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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 12/04/2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 4-7, 10-13, & 16-18 remain pending. Claims 1, 4-7, & 13 have been amended. Claims 2-3, 8-9, & 14-15 have been cancelled.
Amendments and arguments overcome the claim objections to claims 2-6 in the office action filed 09/09/2025.
Response to Arguments
Regarding “Claim Objections”:
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" filed in page 10 lines 14-27, filed 12/04/2025, with respect to claim objections of claims 8-12 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 10 lines 26-27):
“In response, Applicant humbly submits that there is no antecedent basis issue for system claims 10-12.”
The Examiner respectfully responds that:
The base claim 7 includes “a memory storing instructions”, “one or more Input/Output (I/O) interfaces”, “one or more hardware processors”, “communication interfaces”; at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation any one of or combination of these elements could be “a system”. Therefore, the dependent claims which refer to “The system of claim 7” could refer to any one of or combination of these elements. The Examiner recommends that the dependent claims be amended to “The system comprising: a memory storing instructions” or “The system configured by the instructions”
Regarding “Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112”:
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" filed in page 11 line 1 to page 13 line 11, filed 12/04/2025, with respect to claim rejections of claims 1-18 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 11 lines 25-28):
“If the lower length scale model is an Artificial Intelligence (AI) or a Machine Learning (ML) model, then the one or more lower length scale model parameters refer to the neural-network or Support Vector Machine (SVM) parameters or similar such ML based model to estimate the transport properties.”
& (page 12 lines 5-8):
“Applicant asserts that the Lower Length scale model is well-known in the art that is used in common parlance to resolve high-resolution physics associated with single and multiphase, highly turbulent conjugate heat transfer (CHT) with highly resolved thermal boundary layers (heat flux).”
& (page 12 lines 15-22):
“Amended independent claim 1 recites “(ii) one or more physics-based model parameters comprising electrode properties including diffusivity of Lithium Li, in electrodes, an electrode particle size, …”
The Examiner respectfully responds that:
This amendment makes clear what some of the inputs to the physics-based model might be. However, it is unclear if the model would require all of these as inputs or a subset. Additionally, it is unclear what the model would be (e.g., an equation which takes in the inputs and outputs particular transport properties). Additionally the amended limitations use phrasing such as “wherein when a lower length scale model is based on Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulations”, “the one or more lower length scale model parameters”, & “wherein when the lower length scale model is an Artificial Intelligence (Al) or a Machine Learning (ML) model”. This makes it unclear which of these alternatives is descriptive of the claimed model as well as what the specific inputs are. Note: AI and ML models could take in any of a large variety of different inputs and produce any of a large variety of different outputs. Reciting ‘AI’ or ‘ML’ without significantly more is not significantly more than claiming the objective without disclosing the means (one of ordinary skill in the art would not know such necessary information as ‘what is the training set and how was it obtained?’ & what are the specific outputs which are produce?’).
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" filed in page 13 line 12 to page 16 line 2, filed 12/04/2025, with respect to claim rejections of claims 1-18 under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 13 lines 21-22):
“In response, Applicant humbly submits that claims 1, 7, and 13 have been amended to include the parameters used in “lower length scale model”.”
& (page 14 lines 16-19):
“Applicant asserts that the lower length scale model is well-known in the art and is a computational or physical model that uses a smaller scale to represent high-resolution physics, such as individual atoms or molecules, and can be used to predict phenomena that occur at a very fine level.”
& (page 15 lines 23-26):
“Moreover, support can be found in paragraph [0032], ”The physics based model further comprises of electrochemical, thermal, and ageing models. The one or more physics based model parameters include parameters related to the electrochemical, thermal, and ageing models.””
The Examiner respectfully responds that:
Rule:
See MPEP 2164.01(a): “the Federal Circuit developed a framework of factors in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), referred to as the Wands factors to assess whether any necessary experimentation required by the specification is "reasonable" or is "undue." Consistent with Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et al., 598 U.S. 594, 2023 USPQ2d 602 (2023), the Wands factors continue to provide a framework for assessing enablement in a utility application or patent, regardless of technology area.”
Analysis:
The Wands factors when considered either singularly or as a whole show that in the case of the instant application the claims are not in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). The claim of a “physics based model” without 1) specific structure of the model and its inputs and 2) without significantly more than broad categories of models recited in the alternative do not overcome the Wands factors A-H. Undue experimentation would be required by one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve the claimed invention.
Conclusion:
Although the Applicant successfully argues that variables which would go into a physics based model are disclosed, it is still the case that the model itself as well as the specific combination and how they’re combined to achieve the claimed result are not disclosed in the specification. One of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to achieve the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
Regarding “Rejection of Claims under §101”:
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" filed in page 16 line 3 to page 16 line 12, filed 12/04/2025, with respect to examination of claims using "the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance by the USPTP released on Jan 4, 2019", have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant requests that (page 16 lines 10-12):
“The Applicant humbly requests the Examiner consider the claims under the revised guidelines, when identifying a concept as a judicial exception.”
The Examiner respectfully responds:
Rule:
See MPEP Foreword: “For example, the Manual contains instructions to examiners, and other material in the nature of information and interpretation, and outlines the current procedures which the examiners are required or authorized to follow in appropriate cases in the normal examination of a patent application and during other Office proceedings.”
Analysis:
The guidance in the MPEP is the current up to date guidance that the Examiner is required to follow.
Conclusion:
The application is examined under the guidance in the MPEP. Guidance in the MPEP for issues regarding 35 USC §101 can be found in MPEP 2106.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" filed in page 16 line 12 to page 17 line 16, filed 12/04/2025, with respect to claim rejections of claims 1-18 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 16 lines 13-15):
“In response, Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner’s contention, and humbly submits that Applicant’s published specification describes a “process” specifically, a “method for identifying or optimizing an electrolyte for a lithium-ion battery”.”
The Examiner respectfully responds that:
Rule:
See MPEP 2111: “During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification."”
See MPEP 2106.03(I): “Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include: Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as “data per se”) or a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”) when claimed as a product without any structural recitations”
Analysis:
A “processor implemented method” is a program (at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation), and programs do not have physical or tangible form.
Additionally, a program performs the claimed limitations including limitations such as “receiving, via one or more hardware processors,…” & “estimating, via the one or more hardware processors, …”, etc.,. where the hardware processors are not significantly more than field of art limitations relating to computing and which are necessarily implied by the recitation of the non-patentable subject matter of a computer program.
Conclusion:
Therefore “A processor implemented method” is not patentable subject matter and must be rejected at step 1 of the 35 USC §101 analysis.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" filed in page 17 line 17 to page 19 line 11, filed 12/04/2025, with respect to claim rejections of claims 1-18 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 19 lines 12-18):
“The present invention requires the acquisition and processing of inputs received from a user, tied to machine components… Moreover, paragraph [0021] also states “the method 200, the one or more hardware processors (104) are configured to receive user inputs via the user input module (102A).”
The Examiner respectfully responds that:
A computer program necessarily implies that data is input into the program. Additionally, a computer program necessarily implies the existence of “memory storing instructions”, “one or more Input/Output (I/O) interfaces”, and “hardware processors”,. The instant application does not disclose significantly more than that which is necessarily implied by the non-patentable subject matter of ‘a computer program’. Therefore at Revised step 2A Prong Two of the 35 USC 101 analysis the claims do not “recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”. Further at step 2B of the 35 USC 101 analysis, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" filed in page 19 line 12 to page 31 line 13, filed 12/04/2025, with respect to claim rejections of claims 1-18 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 19 line 22):
“Optimization is performed that cannot be done by mental steps”
& (page 20 lines 8-10):
“Further, by integrating the optimization module within the battery framework, embodiments of the present disclosure identify a most suitable battery electrolyte composition, representing a technical improvement over known models.”
& (page 20 lines 22-25):
“Applicant asserts that integration of a judicial exception into a practical application is achieved in terms of an improvement to computing technology and/or improving the functionality of the computer (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and 2106.05(a))”
& (page 31 lines 11-13):
“It is to be noted that Step 2A-Prong 2 does not evaluate whether the additional elements are conventional to determine whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.”
The Examiner respectfully responds that:
The claims recite the judicial exception abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping”). That a mathematical concept is too complicated to be done within the mind does not remove such a concept from the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. The claims do not recite additional elements which would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application; the claim limitations are no more ‘practical’ then the judicial exception abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. Broadly recited computing elements with the recitation of judicial exceptions does not integrate those judicial exceptions into a practical application at step 2A prong Two (see MPEP 2106.05(f): “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on "the draftsman’s art").”) The rejections at step 2A prong Two did not involve a conventionality analysis.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" filed in page 31 line 14 to page 35 line 8, filed 12/04/2025, with respect to claim rejections of claims 1-18 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 31 line 16-17):
“Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed elements/limitations recite patent-eligible subject matter.”
& (page 34 lines 26-28):
“Applicant asserts that the claimed subject matter provides a technical advancement for identifying electrolyte composition for optimal battery performance.”
The Examiner respectfully responds that:
The limitations do not recite significantly more than receiving data (extra solution activity) and judicial exceptions such as “using a physics-based model”. The claimed subject matter of claims 1-6 is at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation a computer program, which is not one of the four patentable categories. Claims 7-18 recite judicial exceptions without additional elements which would be sufficient to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application at revised step 2A prong Two. Additionally, at step 2B there are no elements which are significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 10-12 in line 1 recites the limitation "The System of claim 7…". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and would result in 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues except that “The system” is clearly “system comprising: a memory storing instructions” of claim 7.
Note: the limitations of “the method”, & “the system”, at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation could each refer to multiple elements within the claims. References to previous elements should be specific enough so that even under the broadest reasonable interpretation there is no ambiguity as to which element is being referred to.
Note: the first instance of an element should be in the form “a [unique descriptive terminology]” and successive references to that element should be in the form “the [unique descriptive terminology]” where [unique descriptive terminology] is the same throughout the claims. This is necessary because similarly phrased elements can be patentably distinct.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 10-13, & 16-18 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.
Claims 1, 7, & 13 in line 12, lines 16, & lines 13 (respectively) recites the limitation "lower length scale model". It is unclear what the “lower length scale model” is. It is unclear what parameters the “lower length scale model” takes as inputs, what operations act on those parameters, and what the result of those operations are.
Claims 1, 7, & 13 in line 4, line 8, & line 6 (respectively) recites the limitation "physics-based model". It is unclear what the “physics-based model” is. There would need to be a disclosure of the form of the model including how the input parameters are used.
Claims 4-6, 10-12, & 16-18 are rejected for inheriting the rejected limitations of a base claim (independent claims 1, 7, & 13) without rectifying the issue(s) for which the base claims were rejected.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-7, 10-13, 16-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without “lower length scale model”, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
The omitted subject matter of “lower length scale model” is critical or essential for one of ordinary skill in the art to make or implement the claimed invention. The independent claims have limitations such as in claim 1 “using a lower length scale model based on the one or more lower length scale model parameters” requiring the use of “lower length scale model”.
The specifications in para 022 discloses:
“If the lower length scale model is based on Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulations, then the one or more lower length scale model parameters are force field parameters necessary to set up the MD simulation for the electrolyte. If the lower length scale model is an Artificial Intelligence (AI) or a Machine Learning (ML) model, then the one or more lower length scale model parameters refer to the neural-network or Support Vector Machine (SVM) parameters or similar such ML based model to estimate the transport properties. The lower length scale model can also include experimental data in some embodiments.”
However, that a model can be based on simulations or AI or ML etc. is not sufficient to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to implement such a non-disclosed model.
The omitted subject matter of “a physics-based model” is critical or essential for one of ordinary skill in the art to make or implement the claimed invention. The independent claims have limitations such as in claim 1 “using a physics-based model based on the estimated plurality of transport properties” requiring the use of “a physics-based model”.
The specifications para 030 discloses:
“The physics-based model
parameters considered are listed in Tables 1,2,3.”
However, that a model has some set of input parameters is not sufficient to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to implement such a non-disclosed model.
Claims 2-6, 8-12, & 14-18 are rejected for inheriting the rejected limitations of a base claim (independent claims 1, 7, & 13) without rectifying the issue(s) for which the base claims were rejected.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Flow diagrams from MPEP 2106(III) and MPEP 2106.04(II)(A), respectively.
Claim 1, 47, 10-13, & 16-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Regarding claims 1-6:
the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because:
Claim 1:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
No;
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation “A processor implemented method” is a program and not one of the four patentable categories.
As per MPEP 2106.03(I): “Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include:
Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as “data per se”) or a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”) when claimed as a product without any structural recitations”
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”
Claims 2-6 are rejected for inheriting the limitation(s) of a rejected parent claim without rectifying the issue(s) for which the parent claim was rejected.
Claims 7-12:
the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because:
Claim 7:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “system comprising: a memory storing instructions; one or more Input/Output (1/O) interfaces; and one or more hardware processors” which is a machine and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
“estimating a plurality of transport properties based on the one or more initial material parameters;”
“determining a mapping between a plurality of electrolyte compositions in a material database and associated plurality of transport properties using a lower length scale model based on the one or more lower length scale model parameters;”
“computing a deviation index (DI) for each of the plurality of electrolyte compositions based on the associated plurality of transport properties and the estimated plurality of transport properties;”
“selecting an electrolyte composition with minimum DI among the plurality of electrolyte compositions;”
“evaluating internal heat generation (Q) and capacity fade (C) of the selected electrolyte composition using a physics-based model based on the estimated plurality of transport properties and the one or more physics-based model parameters; and”
“optimizing an objective function based on the one or more optimization parameters to obtain revised material parameters by employing global optimization techniques including genetic algorithm ….”
“wherein the utilization of the DI to estimate similarity between the estimated electrolyte ionic conductivity…”
“identifying a new electrolyte from the material database …”
“wherein when a termination criteria … and wherein computing a difference in electrolyte property …”
“wherein when number of iterations are received as optimization parameter…”
Explanation:
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims these limitations are no more than “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The additional element(s) of:
a memory storing instructions; one or more Input/Output (1/O) interfaces; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory via the one or more communication interfaces,”
Are “merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception … activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field” (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of:
“wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions to: receiving (i) one or more initial material parameters, (ii) one or more physics-based model parameters, (iii) one or more optimization parameters, and (iv) one or more lower length scale model parameters”
These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to no more than Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity see MPEP 2106.05(g) and in particular “the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting”.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The additional element(s) as recited in step 2A prong two are “directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements” and “that the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.07(a)(1) and form paragraph 7.05.016)
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 10:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “system comprising: a memory storing instructions; one or more Input/Output (1/O) interfaces; and one or more hardware processors” which is a machine and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 7).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 7.
Explanation:
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims these limitations are no more than “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 10 additionally recites:
“wherein the one or more optimization parameters comprise tolerance values on the objective function, design space of electrolyte material parameters, and lower and upper limits for the electrolyte material properties.”
These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to no more than Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity see MPEP 2106.05(g) and in particular “the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting”.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The additional element(s)/limitation(s) are “directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements” and “that the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.07(a)(I) and form paragraph 7.05.016)
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 11:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “system comprising: a memory storing instructions; one or more Input/Output (1/O) interfaces; and one or more hardware processors” which is a machine and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 7).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 7.
Claim 11 additionally recites:
“wherein the plurality of transport properties comprise conductivity, diffusivity, and transference number.”
Explanation:
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims these limitations are no more than “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim 10 limitations elaborate on the judicial exception of claim 7; in particular on details of “estimating a plurality of transport properties based on the one or more initial material parameters”
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 12:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “system comprising: a memory storing instructions; one or more Input/Output (1/O) interfaces; and one or more hardware processors” which is a machine and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 7).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 7.
Claim 12 additionally recites:
PNG
media_image3.png
271
579
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Explanation:
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims these limitations are no more than “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim 12 limitations are further directed towards the judicial exceptions of mathematical concepts
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claims 13, & 16-18:
Claims 13-18 are rejected for reasons analogous to the reasons for the rejections of claims 7-12. These claims are ‘non-transitory machine readable information storage mediums’ version of the claims 7-12 ‘system’ version of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240426918 A1 "Battery Design Optimization" (Li) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, & Fig. 7.
US 20250181802 A1 "Systems and Method for Using Adaptive Modeling to Predict Energy System Performance" (Couture) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 3-4.
US 9599584 B2 "Imbedded Chip For Battery Applications" (Yazami) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 17.
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 MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. 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.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858