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
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the elements (e.g., each module, each clause under “wherein”) should be separated by a line indentation. See MPEP 608.01(m) and 37 CFR 1.75(i) (“Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation”).
In claim 2, line 7, “the loss of lithium” should be --a loss of lithium-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 4, line 8, “the total carbon emission” should be --a total carbon emission-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
The other claim(s) not discussed above, or depending on the above claim(s), are objected to for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, it recites “the accounting process” in lines 13-14. There is no antecedent basis for the limitation. For examination purpose, --the accounting system-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 3, “N” needs to be defined in the claim. For examination purpose, --N being an integer greater than 1-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 9, it recites “the energy lost during the sintering process” in line 8. There is no antecedent basis for the limitation. The closest antecedent bases are: “an energy loss during the sintering process of the lithium battery cathode material” of claim 1, line 7; and “an energy loss during the sintering process” of claim 8, lines 4-5. Because there are two possible antecedent bases, it is unclear which is referred to.
For examination purpose, “an energy loss during the sintering process” of claim 8, lines 4-5 is assumed to be --the energy loss during the sintering process”--; and “the energy lost during the sintering process” of claim 9, line 8 is assumed to be --“the energy loss during the sintering process--.
The other claim(s) not discussed above, or depending on the above claim(s), are rejected for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
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.
MPEP 2106 outlines a two-part analysis for Subject Matter Eligibility as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
Step 2, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. If the claim does not recite a judicial exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), then the claim cannot be directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO), and thus the claim is eligible at Pathway B without further analysis. Abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B.
Claims 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes.
Step 2A: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions)? Yes (see analysis below).
Prong one: Whether the claim recites a judicial exception? (Yes). The claim recites:
1. A carbon emission accounting system for sintering of a lithium battery cathode material, comprising:
a material balance module,
an energy balance module,
a carbon emission accounting module,
a data module, and
a knowledge module,
wherein
the material balance module is used to read a first formula from the knowledge module and a first data from the data module to account loss of lithium element during the sintering process of the lithium battery cathode material;
the energy balance module is used to read a second formula from the knowledge module and a second data from the data module to account an energy loss during the sintering process of the lithium battery cathode material;
the carbon emission accounting module is used to read a third formula from the knowledge module, and a third data, the loss of lithium element and the energy loss from the data module to account carbon emission during the sintering process of the lithium battery cathode material;
the data module is used to store the first data, the second data, the third data and an intermediate data generated in the accounting system; and
the knowledge module is used to store the first formula, the second formula, the third formula and parameter values in the accounting process.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea because it recites the limitations as bold-faced above. These limitations are directed to mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (or with a pen and paper).
Prong two: Whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception? (No). The claim recites additional elements as underlined in the claim above. However, these are recited at a high level of generality to collect or store the data for the abstract idea, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The respective module for reading or storing are to invoke a generic computer or computer components for the conventional computer functionalities to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements (other than the judicial exception) that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No (see analysis below).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two above, the additional element(s) in the claim are an insignificant extra-solution activity, to invoke a generic computer for its computing power to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. Also, it is routine and conventional to invoke a computer for data processing. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Considered as a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-10 when analyzed as a whole respectively are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they either extend (or add more details to) the abstract idea or the additional recited limitation(s) (if any) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as discussed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that sufficiently integrates the abstract idea into a practical application of, or makes the claims significantly more than, the judicial exception (abstract idea). The additional element(s) (if any) are mere instructions to apply an except, field of use, and/or insignificant extra-solution activities (applied to Step 2A_Prong Two and Step 2B; see MPEP 2016.05(f)-(h)) and/or well-understood, routine, or conventional (applied to Step 2B; see MPEP 2106.05(d)) to facilitate the application of the abstract idea.
Notes
Claim 1 distinguishes over the closest prior art of record as discussed below.
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art of record fails to teach the feature: “wherein the material balance module is used to read a first formula from the knowledge module and a first data from the data module to account loss of lithium element during the sintering process of the lithium battery cathode material; the energy balance module is used to read a second formula from the knowledge module and a second data from the data module to account an energy loss during the sintering process of the lithium battery cathode material; the carbon emission accounting module is used to read a third formula from the knowledge module, and a third data, the loss of lithium element and the energy loss from the data module to account carbon emission during the sintering process of the lithium battery cathode material; the data module is used to store the first data, the second data, the third data and an intermediate data generated in the accounting system; and the knowledge module is used to store the first formula, the second formula, the third formula and parameter values in the accounting process,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Wang et al. ("Carbon footprint analysis of lithium ion secondary battery industry: two case studies from China" Journal of Cleaner Production 163 (2017) 241-251) teaches a method of carbon foot analysis of lithium-ion battery industry. The analysis is for the “industry” and no discussion of accounting carbon emission during sintering of a lithium battery.
Emilsson et al. (" Lithium-Ion Vehicle Battery Production; Status 2019 on Energy Use, CO2 Emissions, Use of Metals, Products Environmental Footprint, and Recycling" IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute 2019) presents a report of Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) of lithium-ion batteries used in light-duty vehicles. However, it does not teach the particular method of accounting carbon emission during sintering of the cathode of a lithium battery as claimed.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Issaev et al. (US 20070089289 A1) teaches a method of making a battery, involving heating at least one cathode including a cathode material in an atmosphere including oxygen, heating the cathode in a vacuum, adding the cathode into a housing, adding a separator into the housing, and adding an anode into the housing.
YEON et al. (CN 104081562 A) teaches a method for manufacturing a cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C KUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7066. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/JOHN C KUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights