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 .
The amendment filed on December 30, 2025 has been considered.
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 5-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claim 5 recites an abstract idea of “determining a characteristic value of each of a plurality of battery cells to be selected” (mental process); “determining the excitation voltage signal and the excitation current signal in a frequency-domain impedance diagram based on the preset frequency” (mathematical concept), “determining a frequency-domain impedance diagram corresponding to the battery cell according to the response current signal, the response voltage signal, the frequency-domain and a preset transform algorithm” (mathematical concept), “determining the characteristic value according to parameters of two peaks in the frequency-domain impedance diagram” (mental process/mathematical concept); “calculating a ratio between the characteristic values of any two of the battery cells” (mathematical concept); “selecting any two of the battery cells having the ratio in a first preset range” (mental process).
The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III)).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Obtaining a corresponding response current signal and a corresponding response voltage signal is directed to an insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under step 2B, claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(A)).
“[A]pplying an excitation voltage signal and an excitation current signal to the battery cell respectively at a preset frequency” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity known in the industry (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The remaining dependent claims do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claims 6-13 are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 16, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor (processor/memory) does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III)).
Accordingly, claim 5 and its dependent claims 6-13 and 16 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Prior Art Note
Claims 5-13 and 16 do not have prior art rejections.
The combination as claimed wherein a screening method for a battery cell comprising determining the characteristic value according to parameters of two peaks in the frequency-domain impedance diagram; calculating a ratio between the characteristic values of any two of the battery cells; selecting any two of the battery cells having the ratio in a first preset range (claim 5) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 30, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicants argue “claim 5 requires "applying an excitation voltage signal and an excitation current signal to the battery cell at a preset frequency, and obtaining a corresponding response current signal and a corresponding response voltage signal" and "determining the excitation voltage signal and the excitation current signal in a frequency- domain impedance diagram based on the preset frequency." Applicant respectfully believes that the human mind is not equipped to perform the above-mentioned claim limitations.”
Examiner’s position is that while applying an excitation voltage signal and an excitation current signal to the battery cell at a preset frequency cannot be performed in a human mind, the feature is not a significantly more element. As discussed above, under step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, “applying an excitation voltage signal and an excitation current signal to the battery cell respectively at a preset frequency” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity known in the industry (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the element is not significantly more. Further, while obtaining a corresponding response current signal and a corresponding response voltage signal cannot be performed in a human mind, as discussed above under step 2A, prong 2 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the element is directed to an insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Thus, the element is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Finally, as discussed above under step 2A, prong 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, determining the excitation voltage signal and the excitation current signal in a frequency- domain impedance diagram based on the preset frequency" requires an evaluation/analysis. Thus, the element falls within the mental process grouping that can be performed in a human mind.
Applicants further argue “claim 5 merely involve an exception, which should be eligible. Specifically, the supreme court has articulated that "[a]t some level, all inventions embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas." Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980 (citing Mayo, 566 US at 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965). Further, "The 'directed to' inquiry, therefore, cannot simply ask whether the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept, because essentially every routinely patent-eligible claim involving physical products and actions involves a law of nature and/or natural phenomenon." See Enfish, LLC V. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Examiner’s position is that to determine whether a claim is patent eligible/ineligible, one must perform an analysis pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106). Under the analysis (see discussions above for further details):
step 1, claim 5 falls within a statutory category.
step 2A, prong 1, claim 5 recites an abstract idea.
step 2A, prong 2, the abstract idea in claim 5 is not integrated into a practical application.
step 2B, claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claim 5 is patent ineligible.
Simply determining the claim involves an abstract idea (step 2A, prong 1) is not enough to determine that the claim is patent ineligible.
Applicants further argue claim 5 “provide a technical improvement to the technical field by selecting the battery cells with consistent health and performance according to paragraph [0039] of the specification. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed screening method integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and impose a limit on practicing the alleged abstract idea.”
Examiner’s position is that pursuant to MPEP 2106.05(a)), “[a]n indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art.” The technical problem is identified in paragraph 0003, i.e., “although the single cells with good consistency under indicators of battery voltage, internal resistance, and capacity and so on are selected to form groups, after they are formed into a battery set, they will be placed in storage for a period of time before they are loaded for shipping. Generally, the storage process lasts for a few months or a year. During the storage process, a series of electrochemical changes will spontaneously occur inside 5 the single cell, making the consistency between the single cells worse again.”
Paragraph 0004 while identifying a technical solution, i.e., “it is a technical problem to be solved urgently by those skilled in the art to provide a battery set which still has good consistency between the single cells after a period of storage and shelving”, paragraph 0004 does not explain the details of the technical solution and the technical solution is not expressed in the claims to provide a battery set which still has good consistency between the single cells after a period of storage and shelving”. Paragraph 0039 discloses “screening is performed based on the ratio of the characteristic values, so that it is possible to screen out the battery cells that are consistent in terms of health and performance. In this manner, the consistency of the screened battery cells is better, and the performance of the formed battery set is improved”. However, paragraph 0039 does not disclose the technical solution for providing a battery set which still has good consistency between the single cells after a period of storage and shelving. It is noted that selecting battery cells with good consistency is known (see paragraph 0003).
Accordingly, claim 5 does not provide a technical improvement to the technical field.
Applicants further argue “claim 5 discloses to perform testing and evaluation on the frequency domain, thereby observing the variation of the impedance variation in the frequency domain. The ratios of the characteristic values are calculated so that the battery cells corresponding to the ratio within the predetermined range may be selected. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.”
Examiner’s position is that determining the variation of the impedance variation in the frequency domain, calculating a ratio between the characteristic values of any two of the battery cells, selecting any two of the battery cells having the ratio in a first preset range is directed to an abstract idea (see analysis under step 2A, prong 1 above). Under step 2B discussed above, claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional element of “applying an excitation voltage signal and an excitation current signal to the battery cell respectively at a preset frequency” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity known in the industry and have been found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Accordingly, claim 5, as a whole, recites an abstract idea and is not indicative of integration into an abstract idea, and has no additional elements that are significantly more.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are traversed in view of the discussions above.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 February 25, 2026