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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Figures 7 and 8, the blank rectangular boxes should be provided with descriptive text labels. 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.
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 11 and 16 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the cloud-based computing resource" in line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that claim 11 should be amended to depend from claim 10 overcome this rejection.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 19 is directed to a computer program product. A computer program does not fall into one of the four statutory subject matter areas (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection I).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106), claim 1 is directed to a system, which is a product and falls within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
Per step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites receive sensor-obtained battery data from at least one battery cell being monitored by a battery management system of a vehicle, the at least one battery cell being of a particular type; obtain battery reference data from a plurality of battery reference cells of different types; compare the sensor-obtained battery data to the battery reference data, wherein a battery cell modeler is configured to perform the comparing by processing the sensor-obtained battery data and the battery reference data; and based on the comparing, determine counterfeit characteristics data indicating that said particular type of the at least one battery cell deviates from a selected type among said plurality of reference battery cells of different types. The claims require the observation of data from a monitored battery cell and data from reference battery cells and a comparison between those two sets of data to make a determination. The claim limitations are observations and judgements that can be performed in the human mind and therefore fall into the mental processes grouping (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Claim 1 processing circuitry..
Per step 2A, prong 2, The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the recitation of processing circuitry amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Per step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason.
Claims 2-17 depend from claim 1 and recite further details of the abstract idea. Claims 2-17 do not recite any additional elements. Since there are no recited additional elements, claims 2-17 are not integrated into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106), claim 18 is directed to a method, which is a process and falls within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
Claim 18 recites a similar abstract idea and additional element to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims19 and 20 depend from claim 18 and recite further details of the abstract idea. Claims 19 and 20 do not recite any additional elements. Since there are no recited additional elements, claims 19 and 20 are not integrated into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2022/0082627 to O’Mahony et al. (O’Mahony).
Claims 1 and 18
With regard to processing circuitry configured to: receive sensor-obtained battery data from at least one battery cell being monitored by a battery management system of a vehicle, the at least one battery cell being of a particular type; O’Mahony teaches receiving data from a battery management system (BMS) (Figs. 3A, 3B, BMS data 306D, par. 63).
With regard to processing circuitry configured to: obtain battery reference data from a plurality of battery reference cells of different types; O’Mahony teaches comparison to expected signature data from a reference battery (par. 27).
With regard to processing circuitry configured to: compare the sensor-obtained battery data to the battery reference data, wherein a battery cell modeler is configured to perform the comparing by processing the sensor-obtained battery data and the battery reference data; O’Mahony teaches comparing a signature generated from the BMS data to a signature of a reference battery (pars. 27, 51, 52, 54).
With regard to processing circuitry configured to: based on the comparing, determine counterfeit characteristics data indicating that said particular type of the at least one battery cell deviates from a selected type among said plurality of reference battery cells of different types; O’Mahony teaches confirming the identity of the battery based on the comparison (pars. 27, 51, 52, 54).
Claim 2
O’Mahony teaches that said processing of the sensor-obtained battery data and the battery reference data comprises performing a time series analysis on time series data included in the sensor-obtained battery data (pars. 42, 94).
Claim 3
O’Mahony teaches that the time series analysis comprises: creating a first electrochemical fingerprint based on the time series data included in the sensor-obtained battery data, creating a second electrochemical fingerprint based on reference time series data included in the battery reference data of said selected type among said plurality of reference battery cells of different types, said selected type being correlated to the at least one battery cell from which the sensor-obtained battery data was obtained, and comparing the first and second electrochemical fingerprints (pars. 42, 95; Fig. 9).
Claim 4
O’Mahony teaches that the comparing of the first and second electrochemical fingerprints, comprises detecting deviations exceeding a predefined threshold value (pars. 42, 95; Fig. 9, mismatch).
Claim 9
O’Mahony teaches that each one of the sensor-obtained battery data and the battery reference data, respectively, is selected from a group comprising voltage data, current data, resistance data, temperature data, capacity data and electrochemical spectroscopy data (par. 42).
Claim 10
O’Mahony teaches that the battery cell modeler is comprised in a cloud-based computing resource remote from the vehicle (pars. 80, 81).
Claim 11
O’Mahony teaches that the cloud-based computing resource is configured to transmit the counterfeit characteristics data to either one, or both, of a vehicle telematics unit arranged in the vehicle and a central server (par. 81).
Claim 12
O’Mahony teaches that the spectroscopy data includes electrochemical impedance spectroscopy data (pars. 42, 54).
Claim 13
O’Mahony teaches that single points of the sensor-obtained battery data and the battery reference data are compared (par. 42, impedance at one or more temperatures; par. 52, 53).
Claim 14
O’Mahony teaches that ranges comprising a first endpoint and a second endpoint defining said ranges of the sensor-obtained battery data and the battery reference data are compared (pars. 42, 52, 53).
Claim 15
O’Mahony teaches that the cloud-based computing resource comprises a cloud-based storage unit configured to store data used by the battery cell modeler (par. 54; Fig. 2, memory 204D).
Claim 16
O’Mahony teaches that the vehicle telematics unit and the cloud-based computing resource are configured to communicate using one or more network/radio communication protocols (pars. 44, 45).
Claim 17
O’Mahony teaches a vehicle comprising the computer system of claim 1 (pars. 29, 74).
Claim 19
O’Mahony teaches a computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry, the method of claim 18 (par. 37).
Claim 20
O’Mahony teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 18 (par. 37).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Mahony in view of US Patent No. 11,444,338 to Dhawan et al. (Dhawan).
Claim 5
O’Mahony teaches all the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 5 depends. O’Mahony does not teach that the battery cell modeler is a neural network. Dhawan teaches using a neural network to analyze battery data (col. 5, lines 59-66; col. 36, lines 16-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the battery monitoring, as taught by O’Mahony, to include a neural network, as taught by Dhawan, because then the battery monitoring would have been more comprehensive (Dhawan, col. 4, lines 14-18).
Claim 6
O’Mahony teaches all the limitations of claim 1 upon which claims 5 and 6 depend. O’Mahony does not teach that the neural network is configured to: periodically receive input data, the input data comprising updated battery reference data of already stored types of said reference battery cells, and new battery reference data from additional different types of reference battery cells, perform a training procedure by processing the periodically received input data, and determine the counterfeit characteristics data taking into account said performed training procedure.
Dhawan teaches modifying the model over time (col. 33, lines 34-38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the battery monitoring, as taught by O’Mahony, to include a neural network, as taught by Dhawan, because then the battery monitoring would have been more comprehensive (Dhawan, col. 4, lines 14-18).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Mahony in view of Dhawan as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2009/0088992 to Matsumura et al. (Matsumura).
Claim 7
O’Mahony and Dhawan teach all the limitations of claim 6 upon which claim 7 depends. O’Mahony and Dhawan do not teach that the updated battery reference data and the new battery reference data are periodically received from sample counterfeit cells. Matsumura teaches updating reference data with new data regarding recalled or defective cells (par. 45, 29-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the battery monitoring combination, as taught by O’Mahony and Dhawan, to include updating reference data, as taught by Matsumura, because then battery monitoring and authentication would have been more accurate.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Mahony in view of US Patent Application Publication 2009/0256717 to Iwai (Iwai).
Claim 8
O’Mahony teaches all the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 8 depends. O’Mahony does not teach that the battery reference data comprises brand information indicating what brand the reference battery cells of different types are associated with. Iwai teaches using brand information from a genuine battery to authenticate a battery (pars. 52, 55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the battery monitoring, as taught by O’Mahony, to include brand information, as taught by Iwai, because then avoiding counterfeit batteries would have been more effective (Iwai, par. 20).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publication 2016/0047861 to Chen et al. teaches battery signature identification.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL L BARBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5:30..
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 A 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 L BARBEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights