CTNF 18/163,357 CTNF 81255 DETAILED ACTION 1. Claims 1-15 have been presented for examination. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. PRIORITY 3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) to CHINA 2021107987635 filed 07/15/2021, CHINA 2021111787222 filed 10/11/2021, CHINA 2021115133275 filed 12/12/2021, and PCTCN2022097748 filed 06/09/2022. Information Disclosure Statement 4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/2/23 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Examiner has considered the IDS as to the merits. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. 5. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more. i) In view of Step 1 of the analysis, claim(s) 1 is directed to a statutory category as a process, , and claims 14 and 15 are directed to a machine as electronic equipment, which each represent a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-15 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention. ii) In view of Step 2A, Prong One , claims 1, 14, and 15 recite the abstract idea of simulating the lifetime prognosis of a rechargeable battery which constitutes an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper as well as and alternatively as Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations. The limitation in claim 1, similarly recited in claim 14, of " constructing a comprehensive-lifetime-index, using one or a plurality of the cumulative-consumption-indicators, for the rechargeable-battery; constructing, at an appropriate modelling moment, a dynamic-degradation-model for the rechargeable- battery; predicting a remaining-lifetime of the rechargeable-battery, at a prognosis-execution-time, using the dynamic-degradation-model” would be analogous to a person evaluating and predicting the values of a battery based on provided data points and thus fall under Mental Processes. In addition, the steps would constitute Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper, as well as and alternatively as Mathematical Concepts. As to claim 15, other than reciting “a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Dependent claims 2-13 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims. iii) In view of Step 2A, Prong Two , the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claim 15 , the additional element of “a processor module” merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitation in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 14 and 15 of “obtaining available-degradation-data-samples of the rechargeable-battery as model-inputs of the dynamic-degradation-model;” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation of “obtaining available-degradation-data-samples of the rechargeable-battery as model-inputs of the dynamic-degradation-model;” in claims 1, 14, and 15 , alternatively can be viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Dependent claims 2-13 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above. iv) In view of Step 2B, claims 1, 14, and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 15 , the additional element of “a processor module” merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitation in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 14 and 15 of “obtaining available-degradation-data-samples of the rechargeable-battery as model-inputs of the dynamic-degradation-model;” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation of “obtaining available-degradation-data-samples of the rechargeable-battery as model-inputs of the dynamic-degradation-model;” in claims 1, 14, and 15, alternatively can be viewed as an insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.” The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims. Dependent claims 2-13 further defines the elements of claim 1 which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts. v) Accordingly, claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 6. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. 07-34-07 AIA i) The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. See below for examples. The claims also include numerous phrases delineated by dashes which appear to be defined elements yet the claims lack any recitation of how they are defined. ii) The term “comprehensive-lifetime-index” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “comprehensive-lifetime-index” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such the claim is rendered vague and indefinite. iii) The term “cumulative-consumption-indicators” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “cumulative-consumption-indicators” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such the claim is rendered vague and indefinite. iv) The term “appropriate modelling moment” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “appropriate modelling moment” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically what qualifies as an appropriate modelling moment? As such the claim is rendered vague and indefinite. See also in claim 6 “appropriate collecting moment.” v) The term “degradation-data sampled at all of historical spans or moments” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “degradation-data sampled at all of historical spans or moments” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically what qualifies as a historical span, all historical spans, and the same for moments? As such the claim is rendered vague and indefinite. vi) The term “performance monitoring data that are closely related to the degradation process of the rechargeable-battery” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “closely related” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically what qualifies as closely related? As such the claim is rendered vague and indefinite. vii) The term “working performances will gradually decay with long-term usage of the rechargeable-battery” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “gradually decay”, “long-term usage”, and “first viable option” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically what qualifies as gradual decay, long term usage, or first viable option? As such the claim is rendered vague and indefinite. viii) The term “setting the failure threshold according to an inherent law inferred from a priori-group of the degradation-data” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “inherent law” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically what qualifies as an inherent law? As such the claim is rendered vague and indefinite. ix) The term “similar or identical to the rechargeable-battery” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically what qualifies as similar? As such the claim is rendered vague and indefinite. x) The term “performance feature fusion approach” in claim 7 is undefined which renders the claim indefinite. The term “performance feature fusion approach” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically what qualifies as a performance feature fusion approach? As such the claim is rendered vague and indefinite. See also “lifetime feature fusion approach” in claim 7. xi) The term “input features are organically fused” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “organically fused” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically what qualifies as organically fusing? As such the claim is rendered vague and indefinite. xii) The term “In some embodiments” in claim 8 is a narrative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in some embodiments” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically the phrase is optional and therefore not afforded patentable weight. As such the claim is rendered vague and indefinite. xiii) Claim 10 recites “generally, changes in value of one or a plurality of the operating-conditions may affect the working performances of the rechargeable-battery in use, and then may affect the dynamic degradation pattern of the rechargeable-battery…” which is a narrative, conditional, and optional phrase that does not appear to carry patentable weight nor does it further limit the claim from which it depends. This analysis also applies to at least “assuming the values of one or a plurality of the operating-conditions will remain stable during the future-lifetime-range” recited in claim 11. As such the claim is rendered vague and indefinite. Appropriate correction is required. All claims dependent upon a rejected base claim are rejected by virtue of their dependency. 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 7. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 8. 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: the four modules recited in claims 14 and 15. 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. 07-34-23 9. Claim limitation the modules in claims 14 and 15 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See paragraphs 264-269. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-15 AIA 10. Claim s 1-3, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being clearly anticipated by Hu, Xiaosong, et al. "Battery lifetime prognostics." Joule 4.2 (2020): 310-346 . Regarding Claim 1: The reference discloses A lifetime prognosis method for a rechargeable-battery based on cumulative-consumption-indicators, characterized in that the method comprising: constructing a comprehensive-lifetime-index, using one or a plurality of the cumulative-consumption-indicators, for the rechargeable-battery; (Abstract, “After introducing the degradation mechanisms, this paper provides a timely and comprehensive review of the battery lifetime prognostic technologies with a focus on recent advances in model-based, data-driven, and hybrid approaches”) constructing, at an appropriate modelling moment, a dynamic-degradation-model for the rechargeable-battery; (Page 312, 1 st paragraph, “RUL prediction has attracted increasing attention in recent years. Some studies have reviewed existing RUL prediction methods and categorized them according to the models and algorithms used. According to the existing literature, RUL prediction methods include model-based, data-driven, and hybrid approaches. Model-based approaches aim to establish a mathematical model to describe the degradation trajectory based on battery dynamics.”) obtaining available-degradation-data-samples of the rechargeable-battery as model-inputs of the dynamic-degradation-model; (Page 312, 1 st paragraph, “On the contrary, data-driven approaches attempt to extract hidden correlations from a large amount of data and predict the RUL without a battery mathematical model. The data-driven approach does not need to analyze the system mechanism and is feasible and practical when large amount of data is available. In recent years, hybrid approaches that combine the model-based and data-driven approaches have also been proposed because they can combine the relative strengths of different methods.”) predicting a remaining-lifetime of the rechargeable-battery, at a prognosis-execution-time, using the dynamic-degradation-model. (Page 314, 2 nd paragraph, “A degradation modeling process is required after extracting the RHI from the original battery measurements. Degradation modeling has two main purposes: (1) to evaluate the correlation between RHI and DHI (usually battery capacity) and validate the effectiveness of the proposed RHI, and (2) to establish a relationship between RHI and DHI. Therefore, after degradation modeling, the battery RUL can be effectively predicted based on the future RHI trajectory.”) Regarding Claim 2: The reference discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the dynamic-degradation-model is used to describe a dynamic degradation pattern of the rechargeable-battery that characterized by decay in the value of the comprehensive-lifetime-index, during a degradation process of the rechargeable-battery, as the value of the comprehensive lifetime index constantly increases; (Page 327, 1 st paragraph, “Wiener Process. A degradation process {X(t), t > 0} can be modeled as a WP with a linear drift.126 The lifetime of the system is often defined as the first hitting time when the degradation exceeds a certain threshold.127 Based on the definition of the first hitting time, the RUL Lk of a system at time tk is defined as the remaining time from tk to the first time when X(t) exceeds the failure threshold w.”) wherein constructing the comprehensive-lifetime-index comprises: selecting one of the cumulative-consumption-indicators as the comprehensive-lifetime-index; (Page 327, 1 st paragraph, “Wiener Process. A degradation process {X(t), t > 0} can be modeled as a WP with a linear drift.126 The lifetime of the system is often defined as the first hitting time when the degradation exceeds a certain threshold.127 Based on the definition of the first hitting time, the RUL Lk of a system at time tk is defined as the remaining time from tk to the first time when X(t) exceeds the failure threshold w.”) wherein the cumulative-consumption-indicators comprise: an accumulated amount obtained by accumulating values of a usage-metric of the rechargeable-battery; (Figure 3) but the usage-metric do not comprise: a charging iteration, a discharging iteration, a merge of charging and discharging iteration, or a service duration; (Figure 3) and the cumulative-consumption-indicators do not comprise: an accumulated amount of the charging iteration, an accumulated amount of the discharging iteration, an accumulated amount of the merge of charging and discharging iteration, or an accumulated amount of the service duration; (Figure 3) wherein the available-degradation-data-samples comprise: degradation-data sampled in real-time, the degradation-data sampled at all of historical spans or moments, or the degradation-data sampled at partial of the historical spans or moments; (Page 340, last paragraph, “Furthermore, considering the onboard computing power of the battery management system, achieving a balance between model complexity and accuracy in model-based approaches, decreasing data demands and computational loads in data-driven approaches, and developing more effective frameworks for hybrid approaches are critical for real-time application”) wherein the degradation-data comprises: performance monitoring data that are closely related to the degradation process of the rechargeable-battery. (Page 322, last paragraph, “For battery RUL prognosis, the training data for artificial intelligence mainly consist of cycling numbers, current, voltage, temperature, and capacity. Because the expected output values are known, it can be classified as supervised learning. Under the framework of supervised learning, a HI that represents battery performance is first selected.”) Regarding Claim 3: The reference discloses The method of claim 2, wherein the usage-metric comprise: a charging-electricity-quantity, a discharging-electricity-quantity, a merge of absolute charging and discharging electricity-quantity; (Page 325, middle paragraph) wherein the cumulative-consumption-indicators further comprise: an accumulated amount of the charging-electricity-quantity, an accumulated amount of the discharging-electricity-quantity, or an accumulated amount of the merge of absolute charging and discharging electricity-quantity; (Page 326, last paragraph, “Grey Model. The grey system theory was proposed by Ju-long Deng in 1982 and is capable of solving small-sample and poor-information problems.121,122 The grey model, GM(1,1), is one of the most widely used grey prediction models. For a non-negative historical time series, smoothing algorithms (e.g., accumulated generating operation)”) wherein the usage-metric further comprise: a charging-electric-work, a discharging-electric-work, a merge of absolute charging and discharging electric-work; (Page 325, middle paragraph) wherein the cumulative-consumption-indicators further comprise: an accumulated amount of the charging-electric-work, an accumulated amount of the discharging-electric-work, or an accumulated amount of the merge of absolute charging and discharging electric-work; (Page 326, last paragraph, “Grey Model. The grey system theory was proposed by Ju-long Deng in 1982 and is capable of solving small-sample and poor-information problems.121,122 The grey model, GM(1,1), is one of the most widely used grey prediction models. For a non-negative historical time series, smoothing algorithms (e.g., accumulated generating operation)”) wherein the usage-metric further comprise: a charging duration, a discharging duration, a merge of charging and discharging duration; (Page 325, middle paragraph) wherein the cumulative-consumption-indicators further comprise: an accumulated amount of the charging duration, an accumulated amount of the discharging duration, or an accumulated amount of the merge of charging and discharging duration; (Page 326, last paragraph, “Grey Model. The grey system theory was proposed by Ju-long Deng in 1982 and is capable of solving small-sample and poor-information problems.121,122 The grey model, GM(1,1), is one of the most widely used grey prediction models. For a non-negative historical time series, smoothing algorithms (e.g., accumulated generating operation)”) wherein the usage-metric further comprise: a resting iteration, a resting duration; (Page 331, last paragraph, “Most of the studies in the previous sections focus on the battery capacity fade under working conditions, and different model-based, data-driven, and hybrid approaches were proposed for RUL prediction. Although the capacity fade, including both calendar aging and cycle aging, is modeled, the above studies excluded long-time rest conditions from experiments in order to accelerate the battery degradation.”) wherein the cumulative-consumption-indicators further comprise: an accumulated amount of the resting iteration, or an accumulated amount of the resting duration; (Page 331, last paragraph, “Most of the studies in the previous sections focus on the battery capacity fade under working conditions, and different model-based, data-driven, and hybrid approaches were proposed for RUL prediction. Although the capacity fade, including both calendar aging and cycle aging, is modeled, the above studies excluded long-time rest conditions from experiments in order to accelerate the battery degradation.”) wherein the process to acquire a value of one of the cumulative-consumption-indicators at a sampling time, comprise: selecting all of the historical spans or moments during a period from a production date of the rechargeable-battery to the sampling time as an accumulation-range, then selecting the usage-metric of the rechargeable-battery according to actual needs as object for accumulation, and then accumulating the values of the usage-metric within the accumulation-range to get an accumulated result, finally using the accumulated result as the value of one of the cumulative-consumption-indicators at the sampling time. (Page 325, middle paragraph) (Page 331, last paragraph, “Most of the studies in the previous sections focus on the battery capacity fade under working conditions, and different model-based, data-driven, and hybrid approaches were proposed for RUL prediction. Although the capacity fade, including both calendar aging and cycle aging, is modeled, the above studies excluded long-time rest conditions from experiments in order to accelerate the battery degradation.”) Regarding Claim 14: The reference discloses A lifetime prognosis device for the rechargeable-battery based on the cumulative-consumption-indicators, comprising: a comprehensive-lifetime-index building module, which is configured to construct the comprehensive-lifetime-index, using one or a plurality of the cumulative-consumption-indicators, for the rechargeable-battery; a dynamic-degradation-model building module, which is configured to construct, at the appropriate modelling moment, the dynamic-degradation-model for the rechargeable-battery; a model-inputs building module, which is configured to obtain the available-degradation-data-samples of the rechargeable-battery as the model-inputs of the dynamic-degradation-model; a remaining-lifetime prognosis module, which is configured to predict the remaining-lifetime of the rechargeable-battery, at the prognosis-execution-time, using the dynamic-degradation-model. (See rejection for claim 1) Regarding Claim 15: The reference discloses An electronic equipment, comprised of: a memory module, which is configured to store computer instructions; a processor module, coupled to the memory module, which is configured to execute the computer instructions stored in the memory module to realize the lifetime prognosis method for the rechargeable-battery based on the cumulative-consumption-indicators as described in any one of claims 1-13. (See rejection for claims 1-2) 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 11. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. Since it is unclear how to ascertain the scope of the claims or what precisely the claim is doing due to the narrative and indefinite nature it would be difficult to present an art rejection under 103, as regards to claims 4-13 until the 101 and 112 2nd rejections presented above are resolved. Conclusion 12. All Claims are rejected. 07-96 AIA 13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. i) Wang, Dong, et al. "Battery remaining useful life prediction at different discharge rates." Microelectronics Reliability 78 (2017): 212-219. ii) Lin, Chun-Pang, et al. "Battery state of health modeling and remaining useful life prediction through time series model." Applied Energy 275 (2020): 115338. iii) Sarasketa-Zabala, Elixabet, et al. "Validation of the methodology for lithium-ion batteries lifetime prognosis." 2013 World Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition (EVS27) . IEEE, 2013. iv) U.S. Patent Publication No. 20020000790 v) U.S. Patent Publication No. 20110029265 14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saif A. Alhija whose telephone number is (571) 272-8635. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10:00-6:00. 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, Renee Chavez, can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Informal or draft communication, please label PROPOSED or DRAFT, can be additionally sent to the Examiners fax phone number, (571) 273-8635. 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). SAA /SAIF A ALHIJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/163,357 Page 2 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/163,357 Page 3 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/163,357 Page 4 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/163,357 Page 5 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/163,357 Page 6 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/163,357 Page 7 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/163,357 Page 8 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/163,357 Page 9 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/163,357 Page 10 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/163,357 Page 11 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/163,357 Page 12 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/163,357 Page 13 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/163,357 Page 14 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 18/163,357 Page 15 Art Unit: 2186