DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 12/01/25. The applicant has overcome the objection only. However, applicant’s argument/reply has not yet satisfactorily overcome the rejections under Section 101 and 103, respectively. Refer to the aforementioned amendment for specific details on applicant's rebuttal arguments and/or remarks. Therefore, the present claims are now finally rejected over the same grounds of rejection as formulated hereinbelow and for the reasons of record:
Election/Restrictions
Claims 35-44 and 47 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/21/25.
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 29-34, 45-46 and 48 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. Claims 29-34, 45-46 and 48 are directed to an electric battery cell per se. The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed subject matter simply appears to perform some basic/general calculations, comparisons, and/or data collection/gathering of a generic source of values without significantly: (i) providing tangible/physical structures, features, components, and (ii) performing clear adjusting/interactive steps/actions in order to carry out a reasonable feedback and transformational action(s)/step(s) within the claimed electric battery cell. As best understood by the examiner, the claimed invention appears to merely provide: (i) a basic/conventional control unit (i.e., a basic/conventional controlling element or mechanism) just to perform certain calculations or determinations which is acting as a general-purpose computer without apparently causing any action(s)/step(s) to occur; and/or making an adjustment or providing a reasonable feedback; and/or providing an interactive mechanism or process; and/or triggering/initiating/generating any concrete/tangible activity; and in particular, (ii) a measurement apparatus taking at least one measurement of an open circuit voltage being routinely conventional which does not make a contribution over the prior art. To expedite prosecution, further technical explanation and/or elaboration on this matter is necessary. Further, applicant is encouraged to further elaborate the claim language to clearly address and/or clarify the foregoing point/topic. Therefore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 29-34, 45-46 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraska et al 6274265 in view of Yang et al 2017/0276732.
As to claims 29-34, 48:
Kraska et al disclose a process/method for maturing/evaluating an electrochemical cell such as a lithium-ion containing body/arrangement (see claim 18; COL 5, lines 5-20) to identify a defective electrochemical cell (Abstract; CLAIMS 1-3 & 20; COL 2, line 60 to COL 3, line 20; COL 6, line 56 to COL 7, line 60) comprising the step of storing the cell without burn-in at an elevated temperature for a storage time; testing the cell at the end of the storage time period by measuring a parameter of the cell related to the cell voltage; and determining whether the cell is defective based upon the measured parameter (i.e., applicant’s undefined step of determining integrity) (see CLAIMS 1-3; COL 6, line 56 to COL 7, line 60). (Emphasis added[Symbol font/0xAE]) Kraska et al disclose taking measurements of open circuit voltages (OCV) during maturation/storage time (see TABLE 1). Kraska et al is concerned with determining whether the battery cell(s) is defective (i.e., contains a metallic contaminant-causing defect) (Abstract; COL 8, lines 60-67). Kraska et al disclose using a voltmeter to sense cell voltage and/or a parameter of the cell related to cell voltage is measured to determine if the cell is defective so as to be removed therefrom (see STEP 106) (Col 7, lines 23-40). It is noted that storage/maturation period implicitly encompasses shipment period regardless of period of time or when it takes place (i.e., more than one day). In this case, the teachings of Kraska et al are sufficient to satisfy applicant’s broadly claimed requirements.
As to claim 45-46:
Kraska et al disclose temperatures greater than 25°C (claim 5); in the range of 30-70°C (claim 6); and/or a temperature of less than 80°C (claim 4). Kraska et al disclose storage time period of less than 11 days (claim 9); and/or 1-3 days (claim 11); 23 days (see TABLE 1).
Kraska et al disclose a storage/maturation process for a battery cell according to the foregoing aspects. However, the preceding reference does not expressly disclose the specific steps of determining the battery cell is defective; determining a voltage difference, time difference and the voltage change rate.
As to claims 29-34:
Yang et al disclose a process/method for maturing/preparing/screening an electrochemical cell such as a lithium-ion battery (Abstract) comprising the step of galvanostatically discharging the lithium-ion batteries to an inflection point voltage at a first constant current I1 wherein the lithium ion batteries are rested for a first rest time T1 (i.e., first maturation period) to raise an open circuit voltage V1 (i.e., applicant’s broadly claimed charging step) which is greater than the inflection point voltage, and galvanostatically discharging the lithium-ion batteries to the inflection point voltage at a second constant current I2 where I2<I1; and then resting the lithium ion batteries for a second rest time T2 (i.e., second maturation period), and screening the lithium-ion batteries based on a self-discharge thereof, or voltage decay or self-discharge performance (0009) (applicant’s undefined “at least one measurement”) (Abstract; 0005-0009; 0014-0023; Figures 1 & 3-4), thereby removing batteries (i.e., cell removal signal) having the large self-discharging performance or voltage decay (i.e., considering and/or determining battery performance and/or battery integrity).
(Emphasis added[Symbol font/0xAE]) Note that Yang et al implicitly compare voltages because voltage measurements V0 at a first constant current I1 at a first time t1 (0016; 0016-0023) and charge cutoff voltage V1 at a second constant current I2 at a second time t2 are measured/compared to determine voltage decay and/or removing batteries having large self-discharge (0019; 0016-0023). During this process, the lithium-ion batteries are rested for a first rest time T1 and for a second time T2 [i.e., first maturation period) to raise an open circuit voltage V1, and galvanostatically discharging the lithium-ion batteries to the inflection point voltage at a second constant current I2 where I2<I1; and then resting the lithium ion batteries for a second rest time T2 (i.e., second maturation period: see Abstract; 0005-0009; 0014-0023; Figures 1 & 3-4].
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the specific steps of determining the battery cell is defective, determining a voltage difference, time difference and the voltage change rate during the storage/maturation process of Kraska et al as taught by Yang et al because Yang et al teach that such specifically disclosed steps of determining a voltage difference, time difference and the voltage change rate assists in providing an effective and efficient battery performance by enhancing charging/discharging cycle and battery capacity and energy densities related to the operation of the battery cell. Further, the claim would have been obvious because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, or based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a “base” device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is prima-facie obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US- 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection under Section 101, USPTO takes the posture that the 101 rejection still applies because with respect to:
(i) Step 2A, Prong 1 (identify the law of nature/natural phenomenon/abstract ideas): The determining step appears to be an abstract idea. The determination is clearly a mathematical calculation - a simple subtraction of previously mined data points - and therefore represents an abstract idea as it could have been performed in the human mind.
(ii) Step 2A Prong 2 (has the natural phenomenon been integrated into a particular practical application?) No, there is no practical application as there is no significant post solution activity. In the present case, the determining/evaluation step, which represents the abstract idea, is the last substantive step of the claimed method. Thus, there can be no practical application as nothing is done which amounts to applying the information once it has been determined.
(iii) Step 2B (does the claim recite any elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea?) Here we look at the other elements of the claim and determine if they amount to significantly more. For this claim it appears that features such as battery cell and measurement apparatus (broadly claimed) represent features that are well-understood routine and conventional in the art. In light of the foregoing, there does not appear to be “something more” present. The prior art reference, Kraska et al’265 and Yang et al’732, cited/used in the body of the 103 rejection supports the position that the battery cell related features are well known.
With respect to the rejection under Section 103, generally speaking, applicant has made the allegation that the art of record (i.e., Kraska et al’265 and Yang et al’732) “describes external testing equipment that is separate from the battery cell itself (i.e., not “incorporated into a structure of the electric battery cell, forming an integral part of the electric battery cell”) and/or “These components, however, are clearly described as an external testing apparatus, not as integrated components withing a battery cell structure”. In reply, applicant’s arguments are respectfully but strenuously disagreed with for at least the following two reasons, 1st reason: because independent claim 29 fails to unambiguously specify whether the measurement apparatus is intended to be electrically incorporated/integrated, or thermally incorporated-integrated, or directly incorporated/integrated, or physically incorporated/integrated, or functionally incorporated-integrated, or operatively incorporated/integrated. Note that, as broadly claimed, the language of independent claim 29 is wholly silent as to specific incorporation-integration (i.e., electrical, thermal, operational, physical, direct, functional and the likes) of the measurement apparatus into/with the battery cell, ipso facto, it is verily believed that the prior art satisfies applicant’s broadly claimed requirement of having a measurement apparatus at least functionally, or operatively, or thermally or electrically incorporated or integrated into/with the battery cell. 2nd reason: applicant is kindly reminded that it has been held, it is settled law, that it is prima-facie obvious to make or form an element, feature or component integral to other elements, features or components unless there are new/unexpected results, and/or criticality be shown. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice."). Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RAYMOND ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (8:00 am-6:30 pm).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached on (571) 272-8760. 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.
/RAYMOND ALEJANDRO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1752