This Office action is in response to the communication on 4/17/2026.
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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant’s amendments filed 4/17/2026 to the claims are accepted and entered. In this amendment:
Claims 1-2, and 13 have been amended.
Claims 15-19 have been added.
Claims 3-8, 10-12, and 14 have been canceled.
Claims 1-2, 9, 13, and 15-19 are examined.
Response to Argument
2. Applicant’s arguments filed on 4/17/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s argument regarding objection of claim 9 is persuasive. It should be
“a battery degradation prediction device".
Applicant amended claims 1-2, 9, and 13 and overcame the 112(b) rejection.
Thus, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the prior art rejection: Applicant argues that Yamate fails to teach or
suggest the limitations of independent claim 1.
The Examiner asserts that Yamate teaches the first formula as exp(-a. t).
However, Yamate's disclosure is fundamentally different from the claimed invention. In Yamate, the capacity is computed by subtracting degradation terms from an initial
capacity. Yamate's formula (Abstract) describes computing "chargeable/dischargeable capacity" using "an exponential function with a variable obtained by multiplying the cumulative usage period by a positive first constant." (Remark, page 9).
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Yamate discloses “the
chargeable/dischargeable capacity of the electricity storage element “battery” at the time when the cumulative use period that is a cumulative value is a first term using an exponential function with a variable obtained by multiplying the cumulative use period by a positive first constant” (see page 2 para 3). It is noted the exponential function is written as f(t) = exp(a.t), where a>0. However, Yamate further discloses “in an exponential function having a variable obtained by multiplying the cumulative use period by a positive first constant, the value decreases at an accelerated rate as the cumulative use period elapses (see page 2 para 4). Apparently, Yamate implies the value decreases when constant a<0. Thus, when a<0, the exponential function means f(t) = exp(-at).
Applicant further argues that the Examiner noted: "The first formula can be
written as exponent (-a.t), where '-a' is considered a first degradation coefficient multiplies with elapsed time 't'." However, this interpretation improperly treats the degradation coefficient itself as negative.
First, the sign of the exponent: Yamate uses a positive exponent (Ct), while the
present invention uses a negative exponent (-axt). These are not algebraically equivalent and produce qualitatively different behavior.
- Second, the computed quantity: Yamate computes an absolute capacity value (in units of charge), while the present invention computes a dimensionless capacity residual rate - a ratio between 0 and 1 representing the fraction of initial capacity remaining. These are fundamentally different output quantities serving different predictive purposes.
Third, the physical model: The present invention's formula is derived from first
order reaction kinetics governing the specific degradation mechanism of electrode component elution, as described in the specification at [0005] and [0022]. Yamate's formula is an empirical fit that, as the specification notes, "rapidly changes at an end of service life of the battery, but does not represent a degradation characteristic of the positive electrode at an initial stage of storage. (Remark, p.10-11).
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
First: As it is known in the art, in standard exponential function, the constant “a” is called initial/starting value or coefficient, i.e., starting point when t=0.
Second: Yamate discloses “deterioration state of charge/discharge capacity” is considered “a capacity residual rate” of the battery (see p.8, para 3 from the bottom up, p.13, para 2). It is noted “deterioration state of charge/discharge capacity” expressed as a dimensionless (i.e., in %). Note: Applicant refers to “a ratio between 0 and 1 representing the fraction of initial capacity remaining it seems not found in the specification.
Third: Yamate further discloses “the capacity includes from the initial capacity of the power storage element” (page 6 para 2), and “the capacity is determined from the initial capacity of the power storage element, the first term including a constant term as a main factor of deterioration of the positive electrode (page 6 para 3), e.g., the “exponential function” f(t) = exp(a.t), when t = 0 as constant a at starting point meaning: f(0) = exp(0) = 1 (the power of zero equals to 1). This 1 represents the battery is at 100% capacity or “initial capacity”. Yamate further discloses “The unit of the cumulative use period is preferably time or cycle (number of times of charging / discharging), but may be any unit as long as it represents a period such as a month or a day” (page 8 last para). It is noted the number of charge/discharge cycles is a primary factor in the degradation of the positive electrode in batteries.
For the above reason, the arguments regarding Yamate are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a first degradation coefficient” and “a first degradation rate” lack antecedent basis because they mean the same. Please be consistent.
Claim 13 recites “…Formula” is not clear what Applicant means “…” before Formulas (1), Formula (2), and Formula (3). Please delete “…”, e.g. it is suggested: a=Asxexp(-Es/RxT) Formula (1), and so on.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all
obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
5. Claims 1-2, 9, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over JP 2016-61562A of Goto (of record) in view of JP 2013-254710A of Yamate et al., hereinafter Yamate (IDS of record).
As per Claim 1, Goto teaches a battery degradation prediction device for predicting a degradation state of a battery (a full charge capacity deterioration degree estimation device (Abstract) is considered part of a prediction capacity degradation device because it estimates the deterioration degree of battery based on various factors), the battery including a first degradation mechanism in which a capacity is degraded by elution of a part of a component of an electrode of the battery into a solution of the battery (accumulated metal elution amount considered “a degradation mechanism”, i.e., testing positive and negative electrodes in suitable solvent, see p.9 under “Test example”, Abstract), the battery degradation prediction device comprising:
a battery monitoring device (a degradation level estimation apparatus, p.3 last para, p.9, para 4 from the bottom up) that monitors a charge rate of the battery and a temperature of the battery (a full charge capacity deterioration degree estimation device is also considered a battery monitoring device. The deterioration rate is calculated from the battery temperature and the charging rate, see p.3, para 7); and
a computer to compute a capacity residual rate of the battery based on the charge rate, the temperature, and an elapsed time from a start of monitoring of the battery (calculating degradation rate of full charge considered computing the residual capacity rate or computing state of health/SOH from the start, see p.3, paras 6-7).
Goto does not teach wherein the capacity residual rate is computed using a first function formula represented by f(t) = 1-{ 1-exp(-axt)}, where a first degradation coefficient is a and the elapsed time is t, the first function formula including a first formula represented by exp( -axt), the first formula includes an exponential function having, as a variable, a value obtained by multiplying the elapsed time t by the first degradation coefficient a and -1, and a first degradation rate representing a capacity degradation rate of the battery caused by the first degradation mechanism is represented by 1-exp( -axt) using the first formula, and the degradation state of the battery is predicted based on the capacity residual rate computed using the first function formula.
Yamate teaches wherein the capacity residual rate is computed using a first function formula represented by f(t) = 1-{ 1-exp(-axt)}, where a first degradation coefficient is a and the elapsed time is t, the first function formula including a first formula represented by exp(-axt), the first formula includes an exponential function having, as a variable, a value obtained by multiplying the elapsed time t by the first degradation coefficient a and -1, and a first degradation rate representing a capacity degradation rate of the battery caused by the first degradation mechanism is represented by 1-exp(-axt) using the first formula ( “the chargeable/dischargeable capacity of the electricity storage element “battery” at the time when the cumulative use period that is a cumulative value is a first term using an exponential function with a variable obtained by multiplying the cumulative use period by a positive first constant” (see page 2 para 3). The exponential function can be written as f(t) = exp(a.t), where a>0. However, Yamate also discloses “in an exponential function having a variable obtained by multiplying the cumulative use period by a positive first constant, the value decreases at an accelerated rate as the cumulative use period elapses (see page 2 para 4). Apparently, Yamate implies the value decreases when constant a<0. Thus, when a<0, the exponential function is f(t) = exp(-at), where exp(-at) is considered “a first formula”, and constant a is considered “a constant coefficient” or “a first degradation coefficient”.
Yamate also teaches “the capacity includes from the initial capacity of the power storage element” (page 6 para 2), and “the capacity is determined from the initial capacity of the power storage element, the first term including a constant term as a main factor of deterioration of the positive electrode “mechanism” (page 6 para 3),
Thus, when t=0, constant a at starting point, f(t) = exp(a.t) = exp(0) = 1 (the power of zero equals to 1). This 1 represents the battery is at 100% capacity or “initial capacity”.
For f(t) = 1 – {1- exp(-at)}, the expression 1- {1- exp(-at)} simplifies to exp(-at) as explained: 1 – 1 + exp-(at) = exp(-at). Thus, 1 – {1- exp(-at)} represents the remaining capacity of the battery or “capacity residual rate of the battery” after subtracting the lost capacity from 100%); and
the degradation state of the battery is predicted based on the capacity residual rate computed using the first function formula (“deterioration state of the chargeable/ dischargeable capacity of the power storage element at the time when the cumulative use period has elapsed” (p.8 para 3 from the bottom up) is considered computing the remaining capacity of the battery or capacity residual rate of the battery).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teaching of Goto to estimate a capacity residual rate as taught by Yamate that would facilitate accurately estimate the remaining capacity of the power storage element “battery” (Yamate, p.2, first 2 lines).
As per Claim 2, Goto in view of Yamate teaches the battery degradation prediction device according to claim 1, Yamate further teaches wherein the first degradation coefficient is a degradation coefficient of a positive electrode of the battery that is degraded by the first degradation mechanism (deterioration of the positive electrode, see page 2 para 5). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teaching of Goto to estimate a capacity residual rate as taught by Yamate that would facilitate accurately estimate the remaining life of the power storage element or battery (Yamate, p.2, first 2 lines).
As per Claim 9, Goto in view of Yamate teaches a battery degradation prediction system, Yamate further teaches comprising: a battery and the battery degradation prediction device according to claim1 (a life estimation apparatus 100, a power storage element 200 considered “a battery”, see Abstract). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teaching of Goto to estimate a capacity residual rate as taught by Yamate that would facilitate accurately estimate the remaining life of the power storage element or battery (Yamate, p.2, first 2 lines).
As per Claim 16, Goto in view of Yamate teaches the battery degradation prediction device according to claim 1, Goto teaches wherein the battery is a lithium ion battery, and the electrode is a positive electrode (p.2 para 2).
As per Claim 19, Goto in view of Yamate teaches the battery degradation prediction device according to claim 1, Goto teaches wherein the first degradation coefficient has dependency on a temperature and is computed using an Arrhenius equation having a frequency factor and activation energy (Arrhenius law or Arrhenius equation for predicting the temperature dependence of the chemical reaction rate is considered having a frequency factor and activation energy, see p.10 para 6).
6. Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Goto in view of Yamate and further US patent 8589097 of Kirchev.
As per Claim 17, Goto in view of Yamate teaches the battery degradation prediction device according to claim 1, the combination does not teach wherein the capacity residual rate represents a ratio to an initial capacity of the battery at the elapsed time. Kirchev teaches the capacity residual rate represents a ratio to an initial capacity of the battery at the elapsed time (see equation R1, SOH = 100 x CD/CN, col 1 lines 18-38, SOH “capacity residual rate in %) = a ratio of CD is a discharge capacity multiplies 100 considered “capacity retention rate or capacity residual rate at elapsed time, i.e., Fig 5 steps F21-F22, wait for a time t2 considered elapsed time, and CN is nominal capacity of battery considered an initial rated capacity of a battery). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Goto, Yamate, and Kirchev that would facilitate determining the state of health (Kirchev, col 1 lines 14-16).
As per Claim 18, Goto in view of Yamate teaches the battery degradation prediction device according to claim 1, the combination does not teach wherein the computer further computes a residual capacity of the battery as a product of an initial capacity of the battery and the capacity residual rate. Kirchev teaches the computer further computes a residual capacity of the battery as a product of an initial capacity of the battery and the capacity residual rate (see formula R1, SOH(%) = 100 x CD/CN, col 1 lines 18-38. It is noted the above formula can be rewritten as: CD = CN x SOH (in%), where SOH “capacity residual rate (in %), CD is a discharge capacity, and CN is nominal capacity of battery considered an initial rated capacity of a battery). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Goto, Yamate, and Kirchev that would facilitate determining the current discharge capacity (Kirchev, col 1 lines 14-16).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 13 and 15 are allowed with respect to the prior art and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Please refer to the previous Office Action for reason for allowance regarding the prior art.
Conclusion
8. 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 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.
12. 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 PM-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