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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regards to Claims 1 and 10, the limitations “a lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery system for the electrified vehicle, the LFP battery system comprising a plurality of LFP battery cells; a plurality of test LFP battery cells that are distinct from the plurality of LFP battery cells of the LFP battery system” are indefinite as it is unclear how the test cells are permanently or preliminarily distinguished (becoming distinct) from the rest of plurality of LFP battery cells of the LFP battery system before the testing.
The specification is silent on the topic, and it appears that the test cells are randomly selected from other cells just to be tested (Instant Application/ Specification [0018], as published). Then a patentable meaning of “distinct” is unclear. It appears that the cells becoming “distinct” only when they randomly selected to be tested and potentially pass or fail the testing.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With regards to Claim 1, the limitation “to be installed in the electrified vehicle” is indefinite because it is unclear what the patentable boundaries of this limitation are. This limitation describes intended use result without clear boundaries.
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 1-18 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.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“A battery cell end-of-line (EOL) quality processing system for an electrified vehicle, the battery cell EOL quality processing system comprising: a lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery system for the electrified vehicle, the LFP battery system comprising a plurality of LFP battery cells; a plurality of test LFP battery cells that are distinct from the plurality of LFP battery cells of the LFP battery system; a parameter determination system configured to determine, for each of the plurality of test LFP battery cells, (i) a minimum state of charge (SOC) threshold and (ii) a self-discharge rate and a self-discharge rate threshold based on the plurality of self-discharge rates; a cell quality processing system configured to determine whether each LFP battery cell of the LFP battery system passes a cell quality test based on the minimum SOC threshold, the self-discharge rate threshold, and a self-discharge rate of the LFP battery cell; and an EOL battery arrangement system configured to keep any of the LFP battery cells of the LFP battery system that pass their respective cell quality tests and to replace any of the LFP battery cells of the LFP battery system that fail their respective cell quality tests to obtain a final EOL LFP battery system to be installed in the electrified vehicle.”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “determine, for each of a plurality of test LFP battery cells, (i) a minimum state of charge (SOC) threshold and (ii) a self-discharge rate and a self-discharge rate threshold based on the plurality of self-discharge rates” and “determine, for each of a plurality of test LFP battery cells, (i) a minimum state of charge (SOC) threshold and (ii) a self-discharge rate and a self-discharge rate threshold based on the plurality of self-discharge rates” are treated as belonging to the mathematical concepts grouping while the step of “to keep any of the LFP battery cells of the LFP battery system that pass their respective cell quality tests and to replace any of the LFP battery cells of the LFP battery system that fail their respective cell quality tests to obtain a final EOL LFP battery system” is treated as belonging to mental process grouping. This mental step represents a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, and a decision “to keep any of the LFP battery cells of the LFP battery system that pass their respective cell quality tests and to replace any of the LFP battery cells of the LFP battery system that fail their respective cell quality tests to obtain a final EOL LFP battery system” in the context of this claim, encompasses a user manually determining whether to keep or replace battery cells based on passing/failing quality tests criteria (observation/evaluation/judgement steps).
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 10.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the above claims that recites a judicial exception are integrated into a practical application.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: A battery cell end-of-line (EOL) quality processing system for an electrified vehicle, the battery cell EOL quality processing system comprising: a lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery system for the electrified vehicle, the LFP battery system comprising a plurality of LFP battery cells; a plurality of test LFP battery cells that are distinct from the plurality of LFP battery cells of the LFP battery system; a parameter determination system; a cell quality processing system; an EOL battery arrangement system;
In Claim 10: A battery cell end-of-line (EOL) quality processing method for an electrified vehicle, a lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery system for the electrified vehicle, the LFP battery system comprising a plurality of LFP battery cells; a plurality of test LFP battery cells that are distinct from the plurality of LFP battery cells of the LFP battery systema; computing system and for each of a plurality of test LFP battery cells; outputting, by the computing system, instructions.
The additional elements in the preambles are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
The additional elements in the claims such as (EOL) quality processing system … for an electrified vehicle, the battery cell EOL quality processing system comprising: a lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery system for the electrified vehicle, the LFP battery system comprising a plurality of LFP battery cells; a plurality of test LFP battery cells that are distinct from the plurality of LFP battery cells of the LFP battery systema parameter determination system; a cell quality processing system; an EOL battery arrangement system (Claim 1) and computing system (Claim 10) a processor (Claim 1) are examples of generic computer equipment (components) that are generally recited and not meaningful and, therefore, are not qualified as particular machines to indicate a practical application. The limitation that generically recite obtaining final EOL LFP battery system (Claim 1) and outputting instructions (Claim 10) are not meaningful to indicate a practical application and they represent insignificant extra-solution activity.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-9, 11-18 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (additionally comprising abstract idea steps) and, therefore, these claims are not eligible without meaningful additional elements that reflect a practical application and/or additional elements that qualify for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
For example, additional elements in Claims 9 and 18 (vehicle is eSUV) are all recited in generality and not meaningful to indicate a practical application and/or qualify for significantly more.
Analysis of Closest Prior Art
The following references are considered to be the closest prior art to the claimed invention:
Xiao Yan et al. (US 20230208178), hereinafter ‘Yan’, discloses a battery cell end-of-line (EOL) quality processing system for a lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery system for an electrified vehicle, the battery cell EOL quality processing system comprising: a parameter determination system configured to determine, for each of a plurality of test LFP batteries cells (A battery management system (BMS) is configured to read a present operation data stream of each cell. A diagnosis apparatus is configured to extract a key battery parameter of said each cell from the present operation data stream and consistency thereof, compare the key battery parameter with historical data to determine whether a battery module fails, Abstract; FIG. 7 shows a curve of a state of charge (SOC)-open-circuit voltage (OCV) of a lithium iron phosphate cell in Example 2 [0022]; Fig.3; electric vehicles [0003]), (i) a minimum state of charge (SOC) threshold (Fig.13; [0067]) and (ii) a self-discharge rate (a self-discharge rate of each cell and the variation trend of the characteristic values with time from the data [0059]) and a self-discharge rate threshold (Calculate a resistance, a present capacity, and a self-discharge parameter of each cell by using the battery data … the self-discharge parameter is greater than a self-discharge parameter threshold [0097]).
Yan additionally discloses a cell quality processing system configured to determine whether each LFP battery cell of the LFP battery system passes a cell quality test based on SOC threshold and the self-discharge rate of the LFP battery cell (The intelligent gateway is configured to store a fault code, fault information, and a charging/discharging control parameter. The fault information includes serious fault information and general fault information. The serious fault information includes a sign of a micro-short circuit, thermal runaway, insulation abnormality, overheating, and communication abnormality, and the characteristic value or the consistency parameter of the battery is equal to or exceeds the safety threshold. The general fault information includes battery undervoltage, battery overvoltage, a low SOC, a high SOC, a balance fault, and the characteristic value or the consistency parameter of the battery exceeding the reliability threshold but less than the safety threshold [0053]; According to the variation trend of battery characteristic values such as … the capacity, and the self-discharge rate and the consistency thereof with time, the reliability threshold and the safety threshold of the battery characteristic values and the consistency thereof are obtained based on the variation law of the same kind and the same batch of lithium batteries in the aging process. A model describing the variation of the characteristic values with time is established to predict the future development trend of the characteristic values, and the dynamic reliability threshold of the abnormal characteristic values is established [0068]).
Yan Zhang et al. (CN 104316877), hereinafter ‘Zhang’, discloses a method for detecting self-discharge of Lithium Iron Phosphate battery to improve service life of the battery pack. A relationship between lithium iron phosphate battery SOC and OCV (corresponding to self-discharge rate, added) is disclosed.
Peter Christ Tamburrino et al. (US 20160020623), hereinafter ‘Tamburrino’, discloses that preferred state of charge may be selected to extend the shelf-life of the rechargeable batteries as well as self-discharge rate.
Haiyu Liao et al., “Research on a fast detection method of self-discharge of lithium battery”, Journal of Energy Storage, Volume 55, Part A, November 2022, 8 pages, hereinafter ‘Liao’, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352152X22014232?via%3Dihub discloses using OCV and threshold for the self-discharge rate of each cell to determine capacity loss.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues (p.8): Applicant submits that the claims provide for a technological improvement over manual spot-checks of LFP battery cells as known in the prior art. This technological improvement first involves identifying reference SOC/self-discharge thresholds from separate/distinct test LFP battery cells. Using these reference thresholds, the system then automates cell quality testing of the plurality of LFP cells of the LFP battery system and outputting instructions as to whether to keep or replace each LFP battery cell. After any LFP cell replacements are performed, the final LFP battery system is then installed in the electrified vehicle. Applicant submits that these claims achieve a level of automation that provides an improvement over the prior art human spot-checking, similar to the automated system claims in EcoServices, LLC V. Certified Aviation Serv., LLC, 832 F. App'x 680 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The technological improvement is demonstrated by reciting meaningful additional elements and/or significantly more additional elements. No such elements are recited in the claims. The argued improvement is realized via abstract idea steps. However, as indicated in MPEP 2106.05(a).II: “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology … the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology”.
With regards to the “automation” argument, the Examiner submits that according to MPEP 2144.04.III: “The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art”.
With regards to EcoServices LLC V. Certified Aviation Serv., the Examiner notes that this court case is not precedential. In addition, the claim there recites meaningful additional elements that contributed to eligibility decision such as “regulate the
washing unit according to washing parameters associated with the washing program used”(The court held that the control unit’s “specific configurations to regulate the washing unit” provided such an improvement over human operation, similar to how the claims in McRO focused on “specific rules.”, ECOSERVICES, LLC v. CERTIFIED AVIATION SERVICES, p.7).
Examiner Note with regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 1-18 are distinguished over prior art of record for the following reasons:
With regards to Claims 1 and 10, the claims differ from the closest prior art, Yan, Zhang, Tamburrino, and Liao, either singularly or in combination, because the above references fail to anticipate or render obvious a cell quality processing system configured to determine whether each LFP battery cell of the LFP battery system passes a cell quality test based on the minimum SOC threshold, the self-discharge rate threshold, and a self-discharge rate of the LFP battery cell, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
James D. Hendrickson et al. (US 11460513) discloses assessing health of a battery pack consisting of lithium-iron and other chemistry battery cells that includes distinguishing between respective data sets characterizing acceptable and unacceptable plurality of cell groups (Col.7, Lines 24-28).
Daniel Kang et al. (US 10944278) discloses health of a battery pack including lithium iron phosphate chemistry batteries based on acceptable SOC range.
Xia Li et al. (US 20250341584), hereinafter ‘Li’ discloses a battery cell end-of-line (EOL) quality processing system for a lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery system for an electrified vehicle comprising a parameter determination system configured to determine, for each of batteries, (i) a minimum state of charge (SOC) threshold and (ii) a self-discharge rate.
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights