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 .
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 non-statutory subject matter. The claims does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to an Abstract Idea.
Step 1- Statutory Category
Claims 1-21 are directed to a method and an apparatus, which falls within the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A-Prong One: Judicial Exception
Claim 1 recites:
Observing a first electrochemical signature of a battery (data collection),
Observing a second electrochemical signature of a battery (data collection),
Determining a lithium-plating state using a trained machine-learning model based on those signatures (data analysis/classification),
Providing the lithium-plating state as an output.
The “determining” step evaluates relationships between measured battery parameters to classify a battery condition (e.g. lithium-plating vs solid-electrolyte-interphase-dominant aging). The claims are analyzing battery data with a trained machine-learning model to determine a battery condition.
This claim falls under the:
Collecting information, analyzing the information and outputting the result
Mental processes (evaluation and classification of observed data), and/or
Mathematical concepts (analysis of relationships between measured parameters).
Step 2A-Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
Claims 1 – 22 merely observe data, runs a machine learning model, and outputs a
lithium-plating state.
Claim 1 does not recite:
any specific battery structure.
any modification to a battery operation,
any control mechanism that changes charging behavior,
or any improvement to battery technology itself.
The claim merely collects data (observes a first and second electrochemical signature of a battery) and determines a condition based on that data. These limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not apply the determination in manner that effects a technical improvement to a battery or a battery management system.
Step 2B - Inventive concept
Claim 1 does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Observing battery characteristics or “electrochemical signatures” and determining a condition based on those characteristics are routine and conventional data analysis activities in the field of battery diagnostics. The claim merely applies the Abstract Idea using generic data gathering and evaluation techniques.
According claims 1-22 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Regarding Dependent claims 2- 13, 16 – 18, and 21:
Claims 2 – 13 and 16 – 18 further refine the Abstract Data analysis by specifying particular mathematical relationships or evaluation criteria. These additional limitations do not integrate the Abstract Idea into a Practical Application because they do no recite any technological improvement to battery operation of charging control.
Regarding claims 14 and 15:
Claim 14 recites using a Machine-Learning Model and dependent claim 15 specifies a decision tree. Implementing the Abstract Idea using a Machine-Learning Model or a decision tree is generic computational implementation of data analysis and does not amount to significantly more than the Abstract Idea.
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 further recites that, based on the determined lithium-plating state, the method includes one or more of:
recommending retiring the battery;
recommending servicing the battery;
changing a usage profile of the battery; and
designing a new battery.
These additional limitations do not integrate the Abstract Idea into a Practical Application. The recited, “recommending” steps constitute advisory or information output based on the abstract determination. Merely recommending an action does not effect a technological change in the battery, modify battery operation, or alter charging or discharging behavior. Such output is considered insignificant post-solution activity. Claim 17 does not require an automatic control of charging parameters, such as adjusting the charging or discharging of the battery, any structural modification of the battery or any specific improvement to the battery.
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 recites a processor and computer readable medium configured to perform the same Abstract Idea recited in claim 1. The processor and computer-readable medium are generic computer components performing conventional data processing functions. Merely implementing the abstract idea on a generic processor does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a Practical Application or Provide an inventive Concept.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 further recites a device comprising a battery and the battery management system of claim 19. The battery is recited a high level of generality and is not modified or structurally changed by the claimed operations. The additional recitation of a battery does not meaningfully limit the Abstract Idea or transform it into a patent-eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 – 5, 11, 12, 16 and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20170234930) in view of Holme (US 20200164763).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a method comprising: observing a first electrochemical signature of a battery; observing a second electrochemical signature of the battery; and determining, based on the first electrochemical signature and the second electrochemical signature, a lithium-plating state of the battery (paragraph [0011] discloses wherein a method for detecting lithium plating in real time includes observing a first electrochemical signature (measuring a battery voltage) and a second electrochemical signature (determining a change in the battery voltage as function of SOC with an SOC-V graph) and from this change, when a slope increase slows down, a lithium plating state is determined).
Lee does not explicitly teach a system including a processor configured to execute a trained machine-learning model, using the trained machine-learning model; and providing the lithium-plating state of the battery as an output.
Holme teaches system including a processor configured to execute a trained machine-learning model, using the trained machine-learning model; and providing the lithium-plating state of the battery as an output (defined in paragraph [0083] wherein a machine learning model is used to predict battery states. Paragraph [0087] discloses wherein the battery states are output to a display).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Lee reference with the charging system of the Holme reference so that the driver is notified of vehicle status so that the vehicle performance is predictable when in use.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Holme reference in paragraph [0007] wherein the vehicle performance is predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: observing a third electrochemical signature of the battery, wherein determining the lithium-plating state of the battery comprises determining the lithium plating state of the batter battery based on the first electrochemical signature, the second electrochemical signature and the third electrochemical signature (paragraph [0016] teaches wherein a third observation is determined, a dV/dQ calculation means configured to calculate a value of dV/dQ, the dV/dQ being ratio of a varation dQ of an amont of stored energy Q to a variation dV of a battery voltage of the secondary battery. This is a third electrochemical signature to determine a lithium plating state).
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising measuring over time, three or more of: voltage of the battery first current provided by the battery, second current received by the battery, first charge received by the battery, or second charge provided from the battery (paragraphs [0042] and [0073] voltage and current measurement over time).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches the method of claim 1, wherein observing the first electrochemical signature comprises measuring capacity of the battery over a number of cycles and determining a rate of change of the capacity per cycle over the number of cycles (paragraph [0047] and figure 3 shows a measurement of charge capacity of the battery over a number of charge cycles).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches the method of claim 4, wherein determining the lithium-plating state of the battery comprises determining that the battery exhibits lithium plating based on observing a substantially non-linear rate of change of the capacity of the battery over the number of cycles (figure 5 paragraph [0062] shows wherein lithium plating occurs during a non-linear rate of charge of capacity, SOC).
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches the method of claim 1, wherein observing the first electrochemical signature comprises measuring, over a number of cycles, a first amount of charge received by the battery during a cycle and a second amount of charge provided by the battery during the cycle and determining a ratio between the first amount of charge and the second amount of charge (figures 2 and 3 and table 1 shown in paragraph [0061]show measuring over a number of cycles a first amount of charge and a second amount of charge and a ratio is determined. Paragraphs [0016] and [0087] teaches wherein a ratio is determined).
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches the method of claim 11, wherein determining the lithium-plating state of the battery comprises determining that the battery exhibits lithium plating based on observing the ratio being less than 0.995 for one or more cycles of the number of cycles and the ratio being greater than or equal to 0.995 for one or more subsequent cycles of the number of cycles (figure 3 and paragraphs [0046] – [0050] teaches wherein the charge ratio determined for one or more cycles is less than 0.995 and for one or more subsequent cycles is greater than 0.995).
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the lithium-plating state of the battery comprises determining a probability regarding whether substantial lithium plating has occurred at an anode of the battery (paragraph [0016] wherein the occurrence of lithium plating is determined in an anode or a negative electrode).
Regarding claim 18, Lee teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the determining the first electrochemical signature and the second electrochemical signature are selected from the group consisting of: a capacity loss (AOQ); a first derivative of capacity loss with respect to cycle number (dQ/dN); a coulombic efficiency (CE); an end-of-charge rest voltage (EOCV); and a post-charge open-circuit-voltage relaxation behavior including dV/dt behavior (defined in paragraphs [0001] and [0006] wherein determining or detecting lithium-ion plating in a lithium-ion battery is determined. Paragraph [0047] and figure 3 shows a measurement of charge capacity of the battery over a number of charge cycles).
Regarding claim 19, Lee teaches a battery-management system (shown in figure 6 defined as an apparatus 100)
comprising: a processor (figure 6 item 20 defined in paragraph [0071] and [0073] as a charging unit with a processor); and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer executable instructions that, when executed via the processor, cause the processor to perform operations (paragraph [0073] – [0074] wherein a processor controls operation of the method of detecting lithium plating),
the operations comprising: observing a first electrochemical signature of a battery; observing a second electrochemical signature of the battery; and determining, based on the first electrochemical signature and the second electrochemical signature, a lithium- plating state of the battery (paragraph [0011] discloses wherein a method for detecting lithium plating in real time includes observing a first electrochemical signature (measuring a battery voltage) and a second electrochemical signature (determining a change in the battery voltage as function of SOC with an SOC-V graph) and from this change, when a slope increase slows down, a lithium plating state is determined).
Lee does not explicitly teach the processor including a trained machine-learning model, a lithium plating state of the battery using the trained machine-learning model; and providing the lithium plating state of the battery as an output.
Holme teaches the processor including a trained machine-learning model, a lithium plating state of the battery using the trained machine-learning model; and providing the lithium plating state of the battery as an output (defined in paragraph [0083] wherein a machine learning model is used to predict battery states. Paragraph [0087] discloses wherein the battery states are output to a display).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Lee reference with the charging system of the Holme reference so that the driver is notified of vehicle status so that the vehicle performance is predictable when in use.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Holme reference in paragraph [0007] wherein the vehicle performance is predictable
Regarding claim 20, Lee teaches the device (figure 6 item 100 an apparatus)
comprising: a battery (figure 6 item 30 defined in paragraph [0071] as a secondary battery); and
a battery management system comprising: a processor (figure 6 item 20 defined in paragraph [0071] and [0073] as a charging unit with a processor); and
a computer-readable medium comprising computer executable instructions that, when executed via the processor, cause the processor to perform operations (paragraph [0073] – [0074] wherein a processor controls operation of the method of detecting lithium plating),
the operations comprising: observing a first electrochemical signature of a of the battery; observing a second electrochemical signature of the battery; and determining, based on the first electrochemical signature and the second electrochemical signature, a lithium-plating state of the battery (paragraph [0011] discloses wherein a method for detecting lithium plating in real time includes observing a first electrochemical signature (measuring a battery voltage) and a second electrochemical signature (determining a change in the battery voltage as function of SOC with an SOC-V graph) and from this change, when a slope increase slows down, a lithium plating state is determined).
Lee does not explicitly teach the processor including a trained machine-learning model, a lithium plating state of the battery using the trained machine-learning model; and providing the lithium plating state of the battery as an output.
Holme teaches the processor including a trained machine-learning model, a lithium plating state of the battery using the trained machine-learning model; and providing the lithium plating state of the battery as an output (defined in paragraph [0083] wherein a machine learning model is used to predict battery states. Paragraph [0087] discloses wherein the battery states are output to a display).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Lee reference with the charging system of the Holme reference so that the driver is notified of vehicle status so that the vehicle performance is predictable when in use.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Holme reference in paragraph [0007] wherein the vehicle performance is predictable
Regarding claim 21, Lee teaches the device of claim 20, but does not explicitly teach wherein the trained machine-learning model is trained on data sets including the first electrochemical signature and the second electrochemical signature, and wherein the lithium-plating state provided as the output indicates detection of lithium plating during early cycling of the battery before occurrence of irreversible battery degradation as a result of simultaneous consideration of the first electrochemical signature and the second electrochemical signature (paragraphs [0047] – [0048] discloses wherein an observation of battery characteristics may be determined early, defined as taken during a plurality of different charging cycles, such as after 20 cycles or after 80 cycles).
Lee does not explicitly disclose using the trained machine-learning model.
Holme teaches using the trained machine-learning model (defined in paragraph [0083] wherein a machine learning model is used to predict battery states. Paragraph [0087] discloses wherein the battery states are output to a display).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Lee reference with the charging system of the Holme reference so that the driver is notified of vehicle status so that the vehicle performance is predictable when in use.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Holme reference in paragraph [0007] wherein the vehicle performance is predictable.
Regarding claim 22, Lee and Holme teach the device of claim 21, but do not explicitly teach wherein the first electrochemical signature and the second electrochemical signature are selected from the group consisting of: capacity loss (AQ); a first derivative of capacity loss with respect to cycle number (dQ/dN); a coulombic efficiency (CE); an end-of-charge rest voltage (EOCV); and a post-charge open-circuit-voltage relaxation behavior including dV/dt behavior (paragraph [0047] and figure 3 shows a measurement of charge capacity of the battery over a number of charge cycles).
Regarding claim 23, Lee teaches the battery-management system of claim 19, wherein the trained machine-learning model is trained on data sets including the first electrochemical signature and the second electrochemical signature, and wherein the lithium-plating state provided as the output indicates detection of lithium plating during early cycling of the battery before occurrence of irreversible battery degradation as a result of simultaneous consideration of the first electrochemical signature and the second electrochemical signature (paragraphs [0047] – [0048] discloses wherein an observation of battery characteristics may be determined early, defined as taken during a plurality of different charging cycles, such as after 20 cycles or after 80 cycles).
Lee does not explicitly disclose using the trained machine-learning model.
Holme teaches using the trained machine-learning model (defined in paragraph [0083] wherein a machine learning model is used to predict battery states. Paragraph [0087] discloses wherein the battery states are output to a display).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Lee reference with the charging system of the Holme reference so that the driver is notified of vehicle status so that the vehicle performance is predictable when in use.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Holme reference in paragraph [0007] wherein the vehicle performance is predictable.
Regarding claim 24, Lee teaches the battery-management system of claim 23, wherein the first electrochemical signature and the second electrochemical signature are selected from the group consisting of: a capacity loss (AQ); a first derivative of capacity loss with respect to cycle number (dQ/dN); a coulombic efficiency (CE); an end-of-charge rest voltage (EOCV); and a post-charge open-circuit-voltage relaxation behavior including dV/dt behavior (paragraph [0047] and figure 3 shows a measurement of charge capacity of the battery over a number of charge cycles).
2. Claims 6, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20170234930) in view of Han (US 20200210541).
Regarding claim 6, Lee and Holme teach the method of claim 4, but do not explicitly teach wherein determining the lithium-plating state of the battery comprises determining that the battery exhibits solid-electrolyte-interphase- dominant aging based on observing a substantially-linearly-increasing rate of change of the capacity of the battery over the number of cycles.
Han teaches wherein determining the lithium-plating state of the battery comprises determining that the battery exhibits solid-electrolyte-interphase- dominant aging based on observing a substantially-linearly-increasing rate of change of the capacity of the battery over the number of cycles (defined in paragraph [0043] wherein the determining an occurrence of lithium plating in a battery, includes observing a solid electrolyte interphase dominant aging. Paragraph [0043] teaches wherein lithium-ion plating potential can be estimated as a function of one or more of the electrode potential φs, electrolyte potential φe, current i, and a resistance of a solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) film).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Lee and Holme references with the lithium plating detection system of the Han reference so that a more accurate process of the lithium plating within a battery is performed.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Han reference in paragraph [0002] wherein a more accurate method of lithium plating detection method is performed.
Regarding claim 10, Lee and Holme teach the method of claim 7, but do not explicitly teach wherein determining the lithium-plating state of the battery comprises determining that the battery exhibits solid-electrolyte-interphase- dominant aging based on observing a substantially unchanging EOCV over the number of cycles.
Han teaches wherein determining the lithium-plating state of the battery comprises determining that the battery exhibits solid-electrolyte-interphase- dominant aging based on observing a substantially unchanging EOCV over the number of cycles (defined in paragraph [0043] wherein the determining an occurrence of lithium plating in a battery, includes observing a solid electrolyte interphase dominant aging. Paragraph [0043] teaches wherein lithium-ion plating potential can be estimated as a function of one or more of the electrode potential φs, electrolyte potential φe, current i, and a resistance of a solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) film).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Lee and Holme references with the lithium plating detection system of the Han reference so that a more accurate process of the lithium plating within a battery is performed.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Han reference in paragraph [0002] wherein a more accurate method of lithium plating detection method is performed.
Regarding claim 13, Lee and Holme teach the method of claim 11, but do not explicitly teach wherein determining the lithium-plating state of the battery comprises determining that the battery exhibits solid-electrolyte-interphase - dominant aging based on observing the ratio being substantially the same over the number of cycles.
Han teaches wherein determining the lithium-plating state of the battery comprises determining that the battery exhibits solid-electrolyte-interphase - dominant aging based on observing the ratio being substantially the same over the number of cycles (defined in paragraph [0043] wherein the determining an occurrence of lithium plating in a battery, includes observing a solid electrolyte interphase dominant aging. Paragraph [0043] teaches wherein lithium-ion plating potential can be estimated as a function of one or more of the electrode potential φs, electrolyte potential φe, current i, and a resistance of a solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) film).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Lee reference with the lithium plating detection system of the Han reference so that a more accurate process of the lithium plating within a battery is performed.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Han reference in paragraph [0002] wherein a more accurate method of lithium plating detection method is performed.
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein
determining the lithium- plating state of the battery comprises using the trained machine-learning model trained on data sets including the first electrochemical signature and the second electrochemical signature.
Holme teaches wherein determining the lithium- plating state of the battery comprises using the trained machine-learning model trained on data sets including the first electrochemical signature and the second electrochemical signature
(defined in paragraph [0083] wherein a machine learning model is used to predict battery states. Paragraph [0087] discloses wherein the battery states are output to a display).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Lee reference with the charging system of the Holme reference so that the driver is notified of vehicle status so that the vehicle performance is predictable when in use.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Holme reference in paragraph [0007] wherein the vehicle performance is predictable.
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches the method of claim 14, but do not explicitly teach wherein the lithium-plating state provided as the output indicates detection of lithium plating during early cycling of the battery before occurrence of irreversible battery degradation as a result of simultaneous consideration of the first electrochemical signature and the second electrochemical signature (paragraphs [0047] – [0048] discloses wherein an observation of battery characteristics may be determined early, defined as taken during a plurality of different charging cycles, such as after 20 cycles or after 80 cycles).
Lee does not explicitly disclose using the trained machine-learning model.
Holme teaches using the trained machine-learning model (defined in paragraph [0083] wherein a machine learning model is used to predict battery states. Paragraph [0087] discloses wherein the battery states are output to a display).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Lee reference with the charging system of the Holme reference so that the driver is notified of vehicle status so that the vehicle performance is predictable when in use.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Holme reference in paragraph [0007] wherein the vehicle performance is predictable.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20170234930) in view of Holme (US 20200164763) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Podrazhansky (US 6366056).
Regarding claim 7, Lee and Holme teaches the method of claim 1, but do not explicitly teach wherein observing the first electrochemical signature comprises measuring a voltage at the end of the rest period after charge (EOCV) for a number of cycles.
Podrazhansky teaches observing the first electrochemical signature comprises measuring a voltage at the end of the rest period after charge (EOCV) for a number of cycles (the Abstract teaches wherein a voltage is measured at the end of a rest period after charge. Column 10 lines 1 – 23 teaches measuring a voltage during a rest period after charging).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Lee and Holme references with the charging system of the Podrazhansky reference so that batteries may be safely and rapidly charged while reducing the negative side effects.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Podrazhansky reference in column 4 lines 1 - 5 wherein charging a battery safely and rapidly is taught.
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches the method of claim 7, wherein determining the lithium-plating state of the battery comprises determining that the battery exhibits lithium plating based on observing a positive correlation between the EOCV over the number of cycles and a capacity fade over the number of cycles (Lee figures 2, 3 and 8 show a positive correlation between the end voltage and an increase in capacity fade over a number of cycles).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20170234930) in view of Holme (US 20200164763) and in further view of Podrazhansky (US 6366056) as applied to claim 7 and in further view of Saar (US 4392101).
Regarding claim 8, Lee, Holme and Podrazhansky teach the method of claim 7, but do not explicitly teach wherein determining the lithium-plating state of the battery comprises determining that the battery exhibits lithium plating based on observing a negative second derivative of the (EOCV) with respect to cycles over the number of cycles.
Saar teaches wherein determining the lithium-plating state of the battery comprises determining that the battery exhibits lithium plating based on observing a negative second derivative of the (EOCV) with respect to cycles over the number of cycles (defined in column 23 lines 59 – column 24 lines 2 wherein the lithium-plating state, indicated by an inflection point, identifies a negative second derivative).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Lee, Holme and Podrazhansky references with the charging system of the Saar reference so that batteries may be safely and rapidly charged without a risk of damage.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Saar reference in column 1 lines 53-57 wherein charging a battery safely and rapidly is taught.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20170234930) in view of Holme (US 20200164763) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Ghantous (US 20190072618 ).
Regarding claim 17, Lee and Han teach the method of claim 1, but do not explicitly teach wherein providing the lithium-plating state of the battery as the output indicates detection of lithium plating for corrective action, including one or more of: recommending retiring the battery; recommending servicing the battery; changing a usage profile of the battery; and designing a new battery.
Ghantous teaches based on the lithium- plating state of the battery, one or more of: recommending retiring the battery; recommending servicing the battery; changing a usage profile of the battery; and designing a new battery (defined in paragraphs [0093] and [0107] teaches wherein a battery is flagged for removal or replacement when the battery is determined to have lithium-plating or its state of health).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Lee and Han references with the charging system of the Ghantous reference so that batteries may be more accurately characterized to determine its future performance.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Ghantous reference in paragraph [0004] wherein determining a battery’s state of health provides information on its future performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Arguments/Remarks, filed 05/29/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-22 under Lee have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lee, Holme, Han, Podrazhansky, and Ghantous as disclosed above.
In regards to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant's arguments filed 05/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please see arguments above. The amended claims are not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 1 – 22 merely observe data, runs a machine learning model, and outputs a
lithium-plating state.
Claim 1 does not recite:
any specific battery structure.
any modification to a battery operation,
any control mechanism that changes charging behavior,
or any improvement to battery technology itself.
The claim merely collects data (observes a first and second electrochemical signature of a battery) and determines a condition based on that data. These limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not apply the determination in manner that effects a technical improvement to a battery or a battery management system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210135228 A1 Protective Layers Batteries Archer; Lynden A. Et Al.
US 20220179003 A1 Lithium Plating In Rechargeable Batteries Baumann; Michael
US 12370921 B2 Early Detection Of Battery Cell Degradation Chang; Insu Et Al.
US 11237216 B1 Method Of Detecting Metal Plating Chang; On K. Et Al.
US 20100225325 A1 State Of Charge Determination Christensen; John F. Et Al.
US 20090104510 A1 Lithium Rechargeable Cell Fulop; Ricardo Et Al.
US 11131717 B1 Leakage Current Testing Battery Fasching; Rainer Johannes Et Al.
US 20170203654 A1 Mitigate Lithium Plating He; Chuan Et Al.
US 20180292461 A1 Predicting Battery Charge Limit Kim; Hyo-Mi Et Al.
US 10511050 B1 Battery State Of Health Rahimian; Saeed Khaleghi Et Al.
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 ALEXIS B PACHECO whose telephone number is (571)272-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:30.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
ALEXIS BOATENG PACHECO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/ALEXIS B PACHECO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights