DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
In the communication filed on 11/21/2025 claims 1-16,19-37 and 40-46 are pending. Independent claims 1 and 22 have been amended to incorporate the limitations of claims 18 and 39, respectively. Claims 17-18 and 38-39 have been cancelled. Claims 43-46 are new.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments in page 9 of the Remarks regarding the incorporation of the limitations of dependent claims 18 and 39 into independent claims 1 and 22, respectively, in order to correct the 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection were not found to be supportive. Although the claim language references modifying a charging process, a discharge process, and/or a temperature of the rechargeable battery at least in part on the defect status, these limitations do not impose a meaningful structural constraint. These modifications are recited as functional steps without implementation details. Accordingly, the claim remains directed to an abstract concept without significantly more.
With respect to applicant’s arguments in page 10 of the Remarks that Ghantous fails to disclose “determining the rate of change”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Ghantous in ¶[155-157] teaches determining rates of change because it measures how battery parameters like voltage respond over time to applied current and uses that charging behavior to guide control decisions. By calculating voltage changes, relaxation times, diffusion behavior, and reaction rates, it is understood by one of ordinary skill that the system is evaluating how quantities vary with respect to time or input, which constitutes determining a rate of change.
With respect to the newly added claims 43-46, the examiner addresses these in the action below.
The remaining arguments are moot as the applicant’s arguments for the remaining claims were based on dependency of the independent claims.
This Office Action is made Final due to the amendments.
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 1-16,19-37 and 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed towards a method and claim 22 is directed towards an apparatus, as identified in Step 1.
The claims recite monitoring, obtaining and determining functions which are considered exceptions because the limitations fall under mathematical concepts and mental processes groupings of the abstract ideas which may be performed mentally by an individual, as identified in Step 2A Prong One.
The limitations that are considered exceptions are the following:
“monitoring one or more battery parameters associated with a rechargeable battery;”
“determining a rate of change of at least one battery parameter of the one or more battery parameters;”
“determining a defect status of the rechargeable battery based at least in part on the rate of change of the at least one battery parameter;”
“and causing modification of a charging process of the rechargeable battery, modification of a discharging process of the rechargeable battery, and/or modification of a temperature of the rechargeable battery based at least in part on the defect status.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the combination of the abstract idea with a monitoring circuitry [generic], a rechargeable battery [generic], and control circuitry [generic] with insignificant, extra solution activities monitoring, determining, and modifying data does not make it practical, as identified in Step 2A Prong Two.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the control circuitry is only used to monitor, determine, and modify data with no additional practical use added as a limitation, as identified in Step 2B.
Dependent claims 2-16,19-21, 23-37 and 40-42 are rejected because they only further the abstract idea without additional practical use or significant structure.
Note: Independent claim 43 states the following limitation “causing removal of the rechargeable battery from usage in response to determining the defect status of the rechargeable battery” which does not require a 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-16,19-37 and 40-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ghantous et al. (USPGPN 20210148987).
With respect to independent claims 1 and 22, Ghantous teaches a method and apparatus of diagnosing battery defects (¶ [107]; a method and apparatus which is used for diagnosing battery defects).
Ghantous teaches comprising monitoring circuitry, coupled to a rechargeable battery, configured to monitor one or more battery parameters associated with the rechargeable battery (Fig. 1; a monitoring circuitry, coupled to a rechargeable battery 118 (see abstract), configured to monitor one or more battery parameters associated with the rechargeable battery, see ¶ [155]. See ¶ [44] for additional details on the battery parameters).
Ghantous teaches control circuitry, coupled to the monitoring circuitry, configured to determine a rate of change of at least one battery parameter of the one or more battery parameters (Fig. 1; a control circuitry 116, coupled to the monitoring circuitry 114, configured to obtain a rate of change of at least one battery parameter of the one or more battery parameters, see ¶ [156-157].).
Ghantous teaches determine a defect status of the rechargeable battery based at least in part on the rate of change of the at least one battery parameter (In ¶ [106-107] battery manufacturing defects are determined based at least in part on the rate of change of the at least one battery parameter).
Ghantous teaches cause modification of a charging process of the rechargeable battery, modification of a discharging process of the rechargeable battery, and/or modification of a temperature of the rechargeable battery based at least in part on the defect status (In ¶ [108] “In one approach, model results/outputs broadly classify a battery as behaving (a) as expected for a normal battery of similar age, (b) in a way suggesting a premature failure risk, or (c) in a way that poses a safety risk. If the battery is behaving as expected, the battery charging system may adapt the charge protocol to permit faster charging. If the battery is behaving in a way suggesting that it might fail prematurely, the battery charging system or other logic may send an alert to the user, and/or the manufacturer, and/or adapt the charging protocol to extend the battery life.”).
Or in the alternative, to advance prosecution [since the applicant’s drawings show a process for defect determination], although Ghantous fails to explicitly teach the exact steps for determining battery defect as those illustrated in Figs. 5-6 of the applicant’s disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine battery defects, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
With respect to dependent claims 2 and 23, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 22, respectively. Further Ghantous teaches wherein the rate of change is determined over at least 2 cycles of the rechargeable battery (In ¶ [44] the rate of change of the battery parameters of battery 118 is determined over a plurality of cycles).
With respect to dependent claims 3 and 24, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 22, respectively. Further Ghantous teaches wherein determining the defect status of the rechargeable battery comprises comparing the rate of change of the at least one battery parameter to an expected rate of change of the at least one battery parameter (¶ [105-108] one of ordinary skill understands the defect status of the battery 118 comprises comparing the rate of change of the at least one battery parameter to an expected rate of change of the at least one battery parameter [e.g., the model’s results]).
With respect to dependent claims 4 and 25, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 3 and 24, respectively. Further Ghantous teaches wherein the comparing occurs at a predetermined state of charge (SOC) or range of SOC (In ¶ [106] “Depending on the design of the battery model, any raw or derived measurements and parameters may be used by battery models. As an example, measurements such as a battery's SOC are made directly by measurement circuitry and passed to a battery model.” One of ordinary skill understands a comparison between the model and the battery are used at a predetermined SOC or range of SOC).
With respect to dependent claims 5 and 26, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 3 and 24, respectively. Further Ghantous teaches wherein the expected rate of change of the at least one battery parameter is based at least in part on an output of a battery model and/or historical data from other rechargeable batteries (In ¶ [98, 105-108] the expected rate of change of the battery parameters is derived from a battery model and/or historical data from other rechargeable batteries).
With respect to dependent claims 6 and 27, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 5 and 26, respectively. Further Ghantous teaches wherein the battery model comprises one of more of. an equivalent circuit model of the rechargeable battery; a machine learning model; or a mathematical expression (In ¶ [58-59] the battery model includes equivalent circuit models of the rechargeable battery, may be implanted using machine learning, and is a mathematical construct that may classify the battery 118).
With respect to dependent claims 7 and 28, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 5 and 26, respectively. Further Ghantous teaches wherein the battery model is specific to a type of battery corresponding to the rechargeable battery (In ¶ [58-59] the battery model is specific to a battery type corresponding to the rechargeable battery).
With respect to dependent claims 8 and 29, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 7 and 28, respectively. Further Ghantous teaches wherein the type of battery corresponds to at least one of: a battery chemistry associated with the rechargeable battery; a vendor of the rechargeable battery, or a cell design associated with the rechargeable battery (In ¶ [45] the battery type corresponds to battery chemistry, battery format (i.e., design), and manufacturer identity associated with the rechargeable battery).
With respect to dependent claims 9 and 30, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 5 and 26, respectively. Further Ghantous teaches wherein the battery model is applicable to a particular regime of use of the rechargeable battery (Figs. 5a-5b depict regimes of use of the rechargeable battery which include ranges of SOC, a constant current portion of a charging protocol, and a constant voltage portion of the charging protocol, see ¶ [78]. In ¶ [106] “The analyzed present and/or historical data and/or battery charge process classification may be fed back into the battery control logic to allow for, e.g., adaptive charging, safety alerts, etc.” one of ordinary skill understands the battery model is applicable to a particular regime of use of the rechargeable battery).
With respect to dependent claims 10 and 31, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 9 and 30, respectively. Further Ghantous teaches wherein the regime of use comprises at least one of: a range of states of charge (SOCs); a constant current portion of a charging protocol; or a constant voltage portion of the charging protocol (Figs. 5a-5b depict regimes of use of the rechargeable battery which include ranges of SOC, a constant current portion of a charging protocol, and a constant voltage portion of the charging protocol, see ¶ [78]).
With respect to dependent claims 11 and 32, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 9 and 30, respectively. Further Ghantous teaches wherein the regime of use comprises at least a portion of a discharging protocol (Figs. 3a-3d and 4a-4e include regimes of use comprising at least a portion of a discharging protocol, see ¶ [71-76]).
With respect to dependent claims 12 and 33, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 22, respectively. Further Ghantous teaches wherein determining the defect status of the rechargeable battery comprises considering a previous use pattern of the rechargeable battery (In ¶ [107] the data inputs leading up to the detected failure is used to determine defects).
With respect to dependent claims 13 and 34, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 12 and 33, respectively. Further Ghantous teaches wherein the previous use pattern comprises at least one of: a temperature of the rechargeable battery; storage conditions of the rechargeable battery; charging patterns of the rechargeable battery; discharge patterns of the rechargeable battery; or a number of charging cycles of the rechargeable battery (In ¶ [89] inputs/outputs into the model include temperature of the rechargeable battery; battery age (i.e., cycle count, days in service, etc.); and applied current characteristics, measured voltage across the battery terminals, and state of charge (i.e., charging and discharging patterns)).
With respect to dependent claims 14 and 35, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 13 and 34, respectively. Further Ghantous teaches wherein the charging patterns comprise at least one of a charge rate or a depth of charge (In ¶ [70] “examples of charge process modification to accomplish adaptive charging include modifying the rate or amount of charge injected to the battery during charging”).
With respect to dependent claims 15 and 36, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 13 and 34, respectively. Further Ghantous teaches wherein the discharge patterns comprise at least one of a discharge rate or a depth of discharge (Figs. 8b-8c illustrate adjustable parameters of the discharge pulses. One of ordinary skill understands this comprises discharge rate).
With respect to dependent claims 16 and 37, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 22, respectively. Further Ghantous teaches wherein the one or more battery parameters comprise at least one of: an open circuit voltage of the rechargeable battery, a loaded circuit voltage of the rechargeable battery, a charge pulse voltage of the rechargeable battery, electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) information associated with the rechargeable battery, a capacity of the rechargeable battery, impedance information associated with the rechargeable battery, or a current associated with the rechargeable battery (See ¶ [44, 54, 57, and 86]).
With respect to dependent claims 19 and 40, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 22, respectively. Further Ghantous teaches wherein modifying the charging process comprises temporarily prohibiting charging of the rechargeable battery (In ¶ [108] “If the battery is behaving in a way that poses a safety risk, the responsible system may shut down the device and send a warning to immediately replace the battery or device or take some other precaution.”).
With respect to dependent claims 20 and 41, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 22, respectively. Further Ghantous teaches wherein modifying the charging process comprises reducing a charging voltage and/or a charging current (In ¶ [108] “In one approach, model results/outputs broadly classify a battery as behaving (a) as expected for a normal battery of similar age, (b) in a way suggesting a premature failure risk, or (c) in a way that poses a safety risk. If the battery is behaving as expected, the battery charging system may adapt the charge protocol to permit faster charging. If the battery is behaving in a way suggesting that it might fail prematurely, the battery charging system or other logic may send an alert to the user, and/or the manufacturer, and/or adapt the charging protocol to extend the battery life.” One of ordinary skill understands adapting the charging protocol comprises reducing a charging voltage and/or a charging current).
With respect to dependent claims 21 and 42, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 22, respectively. Further Ghantous teaches wherein the modification is applicable to a given state of charge (SOC) of the rechargeable battery or a range of SOCs of the rechargeable battery (In ¶ [67] “In some cases, ranges of acceptable values of each of these parameters may vary as a function of the state of charge during the charge portion of a battery cycle. The parameters values may also vary from cycle-to-cycle over the battery's life. In some cases, adaptive charging may also make use of the current charging parameters such as the current or voltage that is being applied to a battery by charging circuitry.”).
With respect to independent claim 43, Ghantous teaches a method of diagnosing battery defects (¶ [107]; a method and apparatus which is used for diagnosing battery defects).
Ghantous teaches monitoring one or more battery parameters associated with a rechargeable battery (Fig. 1; a monitoring circuitry, coupled to a rechargeable battery 118 (see abstract), configured to monitor one or more battery parameters associated with the rechargeable battery, see ¶ [155]. See ¶ [44] for additional details on the battery parameters).
Ghantous teaches determining a rate of change of at least one battery parameter of the one or more battery parameters (Fig. 1; a control circuitry 116, coupled to the monitoring circuitry 114, configured to obtain a rate of change of at least one battery parameter of the one or more battery parameters, see ¶ [156-157].).
Ghantous teaches determining a defect status of the rechargeable battery based at least in part on the rate of change of the at least one battery parameter (In ¶ [106-107] battery manufacturing defects are determined based at least in part on the rate of change of the at least one battery parameter).
Ghantous teaches causing removal of the rechargeable battery from usage in response to determining the defect status of the rechargeable battery (¶ [94]; if the battery is behaving in a way that poses a safety risk, the system may prevent further charging and/or discharging until the battery has been removed or replaced from the device).
Or in the alternative, to advance prosecution [since the applicant’s drawings show a process for defect determination], although Ghantous fails to explicitly teach the exact steps for determining battery defect as those illustrated in Figs. 5-6 of the applicant’s disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine battery defects, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
With respect to claim 44, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 43. Further, Ghantous teaches determining the defect status is likely to cause one or more of: temperature escalation; leakage of battery components; a fire; or an explosion (¶[96]; “A known unsafe operating region may be one where a failure of the battery may lead in due time to a fire or explosion. For example, a buildup of metallic lithium may cause dendritic filaments that can cause an internal electric short-circuit thereby leading to a rapid discharge of the battery and a likely fire.”).
With respect to claim 45, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 43. Further, Ghantous teaches wherein a defect associated with the defect status is caused by one or more of: an internal physical condition of the rechargeable battery; metal plating on an anode of the rechargeable battery; electrolyte depletion or deterioration; or a manufacturing defect incurred during design or assembly of the rechargeable battery (¶[96], identifies metal plating and dendrite formation; ¶[100], includes loss of battery electrolyte and swelling; ¶[107]; identifies manufacturing defects).
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghantous et al. (USPGPN 20210148987) and further in view of Ryu et al. (USPGPN 20230168308).
With respect to claim 46, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 45. However, Ghantous fails to explicitly teach wherein the manufacturing defect comprises a pinhole defect in an anode, cathode, or separator of the rechargeable battery.
Ryu teaches wherein the manufacturing defect comprises a pinhole defect in an anode, cathode, or separator of the rechargeable battery (¶[37]; pinhole in the separator).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Ryu’s pinhole defect detection process to Ghantous’ method for diagnosing battery defects in order to have the ability to determine a battery defect based on a pinhole defect of the separator. The advantage of this being quickly and accurately detecting a rechargeable battery defect compared to lengthy time period required by other methods (see ¶[45] of Ryu).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following were identified by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) and/or were cited in the European Search Opinion, however, they were not relied upon for examination purposes:
US 20220187385 A1
US 20200014218 A1
US 20160116548 A1
US 20070182418 A1
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 Frank A Silva whose telephone number is (703)756-1698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 09:30 am -06:30 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/FRANK ALEXIS SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859