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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 line 8 reads "at least some… is" which appears to be a conjugation error and should read "at least some… are" to improve clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claims 5 and 9 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 16 be found allowable, claim 18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 4-5 and 7-8 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.
Claims 4-5 and 7-8 recite the limitation "the second sensor" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the second sensor” of claims 4-5 and 7-8 will be understood as having antecedent basis to “the plurality of second sensors” of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9, 11-12 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 for 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 plurality of second sensors, at least some of the plurality of second sensors are disposed on a slave board of a distributed battery management system (BMS) and wherein the plurality of second sensors comprises acceleration sensors; 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, sensors, and a BMS; 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, control unit, and BMS 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, alternatively, 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 (a) 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 (a) 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) 2-9, 11-12, 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 3-9, 15, and 17-20 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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delbeke et al. US 12351041 B1 (hereinafter Delbeke) in view of Gonring et al. US 20220200070 A1 (hereinafter Gonring).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 9, 14, 16, and 18;
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);
wherein the control unit is configured to perform the following steps of:
a) detecting first condition data for 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, wherein the second sensor comprises an acceleration sensor and the second sensor further comprises a plurality of second sensors (col. 3 lines 15-29 “accelerometers”); 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).
Delbeke does not teach that
at least some of the plurality of second sensors are disposed on a slave board of a distributed battery management system (BMS).
Gonring teaches that
at least some of the plurality of second sensors are disposed on a slave board of a distributed battery management system (BMS) (Figure 1 shows that a BMS 106 of a battery system 102 includes an accelerometer 118 and a battery controller 108; ¶ 0050 discloses that an arrangement may be performed with a plurality of battery systems wherein one of the system’s battery controllers 108 may act as a supervisory controller to the other systems).
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 of Gonring such that at least some of the accelerometers of Delbeke can be rearranged to be on the BMSs, including supervised (i.e. “slave”) BMSs, of Gonring 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.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Delbeke reference 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, the modified Delbeke reference 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, the modified Delbeke reference 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 claim 6, the modified Delbeke reference 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, the modified Delbeke reference 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, the modified Delbeke reference 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 11, the modified Delbeke reference 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, the modified Delbeke reference 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, the modified Delbeke reference 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, the modified Delbeke reference 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).
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 7/15/2026 have been received and fully considered and overcome the claim objections and 112(b) rejections of record detailed in the Office Action dated 4/15/2026. These/this objections and rejections have/has been withdrawn.
Specification amendments filed 7/15/2026 have been received and fully considered and overcome the abstract and disclosure objections of record detailed in the Office Action dated 4/15/2026. These/this objections have/has been withdrawn.
Drawing amendments filed 7/15/2026 have been received and fully considered and overcome the drawing objections of record detailed in the Office Action dated 4/15/2026. These/this objections have/has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 7/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9, applicant argues that “it is not conceded that the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, because the claim 1 specifically recites that steps that involves the use of a first and second sensor [SIC]”. Applicant is kindly reminded that step (a) merely discloses detecting data with a first sensor and step (c) merely discloses using data detected using second sensor(s). Mere detection of data with sensors can be understood as an observation step of observing a sensor readout as detailed in the 101 rejection above. Observation is considered a mental process (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)). If instead, arguendo, the detection steps are alternatively interpreted as including receiving data from the sensors (e.g. over a network or by storing and later retrieving said data), then they are analyzed in steps 2A prong two and 2B as being an insignificant extra pre-solution activity of the WURC activity of data transmission or data retrieval from storage (see 101 rejection above). WURC insignificant extra solution activities cannot be considered as integrating the judicial exception into a practical application or providing significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g) and the court cases cited therein).
On pages 9-10, applicant further argues that the detection of data using sensors “clearly indicates that the relationship between functions of the systems and their practical implementation using a machine [SIC]”. Applicant is kindly reminded that, in order to be considered as reciting significantly more than a judicial exception regarding a machine, the machine must be a particular machine, not just a generically applied machine. See MPEP § 2106.05(d). Merely reciting a plurality of sensors as defined in the independent claims cannot be considered significantly more than merely instructing the reader to apply the exception using generic sensing components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Even considering the amendment of reciting that the second sensor(s) is/are on a slave board of a BMS, the claim limitations merely recite the locations of the various sensors on the vehicle. The locations of the sensors do not change the sensors from being used in their conventional manner and thus does not yield a particular machine. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. The independent claims recite no additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.06(b).
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive, and the 101 rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 7/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Delbeke as modified by Gonring (see 103 rejection above).
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Leyvi et al. US 20220077515 A1 discloses an accelerometer included in a BMS.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 4:45 am - 3:15 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