DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the application filed on 07/25/2024.
Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure Statement(s) filed 07/25/2024 and 07/17/2025 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
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.
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.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a capacity turnover value calculation unit configured to calculate “, and “a lower limit SOC calculation unit configured to calculate”, in claims 1-3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1-4, 9 and 10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “a capacity turnover value calculation unit configured to calculate “, “a lower limit SOC calculation unit configured to calculate” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The Examiner fails to find adequate written description describing the units to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function to the corresponding units. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-4, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of being dependent on claim 1.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and fails step 2 of the analysis because the focus of the claims is not on the devices themselves or a practical application but rather directed towards an abstract idea, the analysis is provided below.
Step 1 (Statutory Categories) - The claims pass step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106(III)) as the claims are directed towards a system, and method.
Step 2A – Prong One (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?) - The idea is recited in the claims, in part, by:
calculate the capacity turnover value during operation,
wherein the during operation by using at least one of a lower-limit-state-of-charge-based correction coefficient calculated based on a lower limit state of charge (SOC), calculate the lower limit SOC, which is an SOC having a smallest value when the lead-acid battery is charged and discharged once, respectively, or a low-SOC-dwell-time-based correction coefficient calculated based on a low SOC dwell time, which is an elapsed time until a next discharge or charge starts when a discharge ends below a reference SOC.
The steps recited above under Step 2A Prong One of the analysis under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation) but for the recitation of generic computer components for estimating the remaining life of a lead-acid battery similar to Electric Power Group where "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) was found to be ineligible. That is other than reciting a lead acid battery system, a capacity turnover value calculation unit, a lower limit SOC calculation unit nothing in the claim elements are directed towards anything other than concepts performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the system claims only recite the additional element of a lead acid battery system. Examiner notes, the method claims are purely directed abstract steps with no additional elements. With respect to the a capacity turnover value calculation unit, a lower limit SOC calculation unit, as explained in the Claim Interpretation section of the office action, the specification fails to describe the corresponding structure of the capacity turnover value calculation unit, and lower limit SOC calculation unit, however since the battery system is describe in [0080] as a generic computer system configured with a CPU, memory, and I/O interface and [0082] states “The CPU loads the program and the data into the RAM and implements a series of processing such as calculation and processing of data necessary for estimating the remaining life of the lead-acid battery B based on a command of the program read from the RAM.”, for the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the units to be software, i.e. mere instructions to apply the idea. As described in [0080-0082], the lead acid battery system are generic computer components, and in light of the description, the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment are not indicative of a practical application (see MPEP 20106.05(f) and MPEP 20106.05(h)). As MPEP 2106.05(f) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone);. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed towards an abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?) - The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements of the lead acid battery system to perform the steps recited in Step 2A Prong One of the analysis amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limits the judicial exception to the particular environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment does not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements have been considered separately, and as an ordered combination, and do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the judicial exception. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) provides that Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."), are well-understood routine and conventional, similar to the instant application claims which are directed towards calculating the capacity turnover value. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination as a whole. For instance, 2-4, 9, and 9 are all steps that fall within the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas further describing the calculations and describing the type of battery for which the calculations are being performed for. The Dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 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) 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kumar, et al. (US Patent Application Publication 20190176639), “Kumar.
As per claim 1, and 5 (method see [0001]), Kumar discloses:
A lead-acid battery system configured to estimate a remaining life of a lead-acid battery by comparing a capacity turnover value from a beginning to an end of life with a capacity turnover value during operation, the lead-acid battery system comprising: [0001], [0007]
a capacity turnover value calculation unit configured to calculate the capacity turnover value during operation, [0057-0059]
wherein the capacity turnover value calculation unit calculates the capacity turnover value during operation by using at least one of a lower-limit-state-of-charge-based correction coefficient calculated based on a lower limit state of charge (SOC), the lower limit SOC calculated by a lower limit SOC calculation unit configured to calculate the lower limit SOC, which is an SOC having a smallest value when the lead-acid battery is charged and discharged once, respectively, or a low-SOC-dwell-time-based correction coefficient calculated based on a low SOC dwell time, which is an elapsed time until a next discharge or charge starts when a discharge ends below a reference SOC. [0007], [0057], [0161], see also figs. 7 and 8 showing the calculations based on the performance metrics and time, For example, in the case of a lead-acid battery, at least a battery internal resistance and a battery capacity may be monitored, the battery internal resistance measured based on changes in battery voltage and current during vehicle operation, and the battery capacity measured based on internal battery resistance at low states of charge and or changes in the minimum and maximum achievable open circuit voltage (OCV) computed when the battery is completely discharged and fully charged… It may use a built-in model, such as an equivalent circuit model, to infer the battery SOC, capacity and capacity loss due to sulfation and loss of active mass. Data may be collected during specific circumstances to estimate specific battery characteristics. For example, internal resistance may only be estimated when discharges occur with changes in current over time that are greater than a threshold, and loss of capacity due to sulfation may be only calculated when voltage measurements are taken when the battery has been fully charged and allowed to rest without charges and discharges of a minimum amount of time. A plausibility strategy may be put into place that only transmits estimates of battery characteristics after measurement has occurred multiple times, or an average of estimates over a defined moving time horizon may be transmitted… In any or all of the preceding examples, additionally or optionally, the sensed vehicle operating parameter is sensed during transient and steady-state vehicle operating conditions, and the parameter sensed during transient operating conditions is weighted different from the parameter sensed during steady-state operating conditions. In any or all of the preceding examples, additionally or optionally, the method further comprises estimating a value of the determined metric as a function of a most recent estimate of the determined metric retrieved from the past history of the determined metric, and a distance traveled by the vehicle since the most recent estimate of the determined metric
As per claim 2, and 6(method see [0001]), Kumar discloses:
wherein the lower limit SOC calculation unit calculates, as the lower limit SOC, an SOC after an end of a discharge of the lead-acid battery to be subjected to calculation of the capacity turnover value during operation, and the capacity turnover value calculation unit calculates the lower-limit-state-of-charge-based correction coefficient based on the lower limit SOC calculated by the lower limit SOC calculation unit. [0007], [0057], [0161], see also figs. 7 and 8 showing the calculations based on the performance metrics and time, For example, in the case of a lead-acid battery, at least a battery internal resistance and a battery capacity may be monitored, the battery internal resistance measured based on changes in battery voltage and current during vehicle operation, and the battery capacity measured based on internal battery resistance at low states of charge and or changes in the minimum and maximum achievable open circuit voltage (OCV) computed when the battery is completely discharged and fully charged… It may use a built-in model, such as an equivalent circuit model, to infer the battery SOC, capacity and capacity loss due to sulfation and loss of active mass. Data may be collected during specific circumstances to estimate specific battery characteristics. For example, internal resistance may only be estimated when discharges occur with changes in current over time that are greater than a threshold, and loss of capacity due to sulfation may be only calculated when voltage measurements are taken when the battery has been fully charged and allowed to rest without charges and discharges of a minimum amount of time. A plausibility strategy may be put into place that only transmits estimates of battery characteristics after measurement has occurred multiple times, or an average of estimates over a defined moving time horizon may be transmitted… In any or all of the preceding examples, additionally or optionally, the sensed vehicle operating parameter is sensed during transient and steady-state vehicle operating conditions, and the parameter sensed during transient operating conditions is weighted different from the parameter sensed during steady-state operating conditions. In any or all of the preceding examples, additionally or optionally, the method further comprises estimating a value of the determined metric as a function of a most recent estimate of the determined metric retrieved from the past history of the determined metric, and a distance traveled by the vehicle since the most recent estimate of the determined metric
As per claim 3 and 7(method see [0001]), Kumar discloses
wherein the lower limit SOC calculation unit calculates, as the lower limit SOC, an SOC at a start of a charge immediately before a discharge of the lead-acid battery to be subjected to calculation of the capacity turnover value during operation, and the capacity turnover value calculation unit calculates the lower-limit-state-of-charge-based correction coefficient based on the lower limit SOC calculated by the lower limit SOC calculation unit. [0007], [0057], [0161], see also figs. 7 and 8 showing the calculations based on the performance metrics and time, For example, in the case of a lead-acid battery, at least a battery internal resistance and a battery capacity may be monitored, the battery internal resistance measured based on changes in battery voltage and current during vehicle operation, and the battery capacity measured based on internal battery resistance at low states of charge and or changes in the minimum and maximum achievable open circuit voltage (OCV) computed when the battery is completely discharged and fully charged… It may use a built-in model, such as an equivalent circuit model, to infer the battery SOC, capacity and capacity loss due to sulfation and loss of active mass. Data may be collected during specific circumstances to estimate specific battery characteristics. For example, internal resistance may only be estimated when discharges occur with changes in current over time that are greater than a threshold, and loss of capacity due to sulfation may be only calculated when voltage measurements are taken when the battery has been fully charged and allowed to rest without charges and discharges of a minimum amount of time. A plausibility strategy may be put into place that only transmits estimates of battery characteristics after measurement has occurred multiple times, or an average of estimates over a defined moving time horizon may be transmitted… In any or all of the preceding examples, additionally or optionally, the sensed vehicle operating parameter is sensed during transient and steady-state vehicle operating conditions, and the parameter sensed during transient operating conditions is weighted different from the parameter sensed during steady-state operating conditions. In any or all of the preceding examples, additionally or optionally, the method further comprises estimating a value of the determined metric as a function of a most recent estimate of the determined metric retrieved from the past history of the determined metric, and a distance traveled by the vehicle since the most recent estimate of the determined metric
As per claim 4, and 8-12, Kumar discloses:
wherein the lead-acid battery is a bipolar lead-acid battery. see fig. 1B showing the battery with the positive and negative terminals.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY S CUNNINGHAM II whose telephone number is (313)446-6564. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-4pm.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
GREGORY S. CUNNINGHAM II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/GREGORY S CUNNINGHAM II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights