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 1-18 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Under step 1, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a method claim. Likewise, claim 10 is an apparatus claim.
Under step 2A, prong 1: this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception as explained in MPEP 2106.4, subsection II, a claim recites a judicial exception when the judicial exception is set forth or described in the claim.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. “mathematical relationships/algorithms” which the court has identified as abstract) without significantly more. Claims 1 and 10 are directed to the abstract idea of generating diagnostic data by extracting a signal having multiple frequency bands from the measurement data; and determining whether the battery cell has an abnormality based on an analysis of the generated diagnostic data. These limitations fall under mathematical concepts or algorithms. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are obtaining measurement data for at least one parameter of the battery cell; which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and a processor, a memory and a battery cell, which are conventional or generic equipment which do not add anything significant to the judicial exception because these elements are needed in order to determine an abnormality. The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The generic data gathering and processing steps, and other elements, are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than e.g., “determining whether the battery cell has an abnormality based on an analysis of the generated diagnostic data”) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, nothing is done with the determined battery cell abnormality if any.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 merely expand upon the abstract idea further defining the abstract steps of claims 1 and 10 respectively, and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 10 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Calderon et al. (US 2014/0239965 A1, hereinafter Cal).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Cal discloses a method/apparatus for diagnosing an abnormality of a battery cell, the method/apparatus comprising:
at least one processor (see para. 0039); and
a memory configured to store at least one instruction executed by the at least one processor (see para. 0039), wherein the at least one instruction includes:
obtaining measurement data for at least one parameter of the battery cell (see abstract, i.e. open circuit voltage);
generating diagnostic data by extracting a signal having multiple frequency bands from the measurement data (see abstract, para.0006 and fig. 3, swept frequency signals); and
determining whether the battery cell has an abnormality (i.e. fault) based on an analysis of the generated diagnostic data (see para. 0006).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Cal discloses the method/apparatus of claims 1 and 10 respectively, wherein the determining whether the battery cell has an abnormality is based on a comparison of the diagnostic data with a predefined condition threshold (see abstract and para. 0026).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Cal discloses the method/apparatus of claims 6 and 15 respectively, wherein the condition threshold is a fixed value (see para. 0026).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cal and further in view of Bittner et al. (US 2020/0003736 A1, hereinafter Bit).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Cal discloses the method/apparatus of claims 1 and 10 respectively. However, Cal fails to disclose wherein extracting the signal from the measurement data is based on an appearance frequency count for each frequency band of a plurality of frequency bands.
Bit discloses extracting signals from measurements based on appearances for each frequency bands (see para. 0013).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cal’s invention to incorporate an appearance frequency count for each frequency band as taught by Bit for the benefit of recognizing a rate of a machine state, a damage diagnosis, and a remaining lifetime prediction can be improved.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Cal discloses the method/apparatus of claims 1 and 10 respectively. However, Cal fails to disclose further comprising correcting the generated diagnostic data using a low pass filter (LPF).
Bit discloses correcting the generated diagnostic data using a low pass filter (LPF) (see para. 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cal’s invention to incorporate low pass filter as taught by Bit for the benefit of having a more efficient digital filtering.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cal, Bit and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2024/0077544 A1, hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Cal in view of Bit discloses the method/apparatus of claims 2 and 11 respectively. However, Cal in view of Bit fails to disclose, further comprising:
converting the measurement data into frequency domain data; calculating the appearance frequency count for each frequency band appearing in the converted frequency domain data; and
wherein the signal includes top N frequency bands with regard to the appearance frequency count, wherein N is a predetermined natural number (see para. 0069).
Liu discloses converting the measurement data into frequency domain data (see abstract); calculating an appearance frequency count for each frequency band appearing in the converted frequency domain data (see para. 0012-0016); and wherein the signal includes top N frequency bands with regard to the appearance frequency count, wherein N is a predetermined natural number (see para. 0059 and 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cal in view of Bit’s invention to incorporate the teachings of Liu for the benefit of accurately performing a comprehensive and reliable fault detection for the battery system.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Cal in view of Bit discloses the method/apparatus of claims 2 and 11 respectively. However, Cal in view of Bit fails to disclose, further comprising: wherein the generating the diagnostic data includes inversely transforming the extracted signal into time domain data to generate the diagnostic data.
Liu discloses wherein the generating the diagnostic data includes inversely transforming the extracted signal into time domain data to generate diagnostic data (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cal in view of Bit’s invention to incorporate the teachings of Liu for the benefit of accurately performing a comprehensive and reliable fault detection for the battery system.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cal and further in view of Beaston (US 2021/0083505 A1, hereinafter Bea).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Cal discloses the method/apparatus of claims 6 and 15 respectively. However, Cal fails to disclose wherein the condition threshold includes a variable condition threshold that is dynamically adjusted over time based on the diagnostic data of at least one normal battery cell.
Bea discloses a variable condition threshold that is dynamically adjusted over time based on diagnostic data of a battery cell (see para. 0372).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cal’s invention to incorporate the teachings of Bea for the benefit of automatically updating the temperature of the battery cell making the measurement more precise without operator intervention.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Cal in view of Bea discloses the method/apparatus of claims 8 and 17 respectively, wherein the variable condition threshold is calculated according to at least one of average, variance, and standard deviation based on the diagnostic data of the at least one normal battery cell (see Bea, para. 0372 and 0380).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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.
/MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
