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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-7 are directed to a method, claims 8-9, 11-16 are directed to using an apparatus to perform the method, and claims 10, 18-20 are directed to a computer program product. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding claim 1:
A method for estimating a state of a battery, the method comprising the steps of:
acquiring data of the battery during at least a predetermined time range, the data comprising at least a plurality of voltage measurements and a plurality of current measurements,
determining a time window within the predetermined time range, the time window starting after a relaxed voltage interval and comprising a dynamic load interval,
executing a subspace identification analysis within the time window resulting in the determination of one or more parameters of the battery,
populating a model of the battery with the one or more parameters, and
estimating the state of the battery based on the model.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“acquiring data of the battery during at least a predetermined time range, the data comprising at least a plurality of voltage measurements and a plurality of current measurements” is directed to mental step of data gathering.
“determining a time window within the predetermined time range, the time window starting after a relaxed voltage interval and comprising a dynamic load interval” is directed to mental step of analyzing data.
“executing a subspace identification analysis within the time window resulting in the determination of one or more parameters of the battery, populating a model of the battery with the one or more parameters” is directed to mathematical relationships to manipulate existing information to generate additional information (see for example Applicant’s Specification, page 13, lines 8-page 20, line 15, thus falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” Grouping of Abstract Ideas defined by the 2019 PEG..
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of “executing a subspace identification analysis within the time window resulting in the determination of one or more parameters of the battery, populating a model of the battery with the one or more parameters” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use 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. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“acquiring data of the battery during at least a predetermined time range, the data comprising at least a plurality of voltage measurements and a plurality of current measurements” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining a time window within the predetermined time range, the time window starting after a relaxed voltage interval and comprising a dynamic load interval” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“executing a subspace identification analysis within the time window resulting in the determination of one or more parameters of the battery” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“populating a model of the battery with the one or more parameters” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“estimating the state of the battery based on the model” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim is merely gathering data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“acquiring data of the battery during at least a predetermined time range, the data comprising at least a plurality of voltage measurements and a plurality of current measurements” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining a time window within the predetermined time range, the time window starting after a relaxed voltage interval and comprising a dynamic load interval” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“executing a subspace identification analysis within the time window resulting in the determination of one or more parameters of the battery” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“populating a model of the battery with the one or more parameters” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“estimating the state of the battery based on the model” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 8 is similar to claim 1 but recites an apparatus for estimating a state of a battery, the apparatus comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the memory comprises instructions configured to, when executed, cause the processor to perform the steps as in claim 1. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”).
On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 17 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 17.
Claim 10 cites a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium storing software which, when executed on a processor, causes the processor to perform the steps as in claim 1. This amounts to nothing more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, which fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Additionally, using instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer “is not ‘enough’ to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. Therefore, the rejection of claim 10 for the same reason discussed above with regard to the rejection of claim 1.
The dependent claims 2-7 inherit attributes of the independent claim 1, the dependent claims 9, 11-16 that depend on independent claim 8, and the dependent claims 18-20 that depend on independent claim 10, but do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. These claims merely extend (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significant more" because they merely add details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
Hence the claims 1-20 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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; or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8, 11-14, 10, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huber et al. (US 20200256923 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 10, Huber discloses a method for estimating an impedance of a battery (Abstract), the method comprising the steps of: acquiring data of the battery during at least a predetermined time range (Fig. 2, e.g., 0-100 μs), the data comprising at least a plurality of voltage measurements (39) and a plurality of current measurements (30), determining a time window (e.g., the box area 38 in Fig. 2) within the predetermined time range, the time window (38) starting after a relaxed voltage interval (see Fig. 2) and comprising a dynamic load interval (para. 0117-0118) , executing a subspace identification (note, the term “subspace identification” is given a broad interpretation: a subspace may refer to a vector space that is contained within another vector space, and subspace identification (SID) is commonly known as a method for identifying linear time invariant state space models from input-output data; SID does not require that the user parametrizes the system matrices before solving a parametric optimization problem …) analysis within the time window resulting in the determination of one or more parameters of the battery, populating a model of the battery with the one or more parameters (Figs. 2 and 3; para. 0116-0124), and estimating the state of the battery based on the model (para. 0047: According to the invention by acquiring the first local extremum in the voltage response, inductive and ohmic impedances can be determined, based on the characteristic peak of the first local extremum and particularly from the ohmic resistance voltage; see also para. 0058-0059, 0065, 0077, 0101-0102).
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 17, Huber discloses wherein the one or more parameters comprise one or more time constants of one or more respective RC components of the model (para. 0112, 0121).
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 18, Huber discloses wherein the one or more parameters comprise one or more resistance values of one or more respective RC components of the model and/or an ohmic resistance value of the model (para. 0112, 0121).
Regarding claim 4, 13, and 19, Huber discloses wherein the one or more parameters comprise one or more capacitance values of one or more respective RC components of the model (para. 0112,0135).
Regarding claims 5, 14, and 20, Huber discloses wherein the one or more parameters are expressed as a function of the state of the battery (para. 0102, 0119).
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) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber et al. (US 20200256923 A1) in view of Lee (US 2016/0016482 A1, IDS record).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Huber fails to disclose executing a Kalman filter on the model of the battery.
Lee teaches executing a Kalman filter on the model of the battery (para. 0029: The subspace identification method may provide some advantages, e.g., state vector x(k) and initial value x(0) can be found from the measured data, a linear system order can be determined, non-linear optimization is not required, and noise information is not required. An additional benefit is that subspace identification is less sensitive to the noise than other recursive identification approaches, such as the Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) techniques). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate executing a Kalman filter on the model of the battery of Lee with the method of Huber for the purposes of providing a system dynamics model identified using estimated battery current limits and available power limits (Lee, abstract).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (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 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.
/JOHN H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights