This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on 3/27/2026.
DETAIL 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 3/27/2026 to the claims are entered.
Claims 48 and 78 have been amended.
Claims 1-47, 52, 65-68, 70-77 and 79-93 have been canceled.
Claims 55-64 and 69 have been withdrawn.
Claim 94 has been added.
Claims 48-51, 53-54, 78 and 94 are examined.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s argument filed 3/27/2026 regarding the 101 and prior art rejections have been fully considered.
Regarding the 101 rejection: Applicant’s argues 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 M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(a)(2) Ill quoted above. Independent claims 48 and 78 (and the claims that depend thereon) are eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 at Pathway B.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendment of claims 48 and 78, falls into the grouping of mathematical concepts, because optimized battery formation protocol uses algorithms, modeling, and math optimization techniques, i.e., to find the best charging and discharging trajectory for battery manufacturing. The claim does not recite any additional elements to amount significant more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art but they are moot in view of new ground of rejection as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding Amiruddin do not disclosing steps c, d and e as in the previous Office action, the examiner, upon further consideration, respectfully submits that Amiruddin teaches step c: Table 2: performing a partial activation formation protocol, e.g., charging to an intermediate voltage like 4.30 V on the first cycle, and capturing a first group of current-voltage signals during or immediately after this process considered in advanced battery manufacturing. It is noted that charging to an intermediate voltage like 4.30 V on the first cycle is considered to include first group of current-voltage signals); and step d: measuring a second group of current-voltage signals by cycling the formed battery cell to an end of life ( see col 28, lines 49-58 - this procedure is considered measuring the second group of current-voltage signals by cycling the formed battery cell to an end of life).
References Listed in Specification
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper. (See specification pages 54-61). Therefore, unless the references have been listed on form PTO-892 or have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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 48-51, 53-54, 78, and 94 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as 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.
Regarding claims 48 and 78, the examiner submits that under Step 1 of the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for evaluating claims for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claims are to processes, which one of the statutory categories of invention.
Continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test, the limitations (see Italic font) of:
Regarding claim 48:
the limitations “(a) 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; (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 (a) through (d) for one or more additional battery cell structures; 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” fall into the grouping of mental processes; wherein the optimized battery formation protocol provides an optimized cycle life for the another battery cell, and wherein the optimized battery formation protocol is determined by comparing resistances measured at states-of-charge less than or equal to 15%” fall into the groupings of mathematical concepts (e.g., predetermined formation protocol, creating a statistical model and optimized battery formation, comparing (i.e., using algorithms, building statistical model )) and mental processes (e.g., step (f) could practically be performed entirely in the human mind (e.g., a person looking at a chart of current-voltage data, evaluating it, and mentally estimating a trend)). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Regarding claim 78:
the limitations “(a) 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; (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 by cycling the formed battery cell to an end of life; (e) repeating steps (a) through (d) for one or more additional battery cell structures; 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; wherein the first group of current-voltage signals are obtained at states-of-charge less than or equal to 15%” fall into the groupings of mathematical concepts (e.g., predetermined formation protocol, creating a statistical model and optimized battery formation, comparing (i.e., using algorithms, building statistical model )) and mental processes (e.g., step (f) it could practically be performed entirely in the human mind (e.g., a person looking at a chart of current-voltage data, evaluating it, and mentally estimating a trend)). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Thus, the claims recite a judicial exception under Step 2A - Prong One of the test.
Furthermore, under Step 2A - Prong Two of the test, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements recited in the claims (see non-italic text as disclosed in Prong One above):
Regarding claims 48 and 78:
“methods for optimizing a battery formation protocol and predicting cycle life of a battery,” generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP.2106.05(h); and
providing a battery cell structure and measuring current-voltage signals add insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering) recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered individually and in
combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considering the claims as a whole. The claims are directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A of the test.
Additionally, under Step 2B of the test, the claims do not include additional elements that, when considered individually and in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements:
generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., methods for optimizing/predicting cycle life of a battery). The limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)); and
recite extra-solution activities (i.e., mere data gathering) specified at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claims, when considered as a whole, do not provide significantly more under Step 2B of the test. Based on the analysis, the claims are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims 49-51, 53-54, and 94, they are also directed to the non-statutory subject matter because:
they just extend the abstract idea of the independent claim by additional limitations (claims 49, 51, 53-54, 94), that under the broadest interpretation in light of the specification, cover performance of the limitations using mathematical concepts and/or mental process.
the additional elements recited in the dependent claims, when considered individually and in combination, refer to extra-solution activities recited at a high level of generality (e.g., mere data gathering, i.e., measuring current-voltage signals, claims 49, 94), which as indicated in the Office's guidance does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A -Prong Two) and/or do not provide significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 48-50, 53-54, 78, and 94 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 ( form the battery structure, see col 14 lines 62-63, Abstract ) comprising an anode, an electrolyte, and a cathode ( see col 2 lines 39-42, col 26 lines 55-56, col 10 lines 54-57. As it is known in the art, battery structure includes anode, cathode, and electrolyte ) including cations that move from the cathode to the anode during charging ( transfer a significant fraction from positive electrode to negative electrode, see col 6 lines 19-24, col 7 lines 13-17 - 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 ( an initial charge forms the SEI layer during a first charge step, see col 22 lines 49-50, col 5 lines 15-26, col 21 lines 35-41);
(c) measuring, a first group of current-voltage signals during or immediately after the formation protocol of the formed battery cell ( Table 2 in col 31, shows performing a partial activation formation protocol, e.g., charging to an intermediate voltage like 4.30 V on the first cycle, and capturing a first group of current-voltage signals during or immediately after this process considered in advanced battery manufacturing. It is noted charging to an intermediate voltage like 4.30 V on the first cycle considered to include first group of current-voltage signals);
(d) measuring a second group of current-voltage signals by cycling the formed battery cell to an end of life ( col 28, lines 49-58 - this procedure is considered measuring the second group of current-voltage signals by cycling the formed battery cell to an end of life );
wherein the optimized battery formation protocol provides an optimized cycle life
for the another battery cell ( to achieve a desired specific capacity while providing for excellent stability with cycling, a targeted formation protocol is particularly effective in stabilizing cycling for battery compositions with moderate lithium enrichment, see Abstract, col 11 lines 40-43 ); and
wherein the optimized battery formation protocol is determined by comparing
resistances measured at states-of-charge less than or equal to 15% (In comparison with a fully activation formation protocol, the multiple step partial activation formation protocol results in a decrease in electrical resistance in the battery of greater than about 10% across a state of charge from 10% to 90%, see col 27 lines 1-5, e.g., Fig 5 shows battery cell 1l with 10% SOC, see col 4 lines 43-45 and Table 2- partial activation formation protocol with a first cycle voltage threshold, such as 4.3 V can be evaluated and optimized by comparing cell internal resistances measured at low SOC <=15% SOC, see Fig 5, col 33 lines 14-33).
Amiruddin does not explicitly teach measuring current-voltage signals in a manufacturing process in step (c); (e) repeating steps (a) through (d) for one or more additional battery cell structures; 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 measuring current-voltage signals in a manufacturing process in step (c) ( continuously measuring a battery's voltage and current during the initial cycling, considered steps of cell production “manufacturing” directly constitutes capturing a first group of current-voltage signals during or immediately after the formation protocol, see Abstract, Figs 15A-B, producing battery cells using batches are in manufacturing process );
(e) repeating steps (a) through (d) (fast charging and formation cycling, see [0003], considered tied concepts in battery manufacturing and electrochemistry, as fast formation protocols are specifically engineered to shape the internal battery structure “Step a”; continuously measuring voltage, current, cell can temperature, and internal resistance during a controlled initial charge/discharge sequence, see [0040], considered is a core part of performing battery cell formation “Step b”; the capacity fade trajectories cross each other illustrates the weak relationship between initial capacity and lifetime, see [0041[, considered measuring in manufacturing process during or after the formation protocol “Step c”; and the observation that capacity fade is negligible in the early cycles and accelerates near the end of life considered measuring a second group of current-voltage signals after cycling the cell to its end of life “Step d”, see [0041], [0051] ) for one or more additional battery cell structures (a new manufacturing batches, see [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 15A-B, 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 a prediction of cycle life 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, see [0005], or accelerate the cell development cycle [0003], both considered “optimizing battery formation protocol”, three different cells considered additional cells, see [0019] ).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teaching of Amiruddin to measure repeatedly steps (a) to (d) and creating a statistical model as taught by Severson that would successfully reveal predictive features of cycle life from early cycle discharge curves, identification of the degradation modes and provide new manufacturing batches and grade newly produced cells by their expected lifetime (Severson [0003], [0052]).
As per Claim 49, Amiruddin in view of Severson teaches the method of claim 48, Amiruddin does not explicitly teach 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. Severson teaches step (f) further comprises training the statistical model ( The training data are used to learn the model structure and coefficient values, see [0015], [0021]) using one or more features selected from: (i) electrical data from the battery formation process, including voltage decay during rest ( the energy dissipation with voltage, due to open-circuit, see [0050]), differential capacity (dQ/dV, see [0016], [0052]), differential voltage (a reverse of differential capacity, dV/dQ, see [0052]). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teaching of Amiruddin to train the prediction model as taught by Severson that would successfully reveal predictive features of cycle life
from early cycle discharge curves, identification of the degradation modes using only high rate data is challenging because of the convolution of kinetics with open-circuit
behavior (Severson, [0052]).
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 (A charge rate of 1C considered ‘charge current”, and directly related to the capacity of the battery cell, see col 34 lines 13-14).
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 78, Amiruddin teaches a method for predicting cycle life of a battery, the method comprising:
(a) providing a battery cell structure ( form the battery structure, see col 14 lines 62-63, Abstract ) comprising an anode, an electrolyte, and a cathode ( see col 2 lines 39-42, col 26 lines 55-56, col 10 lines 54-57. As it is known in the art, battery structure includes anode, cathode, and electrolyte ) including cations that move from the cathode to the anode during charging transfer a significant fraction from positive electrode to negative electrode, see col 6 lines 19-24, col 7 lines 13-17 - 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 ( an initial charge forms the SEI layer during a first charge step, see col 22 lines 49-50, col 5 lines 15-26, col 21 lines 35-41);
(c) measuring, a first group of current-voltage signals during or immediately after the formation protocol of the formed battery cell ( Table 2 in col 31, shows performing a partial activation formation protocol, e.g., charging to an intermediate voltage like 4.30 V on the first cycle, and capturing a first group of current-voltage signals during or immediately after this process considered in advanced battery manufacturing. It is noted charging to an intermediate voltage like 4.30 V on the first cycle considered to include first group of current-voltage signals);
(d) measuring a second group of current-voltage signals by cycling the formed battery cell to an end of life ( col 28, lines 49-58 - this procedure is considered measuring the second group of current-voltage signals by cycling the formed battery cell to an end of life );
wherein the first group of current-voltage signals are obtained at states-of-charge less than or equal to 15% (In comparison with a fully activation formation protocol, the multiple step partial activation formation protocol results in a decrease in electrical resistance in the battery of greater than about 10% across a state of charge from 10% to 90%, see col 27 lines 1-5, e.g., Fig 5 shows battery cell 1l with 10% SOC “first group of I-V signals, col 33 lines 14-33).
Amiruddin does not explicitly teach measuring current-voltage signals in a manufacturing process in step (c), (e) repeating steps (a) through (d) for one or more additional battery cell structures; 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 measuring current-voltage signals in a manufacturing process in step (c) ( continuously measuring a battery's voltage and current during the initial cycling, considered steps of cell production “manufacturing” directly constitutes capturing a first group of current-voltage signals during or immediately after the formation protocol, see Abstract, Figs 15A-B, producing battery cells using batches are in manufacturing process );
(e) repeating steps (a) through (d) (fast charging and formation cycling, see [0003], considered tied concepts in battery manufacturing and electrochemistry, as fast formation protocols are specifically engineered to shape the internal battery structure “Step a”; continuously measuring voltage, current, cell can temperature, and internal resistance during a controlled initial charge/discharge sequence, see [0040], considered is a core part of performing battery cell formation “Step b”; the capacity fade trajectories cross each other illustrates the weak relationship between initial capacity and lifetime, see [0041[, considered measuring in manufacturing process during or after the formation protocol “Step c”; and the observation that capacity fade is negligible in the early cycles and accelerates near the end of life considered measuring a second group of current-voltage signals after cycling the cell to its end of life “Step d”, see [0041], [0051] ) for one or more additional battery cell structures (a new manufacturing batches, see [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 15A-B, 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 a prediction of cycle life 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, see [0005], or accelerate the cell development cycle [0003], both considered “optimizing battery formation protocol”, three different cells considered additional cells, see [0019] ).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teaching of Amiruddin to measure repeatedly steps (a) to (d) and creating a statistical model as taught by Severson that would successfully reveal predictive features of cycle life from early cycle discharge curves, identification of the degradation modes and provide new manufacturing batches and grade newly produced cells by their expected lifetime (Severson [0003], [0052]).
As per Claim 94, Amiruddin n view of Severson teaches the method of claim 78 wherein: Amiruddin teaches the second group of current-voltage signals are processed to calculate a measured cell internal resistance (col 11 lines 27-43).
Examiner’s Notes
Claim 51 is considered novel and non-obvious subject matter with respect to the prior art, but as currently is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected based claim over prior art and is presently 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
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
Prosecution Insights