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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status
This instant application No. 18/323142 has Claims 1-14 pending.
Priority /Filing Date
Applicant claimed Foreign Priority from Korean Application No. KR10-2022-0063908. The priority filing date of this application is May 25, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the Applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated May 24, 2023 is acknowledged by the Examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. 609 C(2), a copy of each of the PTOL-1449s initialed and dated by the Examiner is attached to the instant Office action.
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.
4. Claims 1-14 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.
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent Claims 1 and 8 recite
calculating an electronegativity of electrode atoms and electrolyte atoms;
calculating partial charges of the electrode atoms and the electrolyte atoms from the electronegativity;
deriving an interaction between the electrode atoms and the electrolyte atoms on the basis of the partial charges,
determining whether a chemical reaction occurs between the electrode atoms and the electrolyte atoms on the basis of the interaction;
deriving a variation in partial charge of the electrode atoms on the basis of whether the chemical reaction occurs; and
predicting dendrite growth of the electrode atoms on the basis of the variation in partial charge.
all of which are mathematical relationship/calculation. Said limitations in claims 1 and 8 are a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations that are calculation which is an explicit recitation of a mathematical relationship/calculation but for the recitation of generic computer components. Other than reciting “a computer program stored in a computer-readable medium” and “one or more processors” in the claims nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being considered as mathematical relationship/calculation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation that are considered as mathematical relationship/calculation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas. As such claims 1 and 8 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element of “a computer program stored in a computer-readable medium” and “one or more processors” to perform the claimed steps at a high level of generality (such as: commands for predicting dendrite growth) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claims 1 and 8 only recite “a computer program stored in a computer-readable medium” and “one or more processors” to perform the claimed steps and therefore only recite a general purpose computer rather than a specific machine under MPEP 2106.05(b), and are directed to mere instructions to apply the exception under MPEP 2106.05(f), and do not result in anything significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration. The inclusion of the computer or memory and controller to perform the calculating, deriving, determining and predicting steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1 and 8 are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas and mathematical techniques recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claims 2 and 9 are directed to further limiting wherein the predicting of the dendrite growth of the electrode atoms on the basis of the variation in partial charge includes predicting dendrite growth when a value of the partial charge of the electrode atoms is less than or equal to a preset value using mathematical analysis, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical concepts.”
Dependent claims 3 and 10 are directed to further limiting wherein the determining of whether the chemical reaction occurs between the electrode atoms and the electrolyte atoms on the basis of the interaction includes determining that the electrode atoms and the electrolyte atoms are bonded and have undergone a chemical reaction when a value of a distance (r) between the electrode atom and the electrolyte atom, which is derived from the interaction, is less than or equal to a preset value using mathematical analysis, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical concepts.”
Dependent claims 4 and 11 are directed to further limiting wherein the deriving of the interaction between the electrode atoms and the electrolyte atoms on the basis of the partial charges includes deriving an interaction on the basis of an interaction energy (Esystem) between the electrode atoms and the electrolyte atoms, which is derived from the partial charges using mathematical analysis, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical concepts.”
Dependent claims 5 and 12 are directed to further limiting wherein the calculating of the partial charges of the electrode atoms and the electrolyte atoms from the electronegativity includes calculating the partial charges through a variation in electronegativity with respect to a voltage applied to the electrode atoms and the electrolyte atoms using mathematical analysis, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical concepts.”
Dependent claims 6 and 13 are directed to further limiting wherein the electrode atom is an anode electrode atom, which is an additional step of categorizing the type of electrode atom, which is categorized as insignificant extra solution activity under 2106.05(g)
Dependent claims 7 and 14 are directed to further limiting confirming that dendrite growth is suppressed by additionally adding a specific additive to the electrolyte, which is an additional step of adding a specific additive to the electrolyte, which is categorized as insignificant extra solution activity under 2106.05(g)
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.
5. Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matters.
Claim 8 recited a computer program stored in a computer-readable medium to perform the function as recited in the claim. However, the specification did not define what type of medium is included in a computer-readable medium. According to MPEP 2111, examiner is obliged to give the terms or phrases their broadest interpretation definition awarded by one of an ordinary skill in the art unless applicant has provided some indication of the definition of the claimed terms or phrases. Therefore, examiner interprets the computer readable medium including any type of medium which includes carrier medium such as signals. Signals are directed to a non-statutory subject matter. Thus, claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for directing to a non-statutory subject matter. The examiner further notes that the term computer readable storage media has been used by those of ordinary skill in the art to include signals. Refer to U.S. Patent 6,286,104 (col. 3, lines 50-56 define storage medium is carrier wave signal) as an example. Applicant is advised to amend to “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” to overcome this rejection.
Claims 9-14 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiency from their respective parent claim by dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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.
6. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mu et al. hereafter Mu (Numerical simulation of the factors affecting the growth of lithium dendrites, 2019 Elsevier Ltd, pp 1-10), in view of Burdynska et al. hereafter Burdynska (Pub. No.: US 2022/0021023 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Mu discloses a dendrite growth prediction method (Mu: abstract), comprising:
deriving an interaction between the electrode atoms and the electrolyte atoms on the basis of the partial charges (Mu: Figure 1, pages 2-6 sections 2.1- 2.7: electrode/electrolyte interface);
determining whether a chemical reaction occurs between the electrode atoms and the electrolyte atoms on the basis of the interaction (Mu: pages 2-6 sections 2.1- 2.7: electrode chemical reaction process);
deriving a variation in partial charge of the electrode atoms on the basis of whether the chemical reaction occurs (Mu: pages 2-6 sections 2.1- 2.7: Charge conservation equation-equations 10, 11; page 7 section 3.3: Lithium dendrite growth morphology at different applied voltages;); and
predicting dendrite growth of the electrode atoms on the basis of the variation in partial charge (Mu: pages 6-9 sections 3.1- 3.4: simulation of different morphologies of lithium dendrite including Effect of anisotropy strength and Effect of applied voltage).
Mu do not explicitly disclose:
calculating an electronegativity of electrode atoms and electrolyte atoms;
calculating partial charges of the electrode atoms and the electrolyte atoms from the electronegativity;
Burdynska disclose:
calculating an electronegativity of electrode atoms and electrolyte atoms (Burdynska: [0046]: Dipole-dipole Forces occur by permanent dipoles in polar molecules, where molecules arrange in such way that partial positive charges of one particle is next to the negative one on the neighboring molecule. The forces are stronger than London dispersion forces and increase with increasing electronegativity difference between atoms forming dipoles);
calculating partial charges of the electrode atoms and the electrolyte atoms from the electronegativity (Burdynska: [0046]: permanent partial positive and negative charges are formed on hydrogen and electronegative atoms respectively. Such permanent partial charges lead to even stronger attraction forces than in case of dipole-dipole forces);
Mu and Burdynska are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They both relate to battery technology development.
Therefore, 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 above growth mechanism of lithium dendrites application, as taught by Mu, and incorporating the use of molecular interactions, as taught by Burdynska.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification for large scale production and commercialization of solid-state batteries, as suggested by Burdynska (Burdynska: [0003]).
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as Claim 1 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 2, the combinations of Mu and Burdynska further disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the predicting of the dendrite growth of the electrode atoms on the basis of the variation in partial charge includes predicting dendrite growth when a value of the partial charge of the electrode atoms is less than or equal to a preset value (Burdynska: [0046]).
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as Claim 2 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 3, the combinations of Mu and Burdynska further disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the determining of whether the chemical reaction occurs between the electrode atoms and the electrolyte atoms on the basis of the interaction includes determining that the electrode atoms and the electrolyte atoms are bonded and have undergone a chemical reaction when a value of a distance (r) between the electrode atom and the electrolyte atom, which is derived from the interaction, is less than or equal to a preset value (Burdynska: [0045]-[0047]).
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as Claim 3 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 4, the combinations of Mu and Burdynska further disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the deriving of the interaction between the electrode atoms and the electrolyte atoms on the basis of the partial charges includes deriving an interaction on the basis of an interaction energy (Esystem) between the electrode atoms and the electrolyte atoms, which is derived from the partial charges (Burdynska: [0046]-[0047], [0067]).
Regarding Claim 11, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as Claim 4 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 5, the combinations of Mu and Burdynska further disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the calculating of the partial charges of the electrode atoms and the electrolyte atoms from the electronegativity includes calculating the partial charges through a variation in electronegativity with respect to a voltage applied to the electrode atoms and the electrolyte atoms (Burdynska: [0045]-[0047], [0067]; Mu: pages 7-9 section 3.3).
Regarding Claim 12, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as Claim 5 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 6, the combinations of Mu and Burdynska further disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the electrode atom is an anode electrode atom (Mu: page 2 section 2.1).
Regarding Claim 13, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as Claim 6 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 7, the combinations of Mu and Burdynska further disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising confirming that dendrite growth is suppressed by additionally adding a specific additive to the electrolyte (Burdynska: [0125]).
Regarding Claim 14, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as Claim 7 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tour et al. (Patent No.: US 12,368,190 B2) teaches systems and methods that utilize a separator coated by particles for Li dendrite detection in an ordinary two electrode battery system.
Cui et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0329120 A1) teaches a battery that includes: 1) an anode; 2) a cathode; 3) a separator disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein the separator includes at least one functional layer; and 4) a sensor connected to the at least one functional layer to monitor an internal state of the battery.
Cao et al. (Lithium Dendrite in All-Solid-State Batteries: Growth Mechanisms, Suppression Strategies, and Characterizations, Matter 3, 57–94, 2020, Elsevier Inc) conceptually presents provides a systematic and in-depth understanding of the thermodynamic, kinetic, electrochemical, chemo-mechanical, structural stability, and characterizations of Li dendrite in ASLBs.
Hong et al. (Phase-Field Simulations of Lithium Dendrite Growth with Open-Source Software, ACS Energy Lett. 2018, 3, 1737−1743) defines a hybrid grand potential-based nonlinear phase-field model and numerically solved the multiphysics coupled equations using the fully open source MOOSE (Multiphysics Object-Oriented Simulation Environment) framework.
8. Examiner’s Remarks: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IFTEKHAR A KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5699. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9:00AM-6:00PM (CST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached on (571)-272-5699. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/IFTEKHAR A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights