DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 10/23/2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 1, 6-9, 13-15 is/are now pending in the application. Applicant's amendments have addressed all informalities as previously set forth in the non-final action mailed on 07/29/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6-9, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9 states:
“embedding at least one microprocessor into at least one lithium-ion battery
…
sensing material transfer in at least one liquid phase reaction and at least one solid phase reaction occurring within the at least one lithium battery and charge transfer of an interface between at least one electrolyte and at least one electrode of the at least one lithium ion battery while neglecting to sense side reactions occurring within the at least one lithium-ion battery”
The specification as originally filed does not appear to teach a microprocessor being embedded in a lithium-on battery. Please provide support for this limitation. In light of the specification, examiner’s BRI of the claimed invention is generic computer structure being used as a tool to mathematically model/simulate battery parameters. At most, the generic computer structure is communicatively coupled to a lithium-ion battery to generically acquire data for the mathematical model/simulation, while not having support for any sensors or measurement components.
The specification as originally filed does not appear to teach the particular structure that is performing the function of ‘sensing material transfer in at least one liquid phase reaction and at least one solid phase reaction occurring within the at least one lithium battery and charge transfer of an interface between at least one electrolyte and at least one electrode of the at least one lithium ion battery while neglecting to sense side reactions occurring within the at least one lithium-ion battery’. The claim language leads the reader to believe a raw measurement by a particular sensing component is taking place. In light of the specification, Examiner interprets this limitation to be a mathematical calculation performed by generic computer structure. Also see response to arguments below.
Claim(s) 6, 8, 13-15 are rejected as for being dependent on claim(s) 1, 9.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-9, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (See 2019 Update: Eligibility Guidance).
Independent Claim 1 recites
determine battery behavior:
employing at least one particle swarm optimization parameter in at least one lithium-ion battery;
employing a Lebesgue sampling-based Bayesian estimation framework;
and
estimating via a single particle model at least one state-of-charge factor and at least one state-of-health factor for a battery;
and
establishing a battery single particle model
to
determine and estimate state- of-charge and state-of-health in at least one lithium-ion battery
providing at least one description of at least one behavior of the at least one lithium-ion battery,
performs the Lebesque sampling-based Bayesian estimation framework computation
and
an estimation of at least one state-of-charge factor and at least one state-of-health factor for the lithium-ion battery;
integrating the Lebesgue sampling-based Bayesian estimation framework,
and
estimates state-of-charge and state-of-health in the at least one lithium-ion battery
via
sensing material transfer in at least one liquid phase reaction and at least one solid phase reaction occurring within the at least one lithium battery and charge transfer of an interface between at least one electrolyte and at least one electrode of the at least one lithium ion battery while neglecting to sense side reactions occurring within the at least one lithium-ion battery.
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation].
Independent Claim 9 recites
determine battery behavior:
using a single particle model to simulate lithium-ion battery behavior;
employing particle swarm optimization to identify at least one parameter of the single particle model;
and
implementing the single particle model in a Lebesgue sampling and Bayesian estimation framework
to
estimate at least state of charge and state of health for the lithium-ion battery;
and
establishing the battery single particle model
to
determine and estimate state- of-charge and state-of-health in the at least one lithium-ion battery
performing a Lebesque sampling-based Bayesian estimation framework computation
and
providing the estimation of the at least state of charge and state of health for the lithium-ion battery;
and
estimates state-of-charge and state-of-health in the at least one lithium-ion battery
via
sensing material transfer in at least one liquid phase reaction and at least one solid phase reaction occurring within the at least one lithium battery and charge transfer of an interface between at least one electrolyte and at least one electrode of the at least one lithium ion battery while neglecting to sense side reactions occurring within the at least one lithium-ion battery.
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation].
In combination with Independent Claim 1, 9, Claim(s) 2, 6-8, 13-15 recite(s)
wherein
only a liquid phase and a solid phase in the battery are evaluated.
wherein
the solid phase is described via:
Spherical diffusion equation-Fick second law
PNG
media_image1.png
76
205
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reaction rate
PNG
media_image2.png
25
202
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Solid phase potential
PNG
media_image3.png
42
187
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein
the liquid phase is described via:
Evolution of lithium concentration
PNG
media_image4.png
25
174
media_image4.png
Greyscale
ace d ce Ix=0- x +=
PNG
media_image5.png
72
243
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation].
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (i.e. embedding at least one microprocessor into at least one lithium-ion battery to; via at least one system or at least one microprocessor embedded in the at least one lithium-ion battery; a microprocessor incorporated into the at least one lithium-ion battery);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) (i.e. displays an estimation); or
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) (i.e. in at least one lithium-ion battery; for a battery; in at least one lithium-ion battery while the at least one lithium-ion battery is online in the at least one lithium-ion battery; wherein incorporated into the at least one lithium-ion battery; in the at least one lithium-ion battery while the at least one lithium-ion battery is online in the at least one lithium-ion battery; wherein providing the description of the at least one behavior of the at least one lithium-ion battery via the single particle model reduces computation with respect to hardware within the at least one lithium-ion battery via integrating the Lebesgue sampling-based Bayesian estimation framework; wherein estimating state of charge and state of health of the at least one lithium-ion battery via the single particle model reduces computation with respect to the at least one system or at least one microprocessor via integrating the Lebesgue sampling-based Bayesian estimation framework).
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 additional elements 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 any other technology. The additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) (i.e. The additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. (See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 and cited reference for evidence).
Allowable Subject Matter (over Prior Art)
See prior OA, mailed 06/03/2024, for the statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed on 10/23/2025, have been entered and fully considered. In light of the applicant’s amendments changing the scope of the claimed invention, the rejection(s) have been withdrawn or updated. However, upon further consideration, a new or updated ground(s) of rejection(s) have been made, and applicant's argument(s)/remark(s) pertaining to the amended language have been rendered moot.
Applicant's argument(s)/remark(s), see page(s) 7-9, filed 10/23/2025, fail to address the standing 112 rejection(s). The previous rejection(s) stand. See updated rejection(s) necessitated by amendment(s).
Applicant's argument(s)/remark(s), see page(s) 7, filed 10/23/2025, with respect to the 101 rejection(s) has/have been fully considered.
-Applicant states
“I. RESPONSE TO CLAIM REJECTIONS PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. 101.
The claims have been amended to obviate the rejections raised pursuant to 35 U.S.C. @ 101.
Applicant now claims:
wherein the microprocessor incorporated into the at least one lithium-ion battery estimates state-of-charge and state-of-health in the at least one lithium-ion battery via sensing material transfer in at least one liquid phase reaction and at least one solid phase reaction occurring within the at least one lithium battery and a charge transfer of an interface between at least one electrolyte and at least one electrode of the at least one lithium ion battery while neglecting to sense side reactions occurring within the at least one lithium-ion battery.
Accordingly, the above amendment should obviate the rejection pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 101. Allowance is respectfully requested.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
The amended language appears to correspond to Para 0049-0051 and Fig. 4 of the PGPUB.
[0049] FIG. 1 shows a comparison of computational complexity vis a vis model accuracy and predictability. FIG. 2 shows a schematic testing regime of the current disclosure. FIG. 3 shows a Lithium-ion battery P2D model. The electrochemical model provides two porous electrodes and a separator. Lithium in the anode is de-inserted from the active material and released as ions in the electrolyte. FIG. 3 shows Input: current I temperature T Output: voltage V Cell domain: anode, separator and cathode In each domain: solid phase and electrolyte phase.
[0050] The current disclosure works under the premise that only liquid phase and solid phase in lithium-ion battery are considered. Side reactions during operation are neglected. Active materials in solid electrodes are considered to be homogenous, and are composed of spherical particles. The effects of current collectors on lithium-ion transfer and heat transfer are neglected. The electrochemical process involves material transfer with the electrolyte (liquid phase) and spherical particle (solid phase). Charge transfer occurs on the surface of the electrode particles, the interface between the electrolyte and the electrode. Reaction current is the exchange current density (Butler -Volmer kinetics equation).
[0051] FIG. 4 shows an illustration of the solid phase of the current disclosure. The following equations apply to the SP Model.
In light of the specification, Examiner interprets the amended language to be a particular scenario/premise the mathematical model (electrochemical model; single particle model) works under.
There does not appear to be any particular sensors the sense raw data by performing the function ‘sensing material transfer in at least one liquid phase reaction and at least one solid phase reaction occurring within the at least one lithium battery and a charge transfer of an interface between at least one electrolyte and at least one electrode of the at least one lithium ion battery while neglecting to sense side reactions occurring within the at least one lithium-ion battery’.
Examiner interprets the claimed invention, in light of the specification, to be directed towards performing a mathematical calculation for ‘material transfer in at least one liquid phase reaction and at least one solid phase reaction occurring within the at least one lithium battery and a charge transfer of an interface between at least one electrolyte and at least one electrode of the at least one lithium ion battery while neglecting to sense side reactions occurring within the at least one lithium-ion battery’.
See updated rejection(s) necessitated by amendment(s).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 RAYMOND NIMOX whose telephone number is (469)295-9226. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 10am-8pm CT.
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, ANDREW SCHECHTER can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
RAYMOND NIMOX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/RAYMOND L NIMOX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit