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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to the application filed on May 15, 2024.
Claims 1-8 and 11-13 have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-8, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 12 are within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Prong 1, Step 2A: under its broadest reasonable interpretation, “generating predictive data based on historical battery data by means of the twin model, wherein the historical battery data is battery data generated during the operation of an energy storage battery cluster; training the generic battery models according to the predictive data when a model correction event is detected, to obtain a target battery model; and issuing model update firmware or model update parameters of the target battery model to the local energy storage battery manager” cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic processing device. Thus these claim limitations fall within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Prong 2, Step 2A: the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Additional elements (server, storage medium, computer processor) are recited at high level of generality. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.05(g).
Prong 2, Step 2B: the additional elements, considering them both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. As discussed above, elements that are mere use of generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, and the processes are insignificant extra-solution activity which are recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, according to MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 2: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 3: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 4: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 5: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 6: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 7: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claims 8 and 13 are within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Prong 1, Step 2A: under its broadest reasonable interpretation, “acquiring battery data generated by an energy storage battery cluster during operation, and reporting the battery data to the server at preset time intervals; receiving model update firmware or model update parameters issued by the server, and verifying the model update firmware or model update parameters; and upgrading model firmware or updating model parameters based on the model update firmware or model update parameters when the verification passes, to obtain a new battery model, and using the new battery model to manage the operating status of the energy storage battery cluster” cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic processing device. Thus these claim limitations fall within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Prong 2, Step 2A: the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Additional elements (server, storage medium, computer processor) are recited at high level of generality. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.05(g).
Prong 2, Step 2B: the additional elements, considering them both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. As discussed above, elements that are mere use of generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, and the processes are insignificant extra-solution activity which are recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, according to MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
4. Claims 12 and 13 are directed to a storage medium, which include transitory medium and non-transitory medium.
A computer readable medium product is a tangible physical article or object, some form of matter, which a signal is not. That the other two product classes, machine and composition of matter, require physical matter is evidence that a manufacture was also intended to require physical matter. A signal, a form of energy, does not fall within either of the two definitions of manufacture. Thus, a signal does not fall within one of the four statutory classes of Sec. 101 – see MPEP 2106.
Please see at least:
Sec. 101 – see MPEP 2106;
Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media signed by Director Kappos on January 26, 2010; and
Interim Patent Subject Matter Eligibility singed by Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy Hirschfeld on August 24, 2009.
Under the principles of compact prosecution, claims have been examined as the Examiner anticipates the claims 12 and 13 will be amended to obviate these 35 USC § 101 issues. For example,
A non-transitory storage medium containing computer-executable instructions, . . .
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §103
5. 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.
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 of this title, 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.
6. Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0082992 to Riley et al. (hereafter “Riley”) in view of US 2003/0169019 to Oosaki. (hereafter “Oosaki”) and further in view of US 2016/021034 to Cho (hereafter “Cho”).
Claim 8.
Riley discloses a correction method for an energy storage battery management system, wherein the method is executed by a local energy storage battery manager, a battery model in the local energy storage battery manager is synchronously deployed on a server to run a twin model of the battery model on the server, the method comprises:
acquiring battery data generated by an energy storage battery cluster during operation (0044, 0045, 0056),
receiving model update firmware or model update parameters(0045, 0056, 0084-0086) and
verifying the model update firmware or model update parameters (0026, 0073, 0081, 0082, 0093); and
upgrading model firmware or updating model parameters based on the model update firmware or model update parameters when the verification passes, to obtain a new battery model, and using the new battery model to manage the operating status of the energy storage battery cluster (FIG.4, block 406, block 408, and related text; FIG.5, block 514, block 516, block 518, and related text).
Riley does not disclose reporting the battery data to the server at preset time intervals.
However, Oosaki discloses reporting the battery data to the server at preset time intervals (0026, 0072).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Oosaki’s teaching into Riley‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to schedule maintenance as suggested by Oosaki (0026).
Riley and Oosaki do not disclose receiving model update firmware or model update parameters issued by the server.
However, Cho discloses receiving model update firmware or model update parameters issued by the server (0063, 0069, 0072, 0073, 0077).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cho’s teaching into Riley and Oosaki‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to provide latest versions as suggested by Cho (0063, 0069).
Claim 13.
This claim is a medium version, which recites the same limitations as those of claim 8, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claim, it also teaches all of the limitations of this claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
US 12,487,289 to Choi et al. discloses a system for determining a total chargeable/dischargeable energy of a subsystem of a battery energy storage system (BESS), the subsystem comprising battery cells, non-transitory memory storage modules storing computing instructions which when executed by the one or more processing modules is configured to: execute an iterative process over a dynamic time period, wherein the dynamic time period is divided into iterations, by using a neural network model comprising an energy prediction sub-model and a state prediction sub-model.
US 11,133,676 to Farrokhabadi et al. discloses a battery energy storage system (BESS) which identifies historical events that result in curtailment of renewable energy production, ensured that a minimum up/down time of the generator is satisfied based on controlling at least one parameter of the BESS, and determines a model predictive control optimization function.
NPL to Walker et al. discloses development of an effort to assess Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) performance that companies can employ to evaluate performance of deployed BESS or solar photovoltaic and BESS systems.
However, neither Choi, Farrokhabadi, nor Walker anticipates or renders obvious the claimed features in the independent claims 1 and 11.
Resolving the U.S.C 101 issue in claim 1 would put claim 1 in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to examiner Thuy (Twee) Dao, whose telephone/fax numbers are (571) 272 8570 and (571) 273 8570, respectively. Examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday, 5:30am - 2:00pm ET.
If attempts to reach Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner’s supervisor, Hyung (Sam) Sough, can be reached at (571) 272 6799.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature of relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the TC 2100 Group receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272 2100.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Thuy Dao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights