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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 9-11, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims contain "and/or" which is informal verbiage and the preferred verbiage should be more simply "at least one of A and B". Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-15 is/are directed to the abstract idea of a mathematical concept and a mental process. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) recite(s) receiving data, calculating values from the data. The rejected dependent claims only supply additional steps (mathematical calculations, and mental processes) that a processor must perform. All of these concepts relate to the abstract idea of certain methods of mathematical concepts and mental processes. The concept described in claims 1-15 is/are not meaningfully different than those methods of mathematical concepts and mental processes found by the courts to be abstract ideas. As such, the description in claims 1-15 is an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The hardware is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components that perform the generic functions of [e.g. "transmitting information", "generating information"] common to electronics and computer systems does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation (i.e. mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing system).
Claims 1-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-15 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.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 13, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 10 recites “the fusion in ii)” but because fusion occurs in step iii) it is unclear if “the fusion in ii refers to an event in ii) or the fusion in iii.
Claim 11 recites “the vehicle” which may lack antecedent basis due to the usage of such as in Claim 1.
Claims 2-12, and 14-15 depend upon claims 1 and 13 respectively, incorporating all of the limitations thereof, and are therefore rejected as being indefinite as being dependent upon an indefinite parent claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, and 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atlaf et. al. (US Patent Publication 2022/0063444) in view of Kelty et. al. (US Patent Publication 2013/0221928)
Regarding claims 1, 13-14, and 15, Altaf ‘444 discloses a computer-implemented method, a computer program product comprising program code for performing, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions and a computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to: i) obtain an indication of at least one of a) a current or predicted usage scenario for a battery energy storage system (ESS), and b) an internal and/or external state of an entity, such as e.g. an electric vehicle, including the ESS; (¶1, 10, 29, 70, 72, 82, 121)
ii) determine one or more state-of-power (SoP) values for each of a plurality of battery packs of the ESS; (¶11, 29, 122, 137)
iii) determine one or more SoP values for the ESS as a whole by fusion of at least some of the SoP values for the battery packs determined in ii); and (¶31-36)
iv) determine a target SoP value for control of at least one of a charging and a discharging of the ESS based on the one or more SoP values determined in iii), and to control the charging and/or discharging of the ESS based on the determined target SoP value; (¶57-58, 63, 97, 177)
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to select, from a plurality of different sets of constraints corresponding to different trade-offs between entity performance and battery lifetime, a particular set of constraints based on the indicated at least one of the current or predicted usage scenario and the internal and/or external state of the entity, and (¶8, 66-67)
wherein each set of constraints is or includes a set of battery electro-thermal constraints. (¶33-36, 101, 124-136)
Altaf ‘444 appears to be silent as to using the particular set of constraints in determining.
Kelty however teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to select, from a plurality of different sets of constraints corresponding to different trade-offs between entity performance and battery lifetime, a particular set of constraints based on the indicated at least one of the current or predicted usage scenario and the internal and/or external state of the entity, and (¶47, 53, 56-81)
to use the particular set of constraints as part of the determining in at least one of ii), iii) and iv), (¶81)
wherein each set of constraints is or includes a set of battery electro-thermal constraints. (¶11, 47, 53, 65, 81)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Altaf with using the particular set of constraints in determining as taught by Kelty with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 4, Altaf further discloses wherein the determination in iii) and iv) does not include determining SoP values for multiple sets of constraints. (¶57-58)
Regarding claim 5, Altaf further discloses wherein each of ii) and iii) comprises determining the SoP values also for each of a plurality of different time horizons. (¶18, 104)
Regarding claim 6, Altaf further discloses wherein the battery electro-thermal constraints comprise constraints on at least battery temperature and voltage. (¶136)
Regarding claim 7, Atlaf further discloses wherein the battery electro-thermal constraints comprise constraints on at least battery current as a function of battery state-of-charge (SoC) temperature and state-of-health (SoH). (¶29, 104, 125-128)
Regarding claim 8, Atlaf further discloses wherein the battery electro-thermal constraints comprise constraints on at least one of an absolute max power constraint, a root-mean-square (RMS) power constraint for a battery lifetime, and an allowed battery over-utilization budget. (¶67)
Regarding claim 9, Atlaf further discloses wherein the computer system is further configured to obtain the indication of the at least one of the current or predicted usage scenario and the internal and/or external state of the entity based on at least one of: a historical usage pattern and power demand for the entity; an instantaneous power demand defined by a user of the entity; a pre-planned mission or assignment of the entity; and real-time detection of power-demand for the entity.
Regarding claim 10, Atlaf further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to perform the fusion in ii) based on the at least one of the current or predicted usage scenario and the internal and/or external state of the entity. (¶66, 72, 104)
Regarding claim 11, Atlaf further discloses wherein the at least one internal and/or external state of the entity comprises at least one of a battery state-of-health (SoH) and a state of one or more other components of the entity, such as brake health of the vehicle. (¶80-81, 104)
Regarding claim 12, Atlaf further discloses the energy storage system (ESS) comprising the plurality of battery packs. (¶86, 105)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious, in light of the preceding limitations, and, absent impermissible hindsight bias wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: ii-a) as part of ii), determine at least one SoP value for each battery pack and for each of multiple sets of the constraints; iii-a) as part of iii), determine at least one SoP value for the ESS as a whole for each of multiple sets of constraints, and iv-a) as part of iv), determine the target SoP value used to control the charging and/or discharging of the ESS by selecting a SoP value for the ESS as a whole determined as part of iii-a) and corresponding to the particular set of constraints.
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: ii-a) as part of ii), determine the at least one SoP value for each battery pack based on the particular set of constraints.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN D HUTCHINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8413. The examiner can normally be reached 7-5 Mon-Thur.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/ALAN D HUTCHINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
