DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This Office Action responds to the Application and preliminary amendment filed on 11/7/2023. Claims 1-28 are pending, wherein claims 29-56 have been canceled. 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 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter the claims are directed to computer readable (storage) medium which could include transitory readable medium such as carrier wave or electromagnetic wave since Applicant's specification does NOT explicitly exclude the transitory readable medium, wherein based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in view of Applicant's specification and in view of the customary and typical meaning the terms computer readable media, it is determined that Applicant's “computer readable storage medium” would include both forms of transitory and non-transitory computer readable media since the terms as defined in Applicant's specification are open-ended (see Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0521]; see also the USPTO Official Gazette 1351 OG 212 on Guidelines for Computer Readable Media). Applicant may want to insert –non-transitory—before “computer-readable storage medium” (line 1, claim 23) to place the claims in patent eligible subject matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1- 4,16-17,23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Ruan et al. (Chinese Patent Document No. CN 113178643 A , published 7/27/2021 , machine English translation by WIPO on 4/1/2026 ) . It is noted that th is a pplicat ion is a continuation-in-part (CIP) of 17/015,369 , filed on 9/9/ 2020, which claims priority to provisional application 62/897,877 filed on 9/9/2019. The subject matter related to the present claims 1-28 are directed to aging model configured to predict discharge-related performance loss to be incurred by the EDS (energy storage device) under respective discharge conditions and distinguish the discharge-related performance loss from charge- related performance loss , from which operation policy is determined using the aging model w hich comprises a discharge policy specifying target discharge conditions for the ESD application , and application is configured to implement the discharge policy . At most, the parent application and the provisional application disclose the aging model was determined to also be based on discharge-related performance loss that excludes charging-related performance loss. However, there is no disclosure on using the aging model ( which predict s discharge-related performance loss) to determine an operation policy for the ESD within an application in which the operation policy comprising a discharge policy target discharge conditions for the ESD within the application and configured such that performance loss predicted to be incurred by the ESD satisfies one or more requirements of the application (i.e., maintained below a threshold for a specified usage period) , from which the application is configured to implement the discharge policy (see Figs. 9-13, col. 42, 18-25; col. 27, 7 to col. 28, line 54; col. 7, line 66 to col. 8, line 16; col. 25, lines 39-48). Accordingly, for Examination purposes, the claimed invention is accorded with the effective filing date of 11/07/2023. Applicant should note that the citations herein to Ruan et al. are made to the machine English translations provided , with paragraph numbering added on the right column for ease of citations . As per claims 1 -3 , 16 and 23 , Ruan et al. teach: the retrieving of the aging model configured to predict discharge-related performance loss to be incurred by the ESD under respective discharging conditions and distinguish from the charge-related performance loss is performed at step S20 (paragraph [004], i.e., lithium-ion battery aging model between the capacity loss, and discharging conditions such as number of cycles, ambient temperature and amplitude of discharge voltage); utilizing the aging model to determine an operation policy which comprises a discharge policy specifying target discharge conditions such that performance loss predicted to be incurred by the ESD satisfies one or more requirements of the application (steps S30-S50, paragraph [005]-[006], i.e., based on target conditions of ambient temperature at the time of t, the set number of cycles and the set lithium-ion battery capacity loss, a n optimal discharge voltage amplitude of the current lithium battery is determined , wherein the discharge policy and configuring the application to implement the discharge policy is that controlling the lithium-ion battery to discharge at constant voltage at the determined optimal discharge amplitude , and in step S50, to satisfy one or more requirements of the application, i.e., lithium-ion battery temperature reaches the preset temperature at t+1 (i.e., threshold of optimal discharge amplitude at preset temperature for a specified usage period, t to less than t+1; if not, jump to step S30) ; wherein the computer-readable storage medium is further described in paragraph [066] and apparatus/system is described in the title. As per claims 4 ,17 ,24 , the discharge policy is maintained under a threshold of a secondary application for a secondary usage period extending beyond the specified usage period (paragraph [006], for period t+ 1, control the lithium-ion battery to stop constant voltage discharge and control the pump and heat stop in the liquid circulation heating unit). 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. Claim(s) 15 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruan et al. (Chinese Patent Document No. CN 113178643 A , published 7/27/2021, machine English translation by WIPO on 4/1/2026) in view of Simonis et al. ( US Patent Application Publication No. 2023 / 0382267 A1 ). As per claims 15 and 22 , Ruan et al. disclose all of the elements of claims 1 and 16, from which the respective claims depend, as discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 16 above, but failed to further teach the displaying aging predictions determined for selected ESD types of the plurality of ESD types on a graphical user interface, the aging predictions indicating performance degradation to be incurred by ESD of the selected ESD types under operating policies configured to satisfy the one or more requirements of the application; and receiving user selection of an ESD type of the plurality of ESD types in response to the displaying . Such display on graphical user interface for user selection is further taught by Simonis et al. to properly predict the aging state for the selected device (see paragraph 0007]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of effective filing date of the invention to further incorporate the teachings of Simonis et al. into the method/system of Ruan et al. because such incorporation would allow for proper aging modeling of the selected ESD devices. Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruan et al. (Chinese Patent Document No. CN 113178643 A , published 7/27/2021, machine English translation by WIPO on 4/1/2026) in view of Liu et al. ( Chinese Patent Document No. CN 103389471 A , published 11/13/2013). As per claim 18 ¸ Ruan et al. teach all of the elements of claim 16, from which the claim depends as discussed in the rejection of clam 16 above, but failed to further teach the determination of a charge policy pertaining to charge operations and configure the operation policy such that discharge-related performance degradation predicted to be incurred by the ESD under the discharge policy and charge-related performance degradation predicted to be incurred by the ESD under the charge policy is maintained below the threshold for the specified usage period . Liu et al. the age modeling for the energy storage device that takes into consideration both performance loss during both the discharge and charging cycles (see abstract). It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention further incorporating the teachings of Liu et al. by developing similar charging policy to take into account charge-related performance degradation as taught by Liu et al. into the method/system of Ruan et al. because such modification/incorporation would further prolong the battery/energy storage device for both during the charging and discharging cycles. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5 - 14 , 1 9-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if claims 5, 6, 8, 12, 19 are rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 25-28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and if claims 25 is rewritten in independent form, including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As per claim 5 , the claim further recites the inventive steps of utilizing the aging model to determine predicted charge-related performance loss to be incurred by the ESD over the specified usage period; wherein the discharge policy is configured such that a sum of the predicted charge- related performance loss and predicted discharge-related performance loss under the discharge policy satisfies the threshold for the specified usage period , in combination with the other steps, as claimed, which the prior arts made of record failed to teach or suggest as claimed. Furthermore, under the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guideline, the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter because (1) under Step 1 , the claims are directed to a process; (2 ) under Step 2 B , the claims recite additional step of configuring the application to implement the discharge policy, which provides for integrated utility that results in significantly more than the judicial exception. As per claims 6-7,25-2 8 , claims 6 and 25, from which the respective claims depend, further recite the inventive features of determining a charge policy of the operation policy, the charge policy pertaining to charge operations to be performed on the ESD within the application; and configuring the operation policy such that a sum of the predicted charge-related performance loss to be incurred by the ESD under the charge policy and the predicted discharge-related performance loss to be incurred by the ESD under the discharge policy satisfies the threshold for a specified usage period , in combination with the utilizing the aging model to determine an operation policy for the ESD within an application, the operation policy comprising a discharge policy specifying target discharge conditions for the ESD within the application, the operation policy configured such that performance loss predicted to be incurred by the ESD satisfies one or more requirements of the application , as claimed, which the prior arts made of record failed to teach or suggest as claimed. Furthermore, under the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guideline, the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter because (1) under Step 1 , the claims are directed to a process and an article of manufacture ; (2 ) under Step 2 B , the claims recite additional steps/instructions/operations of configuring the application to implement the discharge policy, which provides for integrated utility that results in significantly more than the judicial exception. As per claims 8-11 , claim 8 , from which the respective claims depend, further recite the inventive features of utilizing the aging model to determine the operation policy for the ESD further comprises: determining a candidate operation policy for the ESD, the candidate operation policy comprising a candidate discharge policy and a candidate charge policy; evaluating aging predicted to be incurred by the ESD under the candidate operation policy, the evaluating comprising predicting discharge-related aging to be incurred by the ESD under target discharge conditions of the candidate discharge policy and predicting charge- related aging to be incurred by the ESD under target charge conditions of the candidate charge policy; and modifying the candidate operation policy based on the evaluating, the modifying based on one or more of an aging prediction determined for the candidate policy, aging metrics of the candidate operation policy, operating condition sensitivity data determined for the ESD, a discharge constraint of the application, and a charge constraint of the application , as claimed, which the prior arts made of record failed to teach or suggest as claimed. Furthermore, under the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guideline, the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter because (1) under Step 1 , the claims are directed to a process; (2 ) under Step 2 B , the claims recite additional step of configuring the application to implement the discharge policy, which provides for integrated utility that results in significantly more than the judicial exception. As per claims 12-14,19-21 , claims 12 and 19, from which the respective claims depends, further recite the inventive features of determining a modified operation policy for the ESD in response to detecting a prediction deviation, the prediction deviation comprising one or more of: a deviation between performance loss predicted to be incurred by the ESD under the operation policy and measured performance loss observed in the ESD within the application, and a deviation between target operating conditions of the operation policy and measured operating conditions of the ESD within the application; and configuring the application to implement the modified operation policy , as claimed, which the prior arts made of record failed to teach or suggest as claimed. Furthermore, under the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guideline, the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter because (1) under Step 1 , the claims are directed to a process and a machine ; (2) under Step 2 B , the claims recite additional step of configuring the application to implement the discharge policy and ESD manager to generate instructions configured to control aspects of discharge operations implemented by a discharge module of the application such that discharge conditions of the ESD within the application correspond with the target discharge conditions of the discharge policy , which provide for integrated utility that results in significantly more than the judicial exception. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT PHALLAKA KIK whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1895 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Maxiflex Mon-Fri 8:30AM-5PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jack Chiang can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712727483 . 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. Any response to this action should be mailed to: Commissioner for Patents P. O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 or faxed to: 571-273-8300 /PHALLAKA KIK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851 April 2, 2026