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 .
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 8-19 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Under step 1, claim 8 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a method claim.
Under step 2A, prong 1: this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception as explained in MPEP 2106.4, subsection II, a claim recites a judicial exception when the judicial exception is set forth or described in the claim.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. “mathematical relationships/algorithms/concepts” without significantly more. Claim 8 is directed to the abstract idea of determining a current through the cell arrangement, including determining at least a direct current (DC) component of the current, wherein the current has a DC component and an alternating current (AC) component; and determining at least one EIS property of the cell arrangement, including using the determined DC component of the current. These limitations fall under mathematical concepts (see paragraph 0038, equation 1). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional element is a cell which is a conventional or generic device which does not add anything significant to the judicial exception because this device is needed in order to determine at least one EIS property. The claim as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The data processing is recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than e.g., “determining at least one EIS property of the cell arrangement, including using the determined DC component of the current.”) 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 claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, nothing is done with the determined EIS property.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element, as described above, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
Dependent claims 9-19 merely expand upon the abstract idea further defining the abstract steps of claim 8, and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Uemura et al. (US 2015/0323493 A1, hereinafter UE).
Regarding claim 1, UE discloses an electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) current measurement system for measuring a current through a cell arrangement including one or more electrochemical cells, the current measurement system comprising:
a sense resistor arrangement, configured to be placed in series with the cell arrangement (see figure 1, elements 15 and 48); and
voltage measurement circuitry, configured to measure a voltage across the sense resistor arrangement, including to measure at least a direct current (DC) component of the voltage, wherein a current through the sense resistor arrangement has a DC component and an alternating current (AC) component (see para. 0084).
Regarding claim 3, UE discloses the current measurement system of claim 1, wherein the voltage measurement circuitry is configured to measure an AC component of the voltage (see para. 0084).
Regarding claim 5, UE discloses the current measurement system of claim 1, comprising processor circuitry, coupled to the voltage measurement circuitry, configured to calculate at least a DC component of a current through the cell arrangement (see para. 0084).
Regarding claims 2, 4, 6 and 7, the prior fails to teach these limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 20, the cited prior art of record Uemura et al. (US 2015/0323493 A1), either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious a An electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) current measurement system for measuring a current through a cell arrangement including one or more electrochemical cells, the current measurement system comprising: processor circuitry, configured to determine the DC component of current through the cell arrangement using the measured voltage across the sense resistor arrangement and a specified resistance value of the sense resistor arrangement, and configured to determine at least one EIS property of the cell arrangement using the determined DC component, in combination with all the other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Conclusion
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