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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, and 7 are amended.
Claim 4 is canceled.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 and similarly 7 recite “wherein the monitoring comprises using the instantaneous integrated safety value as a safety indicator to recognize and prevent dangerous situations including fire or explosion of the energy storage system in advance;” (emphasis added) however, per applicant’s specification Par. 26 “in order to prevent or take measures against dangerous situations such as fires and explosions in energy storage systems by recognizing them in advance” (emphasis added) it is clear that the prevention is done by recognizing the dangerous situation they are not individual separate steps but rather parts of the same step.
Claims 2-3, 5-6 and 8 are rejected based on their inherited deficiencies.
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 1-3 and 5-8 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 1 recites “calculating an integrated safety for a state of the energy storage” and “calculating an integrated safety by applying a fuzzy rule”, it is unclear if these are the same or different values and further unclear which is being referred to by “the integrated safety”. Claims 2 and 7 also suffers from similar issues
Claims 3, 5-6 and 8 are rejected based on their inherited deficiencies.
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 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under step 1, claim 1 and 7 belongs to a statutory category.
Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 1 and similarly 7 recite(s) “A fuzzy logic based method for calculating a state safety of an energy storage system”, “defining a voltage safety membership function and a temperature safety membership function”, “calculating an integrated safety for a state of the energy storage system based on fuzzy logic for information collected from the energy storage system,”, “define the voltage safety membership function and the temperature safety membership function to which the fuzzy logic is applied”, “calculating an integrated safety by applying a fuzzy rule to the voltage safety membership function and the temperature safety membership function based on the collected voltage information and the collected temperature information”, “wherein applying the fuzzy rule comprises evaluating an AND operation using a logical product ("prod") of the voltage safety membership function and the temperature safety membership function to clip an output integrated safety membership function;”, “calculating a total integrated safety by summing up the calculated integrated safety”, “wherein the total integrated safety comprises a sum of a plurality of clipped integrated safety results produced by the fuzzy rule;”, “calculating an instantaneous integrated safety value through defuzzification of the total integrated safety”, “wherein the defuzzification is performed using a center of gravity method;”, “based on the instantaneous integrated safety value, monitoring operational and safety indicators of the energy storage system, the operational and safety indicators comprising at least one of state of charge (SoC), state of health (SoH), state of safety (SoS), or state of life (SoL) of the energy storage system”, “wherein the monitoring comprises using the instantaneous integrated safety value as a safety indicator to recognize and prevent dangerous situations including fire or explosion of the energy storage system in advance;” “generating state safety information comprising the instantaneous integrated safety value”, and “wherein the fuzzy rule represents voltage safety and temperature safety as shown in the following rules: Rule 1: if the voltage safety is (A) and the temperature safety is (A), then the integrated safety is (A); Rule 2: if the voltage safety is (A) and the temperature safety is (B), then the integrated safety is (B); Rule 3: if the voltage safety is (A) and the temperature safety is (C), then the integrated safety is (B); Rule 4: if the voltage safety is (A) and the temperature safety is (D), then the integrated safety is (B); Rule 5: if the voltage safety is (A) and the temperature safety is (E), then the integrated safety is (C);Rule 6: if the voltage safety is (B) and the temperature safety is (A), then the integrated safety is (B); Rule 7: if the voltage safety is (B) and the temperature safety is (B), then the integrated safety is (B); Rule 8: if the voltage safety is (B) and the temperature safety is (C), then the integrated safety is (C); Rule 9: if the voltage safety is (B) and the temperature safety is (D), then the integrated safety is (C); Rule 10: if the voltage safety is (B) and the temperature safety is (E), then the integrated safety is (D); Rule 11: if the voltage safety is (C) and the temperature safety is (A), then the integrated safety is (B); Rule 12: if the voltage safety is (C) and the temperature safety is (B), then the integrated safety is (C); Rule 13: if the voltage safety is (C) and the temperature safety is (C), then the integrated safety is (C);Rule 14: if the voltage safety is (C) and the temperature safety is (D), then the integrated safety is (D); Rule 15: if the voltage safety is (C) and the temperature safety is (E), then the integrated safety is (E); Rule 16: if the voltage safety is (D) and the temperature safety is (A), then the integrated safety is (B); Rule 17: if the voltage safety is (D) and the temperature safety is (B), then the integrated safety is (C); Rule 18: if the voltage safety is (D) and the temperature safety is (C), then the integrated safety is (D); Rule 19: if the voltage safety is (D) and the temperature safety is (D), then the integrated safety is (D);Rule 20: if the voltage safety is (D) and the temperature safety is (E), then the integrated safety is (E);Rule 21: if the voltage safety is (E) and the temperature safety is (A), then the integrated safety is (C);Rule 22: if the voltage safety is (E) and the temperature safety is (B), then the integrated safety is (D); Rule 23: if the voltage safety is (E) and the temperature safety is (C), then the integrated safety is (E); Rule 24: if the voltage safety is (E) and the temperature safety is (D), then the integrated safety is (E); and Rule 25: if the voltage safety is (E) and the temperature safety is (E), then the integrated safety is (E),wherein the voltage safety (A) is safer than the voltage safety (B) that is safer than the voltage safety (C) that is safer than the voltage safety (D) that is safer than the voltage safety (E), wherein the temperature safety (A) is safer than the temperature safety (B) that is safer than the temperature safety (C) that is safer than the temperature safety (D) that is safer than the temperature safety (E), and wherein the integrated safety (A) is safer than the integrated safety (B) that is safer than the integrated safety (C) that is safer than the integrated safety (D) that is safer than the integrated safety (E)” which are directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes per applicant’s specification, for example see equations 1 and 2. Further examine notes regarding “wherein the monitoring comprises using the instantaneous integrated safety value as a safety indicator to recognize and prevent dangerous situations including fire or explosion of the energy storage system in advance;” per applicant’s specification Par. 26, prevention is done via recognizing thus the monitoring step as a whole amounts to comparing data to “recognize” i.e. determine a particular set of data matches thus is considered abstract.
Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “by a state safety calculation apparatus”, “wherein the state safety calculation apparatus comprises a communicator, a storage, and a controller,”, “wherein the controller executes the execution program to”, “wherein the storage stores an execution program for”, “storing the state safety information in the storage” and in claim 7 “a controller in data communication with the communicating interface” are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The elements of “by the state safety calculation apparatus connected to the energy storage system comprising sensors that generate voltage information and temperature information, performing communication with the energy storage system to collect the generated voltage information and the generated temperature information from the energy storage system in a charging state of the energy storage system”, “wherein the communicator receives information on a state of charge, voltage, and temperature from the energy storage system periodically or in real time under control of the controller”, “to collect the information on the state of charge, voltage, and temperature from the energy storage system;”, “providing the state safety information to users of the energy storage system to enable reliable analysis for fire prevention and battery anomaly detection of the energy storage system” and in claim 7, “a communicating interface configured to perform communication with the energy storage system comprising sensors to generate voltage information and temperature information” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. The elements of “wherein the monitoring comprises using the instantaneous integrated safety value as a safety indicator to recognize and prevent dangerous situations including fire or explosion of the energy storage system in advance;” are also considered to be mere instructions to apply an exception and do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it”.
Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “by a state safety calculation apparatus” “wherein the state safety calculation apparatus comprises a communicator, a storage, and a controller,”, “wherein the controller executes the execution program to”, “wherein the storage stores an execution program for”, “storing the state safety information in the storage” and in claim 7 “a controller in data communication with the communicating interface” are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). The elements “by the state safety calculation apparatus connected to the energy storage system comprising sensors that generate voltage information and temperature information, performing communication with the energy storage system to collect the generated voltage information and the generated temperature information from the energy storage system in a charging state of the energy storage system”, “wherein the communicator receives information on a state of charge, voltage, and temperature from the energy storage system periodically or in real time under control of the controller”, “to collect the information on the state of charge, voltage, and temperature from the energy storage system;”, “providing the state safety information to users of the energy storage system to enable reliable analysis for fire prevention and battery anomaly detection of the energy storage system” and in claim 7, “a communicating interface configured to perform communication with the energy storage system comprising sensors to generate voltage information and temperature information” are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)(see prior art of record). The elements of “wherein the monitoring comprises using the instantaneous integrated safety value as a safety indicator to recognize and prevent dangerous situations including fire or explosion of the energy storage system in advance;” are also considered to be mere instructions to apply an exception and do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” per MPEP 2106.05(f) sections (1) and (3), the claim limitations attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result thus because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performed the modifications, it is the equivalent to the words “apply it” similar to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom; as per section (3), “a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. See Internet Patents Corporation v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015)”.
Claims 2-3 and 5-6 further describe abstract ideas as cited above.
In claim 8, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “the energy storage system; and the fuzzy logic based apparatus” are considered to be are considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and are considered to be merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself per MPEP 2106.05(h) and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see prior art of record).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s 101 arguments on pages 12-14, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the elements applicant cites as “a specific technological process” these elements as claimed are abstract, an abstract idea is not limited to the results, but also encompasses the steps i.e. mathematical calculations and determinations to achieve said result. The claims doe not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application as per MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology”. Further a new abstract idea is still abstract and thus not eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 9632125 B2, Harness Anomaly Detection Systems And Methods; US 7616002 B2, Battery Management System And Apparatus With Anomaly Reporting.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRANDON J BECKER whose telephone number is (571)431-0689. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/B.J.B/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights