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 Amendment
Applicant' s amendment and response filed 3/4/2026 has been entered and made record. This application contains 23 pending claims.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1, and 16-23 are amended, and the amended claims limitations overcome the claim objections. Therefore, claims objections in claims 1, and 16-23 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/4/2026 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 in claim 1-23 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 103 rejections in claims 1-23 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/4/2026 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 in claim 1-23 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on pages 15-18 of the remark filed on 3/4/2026 that “… In independent claim 1 above, step (c) recites … Independent claim 1 "includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification" (see revised M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(d)(1) in Exhibit 1) and therefore, independent claim 1 (and claims 2-15 that depend thereon) are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. … Independent claim 16 "includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification" … Independent claim 17 "includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification" … Independent claim 18 "includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification" … Independent claim 19 "includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification" … Independent claim 20 "includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification" … Independent claim 21 "includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification" … Independent claim 22 "includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification" … Independent claim 23 "includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification".
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. The step of “determining a nominal discharge capacity for the cell at a state of health of 100%” is a mental process, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea. The step of “sequentially calculating a cell capacity at an end of each of the plurality of cell cycles based on total cyclable cations (ηs), accessible storage sites in each electrode, and the at least one cell component using a degradation model based on porous-electrode theory and having one or more degradation pathways, wherein the cell cycles are initialized based on a rate of degradation over a plurality of previous cycles and wherein a time at which to simulate the next cycle is chosen based on the rate of degradation over the plurality of previous cycles” is a mathematical concept, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea. The step of “determining a predicted end of life of the electrochemical cell based on one of the calculated cell capacities being less than a predetermined percentage of the nominal capacity” is a combination of a mathematical concept and a mental process, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Moreover, the additional element selecting at least one cell component selected from a group consisting of electrolytes, cathode active materials, and anode active materials, the at least one cell component causing the degradation of the cell is routine in monitoring and prediction of batteries lifetime. The alleged improvement of sequentially calculating a cell capacity at an end of each of the plurality of cell cycles based on total cyclable cations, and the at least one cell component using a degradation model based on porous-electrode theory and having one or more degradation pathways, wherein the cell cycles are initialized based on a rate of degradation over a plurality of previous cycles relate to improvement to the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the current claims do not recite additional elements that are indicative of integration of an abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-15 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Therefore, claims 2-15 are also patent ineligible.
Hence, the Examiner submits that the rejections of Claims 1-23 are proper.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “A method for manufacturing an electrochemical cell including an anode, an electrolyte, and a cathode including cations that move from the cathode to the anode during a charging phase of each of a plurality of cell cycles, wherein the cell undergoes degradation that results in loss of active material and loss of cation inventory during one or more charging phases of the cell cycles, the method comprising:
(a) selecting at least one cell component selected from a group consisting of electrolytes, cathode active materials, and anode active materials, the at least one cell component causing the degradation of the cell;
(b) determining a nominal discharge capacity for the cell at a state of health of 100%;
(c) sequentially calculating a cell capacity at an end of each of the plurality of cell cycles based on total cyclable cations (ηs), accessible storage sites in each electrode, and the at least one cell component using a degradation model based on porous-electrode theory and having one or more degradation pathways, wherein the cell cycles are initialized based on a rate of degradation over a plurality of previous cycles and
wherein a time at which to simulate the next cycle is chosen based on the rate of degradation over the plurality of previous cycles; and
(d) determining a predicted end of life of the electrochemical cell based on one of the calculated cell capacities being less than a predetermined percentage of the nominal capacity.”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process for claims 1, and 16-23).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions).
In claim 1, the step of “determining a nominal discharge capacity for the cell at a state of health of 100%” is a mental process, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea.
The step of “sequentially calculating a cell capacity at an end of each of the plurality of cell cycles based on total cyclable cations (ηs), accessible storage sites in each electrode, and the at least one cell component using a degradation model based on porous-electrode theory and having one or more degradation pathways, wherein the cell cycles are initialized based on a rate of degradation over a plurality of previous cycles and wherein a time at which to simulate the next cycle is chosen based on the rate of degradation over the plurality of previous cycles” is a mathematical concept, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea.
The step of “determining a predicted end of life of the electrochemical cell based on one of the calculated cell capacities being less than a predetermined percentage of the nominal capacity” is a combination of a mathematical concept and a mental process, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim comprises the following additional element:
selecting at least one cell component selected from a group consisting of electrolytes, cathode active materials, and anode active materials, the at least one cell component causing the degradation of the cell.
The additional element “selecting at least one cell component selected from a group consisting of electrolytes, cathode active materials, and anode active materials, the at least one cell component causing the degradation of the cell” is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, selecting at least one cell component selected from a group consisting of electrolytes, cathode active materials, and anode active materials, the at least one cell component causing the degradation of the cell is disclosed by “Sood US 20160197382”, [0040], [0041], [0046]; and “Smith US 20180062214”, [0064], [0066], [0072], [0104], [0108].
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 16-23 recite subject matter that is similar or analogous to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claims are also patent ineligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-15 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not eligible.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding Claims 1-23, the most pertinent prior arts are “Sood US 20160197382”; “Smith US 20180062214”; “Sulzer (Accelerated Battery Lifetime Simulations using Adaptive Inter-cycle Extrapolation Algorithm), Journal of The Electrochemical Society, Published December 20, 2021”; “Manthiram (A Reflection on Lithium-ion Battery Cathode Chemistry), Nature Communication, Published: March 25, 2020”; and “Eshetu et al. (LiFSI vs. LiPF6 electrolytes in contact with lithiated graphite: Comparing thermal stabilities and identification of specific SEI-reinforcing additives), Electrochimical Acta, Published: April 8, 2013”.
As to claims 1, and 16-23, Sood teaches (a) selecting at least one cell component selected from a group consisting of electrolytes, cathode active materials, and anode active materials, the at least one cell component causing the degradation of the cell (Sood, [0040] and [0041], [0046]);
(b) determining a nominal discharge capacity for the cell at a state of health of 100% (Sood, [0028], [0047], FIG. 2B);
(c) sequentially calculating a cell capacity at an end of each of the plurality of cell cycles based on total cyclable cations (s) (Sood, [0026], [0027], FIG.s 12A and 12B), and
(d) determining a predicted end of life of the electrochemical cell based on one of the calculated cell capacities being less than a predetermined percentage of the nominal capacity (Sood, [0095], [0097]).
Smith teaches calculating a cell capacity at an end of each of the plurality of cell cycles based on accessible storage sites in each electrode (Smith, FIG. 13, [0072], FIG. 4A).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “sequentially calculating a cell capacity at an end of each of the plurality of cell cycles based on total cyclable cations (ηs), accessible storage sites in each electrode, and the at least one cell component using a degradation model based on porous-electrode theory and having one or more degradation pathways, wherein the cell cycles are initialized based on a rate of degradation over a plurality of previous cycles” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 2-15 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claim 1.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 EST.
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, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/LAL CE MANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857