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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112 rejection regarding the indefiniteness of the terms “optimistic, pessimistic, actual, substantially,” the examiner maintains the rejection. The examiner agree with the applicant that the term substantially could be definite to one of ordinary skill in the art, if the term was attached/a descriptor to a definite term. However, in lieu of the specification and claim 1, the term “substantially” in the specification and the claim limitation is not clearly defined. In paragraphs [0060-0061], the term is merely associated with the use of a fault counter. An example in [0061] is disclosed, but merely discloses how exceeding a threshold for the fault counter triggers a fault notification fails to resolve its indefiniteness. The applicant can rectify this by clearly associating the term with the threshold. It is for this reason, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Regarding the 101 rejection, the applicant believes the claims do not recite a mathematical concept. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Upon consideration of the applicant’s argument, regarding claim 1, the applicant merely discloses what the MPEP says about abstract ideas and its examples, but fails to specifically disclose how the claim limitations are not abstract ideas. The limitations of “computing an optimistic potential based on a cell state model, the measured values of a first subset of the operating-state parameters, and optimistic values for the one or more state-of-health parameters, the optimistic values corresponding to a better state of health than the current values of the one or more state-of-health parameters; computing a pessimistic potential based on the cell state model, the measured values of the first subset of operating-state parameters, and pessimistic values for the one or more state-of-health parameters, the pessimistic values corresponding to a worse state of health than the current values of the one or more state-of-health parameters,” merely discloses what the MPEP defines as Mathematical Calculations (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)). This could also be defined as a mental process (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Claim 10 suffers from the same deficiencies.
Regarding Prong 2B, the previous office action addresses both Prong 2A and 2B, giving adequate explanation and further disclosing that the additional elements fail to reflect improvement to other technology or technical field and therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05 (I)(A), along with the other section described above, is what the examiner uses as guidance for the rejection. It is for this reason, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The terms “optimistic, pessimistic, actual and substantially” in claims 1, 10, 11 and 15 are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Regarding Claim 1, the potential of the battery cell, the values for one or more state of health parameters and whether the potential falls with a specified envelope has also been rendered indefinite by use of the terms specified above. The applicant can overcome the rejection by clearly defining the limitations with definitive terminology.
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 1-10 and 12-20 are 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.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A method for monitoring status of a battery cell, the method comprising: determining current values of one or more state-of-health parameters of the battery cell; measuring values of a plurality of operating-state parameters of the battery cell, including measuring an actual potential of the battery cell; computing an optimistic potential based on a cell state model, the measured values of a first subset of the operating-state parameters, and optimistic values for the one or more state-of-health parameters, the optimistic values corresponding to a better state of health than the current values of the one or more state-of-health parameters; computing a pessimistic potential based on the cell state model, the measured values of the first subset of operating-state parameters, and pessimistic values for the one or more state-of-health parameters, the pessimistic values corresponding to a worse state of health than the current values of the one or more state-of-health parameters; determining whether the actual potential of the battery cell is substantially within an envelope defined by the optimistic potential and the pessimistic potential; and generating a model fault notification in the event that the actual potential is not substantially within the envelope.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “computing an optimistic potential based on a cell state model, the measured values of a first subset of the operating-state parameters, and optimistic values for the one or more state-of-health parameters, the optimistic values corresponding to a better state of health than the current values of the one or more state-of-health parameters; computing a pessimistic potential based on the cell state model, the measured values of the first subset of operating-state parameters, and pessimistic values for the one or more state-of-health parameters, the pessimistic values corresponding to a worse state of health than the current values of the one or more state-of-health parameters” are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical concept grouping and/or mental processing group, while the steps of “determining current values of one or more state-of-health parameters of the battery cell; determining whether the actual potential of the battery cell is substantially within an envelope defined by the optimistic potential and the pessimistic potential;” are treated as belonging to mental process grouping.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 10 and 15.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 10: a battery monitoring system, battery sensor, battery cell, control system interface, a memory, a processor
In Claim 15: a battery monitoring system, battery sensor, battery cell, control system interface, a memory, a processor, computer readable storage medium
The additional element in the preamble of “A pressure transmitter for use in measuring a pressure of a process fluid in an industrial process” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it is only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The limitation “measuring values of a plurality of operating-state parameters of the battery cell, including measuring an actual potential of the battery cell; generating a model fault notification in the event that the actual potential is not substantially within the envelope” and the device labeled “battery sensor” represents a mere data inputting/outputting step and only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. A memory, computer readable storage medium, battery monitoring system, battery cell, control system interface and processor (generic processor) are generally recited and are not qualified as particular machines.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-9, 12-14 and 16-20 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ghantous et a. (20190072618 A1, 2019-03-07) herein referred to as Ghantous.
Regarding Claim 1, Ghantous teaches a method for monitoring status of a battery cell [0012-0013], the method comprising:
determining current values of one or more state-of-health parameters of the battery cell [0013];
measuring values of a plurality of operating-state parameters of the battery cell, including measuring an actual potential of the battery cell [0013];
computing an optimistic potential based on a cell state model, the measured values of a first subset of the operating-state parameters, and optimistic values for the one or more state-of-health parameters, the optimistic values corresponding to a better state of health than the current values of the one or more state-of-health parameters [0007-0008; 0013];
computing a pessimistic potential based on the cell state model, the measured values of the first subset of operating-state parameters, and pessimistic values for the one or more state-of-health parameters, the pessimistic values corresponding to a worse state of health than the current values of the one or more state-of-health parameters[0007-0008; 0013];
determining whether the actual potential of the battery cell is substantially within an envelope defined by the optimistic potential and the pessimistic potential [0094-0096]; and
generating a model fault notification in the event that the actual potential is not substantially within the envelope [0097].
Regarding Claim 2, Ghantous further teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the method is performed in real time while the battery cell is powering a load [Abstract].
Regarding Claim 3, Ghantous further teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the method is performed in real time while the battery cell is charging [Abstract].
Regarding Claim 4, Ghantous further teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the model fault notification is generated in real time while the battery cell is in active use [Abstract; 0036].
Regarding Claim 5, Ghantous further teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the operating-state parameters include a current through the battery cell and a temperature of the battery cell [0047, 0056, 0059].
Regarding Claim 6, Ghantous the method of claim 1 wherein the one or more state-of-health parameters include: an internal resistance of the battery cell; and a charge capacity of the battery cell [0042].
Regarding Claim 7, Ghantous further teaches the method of claim 6 further comprising: estimating values of one or more of the state-of-health parameters while the battery is in active use; and storing the estimated values as the current values of the state-of-health parameters [0004; 0161].
Regarding Claim 8, Ghantous further teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the cell state model is an equivalent cell circuit model [0005].
Regarding Claim 9, Ghantous further teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising computing a predicted potential of the battery cell based on a cell state model, the measured values of a first subset of the operating-state parameters, and the current values of the one or more state-of-health parameters [0007-0008; 0013].
Regarding Claim 10, Ghantous teaches a battery monitoring system [0048] comprising:
a battery interface to receive sensor data from a battery sensor of a battery cell [0048];
a control system interface to provide output data to a control system [0047];
a memory [0047; and
a processor coupled to the memory, the battery interface, and the control system [0047; Figure 1], the processor configured to:
determine current values of one or more state-of-health parameters of a battery cell [0013];
receive sensor data including values of a plurality of operating-state parameters of the battery cell, the plurality of operating-state parameters including an actual potential of the battery cell [0154-0156];
compute an optimistic potential based on a cell state model, the values of a first subset of the operating-state parameters, and optimistic values for the one or more state-of-health parameters, the optimistic values corresponding to a better state of health than the current values of the one or more state-of-health parameters [0007-0008; 0013];
compute a pessimistic potential based on the cell state model, the values of the first subset of operating-state parameters, and pessimistic values for the one or more state-of-health parameters, the pessimistic values corresponding to a worse state of health than the current values of the one or more state-of-health parameters [0007-0008; 0013];
determine whether the actual potential of the battery cell is substantially within an envelope defined by the optimistic potential and the pessimistic potential [0094-0096]; and
generate a model fault notification in the event that the actual potential is not substantially within the envelope [0097].
Regarding Claim 12, Ghantous further teaches the battery monitoring system of claim 10 wherein the sensor data includes a current through the battery cell and a temperature of the battery cell [0047, 0056, 0059].
Regarding Claim 13, Ghantous teaches the battery monitoring system of claim 10 wherein the one or more state-of-health parameters include: an internal resistance of the battery cell; and a charge capacity of the battery cell [0042].
Regarding Claim 14, Ghantous teaches The battery monitoring system of claim 13 wherein the processor is further configured to estimate values of one or more of the state-of-health parameters using the sensor data while the battery cell is powering a load and to store the estimated values as the current values of the state-of-health parameters [0004; 0161].
Regarding Claim 15, Ghantous teaches a computer-readable storage medium having stored therein program instructions that, when executed by a processor in a battery monitoring system, cause the processor to execute a method [0047] comprising:
determining current values of one or more state-of-health parameters of a battery cell [0013];
measuring values of a plurality of operating-state parameters of the battery cell, including measuring an actual potential of the battery cell [0154-0156];
computing an optimistic potential based on a cell state model, the measured values of a first subset of the operating-state parameters, and optimistic values for the one or more state-of-health parameters, the optimistic values corresponding to a better state of health than the current values of the one or more state-of-health parameters [0007-0008; 0013];
computing a pessimistic potential based on the cell state model, the measured values of the first subset of operating-state parameters, and pessimistic values for the one or more state-of-health parameters, the pessimistic values corresponding to a worse state of health than the current values of the one or more state-of-health parameters [0007-0008; 0013];
determining whether the actual potential of the battery cell is substantially within an envelope defined by the optimistic potential and the pessimistic potential[0094-0096]; and
generating a model fault notification in the event that the actual potential is not substantially within the envelope [0097].
Regarding Claim 16, Ghantous further teaches the computer-readable storage medium of claim 15 wherein the method is executed in real time while the battery cell is in active use [0045; Abstract; 0036].
Regarding Claim 17, Ghantous further teaches the computer-readable storage medium of claim 15 wherein the one or more state-of-health parameters include: an internal resistance of the battery cell; and a charge capacity of the battery cell [0042].
Regarding Claim 18, Ghantous further teaches the computer-readable storage medium of claim 17 wherein the method further comprises: estimating values of one or more of the state-of-health parameters while the battery is in active use; and storing the estimated values as the current values of the state-of-health parameters. [0004; 0161].
Regarding Claim 19, Ghantous further teaches the computer-readable storage medium of claim 15 wherein the one or more state-of-health parameters include: an internal resistance of the battery cell; and a charge capacity of the battery cell [0007-0008; 0013].
Regarding Claim 20, Ghantous further teaches the computer-readable storage medium of claim 15 wherein the operating-state parameters include a current through the battery cell and a temperature of the battery cell. [0047, 0056, 0059].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-4593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/MICHAEL J SINGLETARY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863