsiyska et al., Critical Review of Intelligent Battery Systems: Challenges, Implementation, and Potential for Electric Vehicles, 14(18) Energies (Sept. 21, 2021) teaching on the state of the art for smart sensor monitoring configurations for electric vehicle battery monitoring in the § Introduction on p. 3-4 (treated as a review under MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(C) that describes the state of the art and discusses what is well-known and in common use in the relevant industry). Therefore, the set of sensors is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Claims 1 and 9 recite a store a previously-estimated SOC of the battery system. The courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Claims 8 and 16 recite a conveying, to a driver of the vehicle, a current range of the vehicle. The courts have decided that presenting generated data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) other types of activities example iv. presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 1-16 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walder (US Patent Application No. 20200217897)[hereinafter Walder] in view of Song et al. (CN 116413613 A)[hereinafter Song].
As per claim 1, Walder teaches on the following limitations of the claim:
a state of charge (SOC) estimation system for a battery system of a vehicle, the SOC estimation system comprising is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0065 and ¶ 0081-84 (teaching on vehicle battery state of charge estimation system utilizing a Kalman filter suspension method)
a set of sensors configured to generate a plurality of measurement signals indicative of measured parameters of the battery system; and is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0065 and ¶ 0082 (teaching on a plurality of sensors on a vehicle battery cell for measuring terminal voltage, temperature, and current)
a control system configured to is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0081 (teaching on a vehicle control unit connected to the batter cell and corresponding sensors)
receive the plurality of measurement signals is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0065 and ¶ 0082 (teaching on receiving from sensors a plurality of measurements including terminal voltage, temperature, and current)
determine whether one or more of the plurality of measurement signals is corrupt or invalid; when one or more of the plurality of measurement signals is corrupt or invalid: is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0082 and ¶ 0103 (teaching on determining one or more of the measurement variables containing measurement noise or process noise and the expected error covariance of the noise behavior (treated as synonymous to corrupt))
(i) temporarily pause a Kalman filter configured to estimate a SOC of the battery system, and is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0084 and ¶ 0132 (teaching on suspending the Kalman filter as soon as a threat of instability in the PBZZ of the battery cell states BZZ and on the basis of a covariance behavior PBzp of the battery cell parameters BZP)
when the plurality of measurement signals are valid or no longer corrupt, resume operation of the Kalman filter to estimate the SOC of the battery system based on the plurality of measurement signals is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0132 and ¶ 0135 (teaching on resuming the Kalman filter and corresponding state of charge estimation once the instability in the error covariance of the noise behavior for the measurement variables is rectified)
Walder fails to teach the following limitation of claim 1. Song, however, does teach the following:
(ii) store and utilize a previously-estimated SOC of the battery system by the Kalman filter as the estimated SOC of the battery system; and is taught in the Detailed Ways in line 364-370 (teaching on relying on the most recent Kalman filter state of charge measure for a battery if the current is abnormal as the SOC real estimation value)
One of ordinary skill in the art would combine the usage of the previously stored SOC of Song with the Kalman filter utilization for determining battery state of charge of Walder with the motivation of reducing error accumulation associated with sampling errors (Song in the Background technique in line 30-42).
Independent claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 2, the combination of Walder and Song discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Walder also discloses the following:
the SOC estimation system of claim 1, wherein the control system is configured to enable the Kalman filter for estimating the SOC of the battery system when all of the plurality of measurement signals are valid or not corrupt is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0132 and ¶ 0135 (teaching on resuming the Kalman filter and corresponding state of charge estimation once the instability in the error covariance of the noise behavior for the measurement variables is rectified)
Claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 3, the combination of Walder and Song discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Walder also discloses the following:
the SOC estimation system of claim 1, wherein the measured parameters of the battery system include a voltage, a current, and a temperature is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0065 (teaching on the sensor measurements including terminal voltage, temperature, and current)
Claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 4, the combination of Walder and Song discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Walder also discloses the following:
the SOC estimation system of claim 1, wherein the one or more corrupt or invalid measurement signals of the plurality of measurement signals are not used by the Kalman filter to estimate the SOC of the battery system is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0084 and ¶ 0132 (teaching on suspending the Kalman filter to estimate the SOC as soon as a threat of instability in the PBZZ of the battery cell states BZZ and on the basis of a covariance behavior PBzp of the battery cell parameters BZP)
Claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 5, the combination of Walder and Song discloses all of the limitations of claim 4. Walder also discloses the following:
the SOC estimation system of claim 4, wherein one or more of the plurality of measurement signals becomes corrupt or invalid due to a malfunction of a respective sensor of the set of sensors is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0093-99 (teaching on the measurement noise taking into consideration the errors in the measurement value due to sensor behavior (treated as synonymous to sensor measuring malfunction))
Claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 7, the combination of Walder and Song discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Walder fails to teach the following; Song, however, does disclose:
the SOC estimation system of claim 1, wherein the control system is configured to utilize the previously-estimated SOC of the battery system as the estimated SOC of the battery system to prevent overcharging of the battery system is taught in the Detailed Ways in line 364-370 (teaching on relying on the most recent Kalman filter state of charge measure for a battery if the current is abnormal as the SOC real estimation value)
One of ordinary skill in the art would combine the usage of the previously stored SOC of Song with the Kalman filter utilization for determining battery state of charge of Walder with the motivation of reducing error accumulation associated with sampling errors (Song in the Background technique in line 30-42).
Claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 8, the combination of Walder and Song discloses all of the limitations of claim 4. Walder also discloses the following:
estimated SOC of the battery system for determining and conveying, to a driver of the vehicle, a current range of the vehicle is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0134 and ¶ 0137 (teaching on communicating the range prediction of the vehicle to the driver - Examiner notes this limitation does not serve to further limit the claim but instead recites nonfunctional descriptive material of the intended use (see MPEP § 2111.05 for more information))
Walder fails to teach the following; Song, however, does disclose:
the SOC estimation system of claim 1, wherein the control system is configured to utilize the previously-estimated SOC of the battery system as the estimated SOC of the battery system is taught in the Detailed Ways in line 364-370 (teaching on relying on the most recent Kalman filter state of charge measure for a battery if the current is abnormal as the SOC real estimation value)
One of ordinary skill in the art would combine the usage of the previously stored SOC of Song with the Kalman filter utilization for determining battery state of charge of Walder with the motivation of reducing error accumulation associated with sampling errors (Song in the Background technique in line 30-42).
Claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walder (US Patent Application No. 20200217897)[hereinafter Walder] in view of Song et al. (CN 116413613 A)[hereinafter Song] in further view of Tian et al., Security-Ensured State of Charge Estimation of Lithium-Ion Batteries Subject to Malicious Attacks, 14(3) IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid 2250-2261 (May 2023)[hereinafter Tian]
As per claim 6, the combination of Walder and Song discloses all of the limitations of claim 4. Walder fails to teach the following; Tian, however, does disclose:
the SOC estimation system of claim 4, wherein one or more of the plurality of measurement signals becomes corrupt or invalid due to a malfunction of a controller area network (CAN) configured for communication between the control system and the set of sensors is taught in the § Abstract on p. 2250 (teaching on state of charge estimation as a result of a network connection corruption)
One of ordinary skill in the art would combine the network corruption consideration of Song with the Kalman filter utilization for determining battery state of charge of Walder with the motivation of “design[ing] a safe and effective battery management system (BMS) to monitor the battery status, collect real-time information and keep the safe operation of the batteries” (Tian in the § I. Introduction on p. 2250).
Claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Johnston, Building a Lightweight State of Charge Algorithm: Understanding & Implementing an Extended Kalman Filter, Okra Solar (March 18, 2021) teaching on signal measurements necessary for utilizing a Kalman filter in the § Conditions necessary to apply a Kalman filter on p. 7
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN LYNN JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM ET.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/JORDAN L JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights