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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 24 April 2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claims 19 and 20 have been renumbered 18 and 19, respectively.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 (and dependent claims 2-18) recite “A calibration method for an electrochromic device, wherein the calibration method comprises: determining a current total capacity of the electrochromic device after a self-calibration mode is entered; and in response to a difference between a total capacity of the electrochromic device determined last time and the current total capacity of the electrochromic device exceeding a preset error range, setting the current total capacity as a latest total capacity, and according to the current total capacity and based on a predetermined capacity distribution ratio, re-determining a corresponding relationship between each current gear of the electrochromic device and a capacity of the electrochromic device.”
Claims 1-18, in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of “determining a current total capacity of the electrochromic device after a self-calibration mode is entered; and in response to a difference between a total capacity of the electrochromic device determined last time and the current total capacity of the electrochromic device exceeding a preset error range, setting the current total capacity as a latest total capacity, and according to the current total capacity and based on a predetermined capacity distribution ratio, re-determining a corresponding relationship between each current gear of the electrochromic device and a capacity of the electrochromic device.”
As a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited “determining a current total capacity of the electrochromic device after a self-calibration mode is entered; and in response to a difference between a total capacity of the electrochromic device determined last time and the current total capacity of the electrochromic device exceeding a preset error range, setting the current total capacity as a latest total capacity, and according to the current total capacity and based on a predetermined capacity distribution ratio, re-determining a corresponding relationship between each current gear of the electrochromic device and a capacity of the electrochromic device.”; therefore, the claims recite mental processes and mathematical concepts. Accordingly, the claims recite a mental process and mathematical concept, and thus, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of“[a] computer- implemented method” and “the method is carried out by one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions” as recited in claim 19, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-18 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Additionally, these recitations as an ordered combination, simply append the abstract idea to recitations of generic computer structure performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field as evinced by Applicant’s Specification at [0158]-[0161] (describing that the disclosure is not limited to the disclosed implementations, but, on the contrary, is intended to cover modifications and equivalent arrangements that are within the spirit and scope of the appended claims). Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-18 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea. Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that are used to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rinaldo et al (US 11,527,780) disclose a battery control system that operates based on a modeled response of the battery derived from the battery model. If the battery model is not calibrated/validated, errors in the battery model may propagate through the modeled response of the battery to the operation of the battery control system. A calibration current pulse may result in a different measured response of the battery than the modeled response of the battery to the same calibration current pulse. A validation technique, which uses a difference between the modeled response and the measured response of the battery to the calibration current pulse as a method to calibrate the battery model, may protect the battery control system from the contribution of errors from an uncalibrated battery model. Steuer (US 10,502,807) discloses a calibration system that controls a calibration voltage source to selectively output calibration voltages in a calibration conductor. The calibration system obtains data from the voltage measurement device captured by the voltage measurement device when measuring the calibration conductor. Such data may include one or more reference current measurements, one or more voltage measurements, etc. The calibration system utilizes the obtained measurements to generate calibration data which may be stored on the voltage measurement device for use thereby during subsequent operation. The calibration data may include one or more lookup tables, coefficients for one or more mathematical formulas, etc. Kim et al (US 10,473,725) disclose a method for calculating a leakage current of a precipitate by using a voltage drop amount result measured in an aging process according to a discharge voltage of a normal cell and a profile according to a discharge voltage of a normal cell and directly presenting a low voltage expression level based thereon.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN H DO whose telephone number is (571)272-2143. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached on 571-272-5960. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AN H DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights