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 .
Patent Prosecution Highway
Participation in the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) program between the Japan Patent Office (JPO) and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and petition under 37C.F.R. § 1.102(a) is acknowledged.
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, 4-6 and 8-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. “method of organizing human activity” which the court has identified as abstract) without significantly more. Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of inputting target feature data of a battery cell into a preset identification module and obtaining an identification result of whether the battery cell has experienced abnormal polarization before battery cell loading; wherein the target feature data comprises a maximum target parameter value collected in a first stage of a formation process and/or a polarization elimination deviation of a target parameter in the first stage of the formation process. These limitations fall under method of organizing human activity. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 4 is directed to the abstract idea of inputting target feature data of a battery cell into a preset identification module and obtaining an identification result of whether the battery cell has experienced abnormal polarization before battery cell loading; wherein the target feature data comprises: a target parameter value collected in a second stage of a formation process. These limitations fall under method of organizing human activity. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Claim 10 is directed to the abstract idea of inputting target feature data of a battery cell; into a preset identification module and obtaining an identification result of whether the battery cell has experienced abnormal polarization before battery cell loading; wherein the target feature data comprises a maximum target parameter value collected in a first stage of a formation process and or a polarization elimination deviation of a target parameter in the first stage of the formation process. These limitations fall under method of organizing human activity. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are an identification circuitry, a processor and a memory, which is conventional or generic equipment which does not add anything significant to the judicial exception because these components are needed in order to input the data.
Claim 13 is directed to the abstract idea of inputting target feature data of a battery cell into a preset identification module and obtaining an identification result of whether the battery cell has experienced abnormal polarization before battery cell loading: wherein the target feature data comprises a target parameter value collected in a second stage of a formation process. These limitations fall under method of organizing human activity. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are an identification circuitry, a processor and a memory, which are conventional or generic equipment which does not add anything significant to the judicial exception because these elements are needed in order to input the data.
The generic data inputting is recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than e.g., “inputting target feature data”) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed method. For instance, nothing is done with the value collected.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, no other details are claimed.
Dependent claims 5-6, 8-9 and 11-12 and 14-23 merely expand upon the abstract idea further defining the abstract steps of claims 1, 4, 10 and 13 respectively, and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 112 and drawing objections. However, the 35 USC section 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that the claims are directed to a practical application.
In response the Examiner points to the rejection above. The claims are not geared towards a practical application but simply methods of organizing human activity such as inputting data and obtaining an identification result.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shelby 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.
/MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights