Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/268,911

METHOD FOR SCREENING LOW-VOLTAGE DEFECTIVE BATTERY

Final Rejection §101
Filed
Jun 21, 2023
Examiner
GO, RICKY
Art Unit
2857
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
LG Energy Solution, Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
804 granted / 1008 resolved
+11.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
1050
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
35.2%
-4.8% vs TC avg
§103
19.4%
-20.6% vs TC avg
§102
28.1%
-11.9% vs TC avg
§112
13.1%
-26.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1008 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-12 are pending. Claims 1-5, 7, 8 and 10-12 are amended. 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 a method for screening a low-voltage defective battery, comprising: (a) collecting data and removing secondary batteries having an outlier data in real time during an activation process of multiple secondary batteries; (b) clustering based on similar characteristics or records for multiple pre-filtered secondary batteries; (c) measuring an amount of voltage drop (AOCV) for each cluster and correcting a dispersion of the amount of voltage drop (AOCV) according to a temperature or a period; (d) screening low-voltage defective batteries based on a corrected dispersion of the amount of voltage drop among the multiple secondary batteries, wherein the correction of the dispersion comprises correcting the dispersion of the amount of voltage drop by a machine learning method performed by a processor. and thus grouped as Mental Processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). Claim 1 recites a method for screening a low-voltage defective battery, comprising: (a) collecting data and removing secondary batteries having an outlier data in real time during an activation process of multiple secondary batteries; (b) clustering based on similar characteristics or records for multiple pre-filtered secondary batteries; (c) measuring an amount of voltage drop (AOCV) for each cluster and correcting a dispersion of the amount of voltage drop (AOCV) according to a temperature or a period; (d) screening low-voltage defective batteries based on a corrected dispersion of the amount of voltage drop among the multiple secondary batteries, wherein the correction of the dispersion comprises correcting the dispersion of the amount of voltage drop by a machine learning method performed by a processor. and thus grouped as Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations. These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, the data gathering step, (claim 1) “a pre-filtering step of collecting data” are mere data gathering that do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the additional element (claim 1) “performed by a processor” are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions amount to no more than using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. All of which are considered not indicative of integration into a practical application (see “Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4/ Monday, January 7, 2019 / Notices” – page 55, second column). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of the data gathering steps are mere data collect steps which fall under insignificant extra solution activity and deemed insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” - see MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional elements of the processor are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and deemed insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” see MPEP 2106.05(f). Dependent claims 2-12 when analyzed as a whole are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea as they are directed mathematical concepts and/or mental processes and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 12/09/2025, with respect to claims 1-6, 8 and 10-12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) of claims 1-6, 8 and 10-12 has been withdrawn. Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, “amended claim 1 recites features that are directed to an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Applicant respectfully notes that the improvement is not limited to an improvement to the functioning of a computer (e.g., faster processing speed, etc.). Rather, the improvement discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) can be to "other technology or technical field." (see page 7, paragraphs 2-3). In response, the Examiner disagrees and refers to MPEP section 2106.04(d)(1), section “Improvements to any other technology or technical field” indicating, “courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include:,” see, “iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48”. In Applicant’s case, the claims are directed towards information data processing and analysis. Collecting data and removing secondary batteries having outlier data …, clustering secondary batteries…, measuring an amount of voltage drop, and correcting a dispersion of the amount of voltage are considered merely manipulation of data; thus, insufficient to qualify as “Improvements to any other technology or technical field”. Furthermore, regarding, “improvements to another technology or technical field" via “real world actions”, the recitation "screening low-voltage defective batteries based on a corrected dispersion" is merely removing errors in the data; however, this is still considered data processing but by presenting data in a better form. Processing data and presenting data in better form is still encompassed within the steps of information data processing and analysis and is still insufficient to qualify as “Improvements to any other technology or technical field” as the claims are directed to gathering and analyzing information. Applicant further argues the features, “wherein the correction of the dispersion comprises correcting the dispersion of the amount of voltage drop by a machine learning method performed by a processor,” recites sufficient structure that amount to more mere abstract idea of data gathering, specifically, a human is incapable of performing a machine learning method performed by a processor. (see page 8, fourth paragraph of respsone). In response, the Examiner disagrees and refers to the MEMORANDUM, Subject: “Advance notice of change to the MPEP in light of Ex Parte Desjardins,” dated 12-5-2025, see page 4, particularly: PNG media_image1.png 226 658 media_image1.png Greyscale Which describes an improved way of training a machine learning model and the improvement to computer component or system performance relies based on upon doing adjustments to the parameters of a machine learning model. In Applicant’s case, “performing a machine learning method performed by a processor,” is recited as merely as a computer used as a tool to perform an abstract idea and deemed insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” see MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, on page 12 of Applicant’s disclosure filed on 06/21/2023, the section describes general use of machine learning known in the art. PNG media_image2.png 308 596 media_image2.png Greyscale Relevant Prior Art / Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. SHOA HASSANI LASHIDANI et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0122362 A1) discloses an apparatus and methods for testing electrochemical systems. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICKY GO whose telephone number is (571)270-3340. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arleen M. Vazquez can be reached on (571) 272-2619. 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 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). 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. /RICKY GO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 21, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Dec 09, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 21, 2026
Final Rejection — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12576747
Electrified Vehicle Control Using Traction Battery Array-Based Multi-Cell State Estimation
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571846
BATTERY PACK AND STATE OF CHARGE ESTIMATION METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571505
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PIPELINE WASTE GAS SAFETY TREATMENT OF SMART GAS BASED ON INTERNET OF THINGS (IOT)
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12566217
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ESTIMATING BATTERY CELL CAPACITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12560652
Diagnostic Lighting Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+9.1%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1008 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month