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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed on 6/4/2025. Accordingly, claims 1- 20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 & 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: these claims are independent claims written as dependent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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- 20—in particular Independent claims 1 & 12—are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite detecting, providing, collecting, determining and providing data. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. But for the processing device and memory language, the claims encompass a user simply comparing the collected data to a predetermined/configurable threshold in his/her mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic bus, processor and memory does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process which is an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the elements of detecting, providing, collecting, determining and providing, and that a generic computer preform these steps. The detecting, providing, collecting steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving/transmitting and storing data for use in the determining and providing steps), and as such they amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor that performs the determining and providing steps is recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the determining and providing steps. Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processor). The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processor). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
For the detecting, providing, collecting, determining and providing steps were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A, this has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claims 2-11 and 13-20 they all depend from claims 1 and 12 and as such are rejected for having the same deficiencies as those presented above with respect to claims 1 and 12.
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)(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.
Claims 1-7 & 11- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ing (US 20210237578 A1).
Ing discloses:
1: A computer system for responding to faults in an electrical energy storage system of a vehicle comprising multiple electrical energy storage packs, the computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to (see Ing at least fig. 1-20 and in particular fig. 1, 7- 10 & 16):
detect at least one of a thermal fault and an electrical fault in at least one of the electrical energy storage packs (see Ing at least fig. 1-20 and in particular fig. 1, 7- 10 & 16 and par. 181);
provide a weight to the fault based on the severity of the fault (see Ing at least fig. 1-20 and in particular fig. 1, 7- 10 & 16 and par. 181-185);
collect vehicle data including at least a vehicle location parameter (see Ing at least fig. 1-20 and in particular fig. 1, 7- 10 & 16 and par. 181-186);
provide weights to the vehicle data parameters based on their impact on vehicle/passenger safety (see Ing at least fig. 1-20 and in particular fig. 1, 7- 10 & 16 and par. 181-185),
determine a safe fault reaction based on an algorithm using the weighted fault(s) and the weighted vehicle data parameters, as inputs to the algorithm (see Ing at least fig. 1-20 and in particular fig. 1, 7- 10 & 16 and par. 181-187); and
provide an instruction to execute the safe fault reaction (see Ing at least fig. 1-20 and in particular fig. 1, 7- 10 & 16 and par. 181-187).
2: wherein the vehicle data further includes a vehicle surroundings parameter that depends on objects detected near the vehicle (see Ing at least fig. 1-20 and in particular fig. 1, 7- 10 & 16 and par. 181-187).
3: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine the safe fault reaction further based on the number of electrical energy storage packs installed in the vehicle, the number of electrical energy storage packs connected to the voltage bus in the vehicle, and the number of electrical energy storage packs involved in the fault (see Ing at least fig. 1-20 and in particular fig. 1, 7- 10 & 16 and par. 181-187).
4: wherein the vehicle data further includes at least one of number of passengers and cargo type (see Ing at least fig. 1-20 and in particular fig. 1, 7- 10 & 16 and par. 181-187).
5: wherein the weighting of parameters/faults is determined from a predetermined look-up table, or by the algorithm (see Ing at least fig. 1-20 and in particular fig. 1, 7- 10 & 16 and par. 181-187).
6: wherein the safe fault reaction is one of disconnecting or maintaining an electrical energy storage pack connected to a voltage bus connected to a load (see Ing at least fig. 1-20 and in particular fig. 1, 7- 10 & 16 and par. 181-187).
7: wherein the algorithm calculates a first score based on the weights determined for a first option being to maintain contactors of the electrical energy storage system to a voltage bus closed, and a second score based on the weights determined for a second option being to open the contactors of the electrical energy storage, and to compare the first score to the second score to determine which of maintaining the contactors closed or opening the contactors is the safe fault reaction (see Ing at least fig. 1-20 and in particular fig. 1, 7- 10 & 16 and par. 181-187).
11: A vehicle comprising the computer system of claim 1 (see Ing at least fig. 1-20 and in particular fig. 1, 7- 10 & 16 and par. 181-187).
12: A computer-implemented method, comprising:
detecting, by processing circuitry of a computer system, at least one of a thermal fault and an electrical fault in at least one of the electrical energy storage packs (see Ing at least fig. 1-20 and in particular fig. 1, 7- 10 & 16 and par. 181);
providing, by the processing circuitry, a weight to the fault based on the severity of the fault (see Ing at least fig. 1-20 and in particular fig. 1, 7- 10 & 16 and par. 181-185);
collecting, by the processing circuitry, vehicle data including at least a vehicle location parameter (see Ing at least fig. 1-20 and in particular fig. 1, 7- 10 & 16 and par. 181-186);
providing, by the processing circuitry, weights to the vehicle data parameters based on their impact on vehicle/passenger safety, determining, by the processing circuitry, a safe fault reaction signal based on an algorithm using the weighted fault(s) and the weighted vehicle data parameters, as inputs to the algorithm (see Ing at least fig. 1-20 and in particular fig. 1, 7- 10 & 16 and par. 181-187); and
providing, by the processing circuitry, an instruction to execute the safe fault reaction (see Ing at least fig. 1-20 and in particular fig. 1, 7- 10 & 16 and par. 181-187).
13: further comprising: determining the safe fault reaction and/or weights further based on a state of energy in the electrical energy storage packs (see Ing at least fig. 1-20 and in particular fig. 1, 7- 10 & 16 and par. 181-187).
14: wherein the vehicle data further includes a vehicle surroundings parameter that depends on objects detected near the vehicle and/or a number of passengers parameter and/or a cargo type parameter (see Ing at least fig. 1-20 and in particular fig. 1, 7- 10 & 16 and par. 181-187).
15: comprising: determining, by the processing circuitry, the safe fault reaction further based on the number of electrical energy storage packs installed in the vehicle, the number of electrical energy storage packs connected to the bus in the vehicle, and the number of electrical energy storage packs involved in the fault (see Ing at least fig. 1-20 and in particular fig. 1, 7- 10 & 16 and par. 181-187).
16: wherein the algorithm calculates a first score based on the weights determined for a first option being to maintain contactors of the electrical energy storage system to a voltage bus closed, and a second score based on the weights determined for a second option being to open the contactors of the electrical energy storage, and to compare the first score to the second score to determine which of maintaining the contactors closed or opening the contactors is the safe fault reaction (see Ing at least fig. 1-20 and in particular fig. 1, 7- 10 & 16 and par. 181-187).
17: further comprising: determining, by the processing circuitry, from the vehicle data that the vehicle is in a tunnel or on a steep descent or steep ascent, and determining, by the processing circuitry, based on the algorithm and the weights to the fault severity that the safe fault reaction is to maintain the electrical energy storage system connected for a time duration (see Ing at least fig. 1-20 and in particular fig. 1, 7- 10 & 16 and par. 181-187).
18: wherein the safe fault reaction includes to disconnect the electrical energy storage system once the time duration has lapsed (see Ing at least fig. 1-20 and in particular fig. 1, 7- 10 & 16 and par. 181-187).
19: A computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry, the method of claim 12 (see Ing at least fig. 1-20 and in particular fig. 1, 7- 10 & 16 and par. 181-187).
20: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 12 (see Ing at least fig. 1-20 and in particular fig. 1, 7- 10 & 16 and par. 181-187).
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.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ing in view of Bosch (DE102020200651 A1).
As per claim 8, Ing discloses the invention as detailed above.
Ing further discloses determine, based on the algorithm and the weights to the fault severity that the safe fault reaction is to maintain the electrical energy storage system connected for a time duration (see Ing at least fig. 1-20 and in particular fig. 1, 7- 10 & 16 and par. 181-187).
However, Ing does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine, from the vehicle data that the vehicle is in a tunnel or on a steep descent or steep ascent.
Nevertheless, Bosch—who is in the same field of endeavor--discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine, from the vehicle data that the vehicle is in a tunnel or on a steep descent or steep ascent (see Bosch at least fig. 1 and Abstract and State of the art; safe destination with respect to location on a street, vehicle in a garage or underground car park).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filling date of the given invention, would have been motivated to combine Bosch’s method for operating a vehicle in case of a dangerous situation with those of Ing’s fault recognition in order to form an overall safer system (i.e., by guiding the vehicle to a safe destination and mitigating risk).
Motivation to combine Bosch and Ing not only comes from knowledge well known in the art, but also from Bosch (see Bosch at least Abstract and State of the art).
Both Ing and Bosch disclose claim 9: wherein the safe fault reaction includes to disconnect the electrical energy storage system once the time duration has lapsed (see Ing at least fig. 1-20 and in particular fig. 1, 7- 10 & 16 and par. 181-187 and see Bosch at least fig. 1 and Abstract and State of the art).
Motivation to combine Ing and Bosch, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 8 above.
Both Ing and Bosch disclose claim 10: wherein the time duration is sufficient to drive through (see Ing at least fig. 1-20 and in particular fig. 1, 7- 10 & 16 and par. 181-187 and see Bosch at least fig. 1 and Abstract and State of the art).
Motivation to combine Ing and Bosch, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 8 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MACEEH ANWARI whose telephone number is 571-272-7591. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-9:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MACEEH . ANWARI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3663
/MACEEH ANWARI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights