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 Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 6 and 7 be found allowable, claim 7 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 2-4 and 8-10 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.
Claims 2-4 and 9-10 recite “optimization parameter” but it is not clear what that value represents. The specification describes it as being output by a model (Par. 11), but does not describe how the model determines said value, or what the value represents. Par. 45 of the specification describes a possible purpose of the value as “wherein the value is mainly used to make the relationship between the maximum current power and the RSOC close to a preset curve. For example, the optimization parameter may make the relationship between maximum current power and RSOC close to a 45-degree curve”, that does not define what the value is nor does it limit the scope of the definition an optimization parameter.
Claim 8 and its respective dependent claims recite “a battery pack, comprising: a battery cell;” and “a battery cell of a battery pack”, it is unclear if these are the same or different elements and further unclear to which “the battery pack” and “the battery cell” refers.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under step 1, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category.
Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 1 recite(s) “determining whether a temperature and a current of a battery cell of a battery pack are within a limit specification;” and “obtaining a maximum current power when the temperature and the current of the battery pack are within the limit specification;” and “performing an operation based on the maximum current power” which are directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes based on applicant’s specification for example see Par. 9-12 and 43-44.
Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “A method for artificial intelligence monitoring and protecting battery performance, comprising:” are considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “A method for artificial intelligence monitoring and protecting battery performance, comprising:” are considered to be merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself per MPEP 2106.05(h) and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see prior art of record).
Under step 1, claim 8 belongs to a statutory category.
Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 8 recite(s) “determine whether a temperature and a current of a battery cell of a battery pack are within a limit specification; obtain a maximum current power when the temperature and the current of the battery pack are within the limit specification; and perform an operation based on the maximum current power” which are directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes based on applicant’s specification for example see Par. 9-12 and 43-44.
Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “A device for artificial intelligence monitoring and protecting battery performance, comprising: a battery pack, comprising: a battery cell; and a controller; wherein the controller is operative to:” are considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “A device for artificial intelligence monitoring and protecting battery performance, comprising: a battery pack, comprising: a battery cell; and a controller; wherein the controller is operative to:” are considered to be merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself per MPEP 2106.05(h) and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see prior art of record).
Claims 2-3, 5, and 9-10 further describe the abstract idea cited above.
Claim 4 recites the additional element(s) of using generic AI/ML technology, i.e. “wherein the optimization parameter is generated by a large language model (LLM) or a large data model”, to perform data evaluations or calculations, as identified under Prong 1 above. The claims do not recite any details regarding how the AI/ML algorithm or model functions or is trained. Instead, the claims are found to utilize the AI/ML algorithm as a tool that provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, the use of the “wherein the optimization parameter is generated by a large language model (LLM) or a large data model” merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the use of “wherein the optimization parameter is generated by a large language model (LLM) or a large data model” to perform steps that are otherwise abstract does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence; and Example 47, ineligible claim 2.
In claim 6-7, the additional elements are not integrated into a practical application and does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because are considered to be data output steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity and are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) (i or ii) . The courts have decided that presenting generated data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) other types of activities example iv. presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hancock (US 5668461 A).
In claim 1, Hancock discloses a method for artificial intelligence monitoring and protecting battery performance (examiner notes that this is a recitation of intended use and is not limiting per MPEP 2111.02(II) “where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation” as the claim does not require the use of artificial intelligence monitoring, nor does the specification limit the steps recited in the claim to require artificial intelligence, as is shown by the a large language model (LLM) or a large data model being added later in a dependent claim), comprising: determining whether a temperature (Fig. 2, P214/P216) and a current (Fig. 2, P222) of a battery cell of a battery pack (Fig. 1, 190, examiner considers the battery to be a single cell battery) are within a limit specification (Fig. 2, P214 and P222); obtaining a maximum current power when the temperature and the current of the battery pack are within the limit specification (Fig. 2, P216, P222 and P225 Column 8 Lines 50-67 “current value received by microprocessor 150 in Step P222 is accumulated” examiner notes that the target charge i.e. maximum current power is decided based on the temperature and current limits placed on the current); and performing an operation based on the maximum current power (Fig. 2, P224/225 and P228).
In claim 5, Hancock further discloses determining whether the temperature of the battery cell is within an operating temperature range (Fig. 2, P216), whether the current is within an over-current protection (OCP) operating limit (Fig. 2, 216/218 Column 7 Line 60 – Column 8 Line 14 “a signal is communicated over line 26 to current regulator 110 which cuts the rate of current flow in half to approximately 5 amps” Examiner notes over current is a situation where a larger than intended electric current exists through a conductor, leading to excessive generation of heat, and the risk of fire or damage to equipment, thus cutting allowed current because of excessive temperature is considered to be said overcurrent protection) and is within a short-circuit protection operating limit (Columns 4-5 Lines 61-5 “maximum rate of current” “signals are generated to adjust, or trim, the actual rate of current to avoid causing the cigarette lighter fuse to short circuit” ).
In claims 6 and 7, Hancock further discloses transmitting a notification message (Fig. 2, 226/228) to a processor (Fig. 1, 150) to notify the processor of a power condition that the battery cell currently supports when an indicator corresponding to the maximum current power is lower than a threshold (Column 9 Lines 1-18).
In claim 8, Hancock discloses a device for artificial intelligence monitoring and protecting battery performance (examiner notes that this is a recitation of intended use and is not limiting per MPEP 2111.02(II) “where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation” as the claim does not require the use of artificial intelligence monitoring, nor does the specification limit the steps recited in the claim to require artificial intelligence, as is shown by the a large language model (LLM) or a large data model being added later in a dependent claim), comprising: a battery pack (Fig. 1, 190, examiner considers the battery to be a single cell battery), comprising: a battery cell (Fig. 1, 190); and a controller (Fig. 1, 150); wherein the controller is operative to: determine whether a temperature (Fig. 2, P214/P216) and a current (Fig. 2, P222) of a battery cell of a battery pack are within a limit specification (Fig. 2, P214 and P222); obtain a maximum current power when the temperature and the current of the battery pack are within the limit specification (Fig. 2, P216, P222 and P225 Column 8 Lines 50-67 “current value received by microprocessor 150 in Step P222 is accumulated” examiner notes that the target charge i.e. maximum current power is decided based on the temperature and current limits placed on the current); and perform an operation based on the maximum current power (Fig. 2, P224/225 and P228).
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) 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hancock in view of Gibeau (US 20210206291 A1).
In claim 2, Hancock discloses all of claim 1. Hancock further Hancock does not explicitly disclose wherein the maximum current power is obtained based on a relative state of charge (RSOC), a voltage, a system impedance value, an optimization parameter and a battery impedance value of the battery cell.
Gibeau teaches wherein the maximum current power is obtained (Par. 55 Imax) based on a relative state of charge (RSOC) (Fig. 2), a voltage (Fig. 2, Voc), a system impedance value (Par. 26, 28 and 60 “equivalent circuit model impedance parameters”), an optimization parameter and a battery impedance value of the battery cell (Par. 26 “battery cell impedance”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to have wherein the maximum current power is obtained based on a relative state of charge (RSOC), a voltage, a system impedance value, an optimization parameter and a battery impedance value of the battery cell based on the teachings of Gibeau in Hancock in order to estimate the value of not readily measurable values (Gibeau Par. 26), thus leading to more accurate calculations.
In claim 9, Hancock discloses all of claim 8. Hancock does not explicitly disclose wherein the maximum current power is obtained based on a relative state of charge (RSOC), a voltage, a system impedance value, an optimization parameter and a battery impedance value of the battery cell.
Gibeau teaches wherein the maximum current power is obtained (Par. 55 Imax) based on a relative state of charge (RSOC) (Fig. 2), a voltage (Fig. 2, Voc), a system impedance value (Par. 26, 28 and 60 “equivalent circuit model impedance parameters”), an optimization parameter and a battery impedance value of the battery cell (Par. 26 “battery cell impedance”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to have wherein the maximum current power is obtained based on a relative state of charge (RSOC), a voltage, a system impedance value, an optimization parameter and a battery impedance value of the battery cell based on the teachings of Gibeau in Hancock in order to estimate the value of not readily measurable values (Gibeau Par. 26), thus leading to more accurate calculations.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hancock in view of Gibeau (US 20210206291 A1) and in further view of Childress (US 20160261131 A1).
In claim 4, Hancock in view of Gibeau discloses all of claim 2. Hancock does not explicitly disclose wherein the optimization parameter is generated by a large language model (LLM) or a large data model.
Childress teaches wherein the optimization parameter is generated by a large language model (LLM) or a large data model (Par. 18 and 22 “machine learning” “refine the likelihood algorithms and the subsequent effects on battery maintenance models”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to have wherein the optimization parameter is generated by a large language model (LLM) or a large data model based on the teachings of Childress in the combination of Hancock and Gibeau in order to refine battery maintenance models (Childress Par. 18) thus leading to a more accurate model.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 7589534 B2, US 20150268309 A1, US 20160231388 A1, US 10132868 B2, US 20190033385 A1,
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON J BECKER whose telephone number is (571)431-0689. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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 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.
/B.J.B/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
