Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC 101
At Page 7, last two lines-Page 8, line 8, step 2A, Prong 1, Applicants argue that the amended claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea and not directed to a judicial exception per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) as “[a] claim reciting a judicial a judicial is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
2106.04(d) refers to step 2A, Prong Two in the flow chart in MPEP 2106 for evaluating whether additional elements ingrate a judicial exception into a practical application and 2106.04(d)(1) refers to Evaluating Improvements in the Functioning of a Computer, or an Improvement to Any Other Technology or Technical Field in Step 2A Prong Two.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) does not recite “claim reciting a judicial a judicial is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application”.
Per flow chart in MPEP 2106, Step 2A, Prong 1, “Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural phenomenon?”. In Prong 1, Examiners evaluathe whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. If the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP 21064.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon, the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two.
Per MPEP 2106.04(a), Examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examiner that the Examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitation(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract idea , enumerated groupings such as mathematical concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I)d, certain methods of organizing human activity-fundamental economic principals or practices…, and mental processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection III).
Amended claim 1 recites a mathematical concept that may be carried out with the aid of a computer for more complicated situations (in the instant application, by a “data processing device” in limitation “a data processing device configured to perform behavior analysis based on parameter information received from the parameter tester, thereby generating behavior information regarding the secondary battery cell” and newly added limitation “wherein the data processing device applies the parameter information and the basic parameter information to a semi-empirical electrochemical-thermal model for the secondary battery cell to generate the behavior information for predicting performance, heating, and deterioration characteristics of the secondary battery cell”). The claim does not recite a particular equation or algorithm for making the generation, but this just means that the abstract idea is being recited broadly enough to monopolize all possible equations or algorithms that might be used (Please also see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), (B),(C), and (D).
-Applicant argues at Page 8 that the amended claim 1 recites limitations (emphasis added) “a data processing device configured to perform behavior analysis based on parameter information received from the parameter tester, thereby generating behavior information regarding…a basic parameter…wherein the data processing device applies the parameter information…wherein the basic parameter information includes information derived from a geometric structure and constituent materials of the secondary battery cell” “provides improvement to the functionality of the secondary battery behavior prediction system itself, namely an improvement in the system’s overall performance. Indeed, the Specification of the present application sets forth, for example: [0055] The secondary battery behavior prediction system 100…the output density and stability are increased, low-temperature characteristics are improved, and the rapid charging current is increased. As such, secondary battery technical innovation and next generation….in the battery industry. In the present Application, the claims are not drawn to utilizing a secondary battery behavior prediction system to perform abstract steps that a human could otherwise accomplish. The subject matter of the claims is drawn to improving such a system itself”. Applicant argues that Per. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application and that the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Per 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a): “first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").
“After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. However, the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"). The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification). In making this determination, it is critical that examiners look at the claim "as a whole," in other words, the claim should be evaluated "as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps." When performing this evaluation, examiners should be "careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims" by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1100.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.”
The amended claim limitations when viewed as a whole or in ordered combination does not include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification and to cover a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve the desired outcome. It is merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, e.g. for predicting performance, heating, and deterioration characteristic of the secondary battery cell.
Further, At Step 2A, Prong 2, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. There is no particular machine recited, and no real-world transformation takes place.
The newly added limitation “wherein the data processing device applies the parameter information…for predicting performance, heating, and deterioration characteristics of the secondary battery cell” is merely a data gathering limitation and an insignificant extra-solution activity, namely mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(g), for instance).
The claim does not recite applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine (other than data processing device), nor does the claim affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claim amounts to performing a behavior analysis using obtained parameter information. Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to be limited to the use of the mathematical technique for a particular practical application, but instead the claim appears to monopolize the mathematical technique itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used. The claim is therefore considered to be directed to an abstract idea.
The amended limitation recites “for predicting performance, heating, and deterioration characteristics of the secondary battery cell” is an intended use. Further “predicting performance, heating, and deterioration characteristics of the secondary battery cell” is merely a data gathering limitation and an insignificant extra-solution activity, namely mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(g), for instance).
STEP 2B: Applicants argue at Pages 9 and 10 that step 2B, the claim as a whole provides an inventive concept. Applicant argues that as set forth in MPEP 2106.05, the claim elements must finally be evaluated as a whole to determine whether the claims include an inventive concept. The emphasized ordered combination of features work together to provide the previously identified technical advantages over the prior art, namely improved system efficiency and security.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In MPEP 2106.05, The Supreme Court has identified a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements amount to an inventive concept. The list of considerations here is not intended to be exclusive or limiting. Additional elements can often be analyzed based on more than one type of consideration and the type of consideration is of no import to the eligibility analysis. Additional discussion of these considerations, and how they were applied in particular judicial decisions, is provided in in MPEP § 2106.05(a) through (h). Limitations that the courts have found to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: Improvements to any other technology or technical field, e.g., a modification of conventional rubber-molding processes to utilize a thermocouple inside the mold to constantly monitor the temperature and thus reduce under- and over-curing problems common in the art, as discussed in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)).
As explained above in step 2A, Prong 2, per MPEP 2106.05(a) and 2106.04(d)(1), the claim is ineligible.
2) Claim Rejections -35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1 and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
3) Further, with respect to Applicants’ argument (see the argument at bottom page 11-Page 12 reproduced below, emphasis added by Examiner) that the configuration that enables predicting behavior of the secondary battery and with respect to the newly limitations of claim 1, Applicants are invited to invoke 112(6):
“Although D1 relates to a battery performance testing device, it merely monitors a battery cell by heating or cooling different regions of the cell and does not teach or suggest any configuration for predicting the behavior of a secondary battery based on measured parameters, as required by claim 1. Contrast D1 with the above-emphasized claim 1 feature. Claim 1 instead relates to a method and system for predicting the behavior of a secondary battery by performing electrochemical-thermal analysis based on a semi-empirical analysis model, thereby predicting behavior such as performance, heat generation, and deterioration characteristics of the secondary battery. Thus, according to the claim 1 configuration, by inputting parameters obtained through charge/discharge experiments for the secondary battery into the semi-empirical analysis model, claim 1 discloses a configuration that enables predicting the behavior of the secondary battery, for example, performance, heat generation, and deterioration characteristics”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:” a parameter tester…, a data processing device…, a basic parameter database…, and wherein the data processing device applies…for predicting performance, heating and deterioration characteristics of the secondary battery cell” in claim 1 and limitations “a jig configured to…a parameter tester connected to the secondary battery cell and configured to…a data processing device configured to…a plate configured such that…wherein the plate further comprises a colling channel therein so as…” in claim 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Dependent claims 2-12, 15, and 16 depend from claim 1, and claims 20 and 22 depend from claim 18 and therefore are also interpreted the same.
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-, 18, 10-12, 15, 16, 18, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Yes. Claim 1 recites “a secondary battery behavior prediction system comprising: a parameter tester…wherein the basic parameter information includes information derived from a geometric structure and constituent materials of the secondary” which is a system.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Judicial exception? Yes.
Amended claim 1 recites a mathematical concept that may be carried out with the aid of a computer for more complicated situations (in the instant application, by a “data processing device” in limitation “a data processing device configured to perform behavior analysis based on parameter information received from the parameter tester, thereby generating behavior information regarding the secondary battery cell” and newly added limitation “wherein the data processing device applies the parameter information and the basic parameter information to a semi-empirical electrochemical-thermal model for the secondary battery cell to generate the behavior information for predicting performance, heating, and deterioration characteristics of the secondary battery cell”). The claim does not recite a particular equation or algorithm for making the generation, but this just means that the abstract idea is being recited broadly enough to monopolize all possible equations or algorithms that might be used (Please also see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), (B),(C), and (D).
Step 2A, Prong 2: No.
Claim 1 when viewed as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 when viewed in ordered combination and a whole does not show an improvement to a technology or technical field (Please see explanation in the Response to Argument).
Further, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. There is no particular machine recited, and no real-world transformation takes place.
The newly added limitation “wherein the data processing device applies the parameter information…for predicting performance, heating, and deterioration characteristics of the secondary battery cell” is merely a data gathering limitation and an insignificant extra-solution activity, namely mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(g), for instance).
The claim does not recite applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine (other than data processing device), nor does the claim affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claim amounts to performing a behavior analysis using obtained parameter information. Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to be limited to the use of the mathematical technique for a particular practical application, but instead the claim appears to monopolize the mathematical technique itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used. The claim is therefore considered to be directed to an abstract idea.
The amended limitation recites “for predicting performance, heating, and deterioration characteristics of the secondary battery cell” is an intended use. Further “predicting performance, heating, and deterioration characteristics of the secondary battery cell” is merely a data gathering limitation and an insignificant extra-solution activity, namely mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(g), for instance).
Further, as explained in the Response to Arguments, per MPEP 2106.05(a) and 2106.04(d)(1), the claim is ineligible as the claim when viewed individual, as a whole, or in ordered combination fails to show improvements in the Functioning of a Computer, or an Improvement to Any Other Technology or Technical Field.
Step 2B: No. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, for reasons that are analogous to the discussion of additional elements at Prong 2 and for failing to show improvements in the Functioning of a Computer, or an Improvement to Any Other Technology or Technical Field as explained in step 2A Prong 2 and as shown in the Response to Argument.
Independent claim 18
Step 1: Yes because claim 18 recites “a secondary battery behavior prediction system…array” which is directed to a system.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Judicial exception? Yes.
Amended 18 recites a mathematical concept that may be carried out with the aid of a computer for more complicated situations (in the instant application, by a “data processing device” in limitation “a data processing device configured to perform behavior analysis based on parameter information received from the parameter tester, thereby generating behavior information regarding the secondary battery cell” The claim does not recite a particular equation or algorithm for making the generation, but this just means that the abstract idea is being recited broadly enough to monopolize all possible equations or algorithms that might be used (Please also see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), (B),(C), and (D).
The claim does not recite applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine (other than data processing device), nor does the claim affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claim amounts to performing a behavior analysis using obtained parameter information. Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to be limited to the use of the mathematical technique for a particular practical application, but instead the claim appears to monopolize the mathematical technique itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used. The claim is therefore considered to be directed to an abstract idea.
The newly added limitation: “wherein the jig comprises: a plate…a cover…a Peltier element array…wherein the plate further comprises a cooling channel therein so as to extend below the Peltier element array” are not particular devices/elements.
Further, as explained in the Response to Arguments, per MPEP 2106.05(a) and 2106.04(d)(1), the claim is ineligible as the claim when viewed individual, as a whole, or in ordered combination fails to show improvements in the Functioning of a Computer, or an Improvement to Any Other Technology or Technical Field.
Step 2B: No. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, for reasons that are analogous to the discussion of additional elements at Prong 2 and for failing to show improvements in the Functioning of a Computer, or an Improvement to Any Other Technology or Technical Field as explained in step 2A Prong 2 and as shown in the Response to Argument.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-12, 15, 16, 20, and 22 recite limitations which are merely data and an insignificant extra solution and would not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the recited abstract idea into a particular application and limitations that are not particular machine.
Claim 7 recites “display a corresponding temperature…display unit through temperature monitoring” which can be an additional element. However, however, Limitation “outputting…” represents extra solution activity because it is a mere nomial or tangential addition to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). This limitation represents extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g), discussing limitations that the Federal Circuit has considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, for instance the step of printing a menu that was generated through an abstract process in Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and the mere generic presentation of collected and analyzed data in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The term “display” and “display unit” are generic devices/components which would not integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Further, outputting is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20160041679 (hereinafter “D1”) and KR 20150141040 (hereinafter “D2”) further in view of KR 20130073802 (hereinafter “D3”).
Regarding claim 1, discloses a secondary battery behavior prediction system comprising:
a parameter tester (Page 5: monitoring unit) connected to a test target secondary battery cell and configured to obtain parameter information regarding the secondary battery cell from data measured by controlling operations of the secondary battery cell (Page 5: monitoring unit measures voltage, current of the battery cell 200);
and a data processing device configured to perform behavior analysis based on parameter information received from the parameter tester, thereby generating behavior information regarding the secondary battery cell (Page 5: battery performance of the battery 200 such as SOH).
D1 does not explicitly discloses “a basic parameter database configured to store basic parameter information of the secondary battery cell for generating the behavior information, wherein the data processing device applies the parameter information and the basic parameter information to a semi-empirical electrochemical-thermal model for the secondary battery cell to generate the behavior information for predicting performance, heating, and deterioration characteristics of the secondary battery cell, wherein the basic parameter information includes information derived from a geometric structure and constituent materials of the secondary battery cell.”
D2 teaches “a basic parameter database configured to store basic parameter information of the secondary battery cell for generating the behavior information (D2: Pages 5-7 and Fig. 5), , wherein the basic parameter information includes information derived from a geometric structure and constituent materials of the secondary battery cell (D2: pages 5-7 and Fig. 5).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filling the Application to modify 's invention using 's invention to arrive at the claimed invention specified in claim 1 to modify D1’s invention using D2’s invention to determine the amount / failure of the automatic cell (C) in the case further inclusion of the appropriate control can. Secondary battery testing device according to the invention as described above may be configured to measure a very simple operation by the temperature and voltage characteristics of the battery cell at the same time and thickness (see D2: Page 7).
D1 and D2 disclose everything as applied above but not “the data processing device applies the one or more pieces of parameter information to a semi-empirical electrochemical-thermal model regarding the secondary battery cell, thereby performing the behavior analysis.”
D3 teaches “wherein, for the behavior analysis, the data processing device applies the one or more pieces of parameter information to a semi-empirical electrochemical-thermal model regarding the secondary battery cell, thereby performing the behavior analysis” (D3: Figs. 4 and 5; Pages 5-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filling the Application to modify D1 and D2's invention using D3's invention to arrive at the claimed invention specified in claim 13 to predict a life time of a normal condition at an evaluated acceleration condition, and to reduce a life evaluation time of a battery simultaneously (D3: Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, D1 and D2 disclose everything as applied above. In addition, D1 discloses wherein the secondary battery behavior prediction system further comprises a temperature setup/display unit for temperature setup and temperature display regarding the secondary battery cell (Pages 5 and 6: heating and cooling device 121 and 122 being connected to heating/cooling unit 120 so that a heating or cooling temperature varies for each region of the battery cell 200).
Regarding claim 3, discloses wherein the secondary battery behavior prediction system further comprises a jig comprising a heating/cooling unit (see heating cooling device 121 and 121 at Pages 5 and 6) controlled by a control device according to the temperature setup and a temperature measuring unit configured to transmit a measurement signal regarding the secondary battery cell for the temperature display to the control device, and the secondary battery cell is disposed between the heating/cooling unit and the temperature measuring unit (Pages 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 4, D1 and D2 disclose everything as applied above. IN addition, D2 teaches “that the temperature measuring unit disposed above the secondary battery cell comprises a thermocouple array (230) configured to generate a signal serving as a basis of local temperature measurement of the secondary battery cell (see D2: thermocouple at Page 6).
Regarding claim 5, D1 and D2 disclose everything as applied above. In addition, D2 discloses wherein the heating/cooling unit comprises a cooling medium circulating motor subjected to operation control of the control device according to a measurement temperature regarding the secondary battery cell, and the cooling medium circulating motor circulates a cooling medium through a channel inside the jig according to the operation control (circulator 50 which comprises a cooler for circularly supplying a colling medium through flow paths 23, 21 inside the cell cover 400: pages 5-7).
Regarding claim 6, D1 and D2 disclose everything as applied above. In addition, D1 discloses wherein the heating/cooling unit comprises: a heat dissipation plate disposed below the Peltier element array; (D1 discloses in Fig. 5, Pages 5-7: heating devices 121 which has hot wire 121a provided at the upper end thereof, are aligned in an array form on a second plate 112 under the battery cell 200) and an aluminum plate, a heat diffusion plate, and a cell heating block stacked above the Peltier element array (D2: Flow paths 23, 32 through which a cooling medium or a heating medium is circulated by the circulator 50 that are arranged in between heat insulating layers 24 and 34 and heat conducting layers 26, 36 in the lower cover 20 and the upper cover 30. See D2, Pages 6).
Regarding claim 7, D1 and D2 disclose everything as applied above. In addition, D2 discloses wherein the heating/cooling unit further comprises a thermocouple installed on the cell heating block so as to display a corresponding temperature on the temperature setup/display unit through temperature monitoring (Pages 5-7: thermocouple arranged at various locations to measure temperature of the battery cell mounted between the upper cover 30 and the lower cover).
Regarding claim 8, D1 and D2 disclose everything as applied above. In addition, D2 discloses wherein the secondary battery behavior prediction system further comprises a chamber configured to contain the secondary battery cell, and the temperature inside the chamber is maintained by controlling activation of a heater or a cooling device installed around the chamber according to the temperature setup (Fig.5 and Pages 5-7:
Regarding claim 10, D1, D2, and D3 disclose everything as applied above. In addition, D3 teaches “wherein the parameter tester acquires the parameter information by using a series of time-dependent charging/discharging patterns of the secondary battery cell with regard to two or more time-dependent current conditions” (D3: Pages 5-7)
Regarding claim 11, D1, D2, and D3 disclose everything as applied above but not “wherein the parameter tester acquires the parameter information with regard to the two or more time- dependent current conditions for each setup temperature with regard to multiple setup temperatures”. In addition, D3 teaches “wherein the parameter tester acquires the parameter information with regard to the two or more time- dependent current conditions for each setup temperature with regard to multiple setup temperatures” (D3: Pages 5-7).
Regarding claim 12, D1 and D2 discloses everything as applied above. In addition, D1 discloses wherein the parameter information comprises one or more pieces of parameter information among parameter information regarding cell open circuit voltage (U), capacity (Q), cell conductance (Y), cell capacitance (Cal), cell entropy (AS), external temperature influence (C1, C2), and deterioration (A1, A2) (Figs. 1 and 2, Pages 5-7).
Regarding claim 15, D1, D2, and D3 disclose everything as applied above. In addition, D2 teaches wherein the basic parameter information is information obtained from a geometrical structure of a constituent material of the secondary battery cell, and comprises at least one of density (p), specific heat (Cp), thermal conductivity (k), electrode plate resistance (rp, r~), specific surface area (a, ap, a,), heat transfer coefficient associated with a temperature measuring unit regarding the secondary battery cell (D2: Pages 5-7 and Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 16, D1, D2, and D3 disclose everything as applied above. In addition, D1 discloses wherein the data processing device generates, as the behavior information, at least one of a charging/discharging pattern, the number of cycles, the time of use, an open circuit voltage (OCV)-capacity curve according to environment temperature, a closed circuit voltage (CCV)- capacity curve, remaining lifespan (RUL), a two-dimensional or three-dimensional temperature distribution (D1: monitoring unit can monitor parameters indicating the electrical characteristics of the battery cell 200 such as SOH, SOC, output voltage, and output current of the battery cell 200 from data such as measured voltage and current. D1: Pages 5-7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1.
Regarding claim 18, D1 discloses a secondary battery behavior prediction system comprising:
Jig configured to mount and retain a test target secondary battery cell therein (D1: housing unit 110 which provides a space in which the battery cell 200 is seated. Pages 5-7).
a parameter tester (Page 5: monitoring unit) connected to a test target secondary battery cell and configured to obtain parameter information regarding the secondary battery cell from data measured by controlling operations of the secondary battery cell (Page 5: monitoring unit measures voltage, current of the battery cell 200);
and a data processing device configured to perform behavior analysis based on parameter information received from the parameter tester, thereby generating behavior information regarding the secondary battery cell (Page 5: battery performance of the battery 200 such as SOH).
Wherein the jig comprises: a plate configured such that the secondary battery cell is seated on an upper portion thereof; a cover portion coupled to the plate so as to cover the secondary battery cell; and a Peltier element array provided on the plate, and comprising multiple Peltier elements arranged so as to heat or cool the secondary battery cell by conduction (D1: battery cell 200 is seated on second plate 112, first plate 111 coupled to second plate to cover the battery cell; and the heating devices 121 which have a hot wire 121a provided an upper end to heat battery cell 200 are aligned in an array form on the second plate 112 under the battery cell 200, and can be selectively coupled: see Pages 5-7 and Figs. 1-5);
wherein the plate further comprises a cooling channel therein so as to extend below the Peltier element array (Fig. 5, Pages 5-7).
Regarding claim 20, D1 discloses wherein the Peltier element array comprises multiple Peltier elements arranged in an N x M shape (N, M are natural numbers), and the multiple Peltier elements perform heat transfer by means of conduction with regard to the secondary battery cell (see D1: Pages 5-7 and Figs. 1-5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 and D2.
Regarding claim 22, D1 discloses everything as applied above (see claim 18).
However, D1 does not explicitly disclose “wherein the cover portion further comprises a temperature measuring unit configured to measure temperatures of the secondary battery cell, and the temperature measuring unit measures temperatures at respective points on the secondary battery cell corresponding to positions of the Peltier elements.”
D2 teaches “wherein the cover portion further comprises a temperature measuring unit configured to measure temperatures of the secondary battery cell, and the temperature measuring unit measures temperatures at respective points on the secondary battery cell corresponding to positions of the Peltier elements” (D2: Fig. 5, Pages 5-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filling the Application to modify D1's invention using D2's invention to arrive at the claimed invention specified in claim 22 to predict a life time of a normal condition at an evaluated acceleration condition, and to reduce a life evaluation time of a battery simultaneously (D3: Abstract).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-2718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/PHUONG HUYNH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 January 20, 2026