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
The argument received on December, 12 2025 has been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-20 are amended. Thus, claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed October, 16 2025 with respect to the rejection respect to claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments filed October, 16 2025 with respect to the rejection with respect to claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
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 1-20 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.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
An electrical system for an electric vehicle (EV), the electrical system comprising:
a battery pack arranged within a body of the EV, the battery pack including a plurality of Lithium Metal Battery (LMB) cells, each LMB cell of the plurality having a respective terminal pair;
a voltage sensor configured to measure voltage across each of the terminal pairs over time;
a current sensor configured to measure current through the plurality of LMB cells over time; and
a processing system coupled to the respective terminal pairs, the voltage sensor, and the current sensor, wherein the processing system is configured to:
establish, based at least on one of current measurements or voltage measurements, a throughput capacity of the battery pack over multiple charge-discharge cycles of the battery back;
track, based on the throughput capacity, a state of charge (SOC) of the battery pack over a period in which the multiple charge-discharge cycles occur;
determine, when the SOC crosses a reference SOC threshold, a normalized resistance across at least one terminal pair of at least one of the LMB cells;
detect, during LMB cell operation, increasing values of the normalized resistance across the at least one terminal pair of the at least one of the LMB cells;
identify, during LMB cell operation, an accelerated rate of increase of the values of the normalized resistance;
predict, based on the increasing values of normalized resistance and the accelerated rate of increase, a throughput capacity corresponding to an anticipated catastrophic capacity failure of the at least one of the LMB cells, wherein occurrence of anticipated catastrophic capacity failure would suddenly render the EV inoperable; and
provide, before the anticipated catastrophic capacity failure occurs, a prognostic alert to a user of the EV based on the prediction.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Step 1: under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are 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).
Step 2A, Prong One: under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted 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 groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation that falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “establish (determine), based at least on one of current measurements or voltage measurements, a throughput capacity of the battery pack over multiple charge-discharge cycles of the battery back (see paras. [00011], [00115]-[00116] of instant application)” is a mathematical calculations because establishing throughput capacity of the battery pack over multiple charge-discharge cycles of the battery back is mathematical expression (see MPEP 2016.04(a)(2)C states that There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation). Also, the steps of “track, based on the throughput capacity, a state of charge (SOC) of the battery pack over a period in which the multiple charge-discharge cycles occur (para. [00133]: equation of instant application),” “determine, when the SOC crosses a reference SOC threshold, a normalized resistance across at least one terminal pair of at least one of the LMB cells (see para. [0094] of instant application), “predict, based on the increasing values of normalized resistance and the accelerated rate of increase, a second throughput capacity corresponding to an anticipated catastrophic capacity failure of the at least one of the LMB cells, wherein occurrence of anticipated catastrophic capacity failure would suddenly render the EV inoperable (see paras. [0076]-[0078]: prediction technique of instant application)” are mathematical calculations.
Further, step of “detect, during LMB cell operation, increasing values of the normalized resistance across the at least one terminal pair of the at least one of the LMB cells” is mental process based on mathematical calculations because detect because person can look at the data and see (observation/evaluation) if it is increasing values (mathematical expression) of the normalized resistance (mathematical calculation) (see MPEP 2016.04(a)(2)C). Similarly, step of “identify, during LMB cell operation, an accelerated rate of increase of the values of the normalized resistance (paras. [0004], [0076] of instant application) is mental process based on mathematical calculations because person can look at the data and see (observation/evaluation) if it is an accelerated rate of increase (mathematical expression) of the values of the normalized resistance (mathematical calculation) (see MPEP 2016.04(a)(2)C).
Further, limitation of “before the anticipated catastrophic capacity failure occurs,” “prognostic,” and “prediction” are mental processes and mathematical calculation because a person can look at the data and see if catastrophic capacity exceeds the threshold level or processor can monitor the data and detect if catastrophic capacity value exceeds the threshold level using mathematical calculation and the anticipated catastrophic capacity failure corresponds to mathematical expression and prognostic and prediction correspond to mathematical calculation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” and/or “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 8 and 18.
Step 2A, Prong Two: 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. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, none of the additional elements indicate a practical application.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: An electrical system for an electric vehicle (EV) (preamble); a battery pack arranged within a body of the EV, the battery pack including a plurality of Lithium Metal Battery (LMB) cells, each LMB cell of the plurality having a respective terminal pair; a voltage sensor configured to measure voltage across each of the terminal pairs over time; a current sensor configured to measure current through the plurality of LMB cells over time; and a processing system coupled to the respective terminal pairs, the voltage sensor, and the current sensor; provide an alert on a vehicle display. and
In Claim 8: a vehicle (preamble); vehicle body; a battery pack arranged within a body of the EV, the battery pack including a plurality of Lithium Metal Battery (LMB) cells, each LMB cell of the plurality having a respective terminal pair; a voltage sensor configured to measure voltage across each of the terminal pairs over time; a current sensor configured to measure current through the plurality of LMB cells over time; and a processing system coupled to the respective terminal pairs, the voltage sensor, and the current sensor; provide an alert on a vehicle display; and
In Claim 18: a vehicle (preamble); a vehicle body; a battery pack arranged within a body of the EV, the battery pack including a plurality of Lithium Metal Battery (LMB) cells, each LMB cell of the plurality having a respective terminal pair; a voltage sensor configured to measure voltage across each of the terminal pairs over time; a current sensor configured to measure current through the plurality of LMB cells over time; and a processing system coupled to the respective terminal pairs, the voltage sensor, and the current sensor, store values of Rnormi, Qthrui, and a measured temperature (Ti) at the ith measurement in a memory; provide a alert on a vehicle display.
The additional element of “an electrical system, a vehicle, and a vehicle body” are recited at a high-level of generality (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Note that the additional elements of “provide a alert on a vehicle display” in claims 1, 8, and 18 and “store values of Rnormi, Qthrui, and a measured temperature (Ti) at the ith measurement in a memory” in claim 18 are insignificant (post-solution) extra-solution activity that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on prior art of record (Houchin-Miller (US 2013/0193977 A1), Stefanopoulou (US 2016/0064972 A1)) For example, Houchin-Miller and Stefanopoulou teach electrical system for an electric vehicle (EV) (para. [0020] of Houchin-Miller; para. [0039] of Stefanopoulou), a battery pack arranged within a body of the EV, the battery pack Stefanopoulou including a plurality of Lithium Metal Battery (LMB) cells, each LMB cell of the plurality having a respective terminal pair (para. [0028] of Houchin-Miller; para. [0053] of Stefanopoulou), a voltage sensor configured to measure voltage across each of the terminal pairs over time (para. [0029] of Houchin-Miller; paras. [0041], [0055], [0070] of Stefanopoulou); a current sensor configured to measure current through the plurality of LMB cells over time (para. [0029] of Houchin-Miller; paras. [0042], [0055], [0057], [0070] of Stefanopoulou), and a processing system coupled to the respective terminal pairs, the voltage sensor, and the current sensor (paras. [0028]-[0030] of Houchin-Miller; paras. [0040]-[0042], [0076] of Stefanopoulou). Further, as described above, merely “providing an alert on a vehicle display” and “storing values in a memory” are nothing more than outputting a signal or displaying result and selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (or mere data gathering), respectively. There is established case law (electric power group for example) to prove that such a feature is insufficient extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, independent claims 1, 8, and 18 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2-20,
All features recited in these claims are abstract ideas, as all features found in these claims are directed towards insignificant extra-solution activity or mathematical calculations/mental processes steps. The explanation for the rejection of Claims 1, 8 and 18 therefore is incorporated herein and applied to Claims 2-20. These claims therefore stand rejected for similar reasons as explained in above Claims 1, 8 and 18.
Regarding claim 1-20, no prior art rejection is applied. The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as outlined 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:00pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on (571)270-5628. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights