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 .
Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination based on the application filed on 12/9/2022.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Claims 2-8 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph
Claims 1, 9 , 10 , 13, 15, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NPL by Xu, Bolun, et al. "Modeling of lithium-ion battery degradation for cell life assessment." IEEE transactions on smart grid 9.2 (2018): 1131-1140.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 11, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Xu et al, in view of US PGPUB No. US 20200341065 A1 by SHIRANE; TAKAYUKI et al.
Claim(s) 4-8, 12 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL by Xu et al, in view of US PGPUB No. US 20200321080 A1 by RAVIKUMAR; Bharath et al.
This action is made Non-Final.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental process without any additional elements that provide a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1 & 14:
Step 1: the claims 1 & 14 are drawn to a method and article of manufacture respectively, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. The limitations are bolded for abstract idea/judicial exception identification.
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1
A method of analyzing changes that occur over time in a battery, the method comprising:
defining an electrode of a battery;
obtaining an expression for discrete interactions between the electrode and one or more of a solvent, a salt component, and an event that affects the battery;
modeling the discrete interactions between the electrode and the one or more of the solvent, the salt component, and the event; and
obtaining, based on the modeling of the discrete interactions, an aging profile indicative of changes in the battery resulting from the discrete interactions.
Abstract Idea/Mental Process: The defining step recites a mental process (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)) where user inputs a electrode information.
Abstract Idea/Mathematical Concept/Mental Process: The obtaining an expression recites mathematical relationships (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)), mathematical formula/equations (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B)), mathematical calculations (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)). This may also be considered as reciting mental process (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)) because the expression is obtained/observed.
Abstract Idea/Mathematical Concept/Mental Process: The modeling the discrete interactions claimed broadly recites mathematical calculations (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)). This may also be considered as reciting mental process (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)) because the expression evaluation (judgement/opinion) and is obtained/observed.
Abstract Idea/Mathematical Concept/Mental Process: This may be mathematical calculation to obtain an aging profile (e.g. a graph) based on computations.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
As for claim 14, which recites similar limitations as claim 1, the claim would be rejected likewise. Additionally the claim recites generic computer components, that is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.. Also the mathematical concepts disclosed may also be performed in the mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). As per (1) the additional elements are identified as bolded parts of the limitations in column 1 of the table below, and as per (2) the evaluation is shown in the mapping section of the table.
In accordance with this step, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2
A method of analyzing changes that occur over time in a battery, the method comprising:
defining an electrode of a battery;
obtaining an expression for discrete interactions between the electrode and one or more of a solvent, a salt component, and an event that affects the battery;
modeling the discrete interactions between the electrode and the one or more of the solvent, the salt component, and the event; and
obtaining, based on the modeling of the discrete interactions, an aging profile indicative of changes in the battery resulting from the discrete interactions.
Under MPEP 2106.05(g) determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. In this case obtaining details of the electrode, obtaining the expression can be considered as data gathering steps.
See Step 2A Prong 1.
Under MPEP 2106.05(g) determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. In this case obtaining is considered as post solution activity to express the output inform of an aging profile.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer/processor to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer/processing component (Claim 14).
Claim 1 and 14 do not disclose significantly more as the computation and aging profile does not improve on actual manufacturing or designing of the battery. The claims 1 & 14 are therefore considered to be patent ineligible.
Claims 2 & 4 perform the method similar to claim 1 with alternate inputs and are rejected with similar rationale as claim 1.
Claims 3 recites “further comprising designing another battery based on the comparison between the aging profile and the alternative aging profile”. This is idea of solution (as no details are provided how the current and alternative batteries are designed) under MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), and are at best field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim does not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B). Claim 5 recites similar limitation of designing and is rejected likewise.
Claim 6 recites “based on a first factor: modeling the discrete interactions and obtaining a first aging profile; based on a second factor: modeling the discrete interactions and obtaining a second aging profile; and comparing the first aging profile to the second aging profile”. This limitation is further considered as contributing to abstract idea where the modeling as generically claimed is considered a mathematical concept. The claim does not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim 7 & 8 recite “further comprising determining to use or manage the battery according to the first factor based on the comparison between the first aging profile and the second aging profile” and “further comprising providing instructions to use or manage the battery according to the first factor based on the comparison between the first aging profile and the second aging profile” are considered a field of use (based on comparison – abstract idea) and an idea of solution (no details of the use of managing is performed based on comparison). The claim does not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim 9 recite “obtaining a usage factor indicative of conditions of the battery during a period of use;” (this is considered as data gathering at best under MPEP 2106.05(g)) “and based on the usage factor: modeling the discrete interactions and obtaining a usage aging profile”. This limitation is further considered as contributing to abstract idea where the modeling as generically claimed is considered a mathematical concept. The claim does not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim 10 recites “based on the usage aging profile, predicting a remaining lifespan of the battery under the conditions; and based on the usage aging profile, predicting the remaining lifespan of the battery under different conditions” – which are considered as further contributing to abstract idea of claim 9 (&1) to compute a datum (useful life) for current and different conditions. The claim does not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim 11 recites “wherein defining the electrode comprises defining one or more of: available surface sites of the electrode, molar concentration of available surface sites of the electrode, reactivity of an electrode material, and a number of deactivated sites of the electrode”. This further defines the datum gathered in the claim 1 (Under MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim 12 recites “further comprising defining one or more of the solvent or the salt component”. This further defines the datum gathered in the claim 1 (Under MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim 13 recites “wherein the expression is a sigmoid-based rate expression”. This merely adds to the abstract idea of claim 1 as further defining the expression to be a particular type of mathematical expression. The claim does not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim 15 is similar to and broader than claim 1. The steps therein are rejected in similar manner as claim 1. E.g. “A method of analyzing changes that occur over time in a system, the method comprising: defining a population of a system (Step 2A Prong 2 – data gathering); obtaining an expression for discrete interactions between the population and one or both of an agent and an event (Step 2A Prong 2 – data gathering an expression; Step 2A Prong 1 – mathematical concept); modeling the discrete interactions between the population and the one or both of the agent and the event(Step 2A Prong 1 – mathematical concept – evaluation of a function); and obtaining, based on the modeling of the discrete interactions, an aging profile indicative of changes in the population resulting from the discrete interactions(Step 2A Prong 2 – data gathering as post solution representation of data as aging profile;). The claim does not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim 16 performs similar steps for second population as first population with reference to claim 15. The rationale for rejection is similar to claim 15.
Claim 17 recites “further comprising developing an aggregate aging profile for the system based on the first aging profile and the second aging profile”. This is post solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g) expressing the results of modeling as aging profile for the different runs. The claim does not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim 18 recites “further comprising designing another system based on the first aging profile and the second aging profile”. This is considered an idea of solution (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)) because there are no details how the system is designed based on first and second aging profile. Further this is also a field of use of aging profile (a datum) like in In re Flook, as in MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim does not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim 19 recites “ further comprising determining to use or manage the system according to the first aging profile and the second aging profile”. This is considered an idea of solution (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)) because there are no details how the system is managed/used based on first and second aging profile. Further this is also a field of use of aging profile (a datum) like in In re Flook, as in MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim does not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim 20 recites “wherein the system comprises a battery” (field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h)), “wherein the first population corresponds to first molecules of an electrode of the battery, wherein the second population corresponds to second molecules of the electrode of the battery” (Under Step 2A Prong 1 further defining inputs to abstract idea), “and wherein the agent comprises one or more of a solvent or a salt component” (Under Step 2A Prong 1 further defining inputs to abstract idea). The claim does not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-8 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation:
2. (Original) The method of claim 1, further comprising: defining an alternative electrode of the battery; modeling alternative discrete interactions between the alternative electrode and the one or more of the solvent, the salt component, and the event; obtaining, based on the modeling of the alternative discrete interactions, an alternative aging profile indicative of changes in the battery resulting from the alternative discrete interactions; and comparing the aging profile with the alternative aging profile.
The claim is indefinite as it appears to suggest an alternative electrode without defining what is it alternative of and how the electrode is different than the alternative. The scope of the claim is not clear as claim 2 appears to perform similar steps as claim 1 and then compares the output (aging profile), but without any metes and bounds defining the scope what is considered as alternative. E.g. another interpretation other than above would considering alternative electrode to be anode as compared to cathode in an battery.
Similarly for claim 4, the “alternative expression” is indefinite as there are no metes and bounds are specified how the alternative expression differs from the expression of the claim 1. Similar rationale as claim 2 rejection is applicable here.
Claim 3 recites the limitation:
3. (Original) The method of claim 2, further comprising designing another battery based on the comparison between the aging profile and the alternative aging profile.
It is unclear which profile is picked based on comparison. There is no metric disclosed which would lead to selecting one aging profile over other. Further the claim does not meaningfully narrow the parent claim 2 down to define how the “designing another battery” is accomplished. The scope of designing is not claimed. Additionally claim 3 inherits the deficiencies of claim 2 and is rejected for them as well.
Similarly for claim 5, the “alternative aging profile” is indefinite as there are no metes and bounds are specified how the alternative expression differs from the expression of the claim 1. Similar rationale as claim 3 rejection is applicable here.
Claim 6 recites:
6. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the expression for the discrete interactions includes a factor that influences the discrete interactions; the method further comprising:
based on a first factor: modeling the discrete interactions and obtaining a first aging profile;
based on a second factor: modeling the discrete interactions and obtaining a second aging profile; and
comparing the first aging profile to the second aging profile.
It is unclear what are the first factor and the second factor and how the modeling is performed on their basis. Further its unclear what does the comparing the gaining profiles achieve and how they are compared.
Claims 7 & 8 recites:
7. (Original) The method of claim 6, further comprising determining to use or manage the battery according to the first factor based on the comparison between the first aging profile and the second aging profile.
8. (Original) The method of claim 6, further comprising providing instructions to use or manage the battery according to the first factor based on the comparison between the first aging profile and the second aging profile.
It is unclear what is the distinction between claim 7 and claim 8 because (determining to use/) managing the battery and instructions to manage the battery appear to very similar without details of instructions. Further it is unclear how the use/managing further limits the claim.
Claim 10 recites:
10. (Original) The method of claim 9, further comprising one or more of: based on the usage aging profile, predicting a remaining lifespan of the battery under the conditions; and based on the usage aging profile, predicting the remaining lifespan of the battery under different conditions.
It is unclear what would be considered a different condition, and what would be its scope.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9 , 10 , 13, 15, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NPL by Xu, Bolun, et al. "Modeling of lithium-ion battery degradation for cell life assessment." IEEE transactions on smart grid 9.2 (2018): 1131-1140.
Regarding Claim 1
Xu teaches (Claim 1) A method of analyzing changes that occur over time in a battery (Xu: Abstract "... This paper proposes a semiempirical lithium-ion battery degradation model that assesses battery cell life loss from operating profiles. We formulate the model by combining fundamental theories of battery degradation
and our observations in battery aging test results. The model is adaptable to different types of lithium-ion batteries, and methods for tuning the model coefficients based on manufacturer’s data are presented. A cycle-counting method is incorporated to identify stress cycles from irregular operations, allowing the
degradation model to be applied to any battery energy storage (BES) applications....") ,
/the method comprising:
defining an electrode of a battery (Xu: Pg.1133 ¶3
PNG
media_image1.png
478
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, defines the electrodes as specific surface area of the graphite [electrodes] as well as on the layer formation conditions; Pg. 1136 Col.1 ¶2 "... Lithium-ion batteries with different electrode materials differ significantly in their aging mechanisms and cycle life....");
obtaining an expression for discrete interactions between the electrode and one or more of a solvent, a salt component, and an event that affects the battery (Xu : Pg. 1133 ¶3-4"... The aging rate of SEI is dependent on the composition of the electrolyte used [41), [42), as well as on the cell temperature (43), (44) and battery operation reactions such as the interactions between the positive and negative electrodes (11 ]; ) Pg.1132 §II. A, See Eqns (1)-(3) in right column ¶3 “….Cycle aging is the life lost each time the battery cycles between charging and discharging. We describe the ith cycle by its depth of discharge (6i), the average SoC of that cycle (oi). and the average cell temperature Tc,i. Since we model each cycle as a single stress event independent of the others [discrete interactions for events], the accumulated degradation is the sum of the capacity reduction caused by each cycle [33]...");
modeling the discrete interactions between the electrode and the one or more of the solvent, the salt component, and the event (Xu: Pg. 1132, §II.A.) ; and
obtaining, based on the modeling of the discrete interactions, an aging profile indicative of changes in the battery resulting from the discrete interactions (Xu: Page 1138, right column, last para, VII Conclusion, "...This paper proposes a battery degradation model that can estimate capacity fading in irregular battery operation .. the proposed model and the parameter tuning method can be applied to model degradation in other types of lithium-ion batteries. In particular, we propose a new empirical DoD stress model that best fits our LMO battery cycle test data. The case study demonstrates that by using different DoD stress models, the proposed degradation model can be applied to LFP and NMC batteries. The life loss of these three types of lithium-ion batteries are compared when under a scenario where
they provide frequency regulation in the PJM market...")) .
Regarding Claim 9
Xu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the expression for the discrete interactions includes a factor that influences the discrete interactions; the method further comprising: obtaining a usage factor indicative of conditions of the battery during a period of use (Xu: Pg.1132 Col.2 §A "... Battery aging consists of calendar aging and cycle aging..." – these can be considered factors during period of use) ; and based on the usage factor: modeling the discrete interactions and obtaining a usage aging profile (Xu: Fig.1 shows capacity degradation; Pg. 1133 Section B shows discrete modeling of the SEI for calendar and cycle aging; See Pg. 1133 §C and Also starting on Pg. 1134 §III modeling).
Regarding Claim 10
Xu teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising one or more of: based on the usage aging profile, predicting a remaining lifespan of the battery under the conditions (Xu teaches the: Pg.1133 Col.2 "... The total normalized battery capacity is then divided into two portions: the SEI portion αsei, and the rest that fades at a rate proportional to the battery life (1−αsei). We model the SEI formation process similarly to Eq. (9) but at a different linearized rate fsei, and model the battery life as a two-exponential function:.. Eq. (13) can be used when on-site battery life diagnostic is possible. In such cases the battery life can be constantly
updated and Eq. (13) used as a tool to predict the battery’s degradation for upcoming operations.."; Fig.5a-5b (& text) on Pg.1137 show the end of life predictions) ; and based on the usage aging profile, predicting the remaining lifespan of the battery under different conditions (Xu teaches the: Fig.3, Fig.5a-5b showing different modeled conditions (5b) and their comparison with actual data (5a) ) .
Regarding Claim 13
Xu teaches the method of claim1, wherein the expression is a sigmoid-based rate expression (Xu: Pg.1133 shows Life (L) as sigmoid function in form of 1/ex see Eqns (9)-(13)) .
Regarding Claim 15
Xu teaches A method of analyzing changes that occur over time in a system (Xu: Abstract"... This paper proposes a semiempirical lithium-ion battery degradation model that assesses battery cell life loss from operating profiles. We formulate the
model by combining fundamental theories of battery degradation and our observations in battery aging test results. The model is adaptable to different types of lithium-ion batteries, and methods for tuning the model coefficients based on manufacturer’s data are presented. A cycle-counting method is incorporated to identify stress cycles from irregular operations, allowing the degradation model to be applied to any battery energy storage (BES) applications. The usefulness of this model is demonstrated through an assessment of the degradation that a BES would
incur by providing frequency control in the PJM regulation market....") , the method comprising:
defining a population of a system (Xu: "... The aging rate of SEI is dependent on the composition of the electrolyte used [41], [42], as
well as on the cell temperature [43], [44] and battery operation reactions such as the interactions between the positive and negative
electrodes [population] [11])...") ;
obtaining an expression for discrete interactions between the population and one or both of an agent and an event (Xu: Pg.1133 Col.2 ¶3 "... The aging rate of SEI is dependent on the composition of the electrolyte used [41], [42], as well as on the cell temperature [43], [44] and battery operation reactions such as the interactions between the positive and negative electrodes [population] [11])..."; Pg.1133 Col.2 ¶3 "... The aging rate of SEI is dependent on the composition of the electrolyte used [41], [42], as well as on the cell temperature [43], [44] and battery operation reactions such as the interactions between the positive and negative electrodes [11];” Pg.1132, Col.2, ¶3rd “…Cycle aging is the life lost each time the battery cycles between charging and discharging. We describe the ith cycle by its depth of discharge (6i), the average SoC of that cycle (ai). and the average cell temperature Tc,i. Since we model each cycle as a single stress event independent of the others [discrete interactions for events], the accumulated degradation is the sum of the capacity reduction caused by each cycle [33]..." ;
modeling the discrete interactions between the population and the one or both of the agent and the event (Xu: Pg.1132 Col.2 ¶3-5 "... The cycle aging Lcyc is then expressed as follows: ... Calendar aging and cycle aging are linear degradation processes with respect to the number of cycles and can be expressed as a function fd oft, 6, a, and Tc:...") ; and
obtaining, based on the modeling of the discrete interactions, an aging profile indicative of changes in the population resulting from the discrete interactions (Xu: Page 1138, right column, last para, VII Conclusion, "... This paper proposes a battery degradation model that can estimate capacity fading in irregular battery operation .. the proposed model and the parameter tuning method can be applied to model degradation in other types of lithium-ion batteries. In particular, we propose a new empirical DoD stress model that best fits our LMO battery cycle test data. The case study demonstrates that by using different DoD stress models, the proposed degradation model can be applied to LFP and NMC batteries. The life loss of these three types of lithium-ion batteries are compared when under a scenario where
they provide frequency regulation in the PJM market...") .
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 11, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Xu et al, in view of US PGPUB No. US 20200341065 A1 by SHIRANE; TAKAYUKI et al.
Regarding Claim 2
Teachings of Xu are shown in the parent claim 1. Xu teaches modeling alternative discrete interactions between the alternative electrode and the one or more of the solvent, the salt component, and the event; obtaining, based on the modeling of the alternative discrete interactions, an as mapped in claim 1. Xu does teach comparing the aging profile with the alternative aging profile (Xu: §IIIA & B, e.g. as in Fig.3) .
While Xu details the process for aging determination, it does not do teach doing to for alternative electrode designs (although mentions it in Xu Pg.1136 Col.1 ¶2 "... Lithium-ion batteries with different electrode materials differ significantly in their aging mechanisms and cycle life...").
Shirane teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: defining an alternative electrode of the battery (Shirane: [0035] "... he design parameter may include at least one of (i) dimensions of an electrode, (ii) density of the electrode, (iii) dimensions of a separator, (iv) amount of electrolytic solution, (v) composition of material of the electrode or the electrolytic solution, (vi) physical property of material of the electrode or the electrolytic solution, and (vii) capacity of the battery, making up part of the battery....") ; … obtaining, based on the modeling of the alternative discrete interactions, an alternative aging profile indicative of changes in the battery resulting from the alternative discrete interactions (Would be taught by process of Xu, but also done by Shirane : [0037]-[0038] using the input parameters to estimate the voltage and temperature behavior based on design parameters) and comparing the aging profile with the alternative aging profile.
It would have been obvious to one (e.g. a designer) of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Shirane to Xu to provide different electrode related input parameters to predict voltage and temperature outputs (Shirane: [0037]-[0040]) which can be used in Xu create temperature related aging profiles for battery (Xu: §IIIA & B, e.g. Fig.3) thereby improving on safety of the battery (Shirane: Abstract). Further motivation to combine would have been that Xu and Shirane are analogous arts to the instant claim in the field of battery design evaluation through modeling (Shirane: Fig.1 Xu: §II and §III)
Regarding Claim 3
Shirane teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising designing another battery based on the comparison between the aging profile and the alternative aging profile (Shirane: [0094]-[0102]) .
Regarding Claim 11
Shirane teaches the method of claim1, wherein defining the electrode comprises defining one or more of: available surface sites of the electrode, molar concentration of available surface sites of the electrode, reactivity of an electrode material, and a number of deactivated sites of the electrode (Shirane: [0035] "... he design parameter may include at least one of (i) dimensions of an electrode, (ii) density of the electrode, (iii) dimensions of a separator, (iv) amount of electrolytic solution, (v) composition of material of the electrode or the electrolytic solution, (vi) physical property of material of the electrode or the electrolytic solution, and (vii) capacity of the battery, making up part of the battery....") . Motivation to combine would be similar to claim 1 above and incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 16
Xu teaches The method of claim 15, wherein the population comprises a first population, wherein the expression comprises a first expression, wherein the discrete interactions comprise first discrete interactions, and wherein the aging profile comprises a first aging profile, the method further comprising: defining a second population of the system; obtaining a as the process and is mapped as in claim 15.
Xu does not explicitly teach the process being repeated for second population (e.g. second electrode parameters).
Shirane teaches second population as plurality of sets of second population parameters specifically related to electrodes (Shirane: [0108]-[0114] and constructing of model expression for those parameters in [0126]-[0128]
PNG
media_image2.png
536
951
media_image2.png
Greyscale
).
It would have been obvious to one (e.g. a designer) of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Shirane to Xu to provide different electrode related input parameters to predict voltage and temperature outputs (Shirane: [0037]-[0040]) which can be used in Xu create temperature related aging profiles for battery (Xu: §IIIA & B, e.g. Fig.3) thereby improving on safety of the battery (Shirane: Abstract). Further motivation to combine would have been that Xu and Shirane are analogous arts to the instant claim in the field of battery design evaluation through modeling (Shirane: Fig.1 Xu: §II and §III)
Regarding Claim 17
Shirane teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising developing an aggregate aging profile for the system based on the first aging profile and the second aging profile (Shirane: [0146] "... In this case, the outputter 30 may output voltage behavior of the batteries calculated from one of the machine-learned logical models as information about safety regarding heat generation of batteries, or from a perspective of raising estimation precision, may output an average of voltage behavior of the batteries calculated from each of the machine-learned logical models 41 as information about safety regarding heat generation of batteries...." – average voltage is indicative of the degradation and aging; [0047]) .
Regarding Claim 18
Shirane teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising designing another system based on the first aging profile and the second aging profile (Shirane: [0021] "... it is desirable to realize a technique where safety regarding heat generation of batteries can be estimated for batteries with unknown combination designs. ..." [0146] "... In this case, the outputter 30 may output voltage behavior of the batteries calculated from one of the machine-learned logical models as information about safety regarding heat generation of batteries, or from a perspective of raising estimation precision, may output an average of voltage behavior of the batteries calculated from each of the machine-learned logical models 41 as information about safety regarding heat generation of batteries...." – average voltage is indicative of the degradation and aging; [0047]).
Regarding Claim 19
Shirane teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising determining to use or manage the system according to the first aging profile and the second aging profile (Shirane: Use of design for determining the performance based on temperature [0021] for unknown designs; Xu teaches impact of temperature on aging/degradation as shown in Fig.3, Fig.5b) .
Regarding Claim 20
Shirane teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the system comprises a battery, wherein the first population corresponds to first molecules of an electrode of the battery (Shirane: [0106]-[0107] electrode composition as design parameter which is varied) , wherein the second population corresponds to second molecules of the electrode of the battery (Shirane: [0106]-[0107] electrode composition as design parameter which is varied ) , and wherein the agent comprises one or more of a solvent or a salt component (Shirane: [0120-0122] as electrolyte composition and amount which is varied as design parameter to determine voltage and temperature) .
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Claim(s) 4-8, 12 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL by Xu et al, in view of US PGPUB No. US 20200321080 A1 by RAVIKUMAR; Bharath et al.
Regarding Claim 4
Teachings of Xu are shown in the parent claim 1. Although Xu teaches modeling interactions (as mapped in claim 1), it does not teach limitations of this claim.
Xu does not explicitly teach alternative discrete interactions between the electrode and one or more of an alternative solvent, an alternative salt component, and an alternative event that affects the battery… an alternative aging profile.
Ravikumar teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining an alternative expression for alternative discrete interactions between the electrode and one or more of an alternative solvent, an alternative salt component, and an alternative event that affects the battery (Ravikumar: Fig.2A-2B & [0049] "... b) a component selection module for specifying a second user input comprising components of the electrolyte to be used for the battery, wherein the components comprise 1) one or more salts, 2) one or more solvents, and 3) additives from a list of components or can be newly added by the user; [0052] c) an operating parameters module to select a third user input comprising one or more operating parameters; and [0053] d) a constraints module for specifying a fourth user input comprising constraints on values of one or more properties of the electrolyte....");
modeling alternative discrete interactions between the electrode and the one or more of the alternative solvent, the alternative salt component, and the alternative event (Ravikumar: Fig.3, 4A-4D [0111]-[0126]) ;
obtaining, based on the modeling of the alternative discrete interactions, an alternative aging profile indicative of changes in the battery resulting from the alternative discrete interactions (Ravikumar: Fig.4E & [0105]-[0110], Also see [0102] Fig4A-4D) ; and
comparing the aging profile with the alternative aging profile (Ravikumar: Fig.4E, [0105][0063][0089]) .
It would have been obvious to one (e.g. a designer) of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Ravikumar to Xu to provide battery aging simulation based on alternative salt and solvent to further design better aging profile/damage profile for batteries. Further motivation to combine would have been that Xu and Ravikumar are analogous arts to the instant claim in the field of battery aging evaluation through modeling (Ravikumar: Abstract; Xu: §II and §III).
Regarding Claim 5
Ravikumar teaches the method of claim 4, further comprising designing another battery based on the comparison between the aging profile and the alternative aging profile (Ravikumar: [0041][0063][0107]).
Motivation to combine would be similar to claim 4 above and incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 6
Ravikumar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the expression for the discrete interactions includes a factor that influences the discrete interactions (Ravikumar: Fig.2A-2B and Fig.3 showing the process of interaction/simulation) ; the method further comprising: based on a first factor: modeling the discrete interactions and obtaining a first aging profile (Ravikumar: Fig.4E & [0105] showing one aging profile A based on one concentration) ; based on a second factor: modeling the discrete interactions and obtaining a second aging profile (Ravikumar: Fig.4E & [0105] showing one aging profile e.g. B based on another concentration); and comparing the first aging profile to the second aging profile(Ravikumar: Fig.4E & [0105] showing comparison side by side; [0105] "...[0105] FIG. 4E is example result processed from simulation data files depicting aging of the battery for user selected solvents for varying ratio of solvent composition, in accordance with some embodiments of the present disclosure....").
Motivation to combine would be similar to claim 4 above and incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 7
Ravikumar teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising determining to use or manage the battery1 according to the first factor based on the comparison between the first aging profile and the second aging profile (Ravikumar: Fig.5A-5B & [0107]-[0110], instructions to use [0129]-[0131]) .
Motivation to combine would be similar to claim 6 above and incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 8
Ravikumar teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising providing instructions to use or manage the battery according to the first factor based on the comparison between the first aging profile and the second aging profile (Ravikumar: Fig.5A-5B & [0107]-[0110]; instructions to use [0129]-[0131]).
Motivation to combine would be similar to claim 6 above and incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 12
Xu & Ravikumar teaches the method of claim1, further comprising defining one or more of the solvent or the salt component (Ravikumar: Fig.2A element 202: Xu: Pg.133 Col.2) .
Motivation to combine would be similar to claim 4 above and incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 14
Xu teaches all the limitation of claim 14 (except explicit computer implementation ) and is mapped in similar manner as in claim 1.
Xu does not explicitly teach One or more non-transitory computer-readable media that include instructions, that when executed by one or more processors, are configured to cause the one or more processors to perform operations, the operations.
Ravikumar teaches One or more non-transitory computer-readable media that include instructions, that when executed by one or more processors, are configured to cause the one or more processors to perform operations (Ravikumar : Fig.1 computer implementation with memory/media; implementation [0004] & Fig.2A-2B).
It would have been obvious to one (e.g. a designer) of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Ravikumar to Xu to provide battery aging simulation based on alternative salt and solvent to further design better aging profile/damage profile for batteries. Further motivation to combine would have been that Xu and Ravikumar are analogous arts to the instant claim in the field of battery aging evaluation through modeling (Ravikumar: Abstract; Xu: §II and §III).
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner’s Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH SAXENA whose telephone number is (571)272-8351. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7AM-3:30PM.
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, RYAN PITARO can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
AKASH SAXENA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/AKASH SAXENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188 Saturday, February 21, 2026
1 US 8332342 B1 show managing a battery aspect based on modeling and may be used in future. Also US 8255176 B2 shows managing aspect.