DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Method claim 16 states:
A computer-implemented method for determining a target operating temperature for a
battery, the computer-implemented method comprising:
determining, by processing circuitry of a computer system, a first cost associated with a resistance of the battery;
determining, by the processing circuitry, a second cost associated with a life expectancy of the battery; and
determining, by the processing circuitry, a target operating temperature for the battery such that a sum of the first and second costs is below a threshold;
wherein the first cost comprises a third cost associated with one or more of increasing a discharge power of the battery and decreasing a charging time of the battery.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mathematical processes
Claim 16 is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
In the instant case, claim 16 is drawn toward a mathematical model to determine a target operating temperature for a vehicle battery. Mathematical models, formulas, or laws of nature are considered abstract ideas unless they are integrated into a practical application.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
claim(s) is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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 element in the claim beyond the abstract idea is computer implementation at a high level of generality.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim is evaluated whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
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, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the determining steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the computer is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle.
Thus, claim 16 is ineligible.
Independent claims 1, 14, 15, 19, and 20 only seek to integrate the abstract concept using additional elements at a high level of generality and are thus rendered ineligible.
All claims dependent therefrom only further refines the abstract idea via mathematical processes and modeling functions and are thus rendered ineligible.
Prior Art
3. None of the prior art cited could anticipate or be combined to render obvious the claimed invention. Upon resolution of the above cited issues, the claims will be in condition for allowance.
This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance or all the details why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP 1302.14).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to independent claim 1, none of the prior art cited could anticipate, or be combined to render obvious determine a target operating temperature for the battery such that a sum of the first and second costs is below a threshold; wherein the first cost comprises a third cost associated with one or more of increasing a discharge power of the battery and decreasing a charging time of the battery.
Independent claims 16 and 20 maintain similar embodiments and are also allowed.
Subsequently, claims 2-15 and 17-19 will also be allowable due to dependence on their respective independent claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
4. The prior art made of record considered most pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Singer (US 11,145,917)
Jin (US 2016/0107526)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M DAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-1332. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 0830-1730.
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, 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.
/JONATHAN M DAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663 04 September 2026
Prosecution Insights