DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The terms “low” and “high” in claims 1-20 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite because the claims do not appear to define the relative terms. The claims are interpretated under broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the instant specification, which recites a low-voltage battery 15 having a lower voltage than the high-voltage battery (see at least [0005]). For purposes of compact prosecution and for purposes of example only, it appears amending the claims to define that the low-voltage battery has a lower voltage than the high voltage battery would overcome the indefinite rejection.
Claim 1 recites “high-voltage battery determined according to a first preset threshold value”; however, it is unclear to whether a first preset threshold value is the same or different value than a first preset threshold value introduced in the previous limitation of “low-voltage battery determined according to a first preset threshold value”. The specification [0018] and [0020] appear to repeat the limitations, but dependent claim 8 recites the second threshold value and independent claim 15 recites high-voltage battery determined according to a second preset threshold value. For purposes of compact prosecution and in light of dependent claim 8, “high-voltage battery determined according to a first preset threshold value” is interpreted as a second preset threshold value. Claim 20 recites a similar limitation and is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the second threshold value”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See MPEP 2106.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1, 15, 20 are directed to a method, a method, and a non-transitory computer readable medium, respectively. Therefore, the claims are 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 MPEP 2106, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim(s) 1 and 15 include limitation(s) that recite an abstract idea (bolded below) and will be used as a representative claims for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
in response to the vehicle being in an off state, obtaining, by a controller, a first monitoring cycle based on a state of a low-voltage battery determined according to a first preset threshold value;
obtaining, by the controller, a second monitoring cycle based on an aging state of the high-voltage battery determined according to a first preset threshold value;
determining, by the controller, a final monitoring cycle based on the first monitoring cycle and the second monitoring cycle; and
monitoring, by the controller, the high-voltage battery based on the final monitoring cycle.
Claim 15 recites:
in response to the vehicle being in an off state, obtaining, by a controller, a first monitoring cycle based on a state of a low-voltage battery determined according to a preset first threshold value;
obtaining, by the controller, a second monitoring cycle based on an aging state of the high-voltage battery determined according to a second preset threshold value;
obtaining, by the controller, a third monitoring cycle based on an aging state of the high-voltage battery determined according to a third preset threshold value;
determining, by the controller, a final monitoring cycle based on the first monitoring cycle, the second monitoring cycle, and the third monitoring cycle; and
monitoring, by the controller, the high-voltage battery based on the final monitoring cycle.
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, the limitation(s) in the context of this claim encompasses a person determining monitoring cycle periods for batteries based on degradation of the batteries.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP 2106, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the MPEP 2106, 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 limitation” while the bolded portions continue to represent the abstract idea):
Claim 1 recites:
in response to the vehicle being in an off state, obtaining, by a controller, a first monitoring cycle based on a state of a low-voltage battery determined according to a first preset threshold value;
obtaining, by the controller, a second monitoring cycle based on an aging state of the high-voltage battery determined according to a first preset threshold value;
determining, by the controller, a final monitoring cycle based on the first monitoring cycle and the second monitoring cycle; and
monitoring, by the controller, the high-voltage battery based on the final monitoring cycle.
Claim 15 recites:
in response to the vehicle being in an off state, obtaining, by a controller, a first monitoring cycle based on a state of a low-voltage battery determined according to a preset first threshold value;
obtaining, by the controller, a second monitoring cycle based on an aging state of the high-voltage battery determined according to a second preset threshold value;
obtaining, by the controller, a third monitoring cycle based on an aging state of the high-voltage battery determined according to a third preset threshold value;
determining, by the controller, a final monitoring cycle based on the first monitoring cycle, the second monitoring cycle, and the third monitoring cycle; and
monitoring, by the controller, the high-voltage battery based on the final monitoring cycle.
For the following reason(s), 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, the examiner submits that these limitations are additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or insignificant extra-solution activities such as mere data gathering that merely use a computer to perform the process. The additional elements of the controller obtaining and monitoring are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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. The additional limitation steps of the controller obtaining and monitoring are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data, transmitting signals), and amounts to mere data gathering and storing and transmitting do not add a meaningful limitation to the process (MPEP 2106.05(g) v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754), which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activities. 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 drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations merely describe how to generally apply the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle environment. The additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. Accordingly additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract 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 MPEP 2106, representative independent claim 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 elements amount to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
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 do not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than a conventional computer. Also, 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), and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network, receiving or transmitting data over a network, and storing and retrieving information in memory are a well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBGLLC, 921 F.3d1084,1093(Fed. Cir.2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception or additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. The additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity; the additional limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the specification does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than a conventional computer components. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Further, 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 collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBGLLC, 921 F.3d1084,1093(Fed. Cir.2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Moreover, mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claim.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is/are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-20 would be allowable if the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is overcome and if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
US 20210141026 (Kim) discloses a batter management system for integrated management of high and low voltage batteries. Kim discloses in response to the vehicle being in an off state, obtaining, by a controller, a first monitoring cycle based on a state of a low-voltage battery determined according to a first preset threshold (see at least claim 8: when an ignition of a vehicle is off and voltage balancing on the high voltage battery is required, the control unit is configured to: control the low voltage monitoring unit to repeatedly monitor the low voltage battery according to the low time period) and obtaining, by the controller, a second monitoring cycle based on an aging state of the high-voltage battery determined according to a first preset threshold (see at least claim 6: control the low voltage monitoring unit and the high voltage monitoring unit to repeatedly monitor the low voltage battery and the high voltage battery according to the high time period, claim 11: when it is determined that the voltage balancing on the high voltage battery is required, setting a low time period and a high time period).
DE102021124065 (Eitler) discloses a device for operating a vehicle with a high voltage battery and a low voltage battery. Eitler discloses obtaining, by a controller, a first monitoring cycle based on a state of a low-voltage battery determined according to a first preset threshold value (claims: operating a vehicle (100) with a high-voltage battery (102) and a low-voltage battery (104) for the redundant energy supply of the vehicle (100), it being checked (306) whether a temperature falls below a predetermined threshold value, and if so the temperature falls below the threshold value, the low-voltage battery (104) is discharged in a discharging process (308) until a predetermined first condition is met…threshold value is determined as a function of the age of the low-voltage battery (302)…preconditioning active). However, Eitler discloses that it is preferred that preconditioning is active.
US 12299549 (Yavas) discloses using artificial intelligence to extend a lifespan of batteries. Yavas disclose a battery pack monitoring model that performs battery pack monitoring by performing a battery aging analysis. Yavas discloses that battery aging analysis may include determining a state of health (SOH) degradation rate for each battery pack, wherein the SOH degradation rate indicates how quickly the battery is aging. Yavas discloses the battery pack monitoring model may be trained to identify over-aged packs by comparing the SOH degradation rate with a predefined SOH degradation rate threshold, comparing the SOH with a predefined SOH threshold, and if the SOH degradation rate exceeds a predefined threshold and the actual SOH is below a predefined threshold, and the average ambient temperature is greater than a predefined threshold temperature, the battery pack monitoring model identifies these battery packs as candidates for exchange.
US 20220252670 (Xu) discloses a fast screening for rechargeable batteries for electric vehicles and discloses that testing time for a used battery can be reduced from 26 hours to less than one hour depending on the state of health (see at least [0078]).
US 20240291297 (Zuo) discloses obtaining a first SOC value of the low-voltage battery and a second SOC value of the high-voltage battery and controlling charge-and-discharge processes of the high-voltage battery and the low-voltage battery according to the first power, the first SOC value and the second SOC value.
US 20220009375 (Lee ‘375) discloses a battery management system of a vehicle comprising a first controller to control power on and off of a plurality of controllers, a second controller including a real time clock, a main battery for storing driving power of the vehicle, and a secondary battery having a lower voltage output than the main battery. Lee discloses that the second controller is configured to be woke up when a power off state is started by the first controller and monitors states of the main battery and secondary battery.
US 20130166233 (Suh) discloses a device for estimating a lifetime of a secondary battery to accurately estimate a normal lifetime of the secondary battery while reducing an evaluation time period of the secondary battery. Suh discloses a first battery life test data including cycle and capacity values obtained by charging and/or discharging a first battery with a first voltage, and the second battery life test data that includes cycle and capacity values obtained by charging or discharging a second battery with a second voltage, wherein the second voltage is higher, lower, or equal to the first voltage.
US 20220176845 (Lee ‘845) discloses a battery management system that determines an initial state of charge for each battery cell, classifies the battery cells into at least one group based on the state of charge of each battery cell estimated in a previous cycle and estimates the state of charge of a current cycle of each battery cell based on the first cell current, the second cell current, and average voltage of the current cycle of each group.
US 20070279949 (Yokota) discloses a power supply stop process and detecting a voltage value of a battery that is lowered to or below a fixed value (for example, 60% of a capacity in a normal state).
US 20210408615 (Myers) discloses a monitoring system for battery cells. Myers discloses that typical thresholds for capacity reduction are between 60% and 80% of capacity from when a battery cell was new.
However, the prior arts do not explicitly disclose determining a final monitoring cycle of the high-voltage battery based on the first monitoring cycle based on a state of a low-voltage battery determined according to a first preset threshold value and the second monitoring cycle based on an aging state of the high-voltage battery determined according to a second preset threshold value; and monitoring the high-voltage battery based on the final monitoring cycle. Further, the instant specification recites that the wave shown in Fig. 2 may represent a monitoring cycle” (see at least instant specification [0060]: each portion of the waveform shown in the FIG. 2 will be referred to and described as follows: an area indicated as "continuous for 2 hours" may represent a "continuous monitoring time." In addition, an interval indicated as "10 minutes" may represent a "monitoring repetition period," an interval indicated as "20 seconds" may represent a "monitoring time," and a section indicated as a "monitoring mode of a total of 60 hours" may represent a "total monitoring time." The waveform shown in FIG. 2 may represent a "monitoring cycle.").
The prior art taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to disclose, suggest, teach, or render obvious the invention as a whole:
Regarding claim 1,
A method of monitoring a high-voltage battery of a vehicle, the method comprising:
in response to the vehicle being in an off state, obtaining, by a controller, a first monitoring cycle based on a state of a low-voltage battery determined according to a first preset threshold value;
obtaining, by the controller, a second monitoring cycle based on an aging state of the high-voltage battery determined according to a first preset threshold value;
determining, by the controller, a final monitoring cycle based on the first monitoring cycle and the second monitoring cycle; and
monitoring, by the controller, the high-voltage battery based on the final monitoring cycle.
Regarding claim 15,
A method of monitoring a high-voltage battery of a vehicle, the method comprising:
in response to the vehicle being in an off state, obtaining, by a controller, a first monitoring cycle based on a state of a low-voltage battery determined according to a preset first threshold value;
obtaining, by the controller, a second monitoring cycle based on an aging state of the high-voltage battery determined according to a second preset threshold value;
obtaining, by the controller, a third monitoring cycle based on an aging state of the high-voltage battery determined according to a third preset threshold value;
determining, by the controller, a final monitoring cycle based on the first monitoring cycle, the second monitoring cycle, and the third monitoring cycle; and
monitoring, by the controller, the high-voltage battery based on the final monitoring cycle.
Regarding claim 20,
A non-transitory computer readable medium containing program instructions executed by a processor, the computer readable medium comprising:
in response to a vehicle being in an off state, program instructions that obtain a first monitoring cycle based on a state of a low-voltage battery determined according to a first preset threshold value;
program instructions that obtain a second monitoring cycle based on an aging state of the high-voltage battery determined according to a first preset threshold value;
program instructions that determine a final monitoring cycle based on the first monitoring cycle and the second monitoring cycle; and
program instructions that monitor the high-voltage battery based on the final monitoring cycle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELINA M SHUDY whose telephone number is (571)272-6757. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10am - 6pm.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
Angelina Shudy
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/Angelina M Shudy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668