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 .
Status of Claims
This is a final office action for application 17/479,953 in response to the amendment(s) filed on 04/10/2026. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-16 and 18-20 are under examination. Claims 9-16 and 18-20 remain withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/10/2026 have been fully considered but were not found persuasive over the previous prior art rejection of record for the reasons set forth below. See claims 1-3 and 5-7 rejections below.
Applicant argues that Stefanopoulou is directed to aging/state of health monitoring of non-flexible lithium ion batteries rather than detecting structural damage of a flexible battery/electrode sheet. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not require the structural change to be caused by bending, twisting, stretching, or any specific mechanical deformation of the flexible battery. Claim 1 broadly recites that the potential change is indicative of a structural change of the flexible battery and that the first value of potential change indicates damage to the electrode sheet when the first value is equal to or greater than the threshold value or range.
Stefanopoulou discloses processor based electrode level diagnostics using voltage/current data, differential voltage curves, electrode potential values, and threshold based evaluation to estimate electrode state of health. Stefanopoulou further teaches that electrode degradation may include loss of active material, structural disordering, dissolution, loss of electrical contact, particle cracking, and resistive surface layers (see e.g. paragraph [0083] of Stefanopoulou). Such degradation mechanisms are reasonably understood as structural/electrochemical damage of the electrode/battery. Therefore, Stefanopoulou’s electrode potential monitoring is properly relied upon as teaching or suggesting determining potential changes indicative of electrode degradation/structural change.
Applicant also argues that Harutyunyan does not disclose a processor and that Stefanopoulou does not disclose a flexible battery, nanotube network electrode sheet, or binderless/current collector free structure. These arguments are not persuasive because the rejection relies on Harutyunyan for the flexible battery and electrode sheet structure, and relies on Stefanopoulou for the processor based diagnostic functionality. The rejection does not rely on either reference alone to teach all limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, to the extent Applicant argues that the recited processor functionality distinguishes the apparatus from the prior art, such argument is not persuasive. Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus. Under MPEP 2114, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, apparatus claims must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Stefanopoulou discloses a processor/controller configured to perform electrode-level diagnostic functionality using voltage/current data, differential voltage curves, electrode potential values, and threshold-based evaluation (see e.g. paragraph [0026] of Stefanopoulou). Applicant has not identified a structural distinction that would prevent the combined apparatus from performing the claimed processor functionality.
Applicant further argues that there is no motivation to combine and no predictable result. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Both references are directed to lithium ion battery systems, and it would have been obvious to apply Stefanopoulou’s known processor based electrode diagnostic technique to Harutyunyan’s flexible lithium ion battery in order to monitor electrode health/degradation and protect the battery from failure. The predictable result is a flexible lithium ion battery having processor based monitoring of electrode potential behavior to identify electrode degradation or damage.
In conclusion, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained. See updated claim rejections below. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the electrode" in line 5. Claim 2 depends upon claim 1, an “an electrode” was never properly introduced in claims 1-2 and thus there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Only “an electrode sheet” was properly introduced in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harutyunyan et al. (US-2020/0083560-A1) in view of Stefanopoulou et al. (WO-2020033343-A1), US-2021/0359347-A1 is used as the translation and cited below.
Regarding Claim 1, Harutyunyan discloses an apparatus (see e.g. "battery" in paragraph [0007]), comprising:
a flexible battery (see e.g. " flexible lithium ion battery" in paragraph [0004]) comprising an electrode sheet (see e.g. "electrode" in paragraph [0008]), the electrode sheet comprising a nanotube network and an active material embedded therein, the active material comprising:
LiCoO2, Li-Ni-Mn-Co-O, or combinations thereof, when the electrode sheet is a cathode (see e.g. "flexible cathode comprising composite material comprising cathode active material (lithium metal oxide, metal lithium, etc.) particles in a three-dimensional cross-linked network of carbon nanotubes;" in paragraph [0027]; LiCoO2 and Li-Ni-Mn-Co-O are both lithium metal oxides); or
Si, SiOx/C, graphite, or combinations thereof, when the electrode sheet is an anode (see e.g. “a flexible anode comprising composite material comprising anode active material (graphite, silicon, etc.) particles in a three-dimensional cross-linked network of carbon nanotubes" in paragraph [0027]; Si, SiOx/C and graphite fall under the anode active material being graphite or silicon);
wherein the nanotube network surrounds the active material to retain the active material therein without use of a binder or current collector foils (see e.g. "The electrodes in the battery are not supported by current collector foils, such as aluminum for the cathode or copper for the anode, and do not contain binder, which can crumble or flake off. Instead, the electrodes are self-standing." in paragraph [0028]).
Harutyunyan does not disclose a processor configured to determine a first value of potential change of the electrode sheet of the energy storage device and to compare the first value of potential change to a threshold value or range of the electrode sheet, wherein the potential change is indicative of a structural change of the flexible battery, wherein the first value of potential change indicates damage to the electrode sheet when the first value of potential change is equal to or greater than the threshold value or range of the electrode sheet.
Stefanopoulou, however, in the same field of endeavor, battery state of health estimation for lithium-ion batteries, discloses a data processing system comprising at least one processor and at least one memory configured to receive a plurality of voltage values and a plurality of current values associated with a battery cell, and to calculate a differential voltage curve based on the voltage and current values (see e.g. steps (a)–(d) in paragraph [0026] of Stefanopoulou). The processor is further configured to determine electrode potential values from the differential voltage curve and to compare a resulting measure of fit to a predetermined threshold to estimate the state of health of the battery cell (see e.g. steps (e)–(i) in paragraph [0026] of Stefanopoulou). Thus, Stefanopoulou discloses a processor based determination of electrode potential behavior and threshold based evaluation associated with electrode potential values.
Stefanopoulou further discloses that electrode degradation may include loss of active material, structural disordering, dissolution, loss of electrical contact, particle cracking, and resistive surface layers (see e.g. paragraph [0083] of Stefanopoulou). Stefanopoulou also discloses that qualitative changes in electrode material structure can affect electrochemical properties including potential change, and that the processor may calculate an RMSE of the positive electrode potential fit and, if the RMSE is greater than a threshold, calibrate the positive electrode half-cell potential function (see e.g. paragraphs [0089]-[0090] of Stefanopoulou). Thus, Stefanopoulou teaches or suggests determining a value representative of a change in electrode potential behavior and comparing that value to a threshold, wherein the potential change is indicative of electrode degradation/structural change. While Stefanopoulou does not expressly disclose that the threshold comparison indicates “damage” to the electrode sheet, it would have been obvious to use the threshold comparison of electrode potential behavior as an indication of electrode degradation/damage because Stefanopoulou teaches electrode level diagnostics for identifying degradation status and preventing dangerous battery failure.
Stefanopoulou further teaches that this is a method for accurately measuring the state of health in battery cells that contain an electrode that does not exhibit distinct phase transitions during charging and discharging (see e.g. paragraph [0104] of Stefanopoulou). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the flexible battery of Harutyunyan et al. such that it further comprises a processor configured to determine a first value of potential change of the electrode sheet of the energy storage device and to compare the first value of potential change to a threshold value or range of the electrode sheet, wherein the potential change is indicative of a structural change of the flexible battery, wherein the first value of potential change indicates damage to the electrode sheet when the first value of potential change is equal to or greater than the threshold value or range of the electrode sheet as taught by Stefanopoulou et al. in order to accurately measure the sate of health in battery cells as suggested by Stefanopoulou.
Regarding Claim 2, Harutyunyan in view of Stefanopoulou disclose the apparatus of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Harutyunyan further discloses that the nanotube network comprises single-walled nanotubes, few-walled nanotubes, multi-walled nanotubes, or combinations thereof (see e.g. "Carbon nanotubes suitable for use in the methods of the present disclosure include single-walled nanotubes, few-walled nanotubes, and multi-walled nanotubes." in paragraph [0043]).
Harutyunyan does not explicitly disclose that the nanotube network stresses, strains, bends, or otherwise deforms in response to damage of the electrode. However, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that if the carbon nanotube network was used in an electrode and the electrode was damaged the carbon nanotube network in the electrode would have to stress, strain, bend or deform.
Regarding Claim 3, Harutyunyan in view of Stefanopoulou disclose the apparatus of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Harutyunyan further discloses that a concentration of the nanotube network in the electrode sheet is from about 0.5 wt% to about 10 wt% (see e.g. "in the bulk of the electrodes (0.5-10 wt % of nanotubes)" in paragraph [0009]).
Harutyunyan discloses a range that is the same as the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses the same range as the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 5, Harutyunyan in view of Stefanopoulou disclose the apparatus of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Harutyunyan further discloses that the flexible battery can be used in wearable devices (see e.g. " in the case of a flexible battery used in a wearable device" in paragraph [0046]). It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that wearable devices are a subset of consumer electronics, and that energy storage devices suitable for wearable devices would reasonably be understood as suitable for other consumer electronic applications as well.
Regarding Claim 6, Harutyunyan in view of Stefanopoulou disclose the apparatus of claim 5 (see e.g. claim 5 rejection above).
Harutyunyan does not disclose that the processor is further configured to cause the component to stop receiving power from the energy storage device when the first value of potential change is equal to or greater than the threshold value or range.
Stefanopoulou, however, discloses a processor configured to determine a first value of potential change (see e.g. step (g) in paragraph [0026] of Stefanopoulou) and compare that value to a predetermined threshold (see e.g. step (h) in paragraph [0026] of Stefanopoulou). When the threshold is met or exceeded, the system switches to a secondary evaluation path, reflecting a change in system behavior in response to a deteriorated or abnormal condition (see e.g. step (i) in paragraph [0026] of Stefanopoulou). Stephanopoulos’s disclosure is directed to battery health management, particularly in cells lacking distinct phase transitions, and emphasizes accurate detection of degraded battery conditions (see e.g. paragraph [0104] of Stefanopoulou).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure the processor disclosed by Stefanopoulou to stop power delivery to a component when the threshold is met or exceeded, in view of Stephanopoulos’s threshold based health monitoring. Stefanopoulou teaches detection of battery degradation conditions that can lead to failure, and it would have been a routine design choice to incorporate a protective response (e.g. opening a circuit, disabling a load, or cutting off power flow) to prevent damage to the battery or the powered component. Implementing a shutoff response when a threshold is exceeded would have been an obvious control measure to preserve operational safety and battery longevity, consistent with known battery protection design principles.
Stefanopoulou further teaches that this is a method for accurately measuring the state of health in battery cells that contain an electrode that does not exhibit distinct phase transitions during charging and discharging (se e.g. paragraph [0104] of Stefanopoulou). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Harutyunyan et al. such that the processor is further configured to cause the component to stop receiving power from the energy storage device when the first value of potential change is equal to or greater than the threshold value or range as made obvious by Stefanopoulou et al. in order to accurately measure the state of health in battery cells and safely operate the battery as suggested by Stefanopoulou.
Regarding Claim 7, Harutyunyan in view of Stefanopoulou disclose the apparatus of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Harutyunyan does not disclose that the first value of potential change is determined to be less than the threshold value or range, the processor is further configured to: determine a second value of potential change; and compare the second value of potential change to the threshold value or range.
Stefanopoulou, however, discloses a processor configured to determine a first value of potential change, which is reasonably read on the “measure of fit” determined from the positive electrode potential values derived from the differential voltage curve (see e.g. step (g) in paragraph [0026] of Stefanopoulou). Stefanopoulou further discloses comparing that value to a predetermined threshold (see e.g. step (h) in paragraph [0026] of Stefanopoulou).
In response to the first value being above the threshold, the processor determines a second set of positive electrode potential values calculated based on the total discharge values (see e.g. step (i) in paragraph [0026] of Stefanopoulou). This second set of values reflects a second value of potential change. Step (i) also teaches that the state of health is estimated using this second set, which necessarily requires evaluating those values against the same threshold logic used in step (h). Thus, comparison of the second value to the threshold is implicit in the conditional structure of steps (g)–(i).
Stefanopoulou further teaches that this is a method for accurately measuring the state of health in battery cells that contain an electrode that does not exhibit distinct phase transitions during charging and discharging (se e.g. paragraph [0104] Stefanopoulou). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Harutyunyan et al. such that it comprises a processor that when the first value of potential change is determined to be less than the threshold value or range, the processor is further configured to: determine a second value of potential change; and compare the second value of potential change to the threshold value or range as taught by Stefanopoulou et al. in order to accurately measure the state of health in battery cells as suggested by Stefanopoulou.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure:
Kondo (US-20210223324-A1)
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 JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 pm EST.
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, TONG GUO can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/J.J.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights