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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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. Claim 8 is/ 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 because the claims are directed to software per se . Claim 8 recites a combination of modules. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the module(s) are software or a computer program. See, e.g., [0030], [0103] and Fig. 9. T hus, t he claim itself is directed to “A computer program” that is not embodied in any particular non-transitory medium. The Courts have held that software expressed as code or a set of instruction detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment and products that do not have a physical or tangible form such as a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”) when claimed as a product without any structural recitations are not directed to any of the statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03 I. Consequently, the claim(s) as presented, are directed to software per se and are not directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. The claims(s) are not patent eligible. Claims 1 , 3 -7 and 8 -10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 is a method that recite(s) identifying the degree of the battery degradation based on the surge set and the voltage set, and obtaining an identification result related to the current cycle count . Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification, identifying the degree of the battery degradation and obtaining and identification result involves performing a fitting process which is using a mathematical calculation or formula. The limitations fall within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04 II B. The claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional claim element a battery simulation system. The limitation is recited so generically that it represents no more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of battery simulation. This element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Further, t he claim recites the additional claim elements of acquiring battery data related to a current cycle count, wherein the battery data comprise battery capacities and battery voltages; acquiring, based on the battery capacities and the battery voltages, capacity differences corresponding to the battery voltages; acquiring, based on the battery voltages and the capacity differences, a surge set of the capacity differences and a voltage set corresponding to the surge set . The additional claim elements are recited at a high level of generality and without imposing any other meaningful limits on the claim. The limitations amounts to mere data gathering and outputting . T herefore, this additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional claim elements amount to no more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment and/or insignificant extra-solution activity . Additionally, the additional claim elements of acquiring are generically recited without adding meaningful limitations such that they amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network. As such, it amounts to well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The claim limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible. Claims 3 -7 and 9-10 depend from claim 1 and recite the same abstract idea as claim 1. The additional claim elements recited in claims 3-7 and 9-10 server to either add additional steps to the abstract idea (claims 3-5, 7) and/or add additional insignificant extra-solution activity (claims 6-7, 9) and/or or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (claims 9-10). The additional limitations recited in claims 6-7 and 9 either recited mathematical equations and/or recite limitations that are performed using a mathematical calculation or formula. The additional limitations recited in claims 9-10 are generic computer components performing generic computer functions recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional limitations recited in claims 3-5 and 7 are recited at a high level of generality and without imposing any other meaningful limits on the claim. The limitations amounts to mere data gathering and outputting and, t herefore, are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, the additional claim elements of acquiring are generically recited without adding meaningful limitations such that they amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network. As such, it amounts to well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The claim limitations do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible. Claim 8 is an apparatus that recite(s) identifying the degree of the battery degradation based on the surge set and the voltage set , wherein an identification result related to the current cycle count is acquired . Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification, identifying the degree of the battery degradation and obtaining and identification result involves performing a fitting process which is using a mathematical calculation or formula. The limitations fall within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04 II B. The claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional claim element s of a battery simulation system , battery data acquisition module , capacity difference acquisition module , surge set acquisition module , and degree of battery degradation identification module . The limitation of battery simulation system is recited so generically that it represents no more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of battery simulation and the modules are generic computer components performing generic computer functions recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP 2106.05(f). This element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Further, the claim recites the additional claim elements of acquiring battery data related to a current cycle count, wherein the battery data comprise battery capacities and battery voltages; acquiring, based on the battery capacities and the battery voltages, capacity differences corresponding to the battery voltages; acquiring, based on the battery voltages and the capacity differences, a surge set of the capacity differences and a voltage set corresponding to the surge set . The additional claim elements are recited at a high level of generality and without imposing any other meaningful limits on the claim. The limitations amounts to mere data gathering and outputting. T herefore, this additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional claim elements amount to no more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment and/or generic computer components performing generic computer functions recited at a high level of generality and/or insignificant extra-solution activity . Additionally, the additional claim elements of acquiring are generically recited without adding meaningful limitations such that they amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network. As such, it amounts to well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The claim limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 1 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art to Huawei Tech Co in CN 106324508A teaches detecting the health state of a battery comprising calculating the state of charge value to obtain the battery capacity difference indicating the current battery holding capacity and the battery capacity difference indicating the future battery holding capacity. However, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious identifying the degree of the battery degradation based on the surge set and the voltage set, and obtaining an identification result related to the current cycle count , in combination with all other limitations as claimed by Applicant. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Nakao in U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0015475 teaches “ A balance correcting apparatus includes: an inductor; a first switching device; a second switching device; a control signal generating unit that has a first reference voltage input terminal electrically connected to the other end of the first electricity storage cell and a second reference voltage input terminal electrically connected to the other end of the second electricity storage cell, and allows the first switching device and the second switching device to perform an ON-OFF operation alternately; and a voltage stabilizing circuit that keeps a voltage difference between the voltages of the first reference voltage input terminal and the second reference voltage input terminal to be within a predetermined range ” (Abstract). Tien et al. in U.S. Patent Publication 2008 / 0272736 teaches “ Therefore, developing a smart battery management system for providing optimal charging method, judging health status of each battery, balancing capacities among batteries, isolating failed battery, and providing information on use status of the battery is an important way to upgrade life cycle of the lead-acid battery ” ([0006]). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MISCHITA HENSON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3944 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday 9am-6pm EST . 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 Arleen Vazquez can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-2619 . 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. /MI'SCHITA' HENSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857