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. Claim Objections Claim s 7 - 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: While the claims recite a method, the method “comprising steps of:” different units as if it were a system or apparatus claim. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner suggest amending to language similar to “ comprising steps of: determining, by a capacity recovery section-determining unit, a temporary capacity recovery section”. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Claim 1 in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “ a capacity recovery section-determining unit for determining ”, “ a trend analysis unit for creating ” and “ a lifetime predicting unit for predicting ” in claim 1. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure (i.e. a battery lifetime predicting apparatus) described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. However, Examiner did not see a computer or processor as being recited as performing these steps. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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. Claim 5 is 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the method" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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. C laims 1 - 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 1-10 are directed to determining a temporary capacity recovery section by analyzing charge/discharge test data , creating alternative data based on test data and predicting lifetime of the battery based on data which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept. Step 1 – Statutory Categories As indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process and a machine. Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis Exemplary claim 1 (and similarly claim 7) recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”: A battery lifetime predicting apparatus, comprising: a capacity recovery section-determining unit for determining a temporary capacity recovery section by analyzing charge/discharge test data of a battery; a trend analysis unit for creating alternative data based on test data before and after the temporary capacity recovery section determined by the capacity recovery section-determining unit, and analyzing trend of the test data by reflecting the alternative data; and a lifetime predicting unit for predicting lifetime of the battery based on data outputted from the trend analysis unit. The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are mental processes performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “battery lifetime predicting apparatus”, “ a battery”, “ a capacity recovery section-determining unit”, “ a trend analysis unit”, and “ a lifetime predicting unit” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “ battery lifetime predicting apparatus ”, “ battery ”, “ capacity recovery section-determining unit ”, “ trend analysis unit ”, and “ lifetime predicting unit ” language, “ determining a temporary capacity recovery section by analyzing charge/discharge test data… creating alternative data based on test data before and after the temporary capacity recovery section determined… analyzing trend of the test data by reflecting the alternative data; and … predicting lifetime of the battery based on data outputted… , ” in the context of this claim encompasses mental processes . If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps which could be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement of opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “ mental process ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular , t he claim only recites five additional element s – “battery lifetime predicting apparatus”, “a battery”, “a capacity recovery section-determining unit”, “a trend analysis unit”, and “a lifetime predicting unit” . The “battery lifetime predicting apparatus”, “battery”, “capacity recovery section-determining unit”, “trend analysis unit”, and “lifetime predicting unit” are recited at a high-level of generality ( i.e. , as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a “battery lifetime predicting apparatus”, “a battery”, “a capacity recovery section-determining unit”, “a trend analysis unit”, and “a lifetime predicting unit” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background does not provide any indication that the “battery lifetime predicting apparatus”, “battery”, “capacity recovery section -determining unit”, “trend analysis unit”, and “lifetime predicting unit” are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component s . For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claims 1 - 3 and 6 - 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Chinese Publication No. 110095721A to Fan et al. (“Fan”) . As per claims 1 and 7 , the claimed subject matter that is met by Fan includes: A battery lifetime predicting apparatus, comprising ( Fan : Figs. 1-2) : a capacity recovery section-determining unit for determining a temporary capacity recovery section by analyzing charge/discharge test data of a battery (Fan: ¶ ¶ 0015-0019, 0027, 0042, 0060-0061 “ returned electric vehicle batteries, at room temperature (25±2 ℃ ), perform a preset number of charge-discharge cycles (e.g., 3-5 times) at regular intervals (e.g., 15 or 30 days), which is recorded as one cycle. Test the battery capacity, open circuit voltage, AC and DC internal resistance in each cycle, and calculate the battery capacity retention rate and capacity recovery rate ”) ; a trend analysis unit for creating alternative data based on test data before and after the temporary capacity recovery section determined by the capacity recovery section-determining unit, and analyzing trend of the test data by reflecting the alternative data (Fan: ¶¶ 0027-0029, 0042-0044 and 0061-0064 “ Charge the retired electric vehicle battery to full charge at a rate of 0.2-0.5C, then discharge the battery to 20-50% charge at a rate of 0.2-0.5C, and then discharge the battery for 10-30 seconds at a rate of 1.5-3.0C. Record the voltage at the beginning and end of the discharge and calculate the DC internal resistance of the battery ”) ; and a lifetime predicting unit for predicting lifetime of the battery based on data outputted from the trend analysis unit (Fan: ¶¶ 0033, 0045 and 0064-0066 “ based on the c harge/discharge cycle and the battery parameter values, the electric vehicle battery life is predicted ”) . As per claims 2 and 8 , the claimed subject matter that is met by Fan includes: wherein the capacity recovery section-determining unit determines a section where the charge/discharge test data of the battery is changed by at least a certain value as a capacity recovery section ( Fan : ¶ ¶ 0060-0066 “ Charge and discharge the retired electric vehicle battery 3-5 times at a rate of 0.2-0.5C. Finally, charge the battery to full charge and record the charge and discharge capacity of the battery. Test and record the open circuit voltage of the battery ” ) . As per claims 3 and 9 , the claimed subject matter that is met by Fan includes: wherein the capacity recovery section-determining unit determines, as a temporary capacity recovery section, a section where change of the charge/discharge test data of the battery shows increment by at least 0.2% compared to the previous capacity (Fan: ¶¶ 0060-0066 “ Charge and discharge the retired electric vehicle battery 3-5 times at a rate of 0.2-0.5C. Finally, charge the battery to full charge and record the charge and discharge capacity of the battery. Test and record the open circuit voltage of the battery ”) . As per claim 6 , the claimed subject matter that is met by Fan includes: wherein the lifetime predicting unit predicts the lifetime of the battery based on a semi-empirical aging model (Fan: ¶ 0004) . 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. Claim s 4 - 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan in view of Korean Publication No. 10-2019-0043457 A to Kwon et al . (“Kwon”, originally cited in IDS filed 19 December 2023) . As per claims 4 and 10 , Fan fails to specifically teach wherein a method of the trend analysis unit creating alternative data based on the test data before and after the temporary capacity recovery section is one of methods of replacing the section with a previous trend line of the temporary capacity recovery section, replacing by applying a particle filter, and pulling and putting together a section after the temporary capacity recovery section except the temporary capacity recovery section . The Examiner provides Kwon to teach and disclose this claimed feature. The claimed subject matter that is met by Kwon includes: wherein a method of the trend analysis unit creating alternative data based on the test data before and after the temporary capacity recovery section is one of methods of replacing the section with a previous trend line of the temporary capacity recovery section, replacing by applying a particle filter, and pulling and putting together a section after the temporary capacity recovery section except the temporary capacity recovery section ( Kwon : ¶¶ 0032-0033) Fan teaches a method and system for predicting battery lifetime. Kwon teaches a comparable method and system for predicting battery lifetime that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Kwon offers the embodiment of wherein a method of the trend analysis unit creating alternative data based on the test data before and after the temporary capacity recovery section is one of methods of replacing the section with a previous trend line of the temporary capacity recovery section, replacing by applying a particle filter, and pulling and putting together a section after the temporary capacity recovery section except the temporary capacity recovery section . One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the particular trend analysis methods as disclosed by Kwon to the method and system for predicting battery lifetime as taught by Fan for the predicted result of improved method s and system s for predicting battery lifetime . No additional findings are seen to be necessary. As per claim 5 , Fan fails to specifically teach wherein the method of the trend analysis unit analyzing trend of the test data is one of methods of moving average depending on increase of charge/discharge cycles, moving average on differential data depending on increase of charge/discharge cycles, or moving average on log data depending on increase of charge/discharge cycles. The Examiner provides Kwon to teach and disclose this claimed feature. The claimed subject matter that is met by Kwon includes: wherein the method of the trend analysis unit analyzing trend of the test data is one of methods of moving average depending on increase of charge/discharge cycles, moving average on differential data depending on increase of charge/discharge cycles, or moving average on log data depending on increase of charge/discharge cycles ( Kwon : ¶ 0033-0034) Fan teaches a method and system for predicting battery lifetime. Kwon teaches a comparable method and system for predicting battery lifetime that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Kwon offers the embodiment of wherein the method of the trend analysis unit analyzing trend of the test data is one of methods of moving average depending on increase of charge/discharge cycles, moving average on differential data depending on increase of charge/discharge cycles, or moving average on log data depending on increase of charge/discharge cycles . One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the particular trend analysis method as disclosed by Kwon to the method and system for predicting battery lifetime as taught by Fan for the predicted result of improved methods and systems for predicting battery lifetime. No additional findings are seen to be necessary. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Hunter Wilder whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7948 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM . 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 Florian Zeender can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6790 . 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. /A. Hunter Wilder/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627