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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/28/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system for estimating the phase state of a latent heat storage material (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A monitoring device for monitoring a state of a battery pack mounted on an electric flying object, the battery pack including a battery and a latent heat storage material that is capable of changing a phase state between a solid and a liquid, the monitoring device comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire information regarding the battery pack;
an estimation unit configured to estimate the phase state of the latent heat storage material based on the acquired information [mental process/step]; and
an output unit configured to output information regarding the phase state.
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, “estimate…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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 limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A monitoring device for monitoring a state of a battery pack mounted on an electric flying object, the battery pack including a battery and a latent heat storage material that is capable of changing a phase state between a solid and a liquid, the monitoring device comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire information regarding the battery pack [pre-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors];
an estimation unit configured to [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module] estimate the phase state of the latent heat storage material based on the acquired information; and
an output unit configured to output information regarding the phase state [insignificant post-solution activity (displaying results of the mental process)].
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 of “acquire…” and “output…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (monitoring device) to perform the process. In particular, the acquire step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering battery pack information for use in the estimating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The output step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the phase state estimation result from the estimating step), and amounts to mere post solution outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “estimation unit” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of estimating a phase state based on acquired battery pack information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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. 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 a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea 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 Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 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 element of using a estimation unit to perform the estimation amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, regarding the additional limitations of “acquire…” and “output…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Additional Claims
Independent claim 16 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1. Dependent claims 2-7 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 and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application such as controlling output of the battery pack. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-7 and 16 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Al-Hallaj et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0235446; hereinafter Al-Hallaj).
Regarding claim 16, Al-Hallaj teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program product includes instructions configured to, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to (Al-Hallaj: Par. 65; i.e., the BMS can be or include any suitable processor and recordable memory device with executable encoded software instructions for processing sensor data for monitoring and controlling the battery module):
acquire information regarding a battery pack; and estimate a phase state of a latent heat storage material of the battery pack, based on the acquired information regarding the battery pack (Al-Hallaj: Par. 13; i.e., sensors for at least one of: electrical current, electrochemical cell element temperature, and ambient temperature are desirably placed at various positions on or throughout the battery module and provide data usable by the battery management system to predict or estimate the melt fraction or the thermal state-of-charge of the phase change material; the melt fraction and T-SoC indicate an estimate of the phase state).
Regarding claim 17, Al-Hallaj teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 16. Al-Hallaj further teaches wherein the instructions are configured to, when executed by the at least one the processor, further cause the at least one processor to control an output of a battery in the battery pack based on the estimated phase state (Al-Hallaj: Par. 12; i.e., the battery management system automatically adjusts a power output of the plurality of electrochemical cell elements as a function of the thermal storage capacity of the phase change material to provide a heat output within a predetermined safe temperature limit).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Hallaj and further in view of Villanueva et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0015559; hereinafter Villanueva).
Regarding claim 1, Al-Hallaj teaches a monitoring device for monitoring a state of a battery pack mounted on an electric vehicle (Al-Hallaj: Par. 11; i.e., a novel battery management system (BMS) for monitoring a thermal storage capacity of phase change material (PCM); Par. 38; i.e., available storage capacity of PCM is synchronized with battery power which in turn regulates the motor and vehicle power via a novel methodology implemented in the battery's BMS),
the battery pack including a battery and a latent heat storage material that is capable of changing a phase state between a solid and a liquid (Al-Hallaj: Par. 41; i.e., the battery module 10 forms or includes void spaces… such battery module voids are filled or otherwise appropriately contain a suitable phase change material (PCM); Par. 7; i.e., if T-SoC is 0%, then the entire PCM is melted and in liquid phase, and if T-SoC is 100%, then the entire PCM is in solid state and can absorb a large amount of heat from battery pack; the latent heat storage material, or PCM, is capable of changing a phase between a solid and a liquid),
the monitoring device comprising: an acquisition unit configured to acquire information regarding the battery pack; an estimation unit configured to estimate the phase state of the latent heat storage material based on the acquired information (Al-Hallaj: Par. 13; i.e., sensors for at least one of: electrical current, electrochemical cell element temperature, and ambient temperature are desirably placed at various positions on or throughout the battery module and provide data usable by the battery management system to predict or estimate the melt fraction or the thermal state-of-charge of the phase change material; the melt fraction and T-SoC indicate an estimate of the phase state);
and an output unit configured to output information regarding the phase state (Al-Hallaj: Par. 78; i.e., the T-SoC will then be used by the BMS to determine … what information should be presented to the user, so they can decide how to proceed with further battery operation; as displayed in Figure 9, the melt-fraction model outputs information regarding the T-SoC).
Al-Hallaj does not explicitly teach the battery pack mounted on an electric flying object.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Villanueva teaches the battery pack mounted on an electric flying object (Villanueva: Par. 107; i.e., The system can include battery electronics 112, such as a battery management system (BMS)… the battery electronics function to monitor the state of the battery pack; Par. 45; i.e., In a specific example of the battery thermal management system, portions of the system are integrated into an electric tiltrotor aircraft including a plurality of tiltable rotor assemblies).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the monitoring device of Al-Hallaj to have further incorporated the battery pack mounted on an electric flying object, as taught by Villanueva. Doing so would allow the system to perform an emergency landing based on the state of the battery (Villanueva: Par. 147; i.e., in response to the temperature exceeding a threshold: reducing/cutting power draw from a battery pack, executing an emergency landing).
Regarding claim 8, Al-Hallaj teaches a control device for an electric vehicle that drives a target using a battery pack (Al-Hallaj: Par. 11; i.e., battery management system (BMS) for monitoring a thermal storage capacity of phase change material (PCM), and controlling the behavior of a battery pack to maintain an optimal power for safe temperature limits; Par. 38; i.e., available storage capacity of PCM is synchronized with battery power which in turn regulates the motor and vehicle power via a novel methodology implemented in the battery's BMS),
the battery pack including a battery and a latent heat storage material that changes a phase state between a solid and a liquid (Al-Hallaj: Par. 41; i.e., the battery module 10 forms or includes void spaces… such battery module voids are filled or otherwise appropriately contain a suitable phase change material (PCM); Par. 7; i.e., if T-SoC is 0%, then the entire PCM is melted and in liquid phase, and if T-SoC is 100%, then the entire PCM is in solid state and can absorb a large amount of heat from battery pack; the latent heat storage material, or PCM, is capable of changing a phase between a solid and a liquid),
the control device comprising: an acquisition unit configured to acquire information regarding the phase state of the latent heat storage material (Al-Hallaj: Par. 13; i.e., sensors for at least one of: electrical current, electrochemical cell element temperature, and ambient temperature are desirably placed at various positions on or throughout the battery module and provide data usable by the battery management system to predict or estimate the melt fraction or the thermal state-of-charge of the phase change material; the melt fraction and T-SoC indicate an estimate of the phase state);
and a control unit configured to control an output of the battery based on the phase state (Al-Hallaj: Par. 12; i.e., the battery management system automatically adjusts a power output of the plurality of electrochemical cell elements as a function of the thermal storage capacity of the phase change material to provide a heat output within a predetermined safe temperature limit).
Al-Hallaj does not explicitly teach the control device being for an electric flying object that drives a target including a rotor using a battery pack.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Villanueva teaches the control device being for an electric flying object that drives a target including a rotor using a battery pack (Villanueva: Par. 107; i.e., The system can include battery electronics 112, such as a battery management system (BMS)… the battery electronics function to monitor the state of the battery pack; Par. 45; i.e., In a specific example of the battery thermal management system, portions of the system are integrated into an electric tiltrotor aircraft including a plurality of tiltable rotor assemblies).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control device of Al-Hallaj to have further incorporated the control device being for an electric flying object that drives a target including a rotor using a battery pack, as taught by Villanueva. Doing so would allow the system to perform an emergency landing based on the state of the battery (Villanueva: Par. 147; i.e., in response to the temperature exceeding a threshold: reducing/cutting power draw from a battery pack, executing an emergency landing).
Regarding claim 15, Al-Hallaj teaches an operation management system comprising: a monitoring device configured to (Al-Hallaj: Par. 11; i.e., a novel battery management system (BMS) for monitoring a thermal storage capacity of phase change material (PCM))
acquire information regarding a battery pack that is mounted on an electric vehicle and to estimate a phase state of a latent heat storage material that is provided in the battery pack (Al-Hallaj: Par. 13; i.e., sensors for at least one of: electrical current, electrochemical cell element temperature, and ambient temperature are desirably placed at various positions on or throughout the battery module and provide data usable by the battery management system to predict or estimate the melt fraction or the thermal state-of-charge of the phase change material; the melt fraction and T-SoC indicate an estimate of the phase state; Par. 38; i.e., available storage capacity of PCM is synchronized with battery power which in turn regulates the motor and vehicle power via a novel methodology implemented in the battery's BMS);
and a control device configured to control an output of a battery provided in the battery pack, based on the phase state of the latent heat storage material (Al-Hallaj: Par. 12; i.e., the battery management system automatically adjusts a power output of the plurality of electrochemical cell elements as a function of the thermal storage capacity of the phase change material to provide a heat output within a predetermined safe temperature limit).
Al-Hallaj does not explicitly teach a battery pack that is mounted on an electric flying object.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Villanueva teaches a battery pack that is mounted on an electric flying object (Villanueva: Par. 107; i.e., The system can include battery electronics 112, such as a battery management system (BMS)… the battery electronics function to monitor the state of the battery pack; Par. 45; i.e., In a specific example of the battery thermal management system, portions of the system are integrated into an electric tiltrotor aircraft including a plurality of tiltable rotor assemblies).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operation management system of Al-Hallaj to have further incorporated a battery pack that is mounted on an electric flying object, as taught by Villanueva. Doing so would allow the system to perform an emergency landing based on the state of the battery (Villanueva: Par. 147; i.e., in response to the temperature exceeding a threshold: reducing/cutting power draw from a battery pack, executing an emergency landing).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional prior art deemed pertinent in the art of determining phase states of latent heat storage materials in battery packs of flying objects includes Ziegler (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0285758), Halsey et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0358671), Hom (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0384567), and Ameli et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2025/0253362).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON Z WILLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5427. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays 8:00-5:30.
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, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/BRANDON Z WILLIS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights