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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/03/2026 has been entered.
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 § 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 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”, “calculating a total integrated safety by summing up the calculated integrated safety”, “calculating an instantaneous integrated safety value through defuzzification of the total integrated safety”, “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”, “generating state safety information based on the instantaneous integrated safety calculated from the state of charge, voltage, and temperature of the energy storage system”, 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.
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” 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 to 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”, “providing the state safety information as a more accurate and comprehensive integrated safety indicator of fire and explosion risk to users of the energy storage system so as to enable more reliable fire-prevention analysis and battery-anomaly detection” 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.
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” 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 to 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”, “providing the state safety information as a more accurate and comprehensive integrated safety indicator of fire and explosion risk to users of the energy storage system so as to enable more reliable fire-prevention analysis and battery-anomaly detection”, 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).
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).
Examiner Note with regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are distinguished over the prior art of record based on the reasons below.
In claim 1 and similarly 7, the claim differs from the closest prior arts of record, Shin (KR 102309374 B1), Smiley US 20140365264 A1, Warren US 20210399186 A1, in that it fails to anticipate or render obvious “calculating an integrated safety by applying a fuzzy rule to the voltage safety membership function and the temperature safety membership function” and “rule 1: if the voltage safety is (A) and the temperature safety is (A), then the integrated safety is (A);Filing Date: March 31, 2025 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);-3-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)” in combination with all the other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn based on the amendment. Regarding the new 101 rejection, as cited above, the amended claim language is not considered to be significantly more or a practical application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 10436852 B2, Battery Monitoring Using A Redundant Neighbor Measurement; US 20190293720 A1, BATTERY SAFETY EVALUATION APPARATUS, BATTERY SAFETY EVALUATION METHOD, NON-TRANSITORY STORAGE MEDIUM, CONTROL CIRCUIT, AND POWER STORAGE SYSTEM.
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