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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The two information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 12/19/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the
information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because Fig 3 depicts element 132, referred to in specification (Page 8, Line13) as “known battery power demands are summed at 132.” However, FIG. 4 has element 132 which is referred to in specification (page9, Lines 5-6) as “As shown in Figure 4, the BAP Estimator 230 receives as inputs the known battery power demand 132”. Thus, the number “132” is used in two different figures and refers to two different elements as described in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Specifically, Claim 1 recites: “calculating or measuring torque of the MGU:”. Examiner suggests a typographical error is made in use of colon (:), which should be replaced using a semicolon (;) to be consistent with the overall understanding of Claim 1.
Further, Claim 1 recites (line 11): “applying the MGU power and battery pack power as inputs”. Examiner suggests the word “output” is omitted in this statement, i.e., the line should read (bold emphasis added clarity) for clarity and consistency: (line 11) “applying the MGU power and battery pack output power as inputs”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Specifically, Claim 3 recites (bold emphasis added) : “estimating or measuring known auxiliary power uses in the vehicle, and applying the known auxiliary power uses as an input to the Kalman filter, wherein the estimate of power losses from the Kalman filter omits the known auxiliary power uses.” The two phrases emphasized appear to be contradictory such that the intended meaning of the claim limitation is rendered indefinite. The first phrase limits input to the Kalman filter to include “known auxiliary power uses”, while the second phrase limits the estimate of power losses from the Kalman filter” to omit the known auxiliary power uses. If the term estimation is the process performed by the Kalman filtering function, it is not clear how a required input can be “omitted” in the output. For examination purposes, and applying broadest reasonable interpretation and plane meaning, the limitation will be interpreted to mean generally that the Kalman filtering process as described in Claim 1, to which Claim 3 depends, where Claim 1 recites “treating the power losses as an unknown disturbance in the Kalman filter”.
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 1-19 are held to be patent ineligible, as explained below. Examiner notes use of 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance in the following evaluation.
Specifically, Claim 1, and Claim 9 with parallel limitations, recite abstract ideas (bold emphasis added), reciting:
“(Claim 1) A method of estimating power losses in a vehicle/(Claim 9) A configurable controller for a vehicle
having a motor-generator-unit (MGU) used by the vehicle to provide motive power,
the method comprising: calculating or measuring torque of the MGU:
calculating or measuring speed of the MGU;
using the MGU torque and MGU speed to determine MGU power;
measuring current output of a battery pack of the vehicle;
measuring voltage of the battery pack of the vehicle;
using the measured current and measured voltage to determine battery pack output power;
applying the MGU power and battery pack power as inputs to a Kalman filter;
treating the power losses as an unknown disturbance in the Kalman filter; and
obtaining an estimate of the power losses from the Kalman filter.”
STEP 1 – Determination of statutory category: Claim 1 falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101, namely Claim 1-Method (Process); Claim 9-Machine (Manufacture). (See MPEP § 2106.03).
STEP 2A-PRONG ONE – Determination regarding whether claim recites a judicial exception: Applying broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), Claim limitations noted above with bold emphasis, recite a judicial exception. These limitations include: “calculating…torque”, “calculating…speed”, “using the MGU torque and MGU speed to determine MGU power”, “using the measured current and measured voltage to determine battery pack output power”, “applying the MGU power and battery pack power as inputs to a Kalman filter”, “treating the power losses as an unknown disturbance in the Kalman filter” and “obtaining an estimate of the power losses from the Kalman filter.” Such limitations constitute a judicial exception of Abstract Idea because under BRI and using 2024 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the limitations fall into the grouping of subject matter that covers performing mathematics or mental steps. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), I.A,C, III.B,C) Examiner notes execution of the claimed limitations involve performing mathematics using at least some generic computer components, as evidenced by Claim 9. Specifically, Claim 9 recites “A configurable controller”; guidance from specification in at least Pg2/18-Lines 21-22, Pg3/18-Lines 7-8, 10-11, reciting programming function of controller, and Pg4/18-Lines23-26, Line 30-31, reciting input/output function of controller, Pg5/18-Lines3-17, specifically describing generic computational components of controller, and Pg17/18-Lines18-19, explicitly reciting “examples described herein can be machine or computer-implemented”. In addition, the method involves generic machine learning (ML) technology, interpreted using guidance from specification in at least Pg11/18-Lines reciting “system may further be configured to learn, using reference to subsystem states, power demands of the various subsystems when in each…may be extracted over time in a learning process,” depending on mathematical “model”, as recited in at least Pg11/18-Line7 “may rely on models” used to determine estimated power loss. While equations are recited in specification, Claim 1 limitations do not recite details regarding how ML algorithm or model functions or how “learning” is accomplished. Instead, the claims are found to utilize ML algorithm as a tool that provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Examiner further notes that it may be possible that some processes could rely on mental steps involving pen and paper, depending on the complexity of a particular calculation or comparative analysis step. For example comparative processes, such as found on Pg2/18-Lines9-10 “comparing the estimated power losses to a threshold, finding that the estimated power losses exceed the threshold”
Claim 1, and similarly Claim 9, recites a judicial exception of Abstract Idea.
STEP 2A-PRONG TWO: Evaluation of additional elements to determine whether
the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception:
Claim 1, and similarly Claim 9, does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself or a particular machine; or effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Claim 1, and similarly Claim 9, limitations do recite additional elements, including: “measuring torque”, “measuring speed”, “measuring current output of a battery pack”, “measuring voltage of the battery pack”. Examiner notes these additional elements recite necessary data gathering required to provide input values for carrying out the judicial exception as defined in analysis above. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. receiving data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Claim 1, and similarly Claim 9 additionally recite “: “vehicle having a motor-generator-unit (MGU)”. Such language is considered as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, but does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). As noted above, identified additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
STEP 2B – Consideration of whether the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea: As discussed in STEP 2A-PRONG 2, identified additional elements recited in Claim 1, and similarly in Claim 9, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Further there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; or effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Further consideration finds that these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the limitations are reciting necessary data gathering required to perform the judicial exception. (See MPEP section 2106.05(g)) Even when linked to a particular data source or a type of data, such limitations are considered to be insignificant extra solution activity. As noted above, use of generic computer elements, are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea using guidance from MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. (See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014), also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.)
As noted, identified additional elements recited in Claim 1, and similarly in Claim 9, represent insignificant field of use limitations, not meaningful to indicate a practical application. And, as above, other identified additional elements area considered as necessary data gathering required to perform the abstract idea, considered extra solution activity
Thus, Claim 1, and similarly Claim 9, is directed to the judicial exception.
Further eligibility consideration includes evaluation of dependent Claims 2-8, with dependency to Claim 1 and Claims 10-19 with direct or indirect dependency to Claim 9. Specifically, Claims 2-6,8, 10-14, and 16 recite limitations which further limit performing the mathematical process judicial exception, directed to limiting mathematical processes or calculations to determine quantitative or qualitative results, or which are considered as necessary data gathering or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which are not considered to be significantly more than the abstract idea do not integrated the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 7 and 15 recite further limitation on performing the judicial exception, and “reporting the corrected range estimate”, which is considered as extra solution activity of displaying analysis or results. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), displaying analysis/results is considered extra solution activity in light of Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and is not considered to be significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner notes Claims 17-19 recite limitations that are considered as further linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which are not considered to be significantly more than the abstract idea do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus dependent Claims 2-8 and 10-19 are held to be patent ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 are allowed over prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Search and evaluation of prior art made available on or before the effective filing date resulted in identification of references which failed to teach each and every element of dependent claims, as detailed below. The following references are considered as the best prior art relevant to the claimed invention:
VERDEJO (DE 102010018849 A1)*, YARD (US 20200369162 A1), and WOOK (KR 100987027 B1)*
*English translations used for examination provided, refer to translations for citations noted below
Other relevant prior art is listed as pertinent to claimed invention (below) but not cited.
With attention to independent Claims 1 and 9, the best discovered prior art was found to teach limitations as follows:
With regard to Claims 1 and 9, reciting:
(Claim 1) A method of estimating power losses in a vehicle; (Claim 9) A configurable controller for a vehicle; (VERDEJO [0001], FIG10 with [0115], and [0108]: )
having a motor-generator-unit (MGU) used by the vehicle to provide motive power (VERDEJO, FIG9, [0105], and [0130])
calculating or measuring torque of the MGU: (VERDEJO, [0107])
calculating or measuring speed of the MGU; (VERDEJO, [0124], in view of [0130] above)
measuring current output of a battery pack of the vehicle; (VERDEJO, [0115])
measuring voltage of the battery pack of the vehicle(VERDEJO does not explicitly disclose a voltage measurement of battery; YARD teaches measurement of battery current and voltage explicitly, [0001], FIG.1 with [0022], and [0035])
Examiner notes the following limitations would be generally known to one of ordinary skill in the art:
using the MGU torque and MGU speed to determine MGU power (this would be well known as the definition of Power in a rotational system, Power (in Watts) is the product of torque (in Nm) with angular speed (in rad/s))
using the measured current and measured voltage to determine battery pack output power (YARD teaches this in Claim 2, and generally, Examiner asserts this relationship is found ubiquitously in prior art and foundational tests, and would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art that the product of current (measured in Amperes) and voltage (measured in Volts) is the definition of power (in Watts); see for example KIM (US 20150057957 A1) or JUNG (US 20160329612 A1), included below as pertinent art of record, not cited.)
treating the power losses as an unknown disturbance in the Kalman filter; and
obtaining an estimate of the power losses from the Kalman filter (WOOK teaches general KALMAN filtering method for determination of power loss in a distributed power system; specifically, see FIG. 3, and Page 1, ¶4, “method of selecting an optimum capacity of a distributed power source…(b) estimating a capacity of the individual distributed power sources using the Kalman filter using combinations of the obtained distributed power source capacities as a measurement value”)
However, Examiner does not find in best discovered prior art, made available on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the following limitations:
“applying the MGU power and battery pack power as inputs to a Kalman filter” Specifically, referring to WOOK as above, WOOK does not teach a system that includes an MGU, and does not specify use of a measured battery pack power as an input to Kalman filtering method. Moreover, the specific use of using both MGU power and battery pack power as specific inputs to a Kalman filter-based method. While the Kalman method is used in the technical field for estimation of power loss, the specific steps disclosed in the claimed invention, specifically use of MGU power, obtained either by calculation or measurement, and battery power obtained by measurement as dual inputs to a Kalman-filter based method, where power losses, understood to be a sum of power losses in the vehicle system, was not found.
Examiner notes limitations as recited in dependent claims, further limiting power loss to include auxiliary systems (Claims 2, 10) as further input to the Kalman filter to estimate power loss to auxiliary systems (Claims 3, 11)is found in the art (see, for example dissertation by CAMPISTRINI, included below). However, further limiting the inputs of MGU power and battery power does not overcome the failure of prior art, individually or in combination, to teach the limitations of the independent claims to which Claims 2/10 and 3/11 depend. Other limits, including use of a speed sensor (Claims 4/12), calculation of MGU torque from a power request (Claims 5,13), comparison of resulting power loss to a threshold (Claims 6,14), and corrections to a range calculation using resulting estimated power losses (Claims 7,15), are found in literature as cited above, or in relevant art as listed below. Likewise, use of various specified types of Kalman filtering (Claims 8,16) for power analysis of an electric or hybrid vehicle with an MGU component (Claims 17-19) is found in references as cited above, or in those listed as pertinent below. However, the best discovered prior art applicable to dependent claims individually or in combination, does not overcome the deficiencies identified for independent Claims 1 and 9.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Patent Literature
ALTURI (US 9108633 B1) – teaches generally control and analysis of hybrid electric vehicle with MGU including an algorithmic approach to determination of power loss for system using MGU analysis.
JUNG (US 20160329612 A1) – teaches direct method of using voltage and current measurements to determine battery output power.
KIM (US 20150057957 A1) – teaches direct method for calculation of battery pack output power using measured voltage and current in electric or hybrid vehicle.
LI (US 20200016986 A1) – teaches estimating power losses in a vehicle with MGU, including measurement of torque and speed for MGU.
SWALES (US 8226516 B2) – teaches general use and parameters related to implementation of MGU into electric/hybrid vehicle, including measurement of torque and speed of rotation, and conversion of torque via transmission related to power loss; teaches power loss to various other systems in vehicle.
VASSALLO (GB 2493745 A) – teaches power loss algorithm for an electric/hybrid electric vehicle using an MGU and electronic control unit; teaches determination of ranges based on estimated/predicted power loss.
Non Patent Literature
GUO, et al., “An unscented kalman filtering method for estimation of state-of-charge of lithium-ion battery”, Front. Energy Res., 05, Sec. Electrochemical Energy Storage, January 2023 Volume 10 - 2022 - teaches estimation of battery state of charges using unscented KALMAN filtering method
CAMPESTRINI (“Practical feasibility of Kalman filters for the state estimation of lithium-ion batteries”, Technical University of Munich for the attainment of the academic degree of a Full reprint of the thesis submitted to the Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology of the Doctor of Engineering (Dr.-Eng.) 5 NOV 2017.) – teaches detailed summary of using KALMAN filtering technique applied to analysis of battery lifetime and remaining power.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONI D SAUNCY whose telephone number is (703)756-4589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. 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, 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.
/TONI D SAUNCY/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights