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 .
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 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.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
1. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
2. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
3. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
4. Claim 1-7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
5. Claim 1 is directed to “the method detecting the insulation fault as a function of an insulation resistance value obtained as a function of the measurements from the current-limiting resistor, the filtering resistor and the filtering capacitor; ... calculating the variation of the voltage measured between the current increment and a preceding increment; ....”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a general purpose processor. The additional elements “A method for detecting an insulation fault in an electrical accumulator battery, the method being designed to acquire an insulation resistance value from a detection device, the detection device being connected to an electrical accumulator battery terminal and to ground, and comprising, in series, a current- limiting resistor , a filtering resistor and a voltage source, and a filtering capacitor in parallel with said filtering resistor ,said voltage source comprising a permanent source and another source that is able to be activated by a switch that is connected in parallel with the terminals thereof; ... these measurements being obtained for two separate values of the voltage source produced periodically by a step of switching he switch; wherein the method implements a set of steps for optimizing the switching period, comprising: a step of initializing the switching period of the switch and a time counter; and in a loop, in successive increments spaced apart by a predetermined duration, the following steps of: measuring the voltage across the terminals of the filtering resistor; ... if said calculated variation is greater than a predetermined threshold value, the time counter is incremented by the predetermined duration; and o if said calculated variation is lower than said predetermined threshold value, said switching period is then defined as being equal to the value of the time counter” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Dependent claim 1 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
5.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 1 is directed to a method for detecting an insulation fault in an electrical accumulator battery, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a process (Step 1: YES).
5.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 1 recites: “the method detecting the insulation fault as a function of an insulation resistance value obtained as a function of the measurements from the current-limiting resistor, the filtering resistor and the filtering capacitor; ... calculating the variation of the voltage measured between the current increment and a preceding increment; ....”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
5.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 1 does not claim a particular machine, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, it does not provide any particular context, thus, do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field of use. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies including but not limited to calibration of magnetic sensors, current sensors, automobile, medical devices, power distribution lines, and all different industries related to detecting the position of an object, etc. (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application. The claim is just linking said judicial-exception/abstract-idea to the technological field relative to systems and a methods for detecting an insulation fault in an electrical accumulator battery).
5.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 1 recites the additional element(s) “A method for detecting an insulation fault in an electrical accumulator battery, the method being designed to acquire an insulation resistance value from a detection device, the detection device being connected to an electrical accumulator battery terminal and to ground, and comprising, in series, a current- limiting resistor , a filtering resistor and a voltage source, and a filtering capacitor in parallel with said filtering resistor ,said voltage source comprising a permanent source and another source that is able to be activated by a switch that is connected in parallel with the terminals thereof; ... these measurements being obtained for two separate values of the voltage source produced periodically by a step of switching he switch; wherein in that the method implements a set of steps for optimizing the switching period, comprising: a step of initializing the switching period of the switch and a time counter; and in a loop, in successive increments spaced apart by a predetermined duration, the following steps of: measuring the voltage across the terminals of the filtering resistor; ... if said calculated variation is greater than a predetermined threshold value, the time counter is incremented by the predetermined duration; and o if said calculated variation is lower than said predetermined threshold value, said switching period is then defined as being equal to the value of the time counter”, which are/is simply routine and conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art made of record below, on the IDS and the prior art references used in the International Written Opinion dated 04 November 2021 for application PCT/EP2022/079582, which was submitted via IDS). Therefore, the claim does not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
6. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
7. Claim 3 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
8. Claim 4 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
9. Claim 5 depends on claim 4 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
10. Claim 6 is directed to “detect the insulation fault as a function of an insulation resistance value obtained as a function of the measurements from the current-limiting resistor, the filtering resistor and the filtering capacitor; ... calculating the variation of the voltage measured between the current increment and a preceding increment; ....”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a general purpose processor. The additional elements “A device for detecting an insulation fault in an electrical accumulator battery, connected to an electrical accumulator battery terminal and to ground, and comprising, in series, a current- limiting resistor , a filtering resistor and a voltage source, and a filtering capacitor in parallel with said filtering resistor ,said voltage source comprising a permanent source and another source that is able to be activated by a switch that is connected in parallel with the terminals thereof; ... these measurements being obtained for two separate values of the voltage source produced periodically by a step of switching the switch; wherein the device comprises means for implementing a set of steps for optimizing the switching period, comprising: a step of initializing the switching period of the switch and a time counter; and in a loop, in successive increments spaced apart by a predetermined duration, the following steps of: measuring the voltage across the terminals of the filtering resistor; ... if said calculated variation is greater than a predetermined threshold value, the time counter is incremented by the predetermined duration; and if said calculated variation is lower than said predetermined threshold value, said switching period is then defined as being equal to the value of the time counter” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Dependent claim 6 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
10.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 6 is directed to a method for detecting an insulation fault in an electrical accumulator battery, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (Step 1: YES).
10.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 6 recites: “detect the insulation fault as a function of an insulation resistance value obtained as a function of the measurements from the current-limiting resistor, the filtering resistor and the filtering capacitor; ... calculating the variation of the voltage measured between the current increment and a preceding increment; ....”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
10.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 6 does not claim a particular machine, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, it does not provide any particular context, thus, do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field of use. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies including but not limited to calibration of magnetic sensors, current sensors, automobile, medical devices, power distribution lines, and all different industries related to detecting the position of an object, etc. (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application. The claim is just linking said judicial-exception/abstract-idea to the technological field relative to systems and a methods for detecting an insulation fault in an electrical accumulator battery).
10.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 6 recites the additional element(s) “A device for detecting an insulation fault in an electrical accumulator battery, connected to an electrical accumulator battery terminal and to ground, and comprising, in series, a current- limiting resistor , a filtering resistor and a voltage source, and a filtering capacitor in parallel with said filtering resistor ,said voltage source comprising a permanent source and another source that is able to be activated by a switch that is connected in parallel with the terminals thereof; ... these measurements being obtained for two separate values of the voltage source produced periodically by a step of switching the switch; wherein the device comprises means for implementing a set of steps for optimizing the switching period, comprising: a step of initializing the switching period of the switch and a time counter; and in a loop, in successive increments spaced apart by a predetermined duration, the following steps of: measuring the voltage across the terminals of the filtering resistor; ... if said calculated variation is greater than a predetermined threshold value, the time counter is incremented by the predetermined duration; and if said calculated variation is lower than said predetermined threshold value, said switching period is then defined as being equal to the value of the time counter”, which are/is simply routine and conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art made of record below, on the IDS and the prior art references used in the International Written Opinion dated 04 November 2021 for application PCT/EP2022/079582, which was submitted via IDS). Therefore, the claim does not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
11. Claim 7 depends on claim 6, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
12. The prior art of record does not teach the limitations of the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps above in the independent claims.
Furthermore, there is not any obvious motivation for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine some and/or all of the features of the prior art of record above to achieve the features of the independent claims. In addition, it will further require substantial structural modification of the components that will also require substantial modification of the circuit configurations to achieve the features of said claims.
23. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Shin (Patent No.: US 10,985,553) teaches “A method and apparatus for detecting battery leakage. The method includes determining whether an insulation resistance value difference is smaller than a preset reference difference when a representative insulation resistance value is larger than a preset reference resistance value, wherein the insulation resistance value difference is a difference between a previous representative insulation resistance value and the representative insulation resistance value, allocating a first value to a diagnosis flag when the insulation resistance value difference is smaller than the reference difference, allocating a second value to the diagnosis flag when the insulation resistance value difference is equal to or larger than the reference difference, and activating a count indicator when the second value is allocated to the diagnosis flag” (Abstract).
b) HAUSBERGER (Pub. No.: US 2013/0314097) teaches “A device for detecting the insulation resistance of a high-voltage battery system of a motor vehicle that includes a high-voltage battery and a high-voltage component which is operatively connected to terminals of the high-voltage battery via converters. The device includes a reference resistor operatively connected to the terminals of the high-voltage battery via switches” (Abstract).
c) Schepp (Pub. No.: US 2015/0198652) teaches “A method for processing and displaying insulation resistance values in insulation fault monitoring devices for an IT power supply system includes determining an insulation resistance value in predetermined time intervals, detecting an insulation fault if the determined resistance value falls below a preset limit value, showing an optical alarm message if the insulation fault is present, wherein the determined insulation resistance value is time stamped and stored, the time stamp marked as the alarm time upon detection of the insulation fault, after determining and storing n insulation resistance values following the alarm time” (Abstract).
d) HALALCHI (Pub. No.: US 2022/0349928) teaches “A method determines an insulation resistance of the high-voltage network in an electric or hybrid vehicle, in which a controllable continuous voltage source connected to the body and to a single first terminal of a high-voltage battery of the vehicle is provided, a first resistor being connected in series to the source between the single first terminal and the body and a second resistor being connected in series between the first resistor and the source, consecutive voltage setpoint values are applied” (Abstract).
e) HALALCHI (Pub. No.: US 2023/0228802) teaches “A method detects an electrical insulation fault between an electric power source and an electrical ground, via a circuit that includes a controllable voltage generator and an electrical measuring resistor connected in series between a terminal of the electric power source and the electrical ground” (Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO E. FORTICH whose telephone number is (571) 272-0944. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday from 8:30am to 5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Huy Phan, can be reached on (571)272-7924. 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.
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858