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
Current application, US Application No. 18/824,089 filed on filed on 09/04/2024, is a Continuation of PCT/CN2022/124531, filed on 10/11/2022.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the application filed on 09/04/2024. Claims 1-3 and 5-15 are currently pending. Claims 4 and 16-20 are canceled per applicant’s request.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As per claim 10, the limitation “the predetermined position of the battery is inside a battery cell” lacks the description support from the specification. No description can be found regarding how to measure the pressure inside the battery. Specification recites the same phrases in numerous locations (see specification – Optionally, the predetermined position of the battery is inside a battery cell. In these embodiments, the position where the pressure data of the battery is measured is provided inside the battery cell [0038-0039], a pressure sensor may be arranged at the predetermined position of the battery, and the actually measured pressure data of the predetermined position may be obtained accordingly. The predetermined position may be inside/outside the cell of the battery [0073, 00121, 00135]), but fails to describe how to measure the pressure inside the battery.
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.
Claims 5-6 and 8-9 are 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 regards as the invention. As per claim 5, claim depends on the canceled claim 4. For the purpose of examination, claim is interpreted as depending on claim 1.
As per claim 6, claim is also rejected because base claim 5 is rejected.
As per claim 8, the limitations “establishing a data matrix of the pressure data” and “the data matrix reflects a correspondence relationship between the predetermined condition and the pressure data” are ambiguous because pressure data matrix requires two variables, e.g. two condition parameters that have ranges, to make pressure data to be in the matrix format. The specification recites “a data matrix of the pressure data” in numerous locations (see specification – [0031-0032, 0034, 00113, 00115-00116, 00117, 00119-00120, 00133-00134]).
Although par. [00117] recites “so that the data matrix of the pressure data related to the predetermined amount of the lithium precipitation under the predetermined temperature and the predetermined electricity amount may be obtained”, hinting that the matrix variables can be temperature and electric charge amount, but the claim fails to include them. For the sake of examination, the limitation “the data matrix reflects a correspondence relationship between the predetermined conditions, which comprise temperature and electricity amount, and the pressure data”.
As per claim 9, claim is also rejected because base claim 8 is rejected.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC 112(f)
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.
The claims 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) 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) 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.
The current application includes limitations in claim 11 that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because of the following reasons:
Claim 11 includes a limitation/element that use generic placeholders, modules, that are coupled with functional language, configured to “acquire”, “detect” or “compare” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The physical structure of the “acquisition module” is interpreted as a subcomponent of a general computer (see specification –acquisition module 510 [00124-00125, Fig. 5], communication interface 603 [00136-00143, Fig. 6]).
The physical structure of the “detection module” is interpreted as a subcomponent of a general computer (see specification – detection module 520 [00124-00126, Fig. 5], processor, memory [00136-00143, Fig. 6]).
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 1-3 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. 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 method for detecting lithium precipitation of a battery, (1.A) comprising:
acquiring pressure data of a predetermined position of the battery; (1.B)
and detecting lithium precipitation of the battery according to the pressure data and reference pressure data,(1.C.1) wherein the pressure data comprises actually measured pressure data of the battery, and the reference pressure data comprises pressure data related to a predetermined amount of lithium precipitation of the battery under a predetermined conditions, (1.C.2)
wherein the detecting lithium precipitation of the battery according to the pressure data and the reference pressure data comprises:
comparing the pressure data to the reference pressure data;
and detecting an amount of lithium precipitation of the battery based on a difference between the pressure data and the reference pressure data (1.C.3)”.
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 - Method).
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 exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, 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, highlighted limitations/steps (1.C.1)-(1.C.3) are treated by the Examiner as belonging to Mathematical Concept grouping or a combination of Mathematical Concept and Mental Processing groupings as the limitations include Mathematical calculation or show Mathematical Relationship with optional Mental observation.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements: (Side Note: duplicated elements are not repeated)
In Claim 1: “A method for detecting lithium precipitation of a battery” and “acquiring pressure data of a predetermined position of the battery”;
In Claim 9: “collecting pressure data of a second test battery”;
In Claim 11: “A system for detecting lithium precipitation of a battery”, “an acquisition module” and “a detection module”;
In Claim 12: “An apparatus”, “a processor, a memory and programs or instructions stored on the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the programs or the instructions, when executed by the processor, implement steps of the method”;
In Claim 14: “A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon, which when executed by a processor, implement steps of the method”;
In Claim 15: “A computer program product executable by a processor to implement steps of the method for detecting lithium precipitation of the battery”;
As per claim 1, the additional element in the preamble “A method for detecting lithium precipitation of a battery” is not a meaningful limitation because the limitation simply links an method with an abstract idea, i.e. detecting lithium precipitation of a battery. The limitation “acquiring pressure data of a predetermined position of the battery” represents a standard data collection step in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution to the judicial exception.
As per claim 9, the limitation “collecting pressure data of a second test battery” represents a standard data collection step in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution to the judicial exception.
As per claim 11, the additional element in the preamble “A system for detecting lithium precipitation of a battery” is not a meaningful limitation because the limitation simply links a system with an abstract idea, i.e. detecting lithium precipitation of a battery. The limitations/elements “an acquisition module” and “a detection module” represent a general computer subcomponents and they are not particular in the art.
As per claim 12, the additional element in the preamble “An apparatus for detecting lithium precipitation of a battery” is not a meaningful limitation because the limitation simply links an apparatus with an abstract idea, i.e. detecting lithium precipitation of a battery. The limitations/elements “comprising a processor, a memory and programs or instructions stored on the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the programs or the instructions, when executed by the processor, implement steps of the method” represent a general computer subcomponents and they are not particular in the art.
As per claim 14, the additional element in the preamble “A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon, which when executed by a processor, implement steps of the method for detecting lithium precipitation of the battery” is not a meaningful limitation because the limitation simply links the storage medium with an abstract idea, i.e. method of detecting lithium precipitation of a battery.
As per claim 15, the additional element in the preamble “A computer program product executable by a processor to implement steps of the method for detecting lithium precipitation of the battery” is not a meaningful limitation because the limitation simply links the program product with an abstract idea, i.e. method of detecting lithium precipitation of a battery.
In conclusion, the above additional elements considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements as a whole do not reflect an improvement to the computer technology or other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. No particular machine or real-world transformation are claimed. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Under Step 2B analysis, the above claims fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as shown in the prior art of record.
The limitations/elements listed as additional elements above are well understood, routine and conventional steps/elements in the art according to the prior art of record. (See Wang, Mitsui, Watabe, Liu and others in the list of prior art of record)
Claims 1-3 and 5-15, therefore, are not patent eligible.
Claim 15 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the computer program product does not have a physical or tangible form (see MPEP 2106.03 I program per se, software per se).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 11 recite subject matter which is allowable over the prior art, and would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome current objections and rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As per claims 1 and 11, the closest prior art of record, Wang (CN 112363063 A), Mitsui (JP 2013020826 A) and Gong (Gong, Wenjun, and et al. "Life prediction of lithium ion batteries for electric vehicles based on gas production behavior model." In 2017 International Conference on Sensing, Diagnostics, Prognostics, and Control (SDPC), pp. 275-280. IEEE, 2017), either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious limitation “detecting an amount of lithium precipitation of the battery based on a difference between the pressure data and the reference pressure data “ in combination with other limitations.
As per claim 1, Wang discloses
A method for detecting lithium precipitation of a battery, (a method for … detecting … lithium ion battery lithium precipitation [abs]) comprising:
acquiring pressure data of a predetermined position of the battery; (pressure sensing, measuring pressure data [abs])
and detecting lithium precipitation of the battery according to the pressure data and reference pressure data, wherein the pressure data comprises actually measured pressure data of the battery, and the reference pressure data comprises pressure data related to a predetermined amount of lithium precipitation of the battery under a predetermined conditions (if the measured pressure is greater than the open-circuit pressure, implying a reference pressure, then determining the occurrence of lithium precipitation reaction [pg. 4 line 33-34, pg. 6 line 21-22, claim 7])
However, Wang is silent regarding the above allowable limitations.
Mitsui discloses comparing the pressure data to the reference pressure data; (compare ‘S102’… pressure value … is larger than the reference … pressure value [pg. 4 line 22-24, Fig. 5, pg. 5 line 16-24])
and detecting states of lithium precipitation of the battery based on a difference between the pressure data and the reference pressure data. (pressure distribution, local … pressure increase, cell is deteriorated due to charge/discharge of high rate current ‘S106’ [pg. 4 line 36-39, Fig. 4-5], global … pressure increase, lithium is deposited in the … battery ‘S108’ [pg. 4 line 40-43]), but is not explicit on the above limitations.
Gong discloses pressure increasing affecting the battery package life, which can be treated as lithium ion battery deterioration (the gas evolution process induces the
insider gas pressure increasing, once upon the limitation of the package, for the reason of safety, the vent on the shell will blast instantly to avoid potential fire accidents. Thus, the cycling life of battery can be determined by the minimum value between the package life and cell life [pg. 276 right col par. 2]), but is silent regarding the above allowable limitation.
As per claims 2-3 and 5-25, claims would be allowable because base and representative claim 1 would be allowable.
Notes with regard to Prior Art
The prior arts made of record are provided as additional references relevant to the current claims.
Masuda (US 20210270908 A1), Watabe (CN 111624497 A) and Liu (CN 109164390 A) are relevant as EPO and PCT reported in their office action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS KAY, whose telephone number is (408) 918-7569. The examiner can normally be reached on M, Th & F 8-5, T 2-7, and W 8-1.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached on 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/DOUGLAS KAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857