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 .
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 25-44, 46-50, 52 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106), claim 25 is directed to a method, which is a process and falls within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
Per step 2A, prong 1, claim 25 recites determining a first state estimation of at least one battery component using a first estimation method, wherein first state estimation is based on measurements of dynamic electrical information of at least one battery component; determining a second state estimation of the at least one battery component using a second estimation method different from the first estimation method and wherein the first state estimation and the second state estimation refer to different variables associated with the state of the at least one battery component. These limitations require mathematical calculations as disclosed in the specification (pars. 139-154). Therefore, claim 25 recites limitations that all into the mathematical concepts grouping (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
The additional elements are transmitting the first and second state estimations to an aircraft processor of the VTOL aircraft, wherein the aircraft processor is configured to: cause display of an estimated range for the VTOL aircraft based on the first state estimation and the second state estimation, wherein the estimated range includes an estimated horizontal landing range and an estimated vertical landing range; and change an operation of the VTOL aircraft based on the first state estimation and the second state estimation and at least one of the estimated horizontal landing range or the estimated vertical landing range.
Per step 2A, prong 2, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Transmitting the first and second estimations to a vehicle processor and causing a display of an estimated range for the VTOL aircraft are insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recitation of the vehicle processor amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, which is mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim limitation to change an operation of the VTOL aircraft is recited at a high level of generality does not amount to more than generally linking the abstract idea to a technological environment and is recited at a high level of generality (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). When considered in combination the additional elements do not add anything more than what is provided individually.
Per step 2B, claim 25 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above. Further, with regard to limitations for transmitting the first and second state estimations to a vehicle processor and causing display of an estimated range, the courts have recognized that data gathering and communication of data or results in various manners are well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II).
Claims 26-44, 46-48 and 53 depend from claim 25 and only recite further details of the abstract idea. Claims 26-44, 46-48 and 53 do not recite any further additional elements and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 48 recites further details of changing a vehicle operation, which is an abstract idea. However, these limitations are still recited at a high level of generality and only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment. Therefore, claim 48 is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 49 recites an abstract ide and additional elements similar to those found in claim 25. Claim 49 recites a further additional element that changing an operation of the VTOL aircraft includes at least one of: modifying a control law; switching a flight mode; changing an aircraft orientation; changing an airspeed, changing an altitude; decreasing power or turning off to one or more aircraft components, or disconnecting a battery pack from a high-voltage circuitry. Of the recited limitations for changing an operation of the VTOL aircraft, the limitations for modifying a control law and switching a flight mode are recited at a high level of generality and only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment. When considered in combination with the other additional elements, the combination does not add anything more than what is provided individually.
Claims 50 and 52 recite an abstract idea and additional elements similar to those found in claim 25. Claims 50 and 52 both recite a processor and a computer-readable medium, which amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer similar to the vehicle processor discussed above. Claim 52 also recites a further additional element of a battery pack including at least one battery cell. The recitation of the battery pack does not amount to more than generally linking the abstract idea to a technological environment and is recited at a high level of generality (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Considering the battery pack, processor and computer-readable medium in combination with the previously discussed additional elements does not provide anything further than what the additional elements provide individually. Therefore claims 50 and 52 are not integrated into a practical application and do not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 25, 26, 28, 29, 40, 43, 44, 47-50, 52 and 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2023/0299601 to Tedjarati et al. (Tedjarati) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2022/0229114 to Altaf (Altaf).
Claims 25, 49, 50 and 52
With regard to determining a first state estimation of at least one battery component using a first estimation method, wherein first state estimation is based on measurements of dynamic electrical information of at least one battery component; Tedjarati teaches determining a battery state using temperature, capacity and voltage (Fig 6, step 602; pars. 59-62; Fig. 5, current battery state 502; pars. 45-59).
With regard to determining a second state estimation of the at least one battery component using a second estimation method different from the first estimation method; Tedjarati teaches updating battery state and a dynamic battery model (Fig. 5, current battery state 502; pars. 45-49).
With regard to transmitting the first and second state estimations to a vehicle processor of the vehicle, wherein the vehicle processor is configured to: cause display of an estimated range for the VTOL aircraft based on the first state estimation and the second state estimation, wherein the estimated range includes an estimated horizontal and an estimated vertical range; Tedjarati teaches displaying a range and remaining flight time based on state data (Fig. 7, display 708; par. 74; Fig. 6, step 610, 614; pars. 63-65, 56, 57).
With regard to the processor configured to: change an operation of the VTOL aircraft based on the first state estimation and the second state estimation, and at least one of the estimated horizontal landing range or the estimated vertical landing range; Tedjarati teaches updating a flight plan and making emergency landing plans based on the state data and the range of the aircraft (pars. 55, 56, 64, 69, 85).
Tedjarati does not teach that the first state estimation and the second state estimation refer to different variables associated with the state of the at least one battery component. Altaf teaches a fist non-linear observer and first estimator used to estimate values of a state vector and a second non-linear observer of a second estimator used to track fast changes around the nominal values of different variables (par. 85). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power source capability determination, as taught by Tedjarati, to include a first state estimator and a second state estimator that track different variables, as taught by Altaf, because then battery state estimation would have been more accurately and efficient (Altaf, pars. 3-5).
Tedjarati teaches changing a flight plan which corresponds to switching a flight mode in claim 49.
Tedjarati teaches a processor and at least one computer-readable medium as shown in claims 50 and 52 (Fig. 9, processor 902, memory 904).
Tedjarati teaches a battery pack including at least one battery cell as recited in claim 52 (Fig. 2, battery packs 202).
Claim 26
Tedjarati teaches that at least one of the first state estimation or the second state estimation include a state of temperature estimation of one or more of at least one battery cell and at least one battery pack (pars. 31, 46).
Claim 28
Tedjarati teaches that the state of temperature estimation is based on one or more temperatures measured by one or more sensors at the at least one battery component and one or more virtual temperatures of the at least one battery component (pars. 31,46).
Claim 29
Tedjarati teaches that at least one of the first state estimation or the second state estimation include a state of charge estimation of one or more of at least one battery cell and at least one battery pack (pars. 31, 38).
Claim 40
Tedjarati teaches that at least one of the first state estimation or the state second estimation include a state of power estimation of one or more of at least one battery cell or at least one battery pack (pars. 46-50).
Claim 43
Tedjarati teaches that at least one of the first state estimation or the second state estimation include a state of health estimation of one or more of at least one battery cell and at least one battery pack (pars. 46, 58).
Claim 44
Tedjarati teaches that the state of health estimation is determined by calculating at least one of a capacity fade and an impedance growth of the battery component (pars. 46, 48, 53); and
the method further comprises:
determining that at least one of the capacity fade and the impedance growth of the battery component surpasses a predetermined threshold (par. 53, loss of capacity corresponds to capacity face); and
based on determining that at least one of the capacity fade and the impedance growth of the battery component surpasses a predetermined threshold, outputting an alert (par. 53, 78).
Claim 47
Tedjarati teaches that the first state estimation is based on measurements from a first set of sensors and the second state estimation is based on measurements from a second set of sensors different from the first set of sensors (pars. 53, 54).
Claim 48
Tedjarati teaches that changing a vehicle operation includes at least one of:
modifying a control law; switching a flight mode; changing an aircraft orientation; or changing an airspeed (pars. 55, 56, 64, 69, 85).
Claim 53
Tedjarati teaches that the dynamic electrical information of the at least one battery component includes electrical information of the at least one battery component that changes dynamically based on VTOL aircraft operations and a flight environment of the VTOL aircraft (pars. 45-62).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tedjarati in view of Altaf, as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 11,569,535 to Mische (Mische).
Claim 27
Tedjarati and Altaf teach all the limitations of claim 26 upon which claim 27 depends. Tedjarati and Altaf do not teach that the state of temperature estimation is based on measurements from multiple thermistors located on the at least one battery component. Mische teaches using thermistors to measure temperature (col. 4, lines 35-47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power source capability determination combination, as taught by Tedjarati and Altaf, to include thermistors, as taught by Mische, because then a well known method of measuring temperature would have been available and would allow temperature at multiple locations to be monitored.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tedjarati in view of Altaf, as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2025/0290993 to Cherouvrier et al. (Cherouvrier).
Claim 30
Tedjarati and Altaf teach all the limitations of claim 29 upon which claim 30 depends. Tedjarati and Altaf do not teach that the state of charge estimation is based on an estimated temperature of one or more of at least one battery cell and at least one battery pack and a measured temperature of one or more of the at least one battery cell and the at least one battery pack. Cherouvrier teaches determining the state of charge based on the temperature (pars. 20, 27-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power source capability determination combination, as taught by Tedjarati and Altaf, to include using temperature to determine the state of charge, as taught by Cherouvrier, because the temperature effect on the state of charge would have been considered allowing the flight to be safer (Cherouvrier (pars. 7-10).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tedjarati in view of Altaf and Cherouvrier as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2017/0045587 to Kim et al. (Kim).
Claim 31
Tedjarati, Altaf and Cherouvrier teach all the limitations of claim 30 upon which claim 31 depends. Tedjarati, Altaf and Cherouvrier do not teach that the estimated temperature is based at least in part on a coulomb counting model. Kim teaches using a coulomb counting method to determine state of charge and the temperature (par. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power source capability determination combination, as taught by Tedjarati, Altaf and Cherouvrier, to include using coulomb counting, as taught by Kim, because then an alternative method of determining the temperature would have been available to confirm the accuracy of other temperature determination methods.
Claim(s) 32 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tedjarati in view of Altaf, as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of CN 115828032 to Yang et al. (Yang).
Claim 32
Tedjarati and Altaf teach all the limitations of claim 29 upon which claim 32 depends. Tedjarati and Altaf do not teach that the state of charge estimation is based on an output of an online model, the online model being configured to receive input of at least one of a cell current, a cell voltage, a cell temperature, and an ambient temperature. Yang teaches using an online estimation method to determine temperature (page 5, lines 11-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power source capability determination combination, as taught by Tedjarati and Altaf, to include using an online model, as taught by Yang, because then the temperature would have been more easily determined for use in determining other battery parameters ((page 1, lines 26-33).
Claim 33
Tedjarati and Altaf teach all the limitations of claim 29 upon which claims 32 and 33 depend. Tedjarati and Altaf do not teach that the online model is calibrated based on an offline calibration process of the model. Yang teaches offline calibration (page 5, lines 11-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power source capability determination combination, as taught by Tedjarati and Altaf, to include using an offline calibration, as taught by Yang, because then the model would have been more accurate.
Claim(s) 34 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tedjarati in view of Altaf, as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2023/0384801 to Henck et al. (Henck).
Claim 34
Tedjarati and Altaf teach all the limitations of claim 25 upon which claim 34 depends. Tedjarati and Altaf do not teach that the first state estimation and the second state estimation each include a state of energy estimation of one or more of at least one battery cell and at least one battery pack. Henck teaches determining a charge level of a battery pack or a battery cell (par. 91). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power source capability determination combination, as taught by Tedjarati and Altaf, to include determining a charge level of a battery pack or a battery cell, as taught by Henck, because then the battery would have been monitored for problems at the cell level and the pack level.
Claim 35
Tedjarati and Altaf teach all the limitations of claim 25 upon which claims 34 and 35 depend. Tedjarati and Altaf do not teach that the state of energy estimation is based on a flight mode. Henck teaches determining useable energy based on the flight mode (par. 51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power source capability determination combination, as taught by Tedjarati and Altaf, to include determining useable energy based on the flight mode, because then the change in energy use depending on different flight modes would have been more accurately monitored.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tedjarati in view of Altaf and Henck as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2023/0008268 to Bansal et al. (Bansal).
Claim 36
Tedjarati, Altaf and Henck teach all the limitations of claim 34 upon which claim 36 depends. Tedjarati, Altaf and Henck do no teach that the state of energy estimation is determined using backward forecasting. Bansal teaches that historical usage of the battery may be backwards forecasted (par. 44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power source capability determination combination, as taught by Tedjarati, Altaf and Henck, to include backwards forecasting, as taught by Bansal, because then less storage would have been needed for storing historical data.
Claim(s) 37-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tedjarati in view of Altaf and Henck as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of CN 112366796 to Shi et al. (Shi).
Claim 37
Tedjarati, Altaf and Henck teach all the limitations of claim 34 upon which claim 37 depends. Tedjarati, Altaf and Henck do not teach that the state of energy estimation is determined at least in part by calculating an effect of a soft short condition experienced by aircraft circuitry. Shi teaches short circuit analysis in battery analysis (page 6, lines 7-18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power source capability determination combination, as taught by Tedjarati, Altaf and Henck, to include short circuit analysis, as taught by Shi, because then the effect of the short circuit on temperature and other battery state parameters would have led to more accurate determination of battery state.
Claim 38
Tedjarati, Altaf and Henck teach all the limitations of claim 34 upon which claims 37 and 38 depend. Tedjarati, Altaf and Henck do not teach that the soft short condition includes at least a partial short of an electrical component internal to a battery pack. Shi teaches short circuit analysis in battery analysis (page 6, lines 7-18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power source capability determination combination, as taught by Tedjarati, Altaf and Henck, to include short circuit analysis, as taught by Shi, because then the effect of the short circuit on temperature and other battery state parameters would have led to more accurate determination of battery state.
Claim 39
Tedjarati, Altaf and Henck teach all the limitations of claim 34 upon which claims 37 and 39 depend. Tedjarati, Altaf and Henck do not teach that the soft short condition includes at least a partial short of an electrical component external to a battery pack. Shi teaches short circuit analysis in battery analysis (page 6, lines 7-18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power source capability determination combination, as taught by Tedjarati, Altaf and Henck, to include short circuit analysis, as taught by Shi, because then the effect of the short circuit on temperature and other battery state parameters would have led to more accurate determination of battery state.
Claim(s) 41 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tedjarati in view of Altaf, as applied to claim 40 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2024/0053403 to Wang et al. (Wang).
Claim 41
Tedjarati and Altaf teach all the limitations of claim 40 upon which claim 41 depends. Tedjarati and Altaf do not teach that the state of power estimation defines a limit to prevent the battery component from violating an operating range. Wang teaches a temperature range for the battery (par. 86). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power source capability determination combination, as taught by Tedjarati and Altaf, to include a temperature range, as taught by Wang, because then damage to the battery would have been prevented (Wang, par. 83).
Claim 42
Tedjarati and Altaf teach all the limitations of claim 40 upon which claims 41 and 42 depend. Tedjarati and Altaf do not teach that the operating range includes at least one of a cell voltage range, a cell temperature range, a maximum current carry limit, and a voltage range of a connected load. Wang teaches a temperature range for the battery (par. 86). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power source capability determination combination, as taught by Tedjarati and Altaf, to include a temperature range, as taught by Wang, because then damage to the battery would have been prevented (Wang, par. 83).
Claim(s) 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tedjarati in view of Altaf, as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2016/0018472 to Sung et al. (Sung).
Claim 46
Tedjarati and Altaf teach all the limitations of claim 25 upon which claim 46 depends. Tedjarati and Altaf do not teach that the first state estimation includes a battery pack-level state estimation and the second state estimation includes a battery cell-level state estimation. Sung teaches estimating a state at a battery cell level and a battery pack level (par. 58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power source capability determination combination, as taught by Tedjarati and Altaf, to include estimating state at a battery pack level and a battery cell level, because battery management would have been more flexible for various configurations of batteries (Sung, par. 54).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 25 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 45 of copending Application No. 19/432,841 in view of Altaf. Claim 45 of the copending application teaches all the limitations of claim 25 of the present application except that the first state estimation and the second state estimation refer to different variables associated with the state of the at least one battery component. Altaf teaches a fist non-linear observer and first estimator used to estimate values of a state vector and a second non-linear observer of a second estimator used to track fast changes around the nominal values of different variables (par. 85). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify claim 46 of the ‘841 application, to include a first state estimator and a second state estimator that track different variables, as taught by Altaf, because then battery state estimation would have been more accurately and efficient (Altaf, pars. 3-5).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 25-44, 46-50 and 52 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 25-44, 47-50 and 52 of copending Application No. 19/432,841 in view of Tedjarati and Altaf. Claims 25-44 correspond to claims 25-44, respectively of the ‘841 application. Claim 46 corresponds to claim 25 of the ‘841 application. Claims 47-50 and 52 correspond to claims 47-50 and 52 of the ‘841 application. The claims of the copending application teach all the limitations of the present application except that the battery state is for a vertical take-off and landing aircraft and that the first state estimation and the second state estimation refer to different variables associated with the state of the at least one battery component.
Tedjarati teaches determining battery state in a VTOL (par. 22, 31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claims of the ‘841 application to include a VTOL aircraft, because then the battery state in an aircraft would have been more accurately monitored.
Altaf teaches a fist non-linear observer and first estimator used to estimate values of a state vector and a second non-linear observer of a second estimator used to track fast changes around the nominal values of different variables (par. 85). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claims of the ‘841 application to include a first state estimator and a second state estimator that track different variables, as taught by Altaf, because then battery state estimation would have been more accurately and efficient (Altaf, pars. 3-5).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejection of claims 25-44, 46-50 and 52 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, Applicant states that claim 25 does not merely recite a mathematical formula, equation, or computation in the abstract, and that rather, the “first state estimation” is explicitly defined as being based on “measurements of a dynamic electrical information of at least one battery component.” Applicant states that this limitation necessarily entails the acquisition of real-world physical data from a tangible system, namely a battery component. (Response filed 6 July 2026, page 15). However, the measurement refers the values or results obtained from a measurement. The claim does not require any hardware or physical act of measurement. The steps of determining a first state estimation is based on the value or result and is a mathematical process (Specification, pars. 139-154).
Applicant states that the claims as a whole clearly integrate any such exception into a practical application. Applicant states that the estimations are used to actively control the operation of a vehicle based on dynamically derived and multiple different battery state estimations. Applicant states that this constitutes a specific and concrete application that directly affects the functioning of a physical system, i.e. a VTOL aircraft. (Response filed 6 July 2026, page 16). The field of use is changing the operation of a VTOL aircraft. Changing the operation is recited very generally. Since there are many ways that the operation of an aircraft could be changed and many estimation methods or parameters that could be used for the first estimation and the second estimation, this limitation merely generally the abstract idea to the field of changing the operation of the VTOL aircraft. While the claim has been amended to include that the change is also based on at least one of the estimated horizontal landing range or the estimated vertical landing range, the claim language for changing the operations recited generally in claims 25, 50 and 52. While claim 49 more specifically recites how the operation is changed. The list of options for changing the operation includes modifying a control law and switching a flight mode are options that are recited at a high level of generality since no control law is define and no flight modes are defined.
Applicant states that the claimed elements are not generic or conventional data-processing steps. Applicant states that rather, they are define a particular technological solution to a technical problem that is especially significant in the VTOL aircraft context: reliably managing battery capability while the aircraft depends on electrical power for propulsion, lift, flight-control authority, and safe landing operations (Applicant’s Response filed 6 July 2026, pages, 18, 19). However, improvements to a technology cannot be found only in the abstract idea, but can be provided by one or more additional elements (See MPEP 2106.05(a), sixth paragraph). As discussed above, the additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea when considered individually or in combination with the other claim elements.
With regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claim 25, while a new grounds of rejection is provided, Applicant states that Tedjarati does not describe determining a battery state estimation based on underlying time-varying electrical measurements, such as a dynamic voltage, current, impedance or other electrical information obtained from the battery component. Claim 25 requires determining a first state estimation of at least one battery component based on measurements of dynamic electrical information of the at least one battery component. Tedjarati teaches determining a battery state using temperature, capacity and voltage (Fig 6, step 602; pars. 59-62; Fig. 5, current battery state 502; pars. 45-59). Capacity and voltage at least are dynamic electrical information.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 23, last paragraph of the page, and claim amendments, filed 6 July 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 25, 26, 28, 29, 40, 43, 44, 47-50 and 52 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Altaf.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL L BARBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5:30..
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 A 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.
/MANUEL L BARBEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights