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 1-24 have been presented for examination based on the application filed on 6/26/2026.
Claims 21-24 are new.
Claims 16-20 are newly withdrawn from examination based on election by original presentation.
Claims 2-3 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 .
Claims 7-8 & 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, and 21 are 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 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.
Claim(s) 14, 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL by Xu et al, in view of NPL by I. Laresgoiti, et al , “Modeling mechanical degradation in lithium ion batteries during cycling: Solid electrolyte interphase fracture,” (J. Power Sources, vol. 300, pp. 112–122, Dec. 2015)., further in view of US PGPUB No. US 20200321080 A1 by RAVIKUMAR; Bharath et al.
This action is made 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.
Response to Arguments
Examiner thanks applicant for providing citations in current specification to support the amendment. However, new issues related to claims 2-3 and 16-20 are identified below.
Amended Drawing (Fig.21) filed 12/9/22 is entered.
Argument (Remarks Pgs.14-15) against Xu allege that Xu does not teach expressions. Updated mapping is shown to address that limitation to Eqn (14) at least.
New claim 21 is rejected under new grounds of rejection to show LLI and LAM where both loss of lithium ion (LLI) is shown in Xu §II.B and associated active material like elecrotyles and electrodes are modeled in Eqns (9)-(14).
Claim 15 mapping is updated to address applicant’s amendments.
Claim 2-3 present new matter and such are not searched as it cannot be ascertained what is the scope of first/second aging mechanism. The claim runs contrary to disclosure as shown in new grounds of rejection.
Further, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The amended limitations are addressed in the rejection below for claims 14, 21-23 and 24.
Rejection under 35 USC 101 for claim 1 and 14 is maintained as they are updated in view of amendments. The aging model does not provide any indication how it is used to selecting one or more materials for the battery, determining a manner in which the battery is to be used, or determining a battery management action for the battery. Hence the aging model is an exercise in mathematical modeling (abstract idea) and does not integrate the idea into practical application. Further the model does not disclose significantly more because, even after looking at an aging profile/ mechanism one would not be able to determine underlined aspects above.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 16-20 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claim 16 specifically recites now:
16. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 15, wherein the system comprises a geological system, a biological system, or a population dynamics system.
Reason: Searching for geological system or biological system or broad (human) population dynamics system would require considerable search burden and updated search and consideration to ascertain scope of invention, and support in instant disclosure.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 16-20 (17-20 withdrawn in view of their dependence on claim 16) are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 2 now recites:
PNG
media_image1.png
420
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
What is claimed here is that first electrode has first aging profile and second electrode has second aging profile. The specification does not associate first and second aging profile with first and second electrodes. Instead it appears the first and second aging profiles might be temporal (rather than spatial – first/second electrode):
PNG
media_image2.png
378
608
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This is therefore new matter. Claim 3 is rejected for inheriting this deficiency.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
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 1-24 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 one or more expressions associated with discrete interactions between the electrode and one or more of a solvent, a salt component, and an event that affects the battery;
Modeling, based on the one or more expressions, the discrete interactions between the electrode and the one or more of the solvent, the salt component, and the event according to at least a primary aging mechanism and a secondary aging mechanism, including determining a first aging contribution associated with the primary aging mechanism and a second aging contribution associated with the secondary aging mechanism; and
generating, based on the modeling of the discrete interactions, an aging profile indicative of changes in the battery resulting from the discrete interactions, the aging profile based on a combination of the first aging contribution and the second aging contribution;
and providing the aging profile for selecting one or more materials for the battery, determining a manner in which the battery is to be used, or determining a battery management action for the battery..
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.
The aging mechanism may be mathematical calculation to obtain an aging profile (e.g. a graph) based on computations and therefore considered as mathematical concepts. See Specification ¶[0094]-[0111] at least.
Abstract Idea/Mathematical Concept. Aging profile is a graph generated from the equations (aging mechanism), possibly by incorporating first and second aging mechanism (math) into one graph.
See Step 2A Prong 2.
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 one or more expressions associated with discrete interactions between the electrode and one or more of a solvent, a salt component, and an event that affects the battery;
Modeling, based on the one or more expressions, the discrete interactions between the electrode and the one or more of the solvent, the salt component, and the event according to at least a primary aging mechanism and a secondary aging mechanism, including determining a first aging contribution associated with the primary aging mechanism and a second aging contribution associated with the secondary aging mechanism; and
generating, based on the modeling of the discrete interactions, an aging profile indicative of changes in the battery resulting from the discrete interactions, the aging profile based on a combination of the first aging contribution and the second aging contribution;
and providing the aging profile for selecting one or more materials for the battery, determining a manner in which the battery is to be used, or determining a battery management action for the battery..
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. The obtaining may be still data gathering aspect from the user to get expressions.
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.
Under MPEP 2106.05(g) This may be considered as extrasolution activity.
Under MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), It may also be considered as idea of solution as no correlation is shown how the aging profile is used to select one or more material.
Under MPEP 2106.05(h), this may be considered as field of use as well for the same reason as no correlation exists between aging profile and material selection/manner of use/management aspect.
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).
Claim 21-23 further recite what aging profile comprises (first, second and third aging mechanism expressed as mathematical expressions – see specification [0094]-[0111]), combing the expression. This only adds to the abstract idea as identified in claims 1/21/22. 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 24 recites "... providing the aging profile for selecting one or more materials for the battery, determining a manner in which the battery is to be used, or determining a battery management action for the battery....". This is at best a field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h). An aging profile is a graph denoting mathematical equation plotted degradation with time and it cannot by itself materials for the battery, determining a manner in which the battery is to be used, or determining a battery management action for the battery. 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 7-8 & 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.
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, and 21 are 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 Claims 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_image3.png
478
402
media_image3.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 one or more expressions associated with 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, based on the one or more expressions, 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.) according to at least a primary aging mechanism and a secondary aging mechanism, including determining a first aging contribution associated with the primary aging mechanism and a second aging contribution associated with the secondary aging mechanism (Xu: Pg. 1131 Introduction ¶2 "... Battery degradation models can be classified into theoretical models and empirical models. Theoretical degradation studies [11]1–[16] usually focus on the loss of lithium ions [primary aging mechanism] and other active materials [secondary aging mechanism] . These models provide detailed explanations of the various degradation mechanisms and how they are affected by the use and condition of the battery...."; §II Pgs. 1132-1134 showing the modeling including active lithium and electrodes modeling, see specifically Eqn.14);
generating, 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...")) the aging profile based on a combination of the first aging contribution and the second aging contribution (Xu: See Pg.1133 Col.2 and Eqn 14 where the first aging related to loss of lithium and second aging related to battery design, and interaction
PNG
media_image4.png
866
428
media_image4.png
Greyscale
) ; and
providing the aging profile for selecting one or more materials for the battery, determining a manner in which the battery is to be used, or determining a battery management action for the battery (Xu: Fig.2) .
Regarding Claim 9
Xu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more expressions associated with 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, usage as cycle number in Fig.2).
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 one or more expressions is a sigmoid-based rate expression (Xu: Pg.1133 shows Life (L) as sigmoid function in form of 1/ex see Eqns (9)-(14); other factors as discussed in §III) .
Regarding Claim 15 (Updated 9/2/26)
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 first 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 one or more expressions associated with first discrete interactions between the first 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, based on one or more expressions (Xu: Eqns. (9)-(14)) , the first discrete interactions between the first 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:...") according to at least a primary aging mechanism and a secondary aging mechanism, including determining a first aging contribution associated with the primary aging mechanism and a second aging contribution associated with the secondary aging mechanism (Xu: Pg. 1131 Introduction ¶2 "... Battery degradation models can be classified into theoretical models and empirical models. Theoretical degradation studies [11]2–[16] usually focus on the loss of lithium ions [primary aging mechanism] and other active materials [secondary aging mechanism] . These models provide detailed explanations of the various degradation mechanisms and how they are affected by the use and condition of the battery...."; §II Pgs. 1132-1134 showing the modeling including active lithium and electrodes modeling);
generating, based on the modeling of the first discrete interactions, a first aging profile indicative of changes in the first population resulting from the first 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..."), the first aging profile based on a combination of the first aging contribution and the second aging contribution (Xu: See Pg.1133 Col.2 and Eqn 14 where the first aging related to loss of lithium and second aging related to battery design, and interaction
PNG
media_image4.png
866
428
media_image4.png
Greyscale
).
Xu teaches defining a second population of the system; obtaining one or more second expressions associated with second discrete interactions between the second population and the one or both of the agent and the event; modeling, based on the one or more second expressions, the second discrete interactions between the second population and the one or both of the agent and the event according to the primary aging mechanism and the secondary aging mechanism, including determining a first other aging contribution associated with the primary aging mechanism and a second other aging contribution associated with the secondary aging mechanism; and generating, based on the modeling of the second discrete interactions, a second aging profile indicative of changes in the second population resulting from the second discrete interactions, the second aging profile based on a combination of the first other aging contribution and the second other aging contribution (Xu : Mapping for second population is can be for different battery or electrode type, replicating the steps as above;
PNG
media_image5.png
364
416
media_image5.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding Claim 21 (New)
teaches wherein the primary aging mechanism comprises a loss of lithium inventory (LLI), and the secondary aging mechanism comprises a loss of active host material (LAM) (Xu: LLI related to the active Lithium ions left as disussed in §II.B. Col.1-2 in Equation (9); LAM as active material "... 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]....") .
---- 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) 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 11
Teachings of Xu are shown in the parent claim 1.
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....") .
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 16-20 (Withdawn in view of original presentation)
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_image6.png
536
951
media_image6.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 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 (Updated 9/2/26)
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 teaches wherein the one or more expressions comprise one or more first expressions, the discrete interactions comprise first discrete interactions, and the aging profile comprises a first aging profile (Xu: Pg.1133 Col.2 – see Eqn(14)) .
Xu does not explicitly teach obtaining one or more expressions associated with second 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.(Emphasis on bolded aspects).
Ravikumar teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining one or more expressions associated with second 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, based on the one or more expressions, the second 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]).
Xu teaches modeling… according to the primary aging mechanism and the secondary aging mechanism, including determining a first other aging contribution associated with the primary aging mechanism and a second other aging contribution associated with the secondary aging mechanism (Xu: Pg. 1131 Introduction ¶2 "... Battery degradation models can be classified into theoretical models and empirical models. Theoretical degradation studies [11]3–[16] usually focus on the loss of lithium ions [primary aging mechanism] and other active materials [secondary aging mechanism] . These models provide detailed explanations of the various degradation mechanisms and how they are affected by the use and condition of the battery...."; §II Pgs. 1132-1134 showing the modeling including active lithium and electrodes modeling);
generating, based on the modeling of the second discrete interactions, a second aging profile indicative of changes in the battery resulting from the second discrete interactions (Ravikumar: Fig.4E & [0105]-[0110], Also see [0102] Fig4A-4D) ; and
comparing the first aging profile with the second 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 (Updated 9/2/26)
Ravikumar teaches the method of claim 4, further comprising designing another battery based on different aging consequences4 identified from the comparison between the first aging profile and the second aging profile (Ravikumar: [0041] – aging based on various properties "...Knowing the effects of change in the composition of the electrolyte on various properties of the electrolyte are crucial for design of electrolytes for high performance batteries. The framework enables the identification of the right combination of materials for a given battery electrolyte and its operating environment. The framework also provides an option to account for the effect of ageing of battery, which typically leads to degradation of various components of electrolytes, while designing or optimizing the composition of the electrolyte for a given battery. Effect of aging on electrolyte composition can be an input or otherwise, system implements typical degradation mechanisms applicable for the given class of electrolytes. ..."[0063] followed by examples 1-3 at least, [0107]).
Motivation to combine would be similar to claim 4 above and incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 6 (Updated 9/2/26)
Ravikumar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more expressions associated with 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 the factors comprising a first factor: modeling the discrete interactions and generating a first aging profile (Ravikumar: Fig.4E & [0105] showing one aging profile A based on one concentration) ; based on the factor comprising 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...."). to identify different aging consequences from use of the first factor and the second factor (Ravikumar: Fig.4C and 5B aging as loss in ionic conductivity) .
Motivation to combine would be similar to claim 4 above and incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 7(Updated 9/2/26)
Ravikumar teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising using or managing the battery5 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(Updated 9/2/26)
Xu and Ravikumar teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising providing instructions for using or managing the battery according to the first factor based on the comparison between the first aging profile and the second aging profile (Xu: Table II, 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.
Claim(s) 14, 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL by Xu et al, in view of NPL by I. Laresgoiti, et al , “Modeling mechanical degradation in lithium ion batteries during cycling: Solid electrolyte interphase fracture,” (J. Power Sources, vol. 300, pp. 112–122, Dec. 2015)., further in view of US PGPUB No. US 20200321080 A1 by RAVIKUMAR; Bharath et al.,
Regarding Claim 14 (Updated 9/2/26)
Xu teaches
defining an electrode of a battery (Xu: Pg.1133 ¶3
PNG
media_image3.png
478
402
media_image3.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 one or more expressions for associated with 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, based on the one or more expressions, 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.) to determine a first aging contribution associated with a loss of lithium inventory (LLI), a second aging contribution associated with a loss of active host material (LAM) (Xu: Pg. 1131 Introduction ¶2 "... Battery degradation models can be classified into theoretical models and empirical models. Theoretical degradation studies [11]6–[16] usually focus on the loss of lithium ions [primary aging mechanism] and other active materials [secondary aging mechanism] . These models provide detailed explanations of the various degradation mechanisms and how they are affected by the use and condition of the battery...."; §II Pgs. 1132-1134 showing the modeling including active lithium and electrodes modeling, see specifically Eqn.14); , and
generating, 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..."),
the aging profile based on a combination of the first aging contribution, the second aging contribution, and (Xu: See Pg.1133 Col.2 and Eqn 14 where the first aging related to loss of lithium and second aging related to battery design, and interaction
PNG
media_image4.png
866
428
media_image4.png
Greyscale
) ; and
providing the aging profile for selecting one or more materials for the battery, determining a manner in which the battery is to be used, or determining a battery management action for the battery (Xu: Fig.2) .
Xu does not teach third aging profile and contribution related to the particle fracturing.
Laresgoiti teaches a third aging contribution associated with particle fracturing (Laresgoiti: §3 and more specifically see Fig.1a-c comprising "... a)Particle fracture due to DIS phenomenon, b)SEI fracture, c)Active material and SEI layer system with the main parameters used in the model..." -see aging including fracture damage D as discussed in Pg.116 Col.1 and how it is integrated with SEI (lithium) and active material in §4, (See Eqn(32));
PNG
media_image7.png
1122
480
media_image7.png
Greyscale
).
Xu & Laresgoiti teaches all the limitation of claim 14 however 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 Laresgoiti to Xu as Xu explicitly cites Laresgoiti as reference [18] in Xu §II, §III. Further motivation to combine would be Xu and Laresgoiti are analogous arts to the instant claim in the field of battery aging evaluation through modeling (Laresgoiti: Abstract; Xu: §II and §III).
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).
PNG
media_image7.png
1122
480
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 22 (New)
Laresgoiti teaches wherein modeling the discrete interactions further comprises determining a third aging contribution associated with a third aging mechanism, the aging profile being based on a combination of the first aging contribution, the second aging contribution, and the third aging contribution (Laresgoiti: §3 and more specifically see Fig.1a-c comprising "... a)Particle fracture due to DIS phenomenon, b)SEI fracture, c)Active material and SEI layer system with the main parameters used in the model..." -see aging including fracture damage D as discussed in Pg.116 Col.1 and how it is integrated with SEI (lithium) and active material in §4, (See Eqn(32)); ).) .
Regarding Claim 23 (New)
Laresgoiti teaches wherein the third aging mechanism comprises particle fracturing (Laresgoiti: §3 and more specifically see Fig.1a-c comprising "... a)Particle fracture due to DIS phenomenon…:).
Regarding Claim 24 (New)
Laresgoiti teaches The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 14, the operations comprising: providing the aging profile for selecting one or more materials for the battery, determining a manner in which the battery is to be used, or determining a battery management action for the battery (Laresgoiti: §4.2 Experimental validation of aging and use) .
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
---- 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 Wednesday, September 2, 2026
1 Citation [11] by J. Vetter et al., “Ageing mechanisms in lithium-ion batteries,” J. Power Sources, vol. 147, nos. 1–2, pp. 269–281, 2005; shows in the degradation models 15 years ago from instant prior art Xu in Table 1
2 Citation [11] by J. Vetter et al., “Ageing mechanisms in lithium-ion batteries,” J. Power Sources, vol. 147, nos. 1–2, pp. 269–281, 2005; shows in the degradation models 15 years ago from instant prior art Xu in Table 1
3 Citation [11] by J. Vetter et al., “Ageing mechanisms in lithium-ion batteries,” J. Power Sources, vol. 147, nos. 1–2, pp. 269–281, 2005; shows in the degradation models 15 years ago from instant prior art Xu in Table 1
4 Citation [11] in Xu art by J. Vetter et al., “Ageing mechanisms in lithium-ion batteries,” J. Power Sources, vol. 147, nos. 1–2, pp. 269–281, 2005; shows in the consequences (Leads to) for different aging aspects related to different properties of battery --- and might be used in future.,
5 US 8332342 B1 show managing a battery aspect based on modeling and may be used in future. Also US 8255176 B2 shows managing aspect.
6 Citation [11] by J. Vetter et al., “Ageing mechanisms in lithium-ion batteries,” J. Power Sources, vol. 147, nos. 1–2, pp. 269–281, 2005; shows in the degradation models 15 years ago from instant prior art Xu in Table 1
Prosecution Insights