DETAIL ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s amendment filed 8/04/2025 to the claims are accepted and entered. In this amendment, claims 48 and 78 have been amended, claims 1-47, 52, 65-66, 70-77 and 79-93 have been canceled, and claims 55-64 and 69 have been withdrawn. In response, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Response to Argument
3. Applicant’s argument filed 8/04/2025 regarding the 101 and prior art rejections have been fully considered. However,
3.1. Regarding the 101 rejection, Applicant’s arguments that steps (a), (b) and (c) in
amended independent claims 48 and 78 are not even arguably "a mental process
(thinking) that 'can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea under the guidance of MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) Ill
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 48 and 78 are amended the limitation “measuring, in a manufacturing process, …” that is not considered a specific element because measuring current-voltage in manufacturing process is adding insignificant extra-solution activity that does not take the claims out of mental process grouping. As stated in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) Ill, mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), i.e., one can measure current and voltage and look at the result or display on the screen to evaluate and/or make judgement/opinion, i.e., as recited at step (e) and (f) of claims 48 and 78. The claims are recited without any particular step or any particular tool to collect data to make the claims significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not eligible.
3.2. Regarding the 103 rejection, Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art but they are moot in view of new ground of rejection as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed 8/04/2025 has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 48-51, 53-54, 67-68 and 78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the
claims are directed to a process (claims 48 and 78), which is a statutory category.
However, evaluating claims 48 and 78, under at Step 2A, Prong One, the claims are directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea using mental processes, include “providing a battery cell structure comprising an anode, an electrolyte, and
a cathode including cations that move from the cathode to the anode during charging;
(b) performing a first charge of the battery cell structure using a predetermined formation protocol to create a formed battery cell; (e) repeating steps (a) through (d) for one or more additional battery cell structures” (claims 48 and 78), (f) creating a statistical model taking the first group of current-voltage signals and the second group of current-voltage signals of each of the formed battery cell and additional formed battery cells as input and providing an optimized battery formation protocol for another battery cell” (claim 48); and (f) creating a statistical model taking the first group of current-voltage signals and the second group of current-voltage signals of each of the formed battery cell and additional formed battery cells as input and providing a prediction of cycle life for another battery cell” (claim 78).
Next, Step 2A, Prong Two evaluates whether additional elements of the claims
"integrate the abstract idea into a practical application" in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claims are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations in claims 48 and 78 “(c) measuring, in a manufacturing process, a first group of current-voltage signals during or immediately after the formation protocol; and (d) measuring a second group of current-voltage signals of the formed battery cell after cycling/by cycle the formed battery cell to an end of life” are insignificantly extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering performed) that does not take the claims out of mental process grouping. The claims do not recite additional elements that could integrate the claims into a practical application. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
At Step 2B, consideration is given to additional elements that may make the
abstract idea significantly more. Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements that make the claims significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional elements as recited above in step 2A prong Two, are considered generic, conventional equipment which are insignificant and not sufficient to integrate the claims into a particular practical application.
Dependent claims 49-51, 53-54, and 67-68 do not disclose limitations considered to be significantly more which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claims merely extend (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significant more" because it merely adds details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. The following is a quotation under AIA of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action.
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
8. Claims 48-50, 53-54, 67-68, and 78 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Amiruddin et al, hereinafter Amiruddin (US patent 9553301 - of record) in view of Severson et al, hereinafter Severson (US 2019/0113577 – of record).
As per Claim 48, Amiruddin teaches a method for optimizing a battery formation protocol, the method comprising:
(a) providing a battery cell structure (Abstract, col 14 lines 59-63) comprising an anode, an electrolyte, and a cathode (col 2 lines 12-16, col 15 lines 8-16, col 26 lines 55-56) including cations that move from the cathode to the anode during charging (one or more metal cations with an average valence of +3, col 7 lines 13-17, i.e., transfer a significant fraction from positive electrode to negative electrode, col 6 lines 19-24. It is noted an atom with an average valence +3 can move between the cathode and anode in a galvanic cell);
(b) performing a first charge of the battery cell structure using a predetermined formation protocol to create a formed battery cell (a first charge of the battery, see col 5 lines13-39, batteries formed under formation protocol, see col 4 lines 43-45. An initial charge to a battery voltage of at least 2.1V can form the SEI layer during first charge step, col 22 lines 48-50, see also col 9 lines 65-66, col 21 lines 35-41); and
(e) repeat steps (a) and (b) for one or more additional battery cell structure (Table 2 shows multiple formation protocol, see col 31 lines 15-30, i.e., three electrode battery was assembled using a commercial test cell considered repeating steps for one or more additional battery cell structures, col 36 lines 29-37, steps formation procedure, see col 25 line 15, two step formation protocol, see col 5 lines 5-6, col 32 lines 42-50).
Amiruddin does not explicitly teach (c) measuring, in a manufacturing process, a first group of current-voltage signals during or immediately after the formation protocol; (d) measuring a second group of current-voltage signals of the formed battery cell after cycling the formed battery cell to an end of life; (e) repeating steps (c) through (d) for additional battery cell; and (f) creating a statistical model taking the first group of current-voltage signals and the second group of current-voltage signals of each of the formed battery cell and additional formed battery cells as input and providing an optimized battery formation protocol for another battery cell.
Severson teaches (c) measuring, in a manufacturing process, a first group of current-voltage signals during or immediately after the formation protocol (continuously measuring battery’s voltage and current during cycling considered part of the battery formation protocol, see Abstract, [0007]. Fig 2A shows a graph of voltage as a function of discharge capacity considered measuring current and voltage during the battery formation protocol. Fig 2A also shows a group of 10 cycles of discharge capacity considered “a first group having measured current-voltage during formation protocol”. The baseline, nominal capacity of the cell reported by manufacturers, and the initial capacity of the cell considered the measurements of cell’s current-voltage during manufacturing and testing process for battery formation protocol [0099]);
(d) measuring a second group of current-voltage signals of the formed battery cell after cycling the formed battery cell to an end of life (Fig 2A shows a group of 100 cycles of discharge capacity is considered “a second group having measured current-voltage measured after formation protocol”. The capacity fade rate near cycle 100 considered “forming battery cell to end of life” [0041], [0051]);
(e) repeating steps (c) through (d) for additional battery cell (a new manufacturing batches [0003] considered for every new manufacturing batch of battery cells, measuring and processing a new cell’s current and voltage during the formation protocol, see Figs 15, batches 1-2.
(f) creating a statistical model taking the first group of current-voltage signals and the second group of current-voltage signals of each of the formed battery cell and additional formed battery cells as input (Fig 2A shows a graph of voltage as a function of discharge capacity with the first/second groups of 10 and 100 cycles and this data is creating for a “prediction model” considered “statistical model”, see Abstract), and providing an optimized battery formation protocol for another battery cell (“improving upon state-of-the-art prediction models include higher accuracy, earlier prediction, greater interpretability, and broader application to a wide range of cycling conditions” [0005], or accelerate the cell development cycle [0003], both considered “optimizing battery formation protocol”, three different cells considered additional cells [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Amiruddin and Severson to measure a first and second group of cycles and creating a statistical model and combine and perform all steps that would facilitate in performing new manufacturing batches and grade newly produced cells by their expected lifetime (Severson [0003]).
As per Claim 49, Amiruddin in view of Severson teaches the method of claim 48, Amiruddin further teaches wherein: step (f) further comprises training the statistical model using one or more features selected from: (i) electrical data from the battery formation process, including voltage decay during rest, differential capacity, differential voltage, and (ii) measurements including cell expansion and contraction, and acoustic response (for (i): capacity loss meaning leading to voltage decay, see col 4 lines 52-58, Figs 8-9, different capacity and voltage difference, see Fig 3, col 4 lines 35-38, col 31 line 64 to col 32 line 10).
As per Claim 50, Amiruddin in view of Severson teaches the method of claim 48, Amiruddin further teaches wherein: the cations are lithium cations (col 7 lines 5-13,
col 18 lines 4-8).
As per Claim 53, Amiruddin in view of Severson teaches the method of claim 48, Amiruddin further teaches wherein: the formation protocol comprises a charging current based at least in part on a percentage of a capacity of the formed battery cell (i.e., when SOH is above 30%, the battery is aged by charging cycles using constant current “charging current”, see [0048], [0068]).
As per Claim 54, Amiruddin in view of Severson teaches the method of claim 53, Amiruddin further teaches wherein: the formation protocol comprises charging or discharging one or more times at fixed or varying states of charge (Fig 6, col 33 lines 46-48 and 56-58).
As per Claim 67, Amiruddin in view of Severson teaches the method of claim 48, Amiruddin does not explicitly teach the optimized battery formation protocol provides an optimized cycle life for the another battery cell. Severson teaches the optimized battery formation protocol provides an optimized cycle life for the another battery cell (a logarithm of predicted cycle life output considered using the logarithm of predicted battery cycle life is a valid and effective approach for optimizing the design and operation of new battery cells [0012], [0036]. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Amiruddin and Severson having algorithm of predicted battery cycle for optimizing the design and operation of new battery cells.
As per Claim 68, Amiruddin in view of Severson teaches the method of claim 48, Amiruddin further teaches wherein: the optimized battery formation protocol is determined by comparing resistances measured at states-of-charge less than or equal to 15% (Fig 5 shows resistance vs. SOC <15% of battery 1m, col 4 lines43-45).
As per Claim 78, Amiruddin teaches a method for predicting cycle life of a battery, the method comprising:
(a) providing a battery cell structure (Abstract, col 14 lines 59-63) comprising an anode, an electrolyte, and a cathode (col 2 lines 12-16, col 15 lines 8-16, col 26 lines 55-56) including cations that move from the cathode to the anode during charging (one or more metal cations with an average valence of +3, col 7 lines 13-17, i.e., transfer a significant fraction from positive electrode to negative electrode, col 6 lines 19-24. It is noted an atom with an average valence +3 can move between the cathode and anode in a galvanic cell);
(b) performing a first charge of the battery cell structure using a predetermined formation protocol to create a formed battery cell (a first charge of the battery, see col 5 lines13-39, batteries formed under formation protocol, see col 4 lines 43-45. An initial charge to a battery voltage of at least 2.1V can form the SEI layer during first charge step, col 22 lines 48-50, see also col 9 lines 65-66, col 21 lines 35-41); and
(e) repeat steps (a) and (b) for one or more additional battery cell structure (Table 2 shows multiple formation protocol, see col 31 lines 15-30, i.e., three electrode battery was assembled using a commercial test cell considered repeating steps for one or more additional battery cell structures, col 36 lines 29-37, steps formation procedure, see col 25 line 15, two step formation protocol, see col 5 lines 5-6, col 32 lines 42-50).
Amiruddin does not teach (c) measuring, in a manufacturing process, a first group of current-voltage signals during or immediately after the formation protocol of the formed battery cell; (d) measuring a second group of current-voltage signals of the formed battery cell by cycling the formed battery cell to an end of life; (e) repeating steps (c) to (d) for one or more additional battery cell; and (f) creating a statistical model taking the first group of current-voltage signals and the second group of current-voltage signals of each of the formed battery cell and additional formed battery cells as input and providing a prediction of cycle life for another battery cell.
Severson teaches (c) measuring, in a manufacturing process, a first group of current-voltage signals during or immediately after the formation protocol (continuously measuring battery’s voltage and current during cycling considered part of the battery formation protocol, see Abstract, [0007]. Fig 2A shows a graph of voltage as a function of discharge capacity considered measuring current and voltage during the battery formation protocol. Fig 2A also shows a group of 10 cycles of discharge capacity considered “a first group having measured current-voltage during formation protocol”. The baseline, nominal capacity of the cell reported by manufacturers, and the initial capacity of the cell considered the measurements of cell’s current-voltage during manufacturing and testing process for battery formation protocol [0099]. The claim recites “a battery formation protocol of the formed battery cell”, is incorrect phrase because a protocol cannot be applied to an already-formed cell);
(d) measuring a second group of current-voltage signals by cycling the formed battery cell to an end of life (Fig 2A shows a group of 100 cycles of discharge capacity is considered “a second group having measured current-voltage measured”. The capacity fade rate near cycle 100 considered “during/by cycling the formed battery cell to end of life” [0041], [0051]);
(e) repeating steps (c) to (d) for one or more additional battery cell ((a new manufacturing batches [0003] considered for every new manufacturing batch of battery cells, measuring and processing a new cell’s current and voltage during the formation protocol, see Figs 15, batches 1-2); and
(f) creating a statistical model taking the first group of current-voltage signals and the second group of current-voltage signals of each of the formed battery cell and additional formed battery cells as input (Fig 2A shows a graph of voltage as a function of discharge capacity with the first/second groups of 10 and 100 cycles and this data is creating for a “prediction model” considered “statistical model”, see Abstract), and providing a prediction of cycle life for another battery cell (a logarithm of predicted cycle life output considered using the logarithm of predicted battery cycle life is a valid and effective approach for optimizing the design and operation of new battery cells, see [0012], [0036])
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Amiruddin and Severson to measure a first and second group of cycles and creating a statistical model and combine and perform all steps that would facilitate in performing new manufacturing batches and grade newly produced cells by their expected lifetime, and predicted battery cycle for optimizing the design and operation of new battery cells.
Examiner’s Notes
9. Claim 51 is considered novel and non-obvious subject matter with respect to the prior art, but currently is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected based claim over prior art and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as set forth in this Office
action. Please refer to the previous Office action for examiner's statement of claim 51 distinguished over the prior art.
Conclusion
10. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to LYNDA DINH whose telephone number is (571) 270-
7150. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10 AM-6 PM ET.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LYNDA DINH/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857