Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claim 1-20 is 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.
5. Claim 1 is directed to “... determining an estimated battery degradation based on the charging event data, the estimated battery degradation accounting for normal battery degradation ...”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a general purpose processor. The additional elements “A method for visualizing health of a re-chargeable battery associated with a vehicle, comprising: collecting, over a period of time, charging event data including charging type and charging duration; ... generating a visual representation of the charging event data and the estimated battery degradation; and displaying the visual representation via an in-car display of the vehicle” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Independent claim 1 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
5.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 1 is directed to a method for visualizing health of a re-chargeable battery, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a process (Step 1: YES).
5.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 1 recites: “... determining an estimated battery degradation based on the charging event data, the estimated battery degradation accounting for normal battery degradation ...”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed with the help of a pen and paper. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
5.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 1 does not claim a particular machine because the re-chargeable battery, in-car display and vehicle are not claimed with sufficient specificity and the method to be performed by a general purpose computer processor, and does not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, the battery management context, is simply linking the claim to a technological environment, industry or field of use but does not explain with sufficient details so one ordinary skilled in the art could determine an improvement in the battery management technology.
Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in the battery management technology, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application. The claim is just linking said judicial-exception/abstract-idea to the technological field relative to systems and a methods for visualizing health of a re-chargeable battery).
5.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 1 recites the additional element(s) “A method for visualizing health of a re-chargeable battery associated with a vehicle, comprising: collecting, over a period of time, charging event data including charging type and charging duration; ... generating a visual representation of the charging event data and the estimated battery degradation; and displaying the visual representation via an in-car display of the vehicle” of which when evaluated individually and as a whole, it is concluded that are/is simply mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea and/or routine and/or conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references used in the rejections below, and prior art made of record below, and on the IDS). Therefore, the claim limitations individually and as whole do not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
6. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 2 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
7. Claim 3 depends on claim 2 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 3 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
8. Claim 4 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 4 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
9. Claim 5 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 5 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
10. Claim 6 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 6 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
11. Claim 7 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 7 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
12. Claim 8 is directed to “... determine an estimated battery degradation based on the charging event data, the estimated battery degradation accounting for normal battery degradation ...”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a general purpose processor. The additional elements “An apparatus for visualizing health of a re-chargeable battery associated with a vehicle, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors and storing processor-executable code that, when executed by the one or more processors, is configured to cause the apparatus to: collect, over a period of time, charging event data including charging type and charging duration; ... generate a visual representation of the charging event data and the estimated battery degradation; and display the visual representation via an in-car display of the vehicle” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Independent claim 8 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
12.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 8 is directed to an apparatus for visualizing health of a re-chargeable battery, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (Step 1: YES).
12.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 8 recites: “... determine an estimated battery degradation based on the charging event data, the estimated battery degradation accounting for normal battery degradation ...”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed with the help of a pen and paper. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
5.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 8 does not claim a particular machine because the re-chargeable battery, in-car display, vehicle and memory(s) are not claimed with sufficient specificity and the processor is simply a general purpose computer processor, and does not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, the battery management context, is simply linking the claim to a technological environment, industry or field of use but does not explain with sufficient details so one ordinary skilled in the art could determine an improvement in the battery management technology.
Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in the battery management technology, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application. The claim is just linking said judicial-exception/abstract-idea to the technological field relative to systems and a methods for visualizing health of a re-chargeable battery).
12.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 8 recites the additional element(s) “An apparatus for visualizing health of a re-chargeable battery associated with a vehicle, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors and storing processor-executable code that, when executed by the one or more processors, is configured to cause the apparatus to: collect, over a period of time, charging event data including charging type and charging duration; ... generate a visual representation of the charging event data and the estimated battery degradation; and display the visual representation via an in-car display of the vehicle” of which when evaluated individually and as a whole, it is concluded that are/is simply mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea and/or routine and/or conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references used in the rejections below, and prior art made of record below, and on the IDS). Therefore, the claim limitations individually and as whole do not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
13. Claim 9 depends on claim 8, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 9 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
14. Claim 10 depends on claim 9 that depends on claim 8, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 10 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
15. Claim 11 depends on claim 8, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 11 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
16. Claim 12 depends on claim 8, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 12 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
17. Claim 13 depends on claim 8, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 13 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
18. Claim 14 depends on claim 8, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 14 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
19. Claim 15 is directed to “... determine an estimated battery degradation based on the charging event data, the estimated battery degradation accounting for normal battery degradation ...”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a general purpose processor. The additional elements “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having program code recorded
thereon for visualizing health of a re-chargeable battery associated with a vehicle, the program code executed by one or more processors and comprising: program code to collect, over a period of time, charging event data including charging type and charging duration; ... program code to generate a visual representation of the charging event data and the estimated battery degradation; and program code to display the visual representation via an in-car display of the vehicle” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Independent claim 15 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
19.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium having program code recorded thereon for visualizing health of a re-chargeable battery, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (Step 1: YES).
19.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 15 recites: “... determine an estimated battery degradation based on the charging event data, the estimated battery degradation accounting for normal battery degradation ...”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed with the help of a pen and paper. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
19.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 15 does not claim a particular machine because the re-chargeable battery, in-car display and vehicle are not claimed with sufficient specificity and the processor is simply a general purpose computer processor, and does not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, the battery management context, is simply linking the claim to a technological environment, industry or field of use but does not explain with sufficient details so one ordinary skilled in the art could determine an improvement in the battery management technology.
Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in the battery management technology, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application. The claim is just linking said judicial-exception/abstract-idea to the technological field relative to systems and a methods for visualizing health of a re-chargeable battery).
19.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 15 recites the additional element(s) “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having program code recorded thereon for visualizing health of a re-chargeable battery associated with a vehicle, the program code executed by one or more processors and comprising: program code to collect, over a period of time, charging event data including charging type and charging duration; ... program code to generate a visual representation of the charging event data and the estimated battery degradation; and program code to display the visual representation via an in-car display of the vehicle” of which when evaluated individually and as a whole, it is concluded that are/is simply mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea and/or routine and/or conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references used in the rejections below, and prior art made of record below, and on the IDS). Therefore, the claim limitations individually and as whole do not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
20. Claim 16 depends on claim 15, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 16 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
21. Claim 17 depends on claim 16 that depends on claim 15, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 17 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
22. Claim 18 depends on claim 15, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 18 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 18 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
23. Claim 19 depends on claim 15, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 19 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 19 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
24. Claim 20 depends on claim 15, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 20 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 20 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Examiner’s Note
25. All the words in the language of the claims of which the specifications do not provide a definition in the form stated in the MPEP, the examiner has interpreted them by their plain meanings, pursuant to the MPEP 2111.01 “Plain Meaning” and MPEP 2173.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
26. Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 13, 15 and 20 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0115969 hereinafter mentioned as “Ishida”) in view of Neuman et al. (Pub. No.: US 2024/0198852 hereinafter mentioned as “Neuman”).
As per claim 1, Ishida discloses:
A method for visualizing health of a re-chargeable battery associated with a vehicle (See MPEP 2111.02, Effect of Preamble, and II. Preamble Statements Reciting Purpose or Intended Use), comprising:
collecting, over a period of time, charging event data including charging type and charging duration (Fig. 6, see steps 301-302. Also see [0050]);
determining an estimated battery degradation based on the charging event data, the estimated battery degradation accounting for normal battery degradation (Fig. 6, see step 311. Also see [0054]);
generating a visual representation of the charging event data and the estimated battery degradation (Fig. 6, see step 312. Also see [0054] and [0031]);
displaying the visual representation (Fig. 1, see the display output device 16. Also see [0031], [0050] and [0013]-[0014]).
Ishida discloses said visual representation but does not explicitly disclose displaying via an in-car display of the vehicle.
However, Neuman further disclose:
displaying the visual representation via an in-car display of the vehicle (see [0015] and [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to displaying said visual representation “via an in-car display of the vehicle” disclosed by Ishida into Neuman, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system, method and measurements by displaying an electronic notification to the vehicle operator with an indication of the percent retained battery capacity (Neuman, Paragraph [0040]), and also reducing battery capacity degradation by deriving income optimization strategies while preserving user-defined range expectations through active bidirectional charge optimization (Neuman, Paragraph [0006]).
Furthermore, Neuman states that “Aspects of the present disclosure have been described in detail with reference to the illustrated embodiments; those skilled in the art will recognize, however, that many modifications may be made thereto without departing from the scope of the present disclosure” (Neuman, Paragraph [0046]).
As per claim 6, the combination of Ishida and Neuman discloses the method of claim 1 as described above but does not explicitly disclose:
Neuman, with the obvious motivation set forth above in claim-1, further discloses:
displaying, via the in-car display (see [0015] and [0040]), a battery capacity indicator that indicates a current battery capacity as a percentage of the original capacity (see [0035] and [0040]).
As per claim 8, Ishida discloses:
An apparatus for visualizing health of a re-chargeable battery associated with a vehicle (See MPEP 2111.02, Effect of Preamble, and II. Preamble Statements Reciting Purpose or Intended Use), comprising:
one or more processors (Fig. 1, the processor of the computer system 100. Also see [0050], [0031] and [0013]-[0014]); and
one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors and storing processor-executable code that, when executed by the one or more processors (Fig. 1, the one or more memories with the processor of the computer system 100. Also see [0050], [0031] and [0013]-[0014]), is configured to cause the apparatus to:
collect, over a period of time, charging event data including charging type and charging duration (Fig. 6, see steps 301-302. Also see [0050]);
determine an estimated battery degradation based on the charging event data, the estimated battery degradation accounting for normal battery degradation (Fig. 6, see step 311. Also see [0054]);
generate a visual representation of the charging event data and the estimated battery degradation (Fig. 6, see step 312. Also see [0054] and [0031]);
display the visual representation (Fig. 1, see the display output device 16. Also see [0031], [0050] and [0013]-[0014]).
Ishida discloses said visual representation but does not explicitly disclose display via an in-car display of the vehicle.
However, Neuman further disclose:
display the visual representation via an in-car display of the vehicle (see [0015] and [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to display said visual representation “via an in-car display of the vehicle” disclosed by Ishida into Neuman, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system, method and measurements by displaying an electronic notification to the vehicle operator with an indication of the percent retained battery capacity (Neuman, Paragraph [0040]), and also reducing battery capacity degradation by deriving income optimization strategies while preserving user-defined range expectations through active bidirectional charge optimization (Neuman, Paragraph [0006]).
As per claim 13, the combination of Ishida and Neuman discloses the apparatus of claim 8 as described above but does not explicitly disclose:
Neuman, with the obvious motivation set forth above in claim-1, further discloses:
display, via the in-car display (see [0015] and [0040]), a battery capacity indicator that indicates a current battery capacity as a percentage of the original capacity (see [0035] and [0040]).
As per claim 15, Ishida discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having program code recorded thereon for visualizing health of a re-chargeable battery associated with a vehicle (See MPEP 2111.02, Effect of Preamble, and II. Preamble Statements Reciting Purpose or Intended Use), the program code executed by one or more processors (Fig. 1, the processor of the computer system 100. Also see [0050], [0031] and [0013]-[0014]) and comprising:
program code to collect (Fig. 1, the program code of the processor of the computer system 100. Also see [0050], [0031] and [0013]-[0014]), over a period of time, charging event data including charging type and charging duration (Fig. 6, see steps 301-302. Also see [0050]);
program code to determine (Fig. 1, the program code of the processor of the computer system 100. Also see [0050], [0031] and [0013]-[0014]) an estimated battery degradation based on the charging event data, the estimated battery degradation accounting for normal battery degradation (Fig. 6, see step 311. Also see [0054]);
program code to generate (Fig. 1, the program code of the processor of the computer system 100. Also see [0050], [0031] and [0013]-[0014]) a visual representation of the charging event data and the estimated battery degradation (Fig. 6, see step 312. Also see [0054] and [0031]);
program code to display the visual representation (Fig. 1, the program code of the display output device 16. Also see [0031], [0050] and [0013]-[0014]).
Ishida discloses said program code to display said display said visual representation but does not explicitly disclose display via an in-car display of the vehicle.
However, Neuman further disclose:
display the visual representation via an in-car display of the vehicle (see [0015] and [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to display said visual representation “via an in-car display of the vehicle” disclosed by Ishida into Neuman, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system, method and measurements by displaying an electronic notification to the vehicle operator with an indication of the percent retained battery capacity (Neuman, Paragraph [0040]), and also reducing battery capacity degradation by deriving income optimization strategies while preserving user-defined range expectations through active bidirectional charge optimization (Neuman, Paragraph [0006]).
As per claim 20, the combination of Ishida and Neuman discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 as described above but does not explicitly disclose:
Neuman, with the obvious motivation set forth above in claim-1, further discloses:
wherein the program code further comprises program code to display, via the in-car display (see [0015] and [0040]), a battery capacity indicator that indicates a current battery capacity as a percentage of the original capacity (see [0035] and [0040]).
27. Claim(s) 2-5, 9-12 and 16-19 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida in view of Neuman, and further in view of Matsumura et al. (Pub. No.: US 2025/0112483 hereinafter mentioned as “Matsumura”)
As per claim 2, the combination of Ishida and Neuman discloses the method of claim 1 as described above but does not explicitly disclose:
estimating future battery degradation based on historical charging event data; and
displaying, via the visual representation, a comparison of future battery degradation to normal battery degradation.
However, Matsumura further discloses:
estimating future battery degradation based on historical charging event data (see [0025]-[0027]); and
displaying, via the visual representation, a comparison of future battery degradation to normal battery degradation (see [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to “estimating future battery degradation based on historical charging event data; and displaying, via the visual representation, a comparison of future battery degradation to normal battery degradation” disclosed by Matsumura into Neuman in view of Ishida, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system, method and measurements by providing a suggestion to switch to a smart charging algorithm from an existing charging algorithm or to change the parameters for an existing smart charging algorithm (Matsumura, Paragraph [0040]), and also by activating a smart charging algorithm that is predicted to improve performance of the device and/or meets the user's needs (Matsumura, Paragraph [0018]).
Furthermore, Matsumura states that “While the disclosure has been described in conjunction with specific embodiments thereof, many alternatives, modifications and variations of such embodiments will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the foregoing description” (Matsumura, Paragraph [0095]).
As per claim 3, the combination of Ishida, Neuman and Matsumura discloses the method of claim 2 as described above but does not explicitly disclose:
Matsumura, with the obvious motivation set forth above in claim-2, further discloses:
wherein the future battery degradation (see [0025]-[0027]) is estimated via a machine learning model trained on historical battery degradation data (see [0016]) for a specific vehicle model (see [0011]. The model of the electric vehicle) associated with the re-chargeable battery (see [0025]).
As per claim 4, the combination of Ishida and Neuman discloses the method of claim 1 as described above but does not explicitly disclose:
determining one or more suggestions to extend battery lifespan; and
displaying, via the in-car display, the one or more suggestions.
However, Matsumura further discloses:
determining one or more suggestions (see [0028] and [0013]) to extend battery lifespan (see [0037]); and
displaying, via the in-car display, the one or more suggestions (see [0028] and [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to “determining one or more suggestions to extend battery lifespan; and displaying, via the in-car display, the one or more suggestions” disclosed by Matsumura into Neuman in view of Ishida, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system, method and measurements by providing a suggestion to switch to a smart charging algorithm from an existing charging algorithm or to change the parameters for an existing smart charging algorithm (Matsumura, Paragraph [0040]), and also by activating a smart charging algorithm that is predicted to improve performance of the device and/or meets the user's needs (Matsumura, Paragraph [0018]).
As per claim 5, the combination of Ishida and Neuman discloses the method of claim 1 as described above but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the visual representation is a stacked area chart that uses color coding to differentiate between various charging types, including fast charging, level 1 charging, level 2 charging, and green charging.
However, Matsumura further discloses:
wherein the visual representation is a stacked area chart that uses color coding to differentiate between various charging types (see [0038]), including fast charging, level 1 charging, level 2 charging, and green charging (see [0028], [0038], [0011]-[0012]. The different type of charging algorithms to control charging of the battery 104 with their color coding).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to “wherein the visual representation is a stacked area chart that uses color coding to differentiate between various charging types, including fast charging, level 1 charging, level 2 charging, and green charging” disclosed by Matsumura into Neuman in view of Ishida, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system, method and measurements by providing a suggestion to switch to a smart charging algorithm from an existing charging algorithm or to change the parameters for an existing smart charging algorithm (Matsumura, Paragraph [0040]), and also by activating a smart charging algorithm that is predicted to improve performance of the device and/or meets the user's needs (Matsumura, Paragraph [0018]).
As per claim 9, the combination of Ishida and Neuman discloses the apparatus of claim 8 as described above but does not explicitly disclose:
estimate future battery degradation based on historical charging event data; and
display, via the visual representation, a comparison of future battery degradation to normal battery degradation.
However, Matsumura further discloses:
estimate future battery degradation based on historical charging event data (see [0025]-[0027]); and
display, via the visual representation, a comparison of future battery degradation to normal battery degradation (see [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to “estimate future battery degradation based on historical charging event data; and display, via the visual representation, a comparison of future battery degradation to normal battery degradation” disclosed by Matsumura into Neuman in view of Ishida, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system, method and measurements by providing a suggestion to switch to a smart charging algorithm from an existing charging algorithm or to change the parameters for an existing smart charging algorithm (Matsumura, Paragraph [0040]), and also by activating a smart charging algorithm that is predicted to improve performance of the device and/or meets the user's needs (Matsumura, Paragraph [0018]).
As per claim 10, the combination of Ishida, Neuman and Matsumura discloses the apparatus of claim 9 as described above but does not explicitly disclose:
Matsumura, with the obvious motivation set forth above in claim-9, further discloses:
wherein the future battery degradation (see [0025]-[0027]) is estimated via a machine learning model trained on historical battery degradation data (see [0016]) for a specific vehicle model (see [0011]. The model of the electric vehicle) associated with the re-chargeable battery (see [0025]).
As per claim 11, the combination of Ishida and Neuman discloses the apparatus of claim 8 as described above but does not explicitly disclose:
determine one or more suggestions to extend battery lifespan; and
display, via the in-car display, the one or more suggestions.
However, Matsumura further discloses:
determining one or more suggestions (see [0028] and [0013]) to extend battery lifespan (see [0037]); and
displaying, via the in-car display, the one or more suggestions (see [0028] and [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to “determine one or more suggestions to extend battery lifespan; and display, via the in-car display, the one or more suggestions” disclosed by Matsumura into Neuman in view of Ishida, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system, method and measurements by providing a suggestion to switch to a smart charging algorithm from an existing charging algorithm or to change the parameters for an existing smart charging algorithm (Matsumura, Paragraph [0040]), and also by activating a smart charging algorithm that is predicted to improve performance of the device and/or meets the user's needs (Matsumura, Paragraph [0018]).
As per claim 12, the combination of Ishida and Neuman discloses the apparatus of claim 8 as described above but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the visual representation is a stacked area chart that uses color coding to differentiate between various charging types, including fast charging, level 1 charging, level 2 charging, and green charging.
However, Matsumura further discloses:
wherein the visual representation is a stacked area chart that uses color coding to differentiate between various charging types (see [0038]), including fast charging, level 1 charging, level 2 charging, and green charging (see [0028], [0038], [0011]-[0012]. The different type of charging algorithms to control charging of the battery 104 with their color coding).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to “wherein the visual representation is a stacked area chart that uses color coding to differentiate between various charging types, including fast charging, level 1 charging, level 2 charging, and green charging” disclosed by Matsumura into Neuman in view of Ishida, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system, method and measurements by providing a suggestion to switch to a smart charging algorithm from an existing charging algorithm or to change the parameters for an existing smart charging algorithm (Matsumura, Paragraph [0040]), and also by activating a smart charging algorithm that is predicted to improve performance of the device and/or meets the user's needs (Matsumura, Paragraph [0018]).
As per claim 16, the combination of Ishida and Neuman discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 as described above but does not explicitly disclose:
program code to estimate future battery degradation based on historical charging event data; and
program code to display, via the visual representation, a comparison of future battery degradation to normal battery degradation.
However, Matsumura further discloses:
program code to estimate future battery degradation based on historical charging event data (see [0025]-[0027]); and
program code to display, via the visual representation, a comparison of future battery degradation to normal battery degradation (see [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to the “program code to estimate future battery degradation based on historical charging event data; and program code to display, via the visual representation, a comparison of future battery degradation to normal battery degradation” disclosed by Matsumura into Neuman in view of Ishida, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system, method and measurements by providing a suggestion to switch to a smart charging algorithm from an existing charging algorithm or to change the parameters for an existing smart charging algorithm (Matsumura, Paragraph [0040]), and also by activating a smart charging algorithm that is predicted to improve performance of the device and/or meets the user's needs (Matsumura, Paragraph [0018]).
As per claim 17, the combination of Ishida, Neuman and Matsumura discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16 as described above but does not explicitly disclose:
Matsumura, with the obvious motivation set forth above in claim-9, further discloses:
wherein the future battery degradation (see [0025]-[0027]) is estimated via a machine learning model trained on historical battery degradation data (see [0016]) for a specific vehicle model (see [0011]. The model of the electric vehicle) associated with the re-chargeable battery (see [0025]).
As per claim 18, the combination of Ishida and Neuman discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 as described above but does not explicitly disclose:
program code to determine one or more suggestions to extend battery lifespan; and
program code to display, via the in-car display, the one or more suggestions.
However, Matsumura further discloses:
program code to determine one or more suggestions (see [0028] and [0013]) to extend battery lifespan (see [0037]); and
program code to display, via the in-car display, the one or more suggestions (see [0028] and [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to “program code to determine one or more suggestions to extend battery lifespan; and program code to display, via the in-car display, the one or more suggestions” disclosed by Matsumura into Neuman in view of Ishida, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system, method and measurements by providing a suggestion to switch to a smart charging algorithm from an existing charging algorithm or to change the parameters for an existing smart charging algorithm (Matsumura, Paragraph [0040]), and also by activating a smart charging algorithm that is predicted to improve performance of the device and/or meets the user's needs (Matsumura, Paragraph [0018]).
As per claim 19, the combination of Ishida and Neuman discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 as described above but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the visual representation is a stacked area chart that uses color coding to differentiate between various charging types, including fast charging, level 1 charging, level 2 charging, and green charging.
However, Matsumura further discloses:
wherein the visual representation is a stacked area chart that uses color coding to differentiate between various charging types (see [0038]), including fast charging, level 1 charging, level 2 charging, and green charging (see [0028], [0038], [0011]-[0012]. The different type of charging algorithms to control charging of the battery 104 with their color coding).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to “wherein the visual representation is a stacked area chart that uses color coding to differentiate between various charging types, including fast charging, level 1 charging, level 2 charging, and green charging” disclosed by Matsumura into Neuman in view of Ishida, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system, method and measurements by providing a suggestion to switch to a smart charging algorithm from an existing charging algorithm or to change the parameters for an existing smart charging algorithm (Matsumura, Paragraph [0040]), and also by activating a smart charging algorithm that is predicted to improve performance of the device and/or meets the user's needs (Matsumura, Paragraph [0018]).
28. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Wiebenga (Pub. No.: US 2022/0355697) teaches “control systems for operating rechargeable electrochemical devices, methods for making/using such systems, and motor vehicles with intelligent battery pack charging and charging behavior feedback capabilities. A method of operating a rechargeable battery includes an electronic controller receiving battery data from a battery sensing device indicative of a battery state of charge (SOC)” (Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO E. FORTICH whose telephone number is (571) 272-0944. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday from 8:30am to 5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Huy Phan, can be reached on (571)272-7924. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights