Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not 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 not 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 function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 battery management module configured to monitor a state of the battery…”, “a communication module configured to transmit or receive…”, “a warning module configured to warn…” in claim 1.
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.
Paragraph 93 recites, “Term “module” used in the present specification may include a unit implemented using hardware, software, and/or firmware and may be interchangeably used with the term “logic,” “logical block,” “component,” or “circuit.”
Paragraph 11: a processor operatively coupled to the battery management module, the communication module, and the warning module.
Paragraph 6: A battery management system (BMS) may manage charging and discharging of the battery while monitoring a charging state, a voltage, a current, and the like of the battery to help optimize the performance of the battery pack, secure safety, and increase a lifetime of the battery. “Battery management system (BMS)” is being interpreted to cover sensor devices capable of monitoring charging state, voltage, current, and the like of the battery.
Paragraph 13: the communication module is configured to perform wireless transmission and reception with the surrounding using a 900 MHz industrial scientific medical (ISM) band. “Communication module” is being interpreted to cover hardware receiver/transmitter capable of receiving and transmitting wireless data.
Paragraph 44: The warning module 40 may be configured to warn a driver and nearby people (e.g., via audio, text, graphics, and/or the like) about a detected (e.g., an abnormal) situation of the battery. “Warning module” is being interpreted to cover hardware product capable of providing audio, text, and/or graphics to a driver and nearby people.
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 § 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 1-5, 9-13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an [AltContent: connector]abstract idea without significantly more.
[AltContent: connector]101 Analysis – Step 1
[AltContent: connector]Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus for managing a situation of an electric vehicle battery and outputting the state information about the situation of the battery to inform the driver. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
1. An apparatus for managing a situation of an electric vehicle battery, the apparatus comprising:
a battery management module configured to monitor a state of the battery mounted in a vehicle;
a communication module configured to transmit or receive information about the situation of the battery to or from a surrounding;
a warning module configured to warn of the situation of the battery; and
a processor operatively coupled to the battery management module, the communication module, and the warning module,
wherein the processor is configured to determine the situation based on state information of the battery received from the battery management module, and output the information about the situation through at least one of the warning module or the communication module.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “monitor…determine” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at a battery mounted in a vehicle and formulating a judgement/opinion and determine a state of the battery. Also, making further judgement as to the situation of the battery based on state information of the battery that’s given to the person. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”)
1. An apparatus for managing a situation of an electric vehicle battery, the apparatus comprising:
a battery management module configured to monitor a state of the battery mounted in a vehicle;
a communication module configured to transmit or receive information about the situation of the battery to or from a surrounding;
a warning module configured to warn of the situation of the battery; and
a processor operatively coupled to the battery management module, the communication module, and the warning module,
wherein the processor is configured to determine the situation based on state information of the battery received from the battery management module, and output the information about the situation through at least one of the warning module or the communication module.
For the following reason, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “transmit or receive information…” the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the transmit/receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting/receiving data) and merely performs its intended function, and amounts to mere data transmitting/receiving, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding the additional limitations of “warn of the situation…output the information about the situation…” the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the outputting step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of providing output of the collection and analysis) and merely performs its intended function, and amounts to mere data outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Also, the mere presence of the processor, battery management module, communication module, and warning module do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because claims merely use generic computer component as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Also, these additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “transmit or receive…warn…output…” amount to nothing more than performing generic computer functions on a generic computer. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “transmit or receive…warn…output…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Lastly, “processor”, “battery management module”, “communication module”, and “warning module” are recited at a high level of generality merely reciting generic computer components used in its conventional capacity (i.e. please see 35 USC 112[f] interpretation above, which Examiner interprets recited modules as conventional hardware components), and thus are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “transmit or receive” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere communication of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Also, the additional elements of “warn…” and “output the information…” merely involve presenting the results of the abstract determination to a driver/user. Outputting data and generating notifications are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions and constitute insignificant post-solution activity that does not add an inventive concept. Please also refer to Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) about “displaying certain results…”.
Dependent claim 2 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of this claim merely narrow the abstract idea, but does not change the nature of the claim from the abstract idea to a practical application. Narrowing the abstract idea (e.g. merely defining what state of the battery is) with field of use and/or to a specific data type does not render the claim patent eligible. Thus, dependent claim 2 is also ineligible because it still recites or depends upon the same abstract idea without adding significantly more. Temperature, voltage, and charging state can be determined with simple tool and touch, still allowing one to formulate mental judgement (i.e. monitor state).
Dependent claim 3 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of this claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception (e.g. insignificant extra-solution activities) and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (“perform wireless transmission…”). Therefore, dependent claim 3 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claim 4 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of this claim merely introduce additional abstract idea capable of being performed via human mind or with pen/paper. “Classify…determine…” can be performed via human mind. Thus, dependent claim 4 is also ineligible because it still recites or depends upon the abstract idea without adding significantly more.
Dependent claim 5 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of this claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception (e.g. insignificant extra-solution activities) and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (“transmit the severity level…”). Therefore, dependent claim 5 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1 – 5 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
[AltContent: connector]101 Analysis – Step 1
[AltContent: connector]Claim 9 is directed to a method for managing a situation of an electric vehicle battery and outputting the state information about the situation of the battery to inform the driver. Therefore, claim 9 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 9 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 9 recites:
9. A method of managing a situation of an electric vehicle battery, the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor, state information of the battery mounted in a vehicle from a battery management module;
determining, by the processor, the situation based on the state information of the battery; and
outputting, by the processor, information about the situation through at least one of a warning module or a communication module based on determining the situation.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses a person making judgement as to the situation of the battery based on state information of the battery that’s given to the person. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”)
9. A method of managing a situation of an electric vehicle battery, the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor, state information of the battery mounted in a vehicle from a battery management module;
determining, by the processor, the situation based on the state information of the battery; and
outputting, by the processor, information about the situation through at least one of a warning module or a communication module based on determining the situation.
For the following reason, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving…” the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving data) and merely performs its intended function, and amounts to mere data receiving, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding the additional limitations of “outputting… information…” the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the outputting step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of providing output of the collection and analysis) and merely performs its intended function, and amounts to mere data outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Also, the mere presence of the processor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because claims merely use generic computer component as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Also, these additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 9 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “receiving…outputting” amount to nothing more than performing generic computer functions on a generic computer. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “receiving…outputting” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Lastly, “processor” is recited at a high level of generality merely reciting generic computer component used in its conventional capacity, and thus are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “receiving…” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere communication of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Also, the additional elements of “outputting…” merely involve presenting the results of the abstract determination to a driver/user. Outputting data and generating notifications are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions and constitute insignificant post-solution activity that does not add an inventive concept. Please also refer to Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) about “displaying certain results…”.
Claims 10-13 are similar in scope to claims 2-5, therefore, they are rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Therefore, claims 9 – 13 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
[AltContent: connector]101 Analysis – Step 1
[AltContent: connector]Claim 16 is directed to a method for managing a situation of an electric vehicle battery and outputting the state information about the situation of the battery to inform the driver. Therefore, claim 9 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 16 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 16 recites:
16. A method of managing a situation of an electric vehicle battery, the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor, information about the situation of the battery from a communication module; and
outputting, by the processor, the information about the situation through a warning module in response to the receiving of the information about the situation of the battery.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute an abstract idea because the Federal Circuit has consistently held that claims directed to collecting, receiving, transmitting, and displaying information are abstract ideas (see, e.g., Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Please also see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), where examples of claims that recite mental processes include Electric Power Group.
Accordingly, claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”)
16. A method of managing a situation of an electric vehicle battery, the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor, information about the situation of the battery from a communication module; and
outputting, by the processor, the information about the situation through a warning module in response to the receiving of the information about the situation of the battery.
For the following reason, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Mere presence of the processor, communication module, and warning module does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because claims merely use generic computer components as a tool to perform an abstract idea of receiving and outputting. Also, these additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 16 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
“Processor”, “communication module”, and “warn module” are recited at a high level of generality merely reciting generic computer components used in its conventional capacity, and thus are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “receiving…” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere communication of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Also, “outputting…” merely involve presenting the results using generic computer component. Outputting data is well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions and constitute insignificant post-solution activity that does not add an inventive concept. Please also refer to Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) about “displaying certain results…”.
Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 3, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Therefore, claims 16-17 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
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 1-2, 6-7, 9-10, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102[a][1] as being anticipated by Leonard et al. (US 2014/0365065 A1)
In regards to claim 1, Leonard teaches, An apparatus for managing a situation of an electric vehicle battery, the apparatus comprising: (See paragraph 1, The invention relates to battery management systems of electric vehicles. More particularly, the invention relates to a protected system for controlling power transactions with a battery management system of an electric vehicle, allowing especially monitoring the integrity of the energy system of the electric vehicle and detecting a situation of energy theft.)
a battery management module configured to monitor a state of the battery mounted in a vehicle; (See Fig. 1, measurement unit 56, sensors 34, paragraph 31, The measurement unit 56 of the battery management system 8 may measure raw values of voltage, current, induction, impedance and temperature of the battery 6. Also see paragraph 25, An integrity monitoring module 36 is connected to the integrity sensors 34 and produces information indicative of the states of the sensors 34.)
a communication module configured to transmit or receive information about the situation of the battery to or from a surrounding; (See fig. 1, communication module 48 and paragraph 28, The protected system also has a communication module 48 having a mode of transmission of a warning in case of an imbalance in the energy balance and in case of an integrity breach revealed by the data stored in the memory 42 of the processing module 40. The communication module 48 may also be used as an interface between the bus 12 and a bus 50 connecting the battery management system 8 with the modules 36, 38, 40, the battery 6 and other components like the sensors 34, the identification chip 30 and relays 52 for control and protection of the battery 6.)
a warning module configured to warn of the situation of the battery; and (See fig. 1, dashboard 14, paragraph 36, The energy imbalance or breach in integrity warnings may trigger a sound signal or a "battery service" type of signal displayed on the dashboard 14 of the vehicle 14…)
a processor operatively coupled to the battery management module, the communication module, and the warning module, (See fig. 1, processor 60, processing module 40, calculation/computing unit 44, measurement unit 56, communication module 48, monitoring module 36, dashboard 14 are all coupled via bus)
wherein the processor is configured to determine the situation based on state information of the battery received from the battery management module, and output the information about the situation through at least one of the warning module or the communication module. (See paragraph 34, The calculation unit 44 performs a computation of the input and output energy balance. At each filling up e.g. reported by the vehicle management unit 10 to the battery management system 8, the computation unit 44 determines the energy balance by a relative calibration of the current, voltage and time measurements (Volt.Ampere.Hour) according to a reading obtained by the battery management system 8, and determines an imbalance state in the energy balance when a difference between the power input and power output values exceeds an predefined acceptable threshold. Also see fig. 1, dashboard 14, paragraph 36, The energy imbalance or breach in integrity warnings may trigger a sound signal or a "battery service" type of signal displayed on the dashboard 14 of the vehicle 14…)
In regards to claim 2, Leonard teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the state of the battery includes at least one of a temperature, a voltage, or a charging state of the battery. (See paragraph 7, the BMS performs temperature, current and voltage measurements…paragraph 31, The measurement unit 56 of the battery management system 8 may measure raw values of voltage, current, induction, impedance and temperature of the battery 6)
In regards to claim 6, Leonard teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: encrypt the information with an authentication key of the vehicle and transmit the information through the communication module; and verify validity of a received signal. (See paragraph 28, The communication module 48 also allows communicating with a remote computer 24 with access control that can be used to receive public data and private data, encrypted or not…paragraph 34, An encrypted balance may be communicated to an external computer 24 or processor via the communication module 48… When a device is authenticated by means of the device identification module 38, an authentication information is dated and recorded in the transaction table. The communication module 48 may have a mode of clear transmission and a mode of encrypted transmission of the data stored in the memory 42 of the processing module 40 or in another source as the memory 62 of the battery management system 8, depending on whether the data have a public or private attribute based on conditions predefined by the authorities or those responsible for the system. For enhanced security, the attribute of all the data collected by the processing module 40, as the energy balance, should be private so that those data are transmitted in encrypted form…paragraph 35, The memory 62 of the battery management system 8 may be used to store history data indicative of a usage profile of the vehicle 2 and the battery 6…paragraph 33, The monitoring module 36 may be configured to validate a match of the identifiers with the data formerly stored in the memory 42 of the processing module 40 and record an event code in case of a change or difference detected in the combination of the group formed of the battery management system 8, the box 4 and the battery 6 (and the other devices if desired) when one or several identifiers do not match with the expected identifiers, in order to report a possible integrity breach. The validation may be performed when switching on the battery management system 8 and on other occasions if desired… The file access is preferably read and write protected. )
In regards to claim 7, Leonard teaches the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the processor encrypts the information based on a public key and a private key. (See paragraph 28, The communication module 48 also allows communicating with a remote computer 24 with access control that can be used to receive public data and private data, encrypted or not…paragraph 34, An encrypted balance may be communicated to an external computer 24 or processor via the communication module 48… When a device is authenticated by means of the device identification module 38, an authentication information is dated and recorded in the transaction table. The communication module 48 may have a mode of clear transmission and a mode of encrypted transmission of the data stored in the memory 42 of the processing module 40 or in another source as the memory 62 of the battery management system 8, depending on whether the data have a public or private attribute based on conditions predefined by the authorities or those responsible for the system. For enhanced security, the attribute of all the data collected by the processing module 40, as the energy balance, should be private so that those data are transmitted in encrypted form…paragraph 35, The memory 62 of the battery management system 8 may be used to store history data indicative of a usage profile of the vehicle 2 and the battery 6…paragraph 33, The monitoring module 36 may be configured to validate a match of the identifiers with the data formerly stored in the memory 42 of the processing module 40 and record an event code in case of a change or difference detected in the combination of the group formed of the battery management system 8, the box 4 and the battery 6 (and the other devices if desired) when one or several identifiers do not match with the expected identifiers, in order to report a possible integrity breach. The validation may be performed when switching on the battery management system 8 and on other occasions if desired… The file access is preferably read and write protected. )
In regards to claim 9, Leonard teaches, A method of managing a situation of an electric vehicle battery, the method comprising: (See paragraph 1, The invention relates to battery management systems of electric vehicles. More particularly, the invention relates to a protected system for controlling power transactions with a battery management system of an electric vehicle, allowing especially monitoring the integrity of the energy system of the electric vehicle and detecting a situation of energy theft.)
receiving, by a processor, state information of the battery mounted in a vehicle from a battery management module; determining, by the processor, the situation based on the state information of the battery; and outputting, by the processor, information about the situation through at least one of a warning module or a communication module based on determining the situation. (See paragraph 34, The calculation unit 44 performs a computation of the input and output energy balance. At each filling up e.g. reported by the vehicle management unit 10 to the battery management system 8, the computation unit 44 determines the energy balance by a relative calibration of the current, voltage and time measurements (Volt.Ampere.Hour) according to a reading obtained by the battery management system 8, and determines an imbalance state in the energy balance when a difference between the power input and power output values exceeds an predefined acceptable threshold. Also see fig. 1, dashboard 14, paragraph 36, The energy imbalance or breach in integrity warnings may trigger a sound signal or a "battery service" type of signal displayed on the dashboard 14 of the vehicle 14…)
Claim 10 is similar in scope to claim 2, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 6, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 7, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
In regards to claim 16, Leonard teaches, A method of managing a situation of an electric vehicle battery, the method comprising: (See paragraph 1, The invention relates to battery management systems of electric vehicles. More particularly, the invention relates to a protected system for controlling power transactions with a battery management system of an electric vehicle, allowing especially monitoring the integrity of the energy system of the electric vehicle and detecting a situation of energy theft.)
receiving, by a processor, information about the situation of the battery from a communication module; and outputting, by the processor, the information about the situation through a warning module in response to the receiving of the information about the situation of the battery. (See paragraph 34, The calculation unit 44 performs a computation of the input and output energy balance. At each filling up e.g. reported by the vehicle management unit 10 to the battery management system 8, the computation unit 44 determines the energy balance by a relative calibration of the current, voltage and time measurements (Volt.Ampere.Hour) according to a reading obtained by the battery management system 8, and determines an imbalance state in the energy balance when a difference between the power input and power output values exceeds an predefined acceptable threshold. Also see fig. 1, dashboard 14, paragraph 36, The energy imbalance or breach in integrity warnings may trigger a sound signal or a "battery service" type of signal displayed on the dashboard 14 of the vehicle 14…)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The 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, 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.
Claims 3, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard et al. (US 2014/0365065 A1) in view of Baik et al. (US 20240336159 A1)
In regards to claim 3, Leonard teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the communication module is configured to perform wireless transmission and reception (See fig. 1, communication module 48 and associated paragraphs)
Leonard does not specifically teach, …with the surrounding using a 900 MHz industrial scientific medical (ISM) band.
Baik further teaches, …with the surrounding using a 900 MHz industrial scientific medical (ISM) band. (See paragraph 70, 139, battery management system (BMS) having communication module (i.e. antenna unit 2300) capable of receiving and transmitting radio waves in a 900 mhz band)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the apparatus of Leonard to further comprise ISM band taught by Baik because the wireless communication system of the present invention may use several tens of 200 kHz narrow band channels due to good frequency efficiency, and thus may implement one-to-many communication such as communication of the master BMS 20000-the direct BMS 10000 in a small bandwidth (paragraph 139). Also, usage of 900 Mhz ISM band can provide improved propagation range than 2.4 Ghz or 5Ghz signals.
Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 3, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 3, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Claims 4-5 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard et al. (US 2014/0365065 A1) in view of Gilbert-Eyres; Matthew E. et al. (US 20230398872 A1)
In regards to claim 4, Leonard teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Leonard does not specifically teach, wherein the processor is configured to: classify the situation of the battery according to a level; and determine a severity level.
Gilbert further teaches, wherein the processor is configured to: classify the situation of the battery according to a level; and (See paragraph 5, The individual cells of a battery pack may generate a significant amount of heat during the pack's charge and discharge cycles. This cell-borne heat is primarily caused by exothermic chemical reactions and losses due to activation energy, chemical transport, and resistance to ionic migration. Within lithium-class batteries, a series of exothermic and gas-generating reactions may take place as cell temperatures rise and the battery assembly is pushed towards an unstable state. Such thermal events, if left unchecked, may lead to a more accelerated heat-generating state called “thermal runaway,” a condition in which the battery system is incapable of returning the internal battery components to a normal operating temperature…paragraph 34, Using this sensor data, the CPU 36 derives a fault type and a fault location of the detected system fault, and concomitantly ascertains if the fault location is in at least one of the battery cells 74. If so, the CPU 36 determines whether or not the fault type is indicative of any one of multiple predefined battery thermal events. This thermal event may be a thermal runaway event in which one or more of the battery cells has entered into an uncontrolled heat-generating cycle that causes an unstable self-heating state within the cell(s). A measured temperature spike within the cells 74 of the battery pack 70, in which an in-pack ATM cooling system is unable to control, may be indicative of a thermal runaway event. It is within the scope of this disclosure that a disclosed “thermal event” include a thermal runaway event and other temperature-based events within a battery system (e.g., cooling resistance faults and internal thermal resistance faults). Also, refer to other paragraphs for detection of thermal event based on certain fault type (e.g. claimed level))
determine a severity level. (See paragraphs 43-45, low-high severity level determined)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the apparatus of Leonard to further comprise apparatus taught by Gilbert because safety of driver as well as its surroundings can be greatly improved via detection of severity level.
In regards to claim 5, Leonard-Gilbert teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to transmit the severity level and location information of the vehicle through the communication module. (See Gilbert paragraph 15, transmitting an alert to first responders with vehicle location, event type, and event severity information…paragraph 7, This estimated situational severity level may be transmitted to first responders and/or other interested parties.)
Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 4, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 5, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard et al. (US 2014/0365065 A1) in view of Shin (US 20240091575 A1)
In regards to claim 8, Leonard teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Leonard does not specifically teach, further comprising an autonomous driving module configured to autonomously drive the vehicle, wherein, based on the processor receiving a second information about a second situation of a second battery from a second vehicle through the communication module, the processor is configured to drive the autonomous driving module to move the vehicle to a location outside a set range.
Shin further teaches, further comprising an autonomous driving module configured to autonomously drive the vehicle, wherein, based on the processor receiving a second information about a second situation of a second battery from a second vehicle through the communication module, the processor is configured to drive the autonomous driving module to move the vehicle to a location outside a set range. (See fig. 10, step S11-S19, S30, paragraphs 174, 176, 180-182, the controller 160 checks whether the concentration (Z1) of the specific component in the gas is equal to or greater than the set concentration (e.g., 20 ppm) from the signal of the gas sensor 140 (S15)… the controller 160 finally determines that a fire has occurred in the battery pack 1 (which is the ‘n-th battery pack’ in FIG. 10) in which the fire has been detected by the auxiliary fire sensor 150 (S16)… The controller 160 activates the warning apparatus 200 to warn the driver and passengers of the occurrence of a fire… if there is a person within the set distance in step S19, the controller 160 checks the navigation information provided from the navigation apparatus. The controller 160 then performs cooperative control together with the autonomous driving controller of the vehicle for autonomous driving by moving the vehicle to the nearest place where there are no people and there is no risk of the fire spreading (S21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the apparatus of Leonard to further comprise apparatus taught by Shin because safety of its surroundings can be greatly improved by autonomous driving to a safe location when vehicle is in dangerous condition.
Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 8, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard et al. (US 2014/0365065 A1) in view of LIU, Yong-hao et al. (CN 115225699 A)
In regards to claim 18, Leonard teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the receiving of the information about the situation of the battery further includes (See rejection of claim 1)
Leonard discloses information about the situation of the battery as set forth above however does not specifically teach, verifying, by the processor, validity of the information by decrypting a signal received through the communication module.
Liu further teaches, verifying, by the processor, validity of the information by decrypting a signal received through the communication module. (See page 14, S1213: verifying the validity of the decrypted file according to the public key and the encrypted signature ciphertext so as to determine whether the decrypted file passes the validity verification. after the obtain file, verifying the validity of the decrypted file according to the public key and the encrypted signature ciphertext, to determine whether the decrypted file passes the validity verification.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the method of Leonard to further comprise method taught by Liu because data security can be improved (page 15)
In regards to claim 19, Leonard-Liu teaches the method of claim 18, wherein the verifying of the validity includes decrypting, by the processor, the signal based on a public key. (See Liu page 14, S1213: verifying the validity of the decrypted file according to the public key and the encrypted signature ciphertext so as to determine whether the decrypted file passes the validity verification. after the obtain file, verifying the validity of the decrypted file according to the public key and the encrypted signature ciphertext, to determine whether the decrypted file passes the validity verification.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dai (US 20160272085 A1) discloses: Various techniques described herein relate to electric vehicle power management system for managing a plurality of battery modules in a battery pack. Such electric vehicle power management system may include a plurality of battery management systems corresponding to a plurality of battery modules, and an energy management system for managing the plurality of battery management systems. The energy management system and the plurality of battery management systems may adopt master-slave wireless communication, and may use a single wireless frequency channel or a plurality of assigned wireless frequency channels (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, JAMES J LEE can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/JUSTIN S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668