DETAILED ACTION This communication is in response to Application No. 18/365,719 filed on August 4, 2023 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination . 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement submitted on 08/04/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement w as considered by the examiner . Specification The contents of the specification are sufficient for examination purposes. Claim Objections Claims 6, 11-13 and 15-20 objected to because of the following informalities: “late time sequency SOH data” ( Claim 6, ln. 2 ; Claim 13, ln. 3 ; and Claim 19 , ln. 7-8 ) should be “late time sequency data” for consistent terminology within and across claims. “ Apply” ( Claim 11, ln. 3 ) should be “apply” (objection applies equally to dependent claims 12 and 13 ). The limitation “the historical battery data” ( Claim 15, ln. 6 ), as currently formulated, lacks sufficient antecedent basis because the “battery data” was not previously described as “historical” (see Claim 15, ln. 2, “acquiring battery data” ). The claim should be amended to correct this issue (objection applies equally to dependent claims 16-20 ). 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. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Regrading Claim 1 , the claim recites the term “future” ( ln. 3 and 6-7 ), which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, the term “future” lies on a continuum with the terms historical and current, where historical values can be considered anything before the current time period and “future” values can be considered anything after the current time period . However, the delineation point s on either side of the period considered current are relative. T he term “future” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably appraised on what qualifies as a “ future SOH ” ( ln. 3 and 6-7 ). As a result, the claim is rejected. The claim should be amended to provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree for the term “future” . Regarding Claim 2 , the claim recites the term “current” ( ln. 2 and 3 ) , which is indefinite for substantially the same reasoning as articulated in regard to the rejection of Claim 1. As a result, the claim is similarly rejected and should be amended in a similar manner. Additionally, the claim is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected claim. Regarding Claim 3 , the claim recites the term “current” ( ln. 2 and 4 ) , which is indefinite for substantially the same reasoning as articulated in regard to the rejection of Claim 1. As a result, the claim is similarly rejected and should be amended in a similar manner. Additionally, the claim is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected claim. Regarding Claim 4 , the claim recites the terms “historical” ( ln. 3 ) and “current” ( ln. 2 ) , which are indefinite for substantially the same reasoning as articulated in regard to the rejection of Claim 1. As a result, the claim is similarly rejected and should be amended in a similar manner. Additionally, the claim recites “construct a SOH history curve using the SOH data” ( ln. 4 ). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, Claim 4 recites “current SOH values” ( ln. 2 ) and “historical SOH data” ( ln. 4 ). Additionally, Claim 1, which Claim 4 depends upon, recites “the future SOH” ( ln. 3 and 6-7 ). While a connection could be made between the term “history” and the term “historical” , each of “current SOH values” , “historical SOH data” , and “the future SOH” could reasonably be described as “SOH data” . As a result, the scope of the claim is indefinite because it is not clear what “SOH data” is used to “construct a SOH history curve” . The claim should be amended to clarify which data is being referred to by the recitation of “ the SOH data” . Furthermore , the claim is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected claim. Regarding Claim 5 , the claim recites the term “ historical ” ( ln. 2 ) , which is indefinite for substantially the same reasoning as articulated in regard to the rejection of Claim 1. As a result, the claim is similarly rejected and should be amended in a similar manner. Additionally, the claim recites “ relative to the SOH history curve . . . the early time sequency data includes data lying . . . before the late time sequency data, and wherein the late time sequency data includes data . . . before the early time sequency data” ( ln. 3-6 ) . It is not clear how both “the early time sequency data” and “the late time sequency data” c an “include data lying . . . before ” the other time sequency dataset. Therefore, the limitations recited in regard to the relative positions of data on “the SOH history curve” are unclear. As a result, the claim is rejection. The claim should be amended to remedy this issue. For example, if it is intended that “the early time sequency data” and “the late time sequency data” are dispersed throughout each other, the claim could be amended to recite “relative to the SOH history curve . . . the early time sequency data includes data lying . . . before some data in the late time sequency data, and wherein the late time sequency data includes data . . . before some data in the early time sequency data ”. Alternatively, if it is intended that “the early time sequency data” should be entirely before “the late time sequency data” , the claim could be amended to recite “relative to the SOH history curve . . . the early time sequency data includes data lying . . . before the late time sequency data, and wherein the late time sequency data includes data . . . after the early time sequency data” . Furthermore, the claim recites “characterize the historical SOH data as early time sequency data and late time sequency data relative to the SOH history curve, wherein the early time sequency data includes data lying earlier on the SOH history curve or at least before the late time sequency data, and wherein the late time sequency data includes data lying later on the SOH history curve or at least before the early time sequency data” ( ln. 1-6 ). The terms “early” and “late” are relative terms that render the claim indefinite. While the recitations of “at least before the late time sequency data” and “at least before the early time sequency data” provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of “early” and “late” , these recitations are ones of multiple limitations in a set of alternatives, as indicated by the recitations of “or” . Whereas, the alternative limitations, “data lying earlier on the SOH history curve” and “ data lying later on the SOH history curve ”, do not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of “early” or “late” because it is not clear what the “early” data is “earlier” than or what the “late” data is “later” than. As a result, given that “early” and “late” are not defined by the claim and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention , the claim is rejected. The claim should be amended to clarify the meaning of these relative terms. Finally , the claim is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected claim. Regarding Claim 6 , the claim is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected claim. Regarding Claim 7 , the claim recites the terms “historical” ( ln. 2 ) and “ future ” ( ln. 6-7 ) , which are indefinite for substantially the same reasoning as articulated in regard to the rejection of Claim 1. As a result, the claim is similarly rejected and should be amended in a similar manner. Additionally, the claim is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected claim. Regarding Claim 8 , the claim recites the terms “historical” ( ln. 3 and 7 ) and “ future ” ( ln. 3 and 6-7 ) , which are indefinite for substantially the same reasoning as articulated in regard to the rejection of Claim 1. As a result, the claim is similarly rejected and should be amended in a similar manner. Regarding Claim 9 , the claim recites the term “ current ” ( ln. 2 and 4 ) , which is indefinite for substantially the same reasoning as articulated in regard to the rejection of Claim 1. As a result, the claim is similarly rejected and should be amended in a similar manner. Additionally, the claim is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected claim. Regarding Claim 10 , the claim recites the term “ current ” ( ln. 2 and 4 ) , which is indefinite for substantially the same reasoning as articulated in regard to the rejection of Claim 1. As a result, the claim is similarly rejected and should be amended in a similar manner. Additionally, the claim is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected claim. Regarding Claim 11 , the claim recites the terms “historical” ( ln. 4 ) and “ current ” ( ln. 3 ) , which are indefinite for substantially the same reasoning as articulated in regard to the rejection of Claim 1. As a result, the claim is similarly rejected and should be amended in a similar manner. Additionally, the claim recites the limitation “ construct a SOH history curve using the SOH data” ( ln. 5 ) , which is indefinite for substantially the same reasoning as articulated in regard to the rejection of Claim 4. As a result, the claim is similarly rejected and should be amended in a similar manner. Furthermore , the claim is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected claim. Regarding Claim 12 , the claim recites the term “ historical ” ( ln. 2 ) , which is indefinite for substantially the same reasoning as articulated in regard to the rejection of Claim 1. As a result, the claim is similarly rejected and should be amended in a similar manner. Additionally, the claim recites, “relative to the SOH history curve . . . the early time sequency data includes data lying . . . before the late time sequency data, and wherein the late time sequency data includes data . . . before the early time sequency data” ( ln. 3-6 ) , which is indefinite for substantially the same reasoning as articulated in regard to the rejection of Claim 5. As a result, the claim is similarly rejected and should be amended in a similar manner. Next, the claim recites “ characterize the historical SOH data as early time sequency data and late time sequency data relative to the SOH history curve, wherein the early time sequency data includes data lying earlier on the SOH history curve or at least before the late time sequency data, and wherein the late time sequency data includes data lying later on the SOH history curve or at least before the early time sequency data ” ( ln. 1-6 ), which, in regard to the terms “early” and “late” , is indefinite for substantially the same reasoning as articulated in regard to the rejection of Claim 5. As a result, the claim is similarly rejected and should be amended in a similar manner. Furthermore, the claim recites “ the historical SOH data ” ( ln. 2 ). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, unlike mirror Claim 4, which recites “generate historical SOH data” ( Claim 4, ln. 3 ), Claim 11, which Claim 12 depends upon, recites “generate SOH data” ( Claim 11, ln. 4 ). Therefore, it is not clear what data is being referenced by the recitation of “the historical SOH data” . As a result, the claim is rejected. The claim should be amended to clarify this issue. F inally , the claim is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected claim. Regarding Claim 13 , the claim is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected claim. Regarding Claim 14 , the claim recites the terms “historical” ( ln. 6 ) and “ future ” ( ln. 7-8 ) , which are indefinite for substantially the same reasoning as articulated in regard to the rejection of Claim 1. As a result, the claim is similarly rejected and should be amended in a similar manner. Additionally, the claim is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected claim. Regarding Claim 15 , the claim recites the terms “historical” ( ln. 3 ) and “ future ” ( ln. 2 and 5-6 ) , which are indefinite for substantially the same reasoning as articulated in regard to the rejection of Claim 1. As a result, the claim is similarly rejected and should be amended in a similar manner. Regarding Claim 16 , the claim recites the term “ current ” ( ln. 2 and 4 ) , which is indefinite for substantially the same reasoning as articulated in regard to the rejection of Claim 1. As a result, the claim is similarly rejected and should be amended in a similar manner. Additionally, the claim is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected claim. Regarding Claim 17 , the claim recites the term “ current ” ( ln. 1 and 4 ) , which is indefinite for substantially the same reasoning as articulated in regard to the rejection of Claim 1. As a result, the claim is similarly rejected and should be amended in a similar manner. Additionally, the claim is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected claim. Regarding Claim 1 8 , the claim recites the terms “historical” ( ln. 3 ) and “ current ” ( ln. 2 ) , which are indefinite for substantially the same reasoning as articulated in regard to the rejection of Claim 1. As a result, the claim is similarly rejected and should be amended in a similar manner. Additionally, the claim recites the limitation “ constructing a SOH history curve using the SOH data” ( ln. 4 ) , which is indefinite for substantially the same reasoning as articulated in regard to the rejection of Claim 4. As a result, the claim is similarly rejected and should be amended in a similar manner. Furthermore , the claim is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected claim. Regarding Claim 19 , the claim recites the term “ historical ” ( ln. 2 ) , which is indefinite for substantially the same reasoning as articulated in regard to the rejection of Claim 1. As a result, the claim is similarly rejected and should be amended in a similar manner. Additionally, the claim recites, “relative to the SOH history curve . . . the early time sequency data includes data lying . . . before the late time sequency data, and wherein the late time sequency data includes data . . . before the early time sequency data” ( ln. 3-6 ) , which is indefinite for substantially the same reasoning as articulated in regard to the rejection of Claim 5. As a result, the claim is similarly rejected and should be amended in a similar manner. Next, the claim recites “ characterizing the historical SOH data as early time sequency data and late time sequency data relative to the SOH history curve, wherein the early time sequency data includes data lying earlier on the SOH history curve or at least before the late time sequency data, and wherein the late time sequency data includes data lying later on the SOH history curve or at least before the early time sequency data ” ( ln. 2 - 6 ), which, in regard to the terms “early” and “late” , is indefinite for substantially the same reasoning as articulated in regard to the rejection of Claim 5. As a result, the claim is similarly rejected and should be amended in a similar manner. Furthermore, the claim recites “ the historical SOH data ” ( ln. 2 ). which is indefinite for substantially the same reasoning as articulated in regard to the rejection of Claim 12. As a result, the claim is similarly rejected and should be amended in a similar manner. F inally , the claim is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected claim. Regarding Claim 20 , the claim recites the terms “historical” ( ln. 2 ) and “ future ” ( ln. 6-7 ) , which are indefinite for substantially the same reasoning as articulated in regard to the rejection of Claim 1. As a result, the claim is similarly rejected and should be amended in a similar manner. Additionally, the claim is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected claim. 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 abstract ideas without significantly more. Regarding Claim 1: Step 1: Claim 1 is a machine claim. Therefore, claims 1-7 are directed to a statutory category of eligible subject matter. Step 2A Prong 1: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Here, steps of the claimed subject matter are mental processes. Specifically, the claim recites “ for which a future state-of-health (SOH) is to be predicted . . . and predict the future SOH using the battery data” (mental process – amounts to exercising judgement to form an opinion on a future state, with reference to known or observed information, which may be aided by pen and paper) and “identify a selected model from an ensemble of models according to at least a time to the future SOH and a time length” (mental process – amounts to exercising judgment to form an opinion on which model, from a plurality of known or observed models, should be selected, with reference to known or observed data, which may be aided by pen and paper). Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements: “A system, comprising: a memory communicably coupled to a processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to . . . as an input to the selected model” (mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components does not provide an inventive concept) ; “ acquire battery data ” (acquiring battery data amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity because the transmission of data is incidental to the claimed subject matter ) ; and “of a battery . . . of the battery data ” ( amounts to merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which do es not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea ). Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements considered individually and in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements: “A system, comprising: a memory communicably coupled to a processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to . . . as an input to the selected model” (mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components does not provide an inventive concept) ; “ acquire battery data ” (transmitting data is well‐understood, routine, and conventional, see generally Symantec , 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 ; see also buySAFE , Inc. v. Google, Inc. , 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ; therefore the limitation, which is recited with a high level of generality, remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration ) ; and “ of a battery . . . of the battery data ” ( merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not provide an inventive concept ). For the reasons above, Claim 1 is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This rejection applies equally to dependent claims 2-7. The additional limitations of the dependent claims are addressed below. Regarding Claim 2 : Step 2A Prong 1: See the rejection of Claim 1 above, which Claim 2 depends on. Here, the claim recites additional elements that are mental processes. Specifically, the claim recites “ predict current state-of-health (SOH) values ” ( mental process – amounts to exercising judgement to form an opinion on a future state, with reference to known or observed information, which may be aided by pen and paper ) . Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements: “wherein the instructions further cause the processor to train an estimation model to . . . wherein instructions cause the processor to train the estimation model . . . to generate a loss value of the estimation model and update the estimation model ” (amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on generic and unspecialized computer components, which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea) and “ of batteries . . . by using current values of battery data of the batteries as training data for the estimation model and using lab-measured SOH values of the batteries as a supervising signal for the estimation model ” (amounts to merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea) . Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements considered individually and in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements: “wherein the instructions further cause the processor to train an estimation model to . . . wherein instructions cause the processor to train the estimation model . . . to generate a loss value of the estimation model and update the estimation model ” (mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components does not provide an inventive concept) and “ of batteries . . . by using current values of battery data of the batteries as training data for the estimation model and using lab-measured SOH values of the batteries as a supervising signal for the estimation model ” (merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not provide an inventive concept) . Accordingly, Claim 2 is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding Claim 3 : Step 2A Prong 1: See the rejection of Claim 2 above, which Claim 3 depends on. As discussed above, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas . Whereas if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculation, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Here, the claim recites additional elements that are mental processes and mathematical concepts . Specifically, the claim recites “ preprocess the current battery data . . . by at least one of: filtering out relevant battery features and applying empirical equations . . . to the current values ” ( mental process – amounts to exercising judgement to form opinions on values derived from known or observed information, such as relevant subsets of information or calculated transformations of information , with reference to known or observed information, which may be aided by pen and paper ; mathematical concepts – applying empirical equations to input data to generate an output is a recitation of a mathematical equation or calculation ) . Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements: “ wherein the instructions further cause the processor to . . . as the training data for the estimation model ” (amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on generic and unspecialized computer components, which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea) and “ before use . . . related to the physics of the batteries . . . of the battery data ” (amounts to merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea). Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements considered individually and in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements: “ wherein the instructions further cause the processor to . . . as the training data for the estimation model ” (mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components does not provide an inventive concept) and “ before use . . . related to the physics of the batteries . . . of the battery data ” (merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not provide an inventive concept). Accordingly, Claim 3 is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding Claim 4 : Step 2A Prong 1: See the rejection of Claim 1 above, which Claim 4 depends on. Here, the claim recites additional elements that are mental processes. Specifically, the claim recites “ predict current SOH values . . . to generate historical SOH data ” ( mental process – amounts to exercising judgement to form an opinion on a future state, with reference to known or observed information, which may be aided by pen and paper ) and “ construct a SOH history curve using the SOH data ” ( mental process – amounts to exercising judgement to form an opinion on a visualization of a data curve, with reference to known or observed information, which may be aided by pen and paper). Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements: “ wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: apply an estimation model configured to ” (amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on generic and unspecialized computer components, which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea) and “ of batteries to battery data of the batteries ” (amounts to merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea). Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements considered individually and in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements: “ wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: apply an estimation model configured to ” (mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components does not provide an inventive concept) and “ of batteries to battery data of the batteries ” (merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not provide an inventive concept). Accordingly, Claim 4 is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding Claim 5 : Step 2A Prong 1: See the rejection of Claim 4 above, which Claim 5 depends on. Here, the claim recites additional elements that are mental processes. Specifically, the claim recites “ characterize the historical SOH data as early time sequency data and late time sequency data relative to the SOH history curve ” ( mental process – amounts to exercising judgement to form an opinion on whether to classify data into one of two groups , with reference to known or observed information depicted in curve form , which may be aided by pen and paper ) . Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements: “ wherein the instructions further cause the processor to ” (amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on generic and unspecialized computer components, which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea) and “ wherein the early time sequency data includes data lying earlier on the SOH history curve or at least before the late time sequency data, and wherein the late time sequency data includes data lying later on the SOH history curve or at least before the early time sequency data ” (amounts to merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which do es not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea). Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements considered individually and in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements: “wherein the instructions further cause the processor to” (mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components does not provide an inventive concept) and “ wherein the early time sequency data includes data lying earlier on the SOH history curve or at least before the late time sequency data, and wherein the late time sequency data includes data lying later on the SOH history curve or at least before the early time sequency data ” (merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not provide an inventive concept). Accordingly, Claim 5 is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding Claim 6 : Step 2A Prong 1: See the rejection of Claim 5 above, which Claim 6 depends on. Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements: “ wherein the instructions further cause the processor to . . . to train each model in the ensemble of models ” (amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on generic and unspecialized computer components, which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea) and “ use battery data corresponding to the early time sequency data and the late time sequency SOH data . . . wherein the early time sequency data and the late time sequency data for each model are located at different time points of the SOH history curve ” (amounts to merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea). Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements considered individually and in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements: “ wherein the instructions further cause the processor to . . . to train each model in the ensemble of models ” (mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components does not provide an inventive concept) and “ use battery data corresponding to the early time sequency data and the late time sequency SOH data . . . wherein the early time sequency data and the late time sequency data for each model are located at different time points of the SOH history curve ” (merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not provide an inventive concept). Accordingly, Claim 6 is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding Claim 7 : Step 2A Prong 1: See the rejection of Claim 1 above, which Claim 7 depends on. Here, the claim recites additional elements that are mental processes. Specifically, the claim recites “generate SOH predictions” ( mental process – amounts to exercising judgement to form an opinion on a future state, with reference to known or observed information, which may be aided by pen and paper ) ; “ calculate a SOH prediction error . . . by comparing the SOH prediction to estimated SOH values ” ( mental process – amounts to exercising judgment to calculate a value, with reference to known or observed information, which may be aided by pen and paper ); and “ and create an assignment . . . to future SOH prediction criteria ” ( mental process - amounts to exercising judgement to form an opinion on an association between known or observed information, which may be aided by pen and paper ). Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements: “ wherein the instructions further cause the processor to ” (amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on generic and unspecialized computer components, which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea) and “ for each model in the ensemble of models using historical battery data as an input to each model . . . for each model . . .of each model . . . wherein the criteria include the time to the future SOH and the time length of the battery data, wherein the selected model is chosen based on the assignment ” (amounts to merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea). Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements considered individually and in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements: “ wherein the instructions further cause the processor to ” (mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components does not provide an inventive concept) and “ for each model in the ensemble of models using historical battery data as an input to each model . . . for each model . . .of each model . . . wherein the criteria include the time to the future SOH and the time length of the battery data, wherein the selected model is chosen based on the assignment ” (merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not provide an inventive concept). Accordingly, Claim 7 is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding Claim 8: Step 1: Claim 8 is a machine claim. Therefore, claims 8-14 are directed to a statutory category of eligible subject matter. Step 2A Prong 1: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Here, the claim recites limitations that are substantially the same as the limitations of Claim 1. As a result, and as elaborated above, these limitations are abstract ideas because they are mental processes. Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements: “ A non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to . . . as an input to the selected model” (mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components does not provide an inventive concept) ; “ acquire historical battery data ” (acquiring battery data amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity because the transmission of data is incidental to the claimed subject matter ) ; and “of a battery” ( amounts to merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea ). Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements considered individually and in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements: “A non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to . . . as an input to the selected model” (mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components does not provide an inventive concept) ; “ acquire historical battery data ” (transmitting data is well‐understood, routine, and conventional, see generally Symantec , 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 ; see also buySAFE , Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ; therefore the limitation, which is recited with a high level of generality, remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration ) ; and “of a battery” ( merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not provide an inventive concept ). For the reasons above, Claim 8 is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This rejection applies equally to dependent claims 9-14. The additional limitations of the dependent claims are addressed below. Regarding Claim 9 , the claim recites limitations that are all substantially the same as limitations of Claim 2, in the form of a non-transitory computer-readable medium . The claim is also directed to performing mental processes without integration into a practical component or significantly more. Accordingly, Claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale. Regarding Claim 10 , the claim recites limitations that are all substantially the same as limitations of Claim 3 , in the form of a non-transitory computer-readable medium . The claim is also directed to performing mental processes without integration into a practical component or significantly more. Accordingly, Claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale. Regarding Claim 11 , the claim recites limitations that are all substantially the same as limitations of Claim 4 , in the form of a non-transitory computer-readable medium . The claim is also directed to performing mental processes without integration into a practical component or significantly more. Accordingly, Claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale. Regarding Claim 12 , the claim recites limitations that are all substantially the same as limitations of Claim 5 , in the form of a non-transitory computer-readable medium . The claim is also directed to performing mental processes without integration into a practical component or significantly more. Accordingly, Claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale. Regarding Claim 13 , the claim recites limitations that are all substantially the same as limitations of Claim 6 , in the form of a non-transitory computer-readable medium . The claim is also directed to performing mental processes without integration into a practical component or significantly more. Accordingly, Claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale. Regarding Claim 14 , the claim recites limitations that are all substantially the same as limitations of Claim 7 , in the form of a non-transitory computer-readable medium . The claim is also directed to performing mental processes without integration into a practical component or significantly more. Accordingly, Claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale. Regarding Claim 15 : Step 1: Claim 15 is a process claim. Therefore, claims 15-20 are directed to a statutory category of eligible subject matter. Step 2A Prong 1: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Here, the claim recites limitations that are substantially the same as the limitations of Claim 1. As a result, and as elaborated above, these limitations are abstract ideas because they are mental processes. Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements: “as an input to the selected model” (mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components does not provide an inventive concept) ; “ acquir ing battery data ” (acquiring battery data amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity because the transmission of data is incidental to the claimed subject matter ) ; and “of a battery” ( amounts to merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea ). Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements considered individually and in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements: “as an input to the selected model” (mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components does not provide an inventive concept) ; “ acquire historical battery data ” (transmitting data is well‐understood, routine, and conventional, see generally Symantec , 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 ; see also buySAFE , Inc. v. Google, Inc. , 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ; therefore the limitation, which is recited with a high level of generality, remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration ) ; and “of a battery” ( merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not provide an inventive concept ). For the reasons above, Claim 15 is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This rejection applies equally to dependent claims 16-20 . The additional limitations of the dependent claims are addressed below. Regarding Claim 16 , the claim recites limitations that are all substantially the same as limitations of Claim 2, in the form of a method . The claim is also directed to performing mental processes without integration into a practical component or significantly more. Accordingly, Claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale. Regarding Claim 17 , the claim recites limitations that are all substantially the same as limitations of Claim 3 , in the form of a method . The claim is also directed to performing mental processes without integration into a practical component or significantly more. Accordingly, Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale. Regarding Claim 18 , the claim recites limitations that are all substantially the same as limitations of Claim 4 , in the form of a method . The claim is also directed to performing mental processes without integration into a practical component or significantly more. Accordingly, Claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale. Regarding Claim 19 , the claim recites limitations that are all substantially the same as limitations of Claim 6, which includes the limitations of Claim 5 , in the form of a method . The claim is also directed to performing mental processes without integration into a practical component or significantly more. Accordingly, Claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale. Regarding Claim 20 , the claim recites limitations that are all substantially the same as limitations of Claim 7 , in the form of a method . The claim is also directed to performing mental processes without integration into a practical component or significantly more. Accordingly, Claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale. 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 ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 , 7-8, 14-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbaraju et al. (hereinafter Abbaraju ) (Patent Pub. No. US 2024/0391352 A1) in view of Chen et al. (hereinafter Chen ) ( Patent Pub. No. US 2024/0095093 A1 ). Regarding Claim 1 , Abbaraju teaches a system, comprising: a memory communicably coupled to a processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to ( Para. [0021], “The examples herein provide an SOH prediction method and system that takes into consideration data from multiple information providers in real time and offers accurate predictions of battery SOH” , where the “system” performs the “SOH prediction” operations ; see also Fig. 2 and Para. [0044]- [0048], “FIG. 2 illustrates an example hardware configuration of the system 100 . . . may include one or more processors 216, one or more computer-readable media 218 . . . The processor(s) 216 may be configured to fetch and execute computer-readable instructions stored in the computer-readable media 218, which may program the processor(s) 216 to perform the functions described herein . . . The computer-readable media 218 may include volatile and nonvolatile memory” , where “the system 100” comprises a “computer-readable media 218” that is “memory” stores “instructions” and is communicably coupled to a processor, “The processor(s) 216 may be configured to fetch and execute computer-readable instructions stored in the computer-readable media 218” , which executes the operations, “the processor(s) 216 to perform the functions described herein” ) : acquire battery data of a battery ( Abstract, “The system receives discharge data . . . the discharge data indicative of a rate of discharge of the battery at a plurality of locations along the route” , where the “system receives discharge data” , which is battery data of a battery because it is “indicative of a rate of discharge of the battery” ) for which a future state-of-health (SOH) is to be predicted ( Abstract, “the system at least one of trains or updates a first machine learning model configured for predicting the state of health of the battery” , where “the system . . . predict[s] the state of health of the battery” , which can be a future prediction, see Para. [0025], “ predicting the SOH for the battery of a vehicle, such as before, during, or following the completion of a trip ” , where a “ predicti [on]” of the “SOH for the battery of a vehicle . . . following the completion of a trip” is a future SOH prediction) ; identify a selected model from an ensemble of models according to at least [an ensemble learning technique] . . . ( Abstract, “the system at least one of trains or updates a first machine learning model” , where “a first machine learning model” must be identified to be “train[ed] or update[ed]” , which is selected, according to an “ensemble learning technique” , from an “ ensemble ” of models, “multiple locally trained heterogenous SOH MLMs” , see Fig. 5 and Para. [0077], “FIG. 5 illustrates an example 500 of an ensemble learning technique for combining the learnings of multiple locally trained heterogenous SOH MLMs according to some implementations . . . to make an SOH prediction for the battery of the vehicle 102 for a trip ” ) . . . the future SOH and . . . the battery data ( Abstract, “The system receives discharge data . . . the discharge data indicative of a rate of discharge of the battery at a plurality of locations along the route . . . the system at least one of trains or updates a first machine learning model configured for predicting the state of health of the battery” , where, as discussed above, “the discharge data” is the battery data and the “predict [ ion of ] the state of health” is the SOH, which can be a future SOH, see Para. [0025], “predicting the SOH for the battery of a vehicle, such as before, during, or following the completion of a trip” ) ; and predict the future SOH using the battery data as an input to the selected model ( Abstract, “Based on the received discharge data, the system at least one of trains or updates a first machine learning model configured for predicting the state of health of the battery. The vehicle may determine an estimated battery state of health based at least on the first machine learning model” , where the selected model, “a first machine learning model” , uses the battery data, “discharge data” , as input for “train[ ing ]” , “update[ ing ]” , or “estimate[ion]”