DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the communication on 8/08/2025.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election invention I, claims 1-2, 9 and 13 in the reply filed 8/08/2025, is entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed 12/01/2022 has been considered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 9 have been amended.
Claim 13 has been added.
Claims 3-8, 10-12, and 14 have been withdrawn from consideration due to non-election.
Claims 1-2, 9, and 13 have been examined.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1, 9 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 5 “a battery monitor to monitor” should read “a battery monitoring device monitors” to be consistent with the specification.
Claim 1 line 14 “a degradation state of the battery is predicted …” should read “the degradation state of the battery is predicted” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis (see preamble).
Claim 9 “a battery” should read “the battery”.
Claim 13 recites “…” at the end of formulas (1), (2), and (3) which is unclear as to what “…” refers to? Further, “RT” in equation (1) is not defined. In addition, the term “SOC” should be clarified, i.e., “state of charge”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Statement Regarding 35 USC § 101
5. The claims are analyzed based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG) to determine whether the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites, under Step One of the test, a battery degradation prediction device for predicting a degradation state of a battery, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (i.e., machine).
Furthermore, the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) under Step 2A – Prong One of the test by reciting features that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, cover performance using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts (i.e., monitor a charge rate of the battery and a temperature of the battery, 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, wherein the capacity residual rate is computed using a first function formula including a first formula, the first formula includes an exponential function having, as a variable, a value obtained by multiplying the elapsed time by a first degradation coefficient and -1),
Continuing with the analysis under Step 2A – Prong Two, the claim, when considered as a whole, integrates the judicial exception into a practical application by providing an improvement to the technology (i.e., a battery degradation prediction device that predicts the degradation state of the battery by performing specific steps, i.e., providing details as to what and how is being done). Thus, the claim is eligible under Step 2A – Prong Two.
Dependent claims 2, 9 and 13 are also eligible as respective parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
7. Claims 1-2, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The recitation in claim 1, “a first function formula including a first formula, the first formula includes an exponential function having, as a variable, a value obtained by multiplying the elapsed time by a first degradation coefficient and -1” is indefinite. It is unclear whether “-1” refers as a first formula – (minus) 1, but the specification discloses 1 – the first formula, see claim 2 and spec. para [0019]. Please see claim 1 rejection for “first formula” under “Yamate”.
For purpose of examination, it is interpreted as the best understood by the examiner.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reason as respective parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over JP 2016-61562A of Goto in view of US patent 8664960 of Tsuchiya and 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 (is a full charge capacity deterioration degree estimation device that considered part of a prediction capacity degradation device because it estimates the deterioration degree of battery based on various factors, see Abstract), 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 page 9 under “Test example”, Abstract), the battery degradation prediction device comprising:
a battery monitor to monitor a charge rate of the battery and a temperature of the battery (the deterioration rate is calculated from the battery temperature and the charging rate (SOC), i.e., applying Arrhenius law to predict the temperature dependence of chemical reaction rate and capacity deterioration as temperature increases, see page 10, paras 5-6, page 11, para 2).
Goto does not teach 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, wherein the capacity residual rate is computed using a first function formula including a first formula, the first formula includes an exponential function having, as a variable, a value obtained by multiplying the elapsed time by a first degradation coefficient and -1, and a degradation state of the battery is predicted based on the capacity residual rate computed using the first function formula.
Tsuchiya teaches a computer to compute a capacity residual rate of the battery based on the charge rate (Fig 1, ECU 50 includes a controller 70 to estimate SOC 60 “charge rate”, see Fig 2, to estimate remaining capacity considered “capacity residual rate of battery”. It is noted estimate SOC of battery considered estimate capacity residual rate of battery, see col 1 lines 16-19, col 9 lines 42-43).
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 remaining capacity as taught by Tsuchiya that would facilitate improving highly accurate estimation of the remaining capacity is essential (Tsuchiya, col 1 lines 42-44).
Goto in view of Tsuchiya does not teach the capacity residual rate is computed using a first function formula including a first formula, the first formula includes an exponential function having, as a variable, a value obtained by multiplying the elapsed time by a first degradation coefficient and -1, and a degradation state of the battery is predicted based on the capacity residual rate computed using the first function formula.
Yamate teaches the capacity residual rate is computed (estimates a “remaining life” considered “capacity residual rate” of a “power storage element” considered “a battery”, see page 2, para 3) using a first function formula including a first formula, the first formula includes an exponential function having, as a variable, a value obtained by multiplying the elapsed time by a first degradation coefficient and -1 (see Abstract –“The chargeable / dischargeable capacity of the first term using an exponential function with a variable obtained by multiplying the cumulative usage period by a positive first constant” considered “a first formula”, where “chargeable / dischargeable capacity” is considered “degradation capacity in batteries”, see page 2 para 4, and “subtract 1” considered “-1”, see page 6 para 4. Examiner note: The first formula can be written as exponent (-a.t), where “-a” is considered a first degradation coefficient multiplies with elapsed time “t”. Elapsed time is a variable, and negative sign in degradation coefficient “a” indicates a decrease in capacity of the battery overtime), and a degradation state of the battery is predicted based on the capacity residual rate computed using the first function formula (deterioration state considered “degradation state of the battery, i.e., the battery capacity becomes 70% or less of the initial capacity considered “degradation state”, see page 13, para 2. The process continuing to estimate the remaining lifetime considered “predict the residual capacity rate”, see page 13 paras 3-7).
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 and Tsuchiya to estimate remaining capacity using function formula as taught by Yamate that would facilitate estimating the remaining life by correcting the relational expression and improving the accuracy of the relational expression (Yamate, page 2 para 4).
As per Claim 2, Goto in view of Tsuchiya and 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 that is degraded by the first degradation mechanism (deterioration of the positive electrode, see page 2 para 5), when the first degradation coefficient is represented by reference character "a" and the elapsed time is represented by reference character "t", the first formula is represented by exp(-axt) by using the elapsed time t (as stated in claim 1 above Yamate teaches the first formula: exponent(-a.t) or exp(-axt) ),
a first degradation rate that is a capacity degradation rate of the battery caused by the first degradation mechanism is represented by 1- exp(-axt) by using the first formula (a capacity degradation rate of the battery by 1- exp(-axt) using the first formula exp(-axt) is “1” as explained below:
when m=0 and a>0,
PNG
media_image1.png
39
171
media_image1.png
Greyscale
or in other words when t=0, and a>0
exp(-a.(t=0)) = 1. Thus, the limit of 1- exp(-axt) as t approaches infinity is 1 assume a>0.
The first formula exp(-a.t) can be used in a function formula: f(t) = exp(-a.t)
When t=0: f(t) = exp(-a.t) = 1 or f(t) = 1 - exp(-a.t) = 0), and
a computation formula of the capacity residual rate is represented by 1-{1-exp(-axt)} by using a formula representing the first degradation rate (It is noted 1-{1-exp(-axt)} can be simplified by subtracting 1 from the outside and inside brackets, and the result is
exp(-a.t) as the first formula considered a computation formula.
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 and Tsuchiya using the first formula and computing formula as the first degradation rate as taught by Yamate that would facilitate estimating the remaining life of the battery by correcting the relational expression and improving the accuracy of the relational expression. (Yamate, page 2 para 4).
As per Claim 9, Goto in view of Tsuchiya and Yamate teaches a battery degradation prediction system 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).
Novel and Non-Obvious Subject Matter
10. Claim 13 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 base claim and under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for considering novel and non-obvious subject matter:
None of the prior art in individual or in combination that teaches or suggests the formulas (1), (2), and (3) as recited in claim 13.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2017/0123013 of Tao et al, Post-deterioration performance estimating apparatus and post-deterioration performance estimating method for energy storage device, and energy storage system.
US 2020/0044286 of Kim et al., Non-aqueous Electrolyte Solution Additive, and Non-aqueous Electrolyte Solution for Lithium Secondary Battery and Lithium Secondary Battery which Include the Same.
US 2016/0011274 of Morita et al., Battery life estimation method and battery life estimation apparatus.
US 2016/0118649 of Yamamoto et al., Positive electrode active material containing solid solution active material, positive electrode containing the positive electrode active material, and non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery using the positive electrode.
JP 2019-145268 A of Hirakawa et al., Capacity deterioration rate estimation method and capacity deterioration rate estimation device, system of nonaqueous lithium type power storage component.
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