DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Applicant’s submissions filed on 1/12/2026. Claims 1-18 and 20 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that figures 3 and 8 are objected to because they appear similar (Applicant’s response; p. 12), it is noted that these figures are objected to because it is unclear from the drawings and the specification if they are directed to different embodiments. The Applicant’s response appears to indicate that figures 3 and 8 disclose different embodiments, therefore, the specification should clearly set forth the scope of each embodiment and their relationships to the figures. See objection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that figures 1a and 7 are objected to because they appear similar (Applicant’s response; p. 13), it is noted that these figures are objected to because it is unclear from the drawings and the specification if they are directed to different embodiments. The Applicant’s response appears to indicate that figures 1a and 7 disclose different embodiments, therefore, the specification should clearly set forth the scope of each embodiment and their relationships to the figures. See objection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the amendments to the specification and claims clearly define how the lifetime is predicted by extrapolating forward (Applicant’s response; pp. 13-14), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendments recite the lifetime is predicted by extrapolating the lifetime forward, which appears to be a circular definition that leaves the lifetime prediction unclear. See objections below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that paragraph 8 of the specification clearly discloses the maintenance event is different than the planned replacement (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 14), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although paragraph 8 discloses an example wherein receiving a signal that a maintenance event is scheduled or performed initiates evaluating if downgrade replacement is required, neither the claims nor specification appear to preclude performing the evaluation when the maintenance event is the planned replacement. A person of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that battery refurbishment/replacement is a maintenance event, and no other exemplary maintenance events appear to be disclosed, therefore, the disclosure reasonably supports one or more of: initiating the simulation to indicate a downgrade replacement is required; initiating the simulation when the downgrade replacement is scheduled; and initiating the simulation when the downgrade replacement is performed. The Examiner suggests the scope of claims 4 and 13 would be clear if they explicitly recite a maintenance event that is not the electrical energy storage pack downgrade replacement. See rejection below.
Drawings
The amended drawings were received on 1/12/2026.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show details regarding block 107 contained in figures 1 and 7 as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: ECM 10 (para. 62, l. 3). 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.
The drawings are objected to because:
It appears the acronym ESSS, used to label block 106 in figures 1A and 7, should read EESS (i.e., electrical energy storage system).
It is unclear how figure 8 is different than figure 3. Paragraph 90 appears to disclose figure 8 is a method comprising steps that are identical to those of figure 3. It is unclear if figure 8 is an embodiment that does not include specific steps, and is different from the embodiment disclosed in figure 3.
It is unclear how figure 7 is different than figure 1a. Paragraph 89 discloses figure 7 is a different view of figure 1a, however, figure 7 does not include all of the elements of figure 1a. It is unclear if figure 7 is an embodiment that does not include specific elements, and is different than the embodiment disclosed in figure 1a.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The amended specification was received on 1/12/2026.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 14, line 1, “according to a second aspect of the disclosure, computer-implemented method is presented” should read “according to a second aspect of the disclosure, a computer-implemented method is presented”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 53, lines 1-2, the meaning of the sentence “Assuming a worst-case scenario advantageously prevents optimistic predictions that might not account for change in usage” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English. The Examiner suggests the sentence should read “The advantage of assuming a worst-case scenario is preventing optimistic predictions that might not account for changes in usage”.
In paragraph 62, lines 5-7, in the phrase “a health model … predicts … the lifetime by extrapolating the lifetime forward”, it is unclear how the lifetime is predicted by extrapolating itself forward. Lines 7-8 further disclose the outputs of the health model are used to update the equivalent circuit model for the next iteration of predicting the lifetime, and paragraph 43 discloses the lifetime is predicted based on extrapolating the simulated performance forward assuming a worst-case aging rate. It appears that the lifetime is determined by projecting the simulated battery performance forward by assuming a worst-case aging rate and iteratively recalculating the ECM and health models.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, lines 8-10, the meaning of the limitation “simulate … the performance of a new propulsion electrical energy storage system with one or more of prior multiple electrical energy storage packs and one or more downgrade replacement electrical energy storage packs from the inventory included” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English. The Examiner suggests the limitation should read “simulate … the performance of a new propulsion electrical energy storage system that includes one or more of the electrical energy storage packs and one or more downgrade replacement electrical energy storage packs from the inventory”. The Examiner further suggests, in lines 12-13, “verify that the new propulsion electrical energy system including both the prior and replacement electrical energy storage packs can fulfill a mission of the vehicle” should read “verify that the new propulsion electrical energy system can fulfill a mission of the vehicle”.
In claim 11, lines 7-10, the meaning of the limitation “simulating … the performance of a new propulsion electrical energy storage system with one or more of prior multiple electrical energy storage packs and one or more downgrade replacement electrical energy storage packs from the inventory included” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English. The Examiner suggests the limitation should read “simulating … the performance of a new propulsion electrical energy storage system that includes one or more of the electrical energy storage packs and one or more downgrade replacement electrical energy storage packs from the inventory”. The Examiner further suggests, in lines 11-13, “verifying … that the new propulsion electrical energy system including both prior and replacement electrical energy storage packs can fulfill a mission of the vehicle” should read “verifying … that the new propulsion electrical energy system can fulfill a mission of the vehicle”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 and 20 are 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 claims 1 and 10, lines 5-7 and 6-8, respectively, the limitation “predict[ing] … a lifetime … based on the simulated performance … and extrapolating the lifetime forward” renders each claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the predicted lifetime is extrapolated forward, or the lifetime is predicted by extrapolating the lifetime forward. It is further unclear how the lifetime can be predicted by extrapolating itself forward. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the lifetime is predicted by extrapolating forward the simulated performance of the propulsion electrical energy system.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, lines 3 and 2, respectively, the limitation “a maintenance event is scheduled” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is the planned electrical energy storage pack downgrade replacement recited in claim 1, lines 11-12, and claim 10, line 13. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the scheduled maintenance event is not the planned electrical energy storage pack downgrade replacement.
Claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1 and 10, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious reducing a state of charge window of an electrical energy storage system at a rate such that a threshold is not reached before a planned downgrade replacement. Kratzer et al., hereinafter Kratzer, in US 2016/0221465, disclose a computer system that simulates the performance of a vehicle energy storage system based on prior usage, and extrapolates forward to predict a lifetime by assuming an aging rate. Kratzer further discloses reducing a state of charge window of the electrical energy storage system so that the state of health of the electrical energy storage system does not reach a threshold minimum before the predicted end of life. Although Kratzer, in paragraph 45, discloses a battery should be exchanged promptly when the state of health reaches zero, and that the battery may still retain functional capacity at that time, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably conclude that Kratzer suggests downgrading (i.e., reducing a performance or quality characteristic) the vehicle’s battery when it degrades to a minimum capacity. Therefore, Kratzer appears to be limited to reducing a state of charge window of an electrical energy storage system at a rate such that a threshold is not reached before an upgrade replacement.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights