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 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 10-20 are ineligible.
Claim interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. Based on the plain meaning of the words in the claim, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
the broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 10-20 are about setting voltage and current thresholds.
The steps involve multiple mental steps such as comparing/compare and setting/set.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a method in claim 10 and a product in claim 20. Thus, the claim is to a process and a machine, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. The claim still must be reviewed to determine if it recites any other type of judicial exception.
Limitation “comparing/compare…voltage”, “comparing/compare…..current”, “sending/set….threshold, in claims 10 and 20 are all mental steps (receiving, analyzing and responding are a fundamental business practice under “certain methods of Organizing Human Activity”) as evident from the disclosure.
This limitation falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited steps are simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving algebraic equations in their minds using a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation because the claim here merely uses the processor as a tool to perform the otherwise mental process. See October Update at Section I(C)(ii) and (iii).
As explained in the MPEP and the October 2019 Update, in situations like this where a series of steps recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. See MPEP 2106.04 and 2106.05(II), and October 2019 Update at Section I.B. Thus, for purposes of further discussion, this example considers limitations (a-g) as a single abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites the additional element “a pre-charging controller”, “one or more memories” and “one or more processor” in claim 20. An evaluation of whether limitation (a) is insignificant extra-solution activity is then performed. Note that because the Step 2A Prong Two analysis excludes consideration of whether a limitation is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 55), this evaluation does not take into account whether or not limitation (a) is well-known. See October 2019 Update at Section III.D. When so evaluated, these additional elements are recited so generically that they represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional elements are very generic. For example, “a pre-charging controller”, “one or more memories” and “one or more processor” functions as a field of use limitation.
It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). 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 (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05. As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible. Claims 11-13, 18 and 19 also disclose abstract ideas (setting, determining, performing, querying) which fall under abstract idea. The same analysis applies to these claims as well.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WAN US 2019/0020202 A1.
Regarding claim 1, WAN discloses
A machine, comprising: an electric motor (a DC motor) [0136] ; a battery pack, having one or more batteries, electrically connected to the electric motor [0073, 0136] and configured to power the electric motor [0031, 0136] ; and a pre-charging controller (item 40) configured to: determine, as part of an initial pre-charging operation (during constant voltage mode), a pre-charging voltage of the electric motor; compare the pre-charging voltage to a first voltage (V1) threshold; and set a second voltage threshold (V2) for a subsequent pre-charging operation (constant voltage mode agian) as a result of the pre-charging voltage being below the first voltage threshold [0050, 0073] (fig. 6 shows V2 is below V1).
Regarding claim 2, WAN discloses
, wherein the pre-charging controller is further configured to set the second voltage threshold to a value below the first voltage threshold [0073] (fig. 6 shows V2 is below
V1).
Regarding claim 3, WAN discloses
, wherein the pre-charging controller is further configured to output a diagnostic trouble code (error-reporting message) indicator as a result of the pre-charging voltage being below the first voltage threshold [0076].
Regarding claim 4, WAN discloses
, wherein the pre-charging controller is further configured to output an alert (via error-reporting message) signal as a result of the pre-charging voltage being below the first voltage threshold [0076].
Regarding claim 5, WAN discloses
, wherein the pre-charging controller is further configured to perform the subsequent pre-charging operation using the second voltage threshold as a result of the pre-charging voltage being below the first voltage threshold [0073].
Regarding claim 6, WAN discloses
, wherein the pre-charging controller is further configured to query a lookup table for one or more of the first voltage threshold or the second voltage threshold [0138] (emphasis added “plurality of steps or methods may be realized by the software or firmware stored in the memory and executed by the appropriate instruction execution system”).
Regarding claim 7, WAN discloses
, wherein the pre-charging controller is further configured to: determine, as part of the initial pre-charging operation, a pre-charging current of the electric motor; compare the pre-charging current of the electric motor to a pre-first current threshold (I2); and set a second current threshold (I1) for the subsequent pre-charging operation as a result of the pre-charging current being above the first current threshold and the pre-charging voltage being below the first voltage threshold [0073].
Regarding claim 8, WAN discloses
, wherein the pre-charging controller is further configured to set the second current threshold to a value above the first current threshold [0073].
Regarding claim 9, WAN discloses
, wherein the pre-charging controller is configured to query a lookup table for one or more of the first current threshold or the second current threshold [0138] (emphasis added “plurality of steps or methods may be realized by the software or firmware stored in the memory and executed by the appropriate instruction execution system”).
Regarding claim 10, WAN discloses
A method, comprising: comparing a pre-charging voltage of a machine component (battery pack) to a first voltage threshold (V1); comparing a pre-charging current of the machine component to a first current threshold (I2); and setting a second voltage threshold (V2) and a second current threshold (I1) as a result of: the pre-charging voltage being below the first voltage threshold, and the pre-charging current being above the first current threshold [0073].
Regarding claim 11, WAN discloses
, wherein setting the second voltage threshold includes setting the second voltage threshold to a value below the first voltage threshold, and wherein setting the second current threshold includes setting the second current threshold to a value above the first current threshold [0073] (see fig. 6 for detail).
Regarding claim 12, WAN discloses
determining the pre-charging voltage (acquiring voltage of the battery pack in fig. 7) of the machine component [0073, 0076].
Regarding claim 13, WAN discloses determining the pre-charging current (charging current) of the machine component.
Regarding claim 14, WAN discloses, wherein one or more of the first voltage threshold or the second voltage threshold are based, at least in part, on one or more of an expected pre-charging voltage, an accuracy of a voltmeter, or an error tolerance of the voltmeter [0073].
Regarding claim 15, WAN discloses, wherein one or more of the first current threshold or the second current threshold are based, at least in part, on one or more of an expected pre-charging current, an accuracy of an ammeter, or error tolerance of the ammeter [0073].
Regarding claim 16, WAN discloses outputting a diagnostic trouble code indicator (error-reporting message) as a result of the pre-charging voltage being below the first voltage threshold and the pre-charging current being above the first current threshold [0076].
Regarding claim 17, WAN discloses outputting an alert signal (via error-reporting message) as a result of the pre-charging voltage being below the first voltage threshold and the pre-charging current being above the first current threshold [0076].
Regarding claim 18, WAN discloses performing a first pre-charging operation using the first voltage threshold and the first current threshold; and performing a second pre-charging operation using the second voltage threshold and the second current threshold as a result of the pre-charging voltage being below the first voltage threshold and the pre-charging current being above the first current threshold [0073].
Regarding claim 19, WAN discloses querying a lookup table to determine one or more of the first voltage threshold, the first current threshold, the second voltage threshold, or the second current threshold [0138] (emphasis added “plurality of steps or methods may be realized by the software or firmware stored in the memory and executed by the appropriate instruction execution system”).
Regarding claim 20, WAN discloses
A pre-charging controller (fig. 6, item 40), comprising: one or more memories; one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories [0138], configured to: compare a pre-charging voltage of a machine component to a first voltage threshold; compare a pre-charging current of the machine component to a first current threshold; and set a second voltage threshold and a second current threshold as a result of the pre-charging voltage being below the first voltage threshold, and the pre-charging current being above the first current threshold (see claim 10 rejection for detail).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kimoto (US 11,342,772 B2) discloses a precharge controller.
TANG et al. (US 2013/0257356 A1) disclose a charging current setting unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BICKEY DHAKAL whose telephone number is (571)272-3577. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 PM.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at 571-272-2060. 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.
/BICKEY DHAKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights