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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/07/2025 has been entered.
Response to Remarks
The remarks filed on 11/07/2025 are acknowledged and were fully considered. For the
reasons set forth below, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive over the previously applied
prior art. The rejections have been updated to address the amended claim language wherever
necessary.
Harutyunyan is “silent” regarding a processor and provides no reason to add one
Applicant argues that Harutyunyan does not disclose, suggest, or motivate inclusion of a processor configured to determine a potential change and compare it to a threshold. This argument is not persuasive.
As stated in the original rejection, Harutyunyan is relied upon for the flexible battery and the specific electrode architecture (nanotube network + embedded active material). Stefanopoulou is relied upon for the processor and associated functionality. A reference need not expressly suggest the precise combination; rather, the combination is proper where the elements are in the same field of endeavor and yield predictable results.
Both references are directed to lithium-ion battery systems and both address monitoring battery performance characteristics. The incorporation of a known processor-based diagnostic method (Stefanopoulou) into a known energy storage device (Harutyunyan) constitutes a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. No explicit motivation in Harutyunyan is required.
The invention monitors “structural health” while Stefanopoulou monitors “aging”
Applicant contends that Stefanopoulou deals only with age-related state-of-health changes in non-flexible batteries and therefore cannot teach or suggest “structural change” monitoring as recited. This argument is not persuasive.
Claim 1 does not limit the “structural change” to bending, twisting, or mechanical deformation, nor does it distinguish structural change from aging‐related structural degradation. “Structural change of the battery” is broad and reads on any structural or electrochemical degradation, including loss of active material, SEI layer growth, cracking, phase instability, and similar phenomena.
Stefanopoulou explicitly calculates differential voltage curves and extracts electrode potential characteristics. It is well-understood in the art (see MPEP 2144.01) that such voltage features inherently reflect structural conditions of the electrodes. Therefore, even if not expressly stated, the potential change detected in Stefanopoulou is inherently indicative of underlying structural changes. Inherency may supply a missing limitation when the missing characteristic is necessarily present (see MPEP 2112). Applicant’s attempt to separate “aging-based structural change” from “flex-induced structural change” has no basis in the claim language and does not distinguish the prior art.
Stefanopoulou does not disclose nanotube electrodes or flexible batteries
Applicant argues that because Stefanopoulou does not disclose nanotube-network electrodes, binder-free construction, or flexible batteries, there is no reason to combine it with Harutyunyan. This argument is not persuasive.
Stefanopoulou is relied upon solely for the processor-based estimation functionality, which is independent of electrode construction. Nothing in Stefanopoulou ties the disclosed diagnostic process to a particular electrode type. Battery management systems and voltage-based diagnostic algorithms are routinely applied across various lithium-ion cell chemistries and architectures. Applying such known diagnostic logic to a flexible battery system is a straightforward substitution yielding predictable results.
The fact that Harutyunyan uses nanotube-network electrodes does not prevent integration with a conventional processor-based monitoring system. A claimed invention is obvious if a skilled artisan would have substituted one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143.
Stefanopoulou uses a “general non-flexible lithium-ion battery,” so there is no motivation to combine
This argument is not persuasive. A reference is not limited to its specific embodiments. A battery management algorithm that analyzes voltage and current data is applicable to any battery capable of providing those signals, including flexible lithium-ion batteries. Applicant does not identify any structural or electrical property of the flexible battery in Harutyunyan that would prevent or render unpredictable the application of Stefanopoulou’s processor-based approach.
Furthermore, both references reside squarely in the same field of endeavor: monitoring health and performance of lithium-ion batteries. This provides sufficient motivation to combine.
No “predictable results” identified
Applicant argues that the Examiner did not identify predictable results from the proposed combination. This argument is not persuasive.
The predictable result is battery health estimation using voltage-based threshold comparisons, exactly as taught in Stefanopoulou. Applying a known diagnostic technique to another known battery type yields a predictable result, such as, identification of potential-based degradation signatures. Explicit articulation of a specific mechanical or chemical predictive phenomenon is not required. The combination merely uses each reference for its stated purpose:
Harutyunyan: flexible battery with nanotube electrodes
Stefanopoulou: processor-based potential-change monitoring
No incompatibility exists, and the result is predictable.
Applying Stefanopoulou to Harutyunyan “would not produce the recited results”
This argument is not persuasive. Applicant’s position is premised on importing unclaimed features (e.g., specific types of bending-induced damage) to argue non-predictability. Claim 1 does not require that the structural change originate from bending or that the threshold be derived only from flexible mechanical deformation cycles. The claim reads on any structural change detectable as a potential change.
Since both references disclose battery electrodes whose electrochemical behavior reflects structural conditions, and since both systems generate voltage and current signals from which potential changes can be derived, the combined system necessarily produces the claimed result.
Argument regarding incorporation by reference of Harutyunyan (US 16/560,731)
Applicant’s reliance on Harutyunyan’s incorporation by reference of another application does not overcome the rejection. The rejection combines Harutyunyan with Stefanopoulou, not the incorporated materials. The incorporation does not supply any teaching that would render Stefanopoulou non-analogous or non-combinable.
Conclusion
For the reasons above, the arguments provided by the Applicant are not persuasive. Harutyunyan teaches the flexible battery and electrode structure. Stefanopoulou teaches the processor, potential-change analysis, and threshold comparison. The combination represents a predictable use of elements in a common technological field. The amendments and arguments do not render the claimed subject matter patentable. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1–3 and 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained. See claims 1-3 and 5-7 rejections below.
Summary
This is a continued examination non-final office action for application 17/479,953 in response to the amendments filed on 11/07/2025. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-16 and 18-20 are under examination. Claims 9-16 and 18-20 are still withdrawn from consideration.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS)s submitted on 09/20/2021 and 10/08/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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, comprising: an energy storage device (see e.g. "battery" in paragraph [0007]) comprising an electrode (see e.g. "electrode" in paragraph [0008]), the electrode 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 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 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]), and wherein the energy storage device is a flexible battery (see e.g. "a flexible lithium ion battery" in paragraph [0004]).
Harutyunyan does not disclose a processor configured to determine a first value of potential change of the electrode of the energy storage device and to compare the first value of potential change to a threshold value or range of the electrode, wherein the potential change is indicative of a structural change of the battery, wherein the first value of potential change indicates damage to the electrode when the first value of potential change is equal to or greater than the threshold value or range of the electrode.
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]). 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]). Thus, Stefanopoulou discloses determining a first value of potential change of the electrode (via the differential voltage curve and positive electrode potential values) and comparing that value to a threshold (the predetermined threshold used to select between estimation methodologies), thereby meeting the limitation of a processor configured to determine a first value of potential change of the electrode and to compare it to a threshold value or range of the electrode.
While Stefanopoulou does not expressly state that the potential change is indicative of a structural change or explicitly state that the value indicates “damage,” Stefanopoulou teaches a system configured to calculate differential voltage profiles, identify electrode potential values, and estimate state of health based on a threshold comparison (see e.g. steps (d)–(i) in paragraph [0026]). Stefanopoulou further teaches that this method enables accurate SOH estimation in battery cells lacking distinct phase transitions (see e.g. paragraph [0104]), indicating sensitivity to subtle electrochemical and physical degradation phenomena. It is well-established in the art that electrode degradation, such as cracking, SEI thickening, particle fracture, or phase inhomogeneity manifests as changes in differential voltage characteristics. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the potential changes identified by Stefanopoulou’s processor are indicative of underlying structural changes in the battery, and that exceeding a threshold would indicate damage or degradation of the electrode.
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]). 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 use the teachings of Stefanopoulou in order to have a method for accurately measuring the state of health in battery cells as taught by Stefanopoulou.
Regarding Claim 2, Harutyunyan in view of Stefanopoulou disclose the apparatus of claim 1 (see 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]); and the nanotube network stresses, strains, bends, or otherwise deforms in response to damage of the electrode. Furthermore, 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 claim 1 rejection above). Harutyunyan further discloses that a concentration of the nanotube network in the electrode 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 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 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]) and compare that value to a predetermined threshold (see e.g. step (h) in paragraph [0026]). 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]). 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]).
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]). 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 use the teachings of Stefanopoulou in order to have a method for accurately measuring the state of health in battery cells as taught by Stefanopoulou.
Regarding Claim 7, Harutyunyan in view of Stefanopoulou disclose the apparatus of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above). Harutyunyan does not discloses 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]). Stefanopoulou further discloses comparing that value to a predetermined threshold (see e.g. step (h) in paragraph [0026]).
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]). 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]). 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 use the teachings of Stefanopoulou in order to have a method for accurately measuring the state of health in battery cells as taught by Stefanopoulou.
Conclusion
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722