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
Specification
The amendments to the specification filed on June 21, 2024 have been accepted.
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.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 10. Claim 1 recites the limitations of determining an equivalent circuit model of the powertrain component; modeling heat losses in the powertrain component considering both transient and steady- state conditions; modeling heat flow through the powertrain component based on one or more material properties of the powertrain component; determining, based on the modeling the heat flow through the powertrain component, a temperature of a particular structure within the powertrain component; and determining, using a Rainflow algorithm, a number of temperature cycles until failure of the particular structure based on the temperature of the particular structure.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as mathematical concepts. Determining the number of temperature cycles until failure of the particular structure recites mathematical relationships. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as mathematical relationships, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The powertrain component in Claim 1 and a processor, memory, and powertrain component in Claim 10 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The modeling in Claims 1 and 10 appears to be just software. Claim 10 is also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite powertrain component in Claim 1 and a processor, memory, and powertrain component in Claim 10 and modeling in Claims 1 and 10. The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1 and 10 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0135, 0139] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Even assuming there was a technical problem, the claims, as written, fail to recite the details of how a technical solution to the technical problem was accomplished. If there was a technical problem (e.g., existing technology was incapable of performing the claimed functions) then the claims should recite the details of the technical solution (e.g., how existing technology was improved to overcome this inability). However, the claims, as written, provide no such details and merely recite that the claimed functions (i.e., the outcome) are being performed. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1 and 10 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 10 and thus correspond to Mathematical Concepts and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 2, 3, 11, and 12 further include determining an applied stress; Claims 4 and 13 further define the use of the Coffin-Manson relationship without adding significantly more; Claims 5, 6, 14, and 15 further include calculating the degradation of a material; Claim 7 further determines the remaining useful lifetime of the powertrain component; Claims 8 and 9 further define the particular element as a power electronic device without adding significantly more; Claim 16 further details the modeling without adding significantly more; Claims 17-20 further sets forth measuring a measured case temperature without adding significantly more. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 2-9 and 11-20 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Online Junction Temperature Cycle Recording of an IGBT Power Module in a Hybrid Car” (Denk et al.).
Re Claim 1: Denk et al. disclose a method for state-of-health monitoring of a powertrain component in an electric vehicle system (pg. 8, col. 2), comprising: determining an equivalent circuit model of the powertrain component (pg 3, col 1; pg 7, col 2); modeling heat losses in the powertrain component considering both transient and steady- state conditions (pg 8, col 1 – col 2; pg 3, col. 2; pg 7, col 2.; Figures 1 & 12); modeling heat flow through the powertrain component based on one or more material properties of the powertrain component (pg 8, col. 2; Figures 1 & 12); determining, based on the modeling the heat flow through the powertrain component, a temperature of a particular structure within the powertrain component (pg 4, col. 2; pg 10, col. 1); and determining, using a Rainflow algorithm, a number of temperature cycles until failure of the particular structure based on the temperature of the particular structure (pg 4, col. 1; pg 2, col. 1; pg 10, col. 1).
Re Claim 2: Denk et al. disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including that wherein determining the number of temperature cycles until failure includes determining an applied stress in the particular structure (pg 2, col. 1).
Re Claim 3: Denk et al. disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including that determining the applied stress in the particular structure includes using an Arrhenius model of a material of the particular structure (pg 2, col. 1).
Re Claim 4: Denk et al. disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including that determining the number of temperature cycles until failure includes using a Coffin-Manson relationship (pg 2, col. 1).
Re Claim 5: Denk et al. disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including further comprising: calculating a degradation of a material in the powertrain component (pg 2, col. 1; pg 6, col. 1).
Re Claim 6: Denk et al. disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including that calculating the degradation of the material in the powertrain component includes applying Miner's rule for modeling cumulative damage (pg 1, col. 2; pg 2, col. 1; pg 6, col. 1).
Re Claim 7: Denk et al. disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including that further comprising: determining a remaining useful lifetime of the powertrain component (pg 2, col. 1; ph 7, col. 1).
Re Claim 8: Denk et al. disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including that the particular element is a junction in a power electronic device (pg 5, col. 1; pg. 6, col. 2).
Re Claim 9: Denk et al. disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including that powertrain component includes an inverter power module, and the power electronic device includes one of a switch and a diode (pg 6, col. 1; pg 7, col. 2; pg 10, col. 10).
Re Claims 10-15: System claims 10-15 are substantially similar to previously rejected method claims 1-6, and are therefore considered to be rejected here using the same art and rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References A-C to cited on PTO-892 illustrate the state of the art at the time of filing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY M MAGUIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-6039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
Lindsay Maguire
8/14/26
/LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights