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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 241. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because the examiner may require and is requiring descriptive text labels. Specifically, the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels (see Figures 2-3). Applicant is kindly reminded that descriptive text labels, especially on flowcharts, improve clarity of the application as a whole for any future examiners, inventors, attorneys or otherwise looking for infringement or attempting to understand the invention. Thus, descriptive text labels are required for the applicant’s benefit. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is 191 words long. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Abstract lines 3-4, page 2 lines 5-6, page 2 lines 16-17, page 3 line 2, and page 11 line 9 read "detecting first condition data determining an underbody impact" which appears to be a typographical error since step b determines underbody impact based on first condition data. As written, it is confusing as to why/how one would determine underbody impact in both steps a and b. Therefore, it appears that “for” may have been accidentally left out, and thus this should read "detecting first condition data for determining an underbody impact" to improve clarity. If applicant intended the current reading, applicant response is requested to confirm that this was not an error and the objection should be withdrawn.
Page 16 line 1 reads "the plurality… are" which appears to be a conjugation error and should read "the plurality… is" to improve clarity.
Page 18 lines 13 read "first condition data is detected determining an underbody impact" which shares the typographical error detailed above regarding steps a and b and thus should read "first condition data is detected for determining an underbody impact". If applicant intended the current reading, applicant response is requested to confirm that this was not an error and the objection should be withdrawn.
Page 18 line 18-19 read "the degree of severity… is then determine" which appears to be a typographical error and should read "the degree of severity… is then determined" to improve clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, 14, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 4, claim 14 line 8, and claim 16 line 9 read "detecting first condition data determining an underbody impact" which appears to be a typographical error since step b determines underbody impact based on first condition data. As written, it is confusing as to why/how one would determine underbody impact in both steps a and b. Therefore, it appears that “for” may have been accidentally left out, and thus this should read "detecting first condition data for determining an underbody impact" to improve clarity. If applicant intended the current reading, applicant response is requested to confirm that this was not an error and the objection should be withdrawn.
Claim 10 line 1 reads "the plurality… are" which appears to be a conjugation error and should read "the plurality… is" to improve clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-20 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.
Regarding claim 16, the preamble is directed towards “A method of manufacturing a battery system”, but no manufacturing steps are provided within the body of claim 16. Instead, claim 16’s body appears to be written as an apparatus or method of use claim. It is unclear what statutory category the applicant is attempting to claim. In IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., a case of first impression, it was held that a single claim covering both an apparatus and a method of use of that apparatus is indefinite under section 112, paragraph 2. 430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The concern underlying holding in IPXL Holdings was that claiming both an apparatus and method of using the apparatus within a single claim can make it “unclear whether infringement… occurs when one creates [an infringing] system, or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses [the system in an infringing manner].” Ultimate-Pointer, L.L.C. v. Nintendo Co., 816 F.3d 816, 826 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (alteration in original) (quoting IPXL Holdings, 430 F.3d at 1384). While claim 16 is not directed towards an apparatus and method of use but rather a method of manufacture and an apparatus and/or method of use, the rational utilized in IPXL Holdings is, regardless, applicable to the instant application in that it is unclear whether infringement would occur when creating the system, using the system, or creating a manufacturing process to create the system. Therefore, the claim is indefinite under 112(b). Examiner further notes that the specification does not appear to provide any details on the manufacturing method for utilization in interpretation, so for the purpose of interpretation, claims 16-20 will be interpreted as a method for using the battery system wherein the method steps a-d are the steps for using. Examiner recommends amending the claim into a definite method for use or apparatus claim.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 16 and failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s)
detecting first condition data determining an underbody impact using a first sensor;
determining the underbody impact based on the detected first condition data;
determining a degree of severity, comprising a plurality of levels, of the underbody impact based on second condition data characterizing a severity of the underbody impact detected using a second sensor; and
determining an output based on the determined degree of severity.
The limitations recited above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic vehicle components. That is; other than reciting an electric vehicle comprising a battery pack, control unit, communication interface, and sensors; nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a person can easily observe a readout from a sensor (a); mentally determine that an impact has occurred based on the sensor readout (b); mentally estimate how bad the impact is by examining a readout from another sensor (c); and mentally determine an action plan based on the impact severity (d). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the electric vehicle is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception to a generic electric vehicle. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The generically recited battery pack, sensors, and control unit are merely inherent components to any electric vehicle and thus are lumped into the electric vehicle as "apply it" level of recitation. Additionally, the control unit is recited such that the abstract idea is to be performed using the vehicle’s computer components (i.e. the control unit). The recitation of an abstract idea applied to a computer does not prohibit the idea from being performed mentally as detailed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) and the court cases cited therein. Step (a) of detecting first condition data may also be interpreted as an insignificant extra pre-solution activity of mere data gathering rather than part of the abstract idea as an observation of a sensor readout. In this case, step (a) is understood as obtaining sensor data by transmission of the sensor data over a network or retrieval of the sensor data from memory related to a detected impact. Mere data gathering cannot form an inventive concept.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the electric vehicle and its components are generically recited as detailed above. 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, and conventional activity in the field. The limitation of detecting sensor data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) indicated that the reception and sending of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function. If instead the detected sensor data is obtained by storing and later retrieving the data, 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 indicated that the storage and retrieval of data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-12, 14-15, and 17-20 do(es) not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites further aspects of the abstract idea.
Claims 3-10 recite further details of electric vehicle configuration. The limitations of each claim viewed based on their individual dependencies alone fail to reach beyond a high level of generality to a practical implementation of the abstract idea with a particular machine.
Claim 11 recites an additional aspect of the abstract idea of determining a fault report. Claim 11 further recites additional insignificant extra-post solution activity of storing and outputting a fault report. 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 indicated that the mere storage and retrieval of data from memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
Claim 12 recited an additional aspect of the abstract idea of determining a warning. Claim 12 further recites additional insignificant extra-post solution activity of providing a warning. This warning is broadly claimed and can be reasonably interpreted as a mere display function. Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d 1553, 1559-60 (Fed. Cir. 2018) indicated that the display of data without any limitations specifying how the result is achieved is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I).
Dependent claim(s) 13 recite(s) further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Claim 13 recites “limiting or stopping an operation of the battery pack” based on the severity level. This method step is real vehicle control that adequately implements the abstract idea into a practical application beyond general linking. To overcome the 101 rejection, examiner recommends amending the subject matter of claim 13 into the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Delbeke et al. US 12351041 B1 (hereinafter Delbeke).
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 16;
Delbeke teaches
A battery system, comprising:
a battery pack (Figure 8), wherein the battery pack is disposable on an underbody (Figure 2A) of an at least partially electric vehicle (col. 1 line 66 to col. 2 line 12 “electric vehicle”), the battery pack comprising at least one battery cell (Figure 8 cells 802);
a first sensor and a second sensor (Figure 7 impact sensors 104), and/or a communication interface for detecting and/or obtaining first and second condition data (Figure 11 “receive a plurality of impact sensor outputs” S11.1); and
a control unit (col. 3 lines 58-67 and col. 8 lines 15-23 discloses processors that perform the method; control units are inherent components of processors so processors configured to perform a method inherently have their control units configured to do so as well);
wherein the control unit is configured to perform the following steps of:
a) detecting first condition data determining an underbody impact using the first sensor (col. 3 lines 15-29 disclose impact sensors output response to deformation of the battery enclosure) and/or the communication interface;
b) determining the underbody impact based on the detected first condition data (Figure 11 S11.1-S11.2 discloses impact sensors detect an impact has taken place and the impact is then processed to perform impact classification; see also col. 5 lines 1-8 about determining a time of impact based on sensor data; see also col. 3 line 58 to col. 4 line 21 wherein a puncture of the battery enclosure is determined requiring analysis of level severity of the impact);
c) determining a degree of severity of the underbody impact (Figure 11 “classify an impact with the underside of the battery enclosure based at least on processing the plurality of impact sensor outputs” S11.2), the degree of severity comprising a plurality of levels (col. 5 lines 28-47 “plurality of levels of severity of the impact”), based on second condition data characterizing a severity of the underbody impact detected using the second sensor (Figure 11 S11.5; see also col. 3 line 15 to col. 6 line 25 for additional details on how severity levels may be assigned) and/or the communication interface; and
d) determining an output based on the determined degree of severity (Figure 11 “cause the vehicle to perform an action in response to the battery impact classification data” S11.3; see also col. 5 line 28 to col. 6 line 25 regarding reactions in response to five different severity levels of decreasing severity).
Regarding claim 2, Delbeke teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Delbeke further teaches that
the degree of severity is determined using second condition data correlating in time to the first condition data (Figure 10 shows a plurality of sensor readings collected at the same time of impact for impact events 1001 and 1004, i.e. the impact data among the plurality of sensors is correlated in time).
Regarding claim 3, Delbeke teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Delbeke further teaches that
the second condition data comprises an acceleration of the vehicle (col. 3 lines 15-29 “accelerometers, which are configured to generate respective sensor outputs”).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Delbeke teaches all of claims 1 and 16 as detailed above.
Delbeke further teaches that
the second sensor comprises on-vehicle sensors (Figure 1 impact sensors 104).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Delbeke teaches all of claims 1 and 16 as detailed above.
Delbeke further teaches that
the second sensor comprises an acceleration sensor (col. 3 lines 15-29 “accelerometers”).
Regarding claim 6, Delbeke teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Delbeke further teaches that
the second condition data is assigned to an area of the battery pack (col. 9 lines 47-65 “The placement of impact sensors may be arranged to detect impacts over most of the area of the underside of the battery enclosure”; see also Figures 5-9 impact sensors 104; examiner understands, in light of application page 14 last paragraph, “assigned” to mean an origin of the collected data information, i.e. a location of the sensors the data is obtained from, not a determination of the impact location).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Delbeke teaches all of claims 1 and 16 as detailed above.
Delbeke further teaches that
the second sensor is disposed in a lower half of the battery pack (Figure 8 impact sensors 104).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Delbeke teaches all of claims 1 and 16 as detailed above.
Delbeke further teaches that
the second sensor is directly connected to the battery pack (Figure 8 impact sensors 104; examiner notes that “connected” is interpreted as including any direct physical connection as shown in Delbeke, not only direct wired connections).
Regarding claim 9, Delbeke teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Delbeke further teaches that
the second condition data is detected using a plurality of second sensors (Figure 6 impact sensors 104).
Regarding claim 11, Delbeke teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Delbeke further teaches
determining and storing a fault report, wherein the fault report is output at a next regular service if the determined degree of severity indicates a first level of the plurality of levels (col. 6 lines 15-23 disclose if level of severity is a fourth, lower level, the incident is recorded and stored in an appropriate data store which is reviewed at the next scheduled maintenance appointment).
Regarding claim 12, Delbeke teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Delbeke further teaches
determining and outputting a warning if the determined degree of severity indicates a second level of the plurality of levels (col. 5 line 48 to col. 6 line 3 disclose if level of severity is a second, lower level, the vehicle is stopped at a safe location and occupants are asked to leave by an audio message; examiner understands this request to leave due to impact equivalent to a warning since occupants are warned to prematurely evacuate the vehicle).
Regarding claim 13, Delbeke teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Delbeke further teaches
limiting or stopping an operation of the battery pack if the determined degree of severity indicates a third level of the plurality of levels (col. 5 lines 28-47 disclose that if level of severity is a first, highest level, the vehicle is pulled over and stopped immediately and occupants are instructed to leave the vehicle; see also col 2 lines 6-12 wherein a vehicle stopping due to impact severity deactivates the battery pack).
Regarding claim 15, Delbeke teaches all of claim 14 as detailed above.
Delbeke further teaches
An electric vehicle comprising the battery system (col. 1 line 66 to col. 2 line 12 “electric vehicle”; see also Figure 1).
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delbeke as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Sung et al. US 20190252735 A1 (hereinafter Sung).
Regarding claim 10, Delbeke teaches all of claim 9 as detailed above.
Delbeke further teaches that
the second sensor comprises a voltage sensor (col. 4 lines 46-59 discloses further using a voltage sensor to determine level of severity).
Delbeke does not teach that
the plurality of second sensors is disposed on slave boards of a distributed battery management system (BMS).
Sung teaches that
the plurality of second sensors is disposed on slave boards of a distributed battery management system (BMS) (Figure 1 shows a plurality of slave BMSs 200; ¶ 0064 “the slave BMS 200 may include… a state measurement module 220”; Figure 5 shows state measurement module 220 comprising a voltage measuring unit 221; ¶ 0073 “The voltage measuring unit 221 may include a voltage sensor”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Delbeke to incorporate the teachings Sung such that the voltage sensor of Delbeke can be rearranged to be on the slave BMS of Sung since it has been held that rearranging the location of elements without affecting operation of the elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) and the court cases cited therein. It would have further been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Delbeke to incorporate the further teachings of Sung such that the voltage sensor of Delbeke can be duplicated to be a plurality of voltage sensors on a plurality of slave BMSs as taught by Sung since it has been held that merely duplicating known elements without new and unexpected results caused by the duplication involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B) and the court cases cited therein.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hwang et al. US 20180145521 A1 discloses a voltage sensor on a slave BMS in a hybrid vehicle.
Sung et al. US 20170261473 A1 discloses determining a degree of damage to a battery following detection of an impact based on acceleration data.
Takatsuka et al. US 20180048032 A1 discloses determining a degree of damage to a battery following detection of an impact based on acceleration data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 5:00 am - 3:30 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights