DETAILED ACTION
Status
This communication is in response to Applicant’s “AMENDMENT AND RESPONSE TO NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION” filed on March 27, 2026 (hereinafter “Amendment”). In the Amendment, Applicant amended Claims 1, 11 and 14-16; cancelled Claim 13; and added no claim(s). Therefore, Claims 1-12 and 14-17 are currently pending and presented for examination. Of the pending claims, Claims 1, 14 and 16 are in independent claim form.
The present application is U.S. national stage application (35 U.S.C. § 371 application) filed on August 27, 2024 and with U.S. Patent Application No. 18/841,705. The present application corresponds international application number PCT/EP2023/056892 filed on 3/17/2023 (“Parent Application”); and to 7× foreign European Applications filed in 2022, all of which were filed after March 16, 2013, and, therefore, the present application (i.e., App. No. 18/841,705) is being examined under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
Original Claims 1-17 were originally presented by Applicant and, therefore, have been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits per MPEP § 819 and MPEP § 821.03.
Examiner notes 37 CFR 1.57(c), “ ‘Essential material’ may be incorporated by reference, but only by way of an incorporation by reference to a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication, which patent or patent application publication does not itself incorporate such essential material by reference” (emphasis added). See 37 CFR 1.57(c).
Examiner notes that this case (i.e., U.S. App. No. 18/841,705) has published as U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0182066 of HAARDT et al. (hereinafter “Haardt”).
Priority/Benefit Claim
No U.S. domestic benefit claim has been made in this application.
Foreign priority has been claimed in this application to PCT application PCT/EP2023/056892 filed on 3/17/2023 (“Parent Application”), which claims priority to seven (7) European Applications filed in 2022.
CPC Classification Notes
Examiner notes the following CPC classifications as being related to this case:
Y02W CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES RELATED TO…WASTE MANAGEMENT
Y02W 30/00 Technologies for solid waste management
Y02W 30/50 •Reuse, recycling or recovery technologies
Y02W 30/84 ••Recycling of batteries or fuel cells
_________________________________________________________________________
G06Q 10/00 Administration; Management
G06Q 10/08 •Logistics, e.g. warehousing, loading or distribution;
G06Q 10/087 ••Inventory or stock management, e.g. order filling, procurement or…
G06Q 10/0875 ••• Itemization or classification of parts, supplies or services,…
G06Q 10/0877 ••• by inventory control or reporting using inventory tracking…
_________________________________________________________________________
G06Q 10/00 Administration; Management
G06Q 10/08 • Logistics, e.g. warehousing, loading or distribution; Inventory or stock management
G06Q 10/083 •• Shipping
G06Q 10/0833 ••• Tracking
_________________________________________________________________________
G06Q 10/00 Administration; Management
G06Q 10/30 •Administration of product recycling or disposal
_________________________________________________________________________
Y02P 90/84 •• Greenhouse gas [GHG] management systems
Y02P 90/845 ••• Inventory and reporting systems for greenhouse gases [GHG]
Y02P 90/90 • Financial instruments for climate change mitigation, e.g. environmental taxes, subsidies or…
Y02P 90/95 •• CO2 emission certificates or credits trading
_________________________________________________________________________
Y10T 29/49108 . . . Electric battery cell making
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
Examiner notes Applicant has other U.S. patent applications that are pending and related to this case and have been examined.
Applicant is notified of MPEP § 2001.06(b): “prior art references from one application must be made of record in another subsequent application if such prior art references are ‘material to patentability’ of the subsequent application”.
Examiner requests that Applicant submit an IDS listing prior art references that have been cited in patent applications related to this case.
Examiner Notes
In App. No. 18/848,457, Examiner notes that reference numerals “188” and “189” of Applicant’s drawings were not found in Applicant’s specification; Fig. 3C reference numeral “112” was not found in the specification; Fig. 3D “322” was not mentioned in the specification; and Fig. 14 reference numerals “1412” and “1414” were not found in the specification.
Response to Amendments
A Summary of the Response to Applicant’s Amendment:
Applicant’s Amendment overcomes the rejections to Claims 1-13 and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); therefore, the Examiner withdraws the § 112(b) rejections to Claims 1-13 and 15-17. However, Applicant’s Amendment does not overcome the § 112(b) rejection to independent Claim 14; therefore, the Examiner maintains the § 112(b) rejection to independent Claim 14, as provided below.
Applicant’s Amendment overcomes the rejection to Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 101; therefore, the Examiner withdraws the § 101 rejection to Claim 13. However, Applicant’s Amendment does not overcome rejections to Claims 1-12 and 14-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 101; therefore, the Examiner asserts/maintains § 101 rejections to Claims 1-12 and 14-17, as provided below.
Applicant’s Amendment overcomes previous prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102; therefore, the Examiner withdraws the previous § 102 rejections. However, Applicant’s Amendment introduces new rejections to Claims 1-12 and 14-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103; therefore, the Examiner asserts § 103 rejections to Claims 1-12 and 14-17, as provided below.
Applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive; please see Examiner’s “Response to Arguments” provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the America Invents Act (AIA ):
(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.
Independent Claim 14 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA 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. “A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear” (MPEP § 2173.05(e)).
Regarding Claim 14, since it is unclear as to what the phrase “the recyclate feed” makes antecedent reference to in Claim 14, independent Claim 14 remains rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the recyclate feed” in the phrase “generate an operation instruction for control the recyclate feed based on the recyclate feed content of one or more recycled precursor(s) for production” (bolding emphasis added by Examiner). More specifically, it is unclear as to whether the phrase “the recyclate feed” in Claim 14’s phrase “the recyclate feed based on the recyclate feed content of one or more recycled precursor(s) for production”: references “a recyclate feed” that is not specifically/positively recited in the independent Claim 14, references “one or more recycled precursor(s)”, references “a recyclate feed content”, references some combination thereof, or should be amended to “a precursor feed” like as amended in Claim 1. Thus, independent Claim 14 is indefinite and, therefore, remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA . Appropriate correction(s) is required.
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 1-12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” (MPEP § 2111). In view of this standard and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 1-12 and 14-17 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 1: Claims 1-12 and 14-17 satisfy Step 1 enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Step 2A: Claims 1-12 and 14-17 are rejected under § 101 because Applicant’s claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this finding is that Applicant’s claims recite supply chain management (e.g., controlling supply of material, etc.) of input materials (“precursor feed” and/or “recycle feed”) based on corresponding environmental information {“recyclate feed content of… recycled precursor(s)” determined based on (i) “recycling data” associated with recycled precursor/material use (e.g., 30% must be recycled materials) as well as (ii) “operation data” associated with an operation property of a production/manufacturing plant} of the input materials supplied/used in a supply chain/production network, as more particularly recited in the pending claims save for recited (non-abstract claim elements): each of Applicant’s steps/processes of “providing”, “generating an operation instruction” and “producing… based on the operation instruction” as currently recited in Applicant’s pending claims; (only Claim 14) an apparatus comprising: one or more processing nodes; and one or more non-transitory machine-readable media having thereon machine-executable instructions that are structured and executable by the one or more processing nodes; and (only Claim 16) a non-transitory computer program element with instructions, which, when executed by computing devices of a computing environment, is configured. However, utilizing environmental information {“recyclate feed content of…recycled precursor(s)” determined based on (i) “recycling data” associated with recycled precursor/material use as well as (ii) “operation data” associated with an operation property of a production/manufacturing plant} to manage (e.g., to control) input materials (“precursor feed” or “recycle feed”) used in a supply chain/production network such as, for example, so that “it can be ensured that the output product adheres to emission and performance requirements” or “fulfills the required chemical performance” via “regulatory requirements” (Haardt at ¶¶ [0050], [0244] and [0235]) and “This way a reliable and environmentally friendly management of material resources… can be achieved, which is particularly advantageous in the distributed system…” (Haardt at ¶ [0230])), as currently recited in Applicant’s pending claims and further explained below, is within a certain method of organizing human activity — (i) fundamental economic principle or practice; and/or (ii) commercial interaction (including sales activities or behaviors; business relations). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) provides examples of “fundamental economic principles or practices” and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) provides additional discussion and examples of commercial or legal interactions. This judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea exception) is not integrated into a practical application because each claim as a whole, having the combination of additional elements beyond the judicial exception(s), does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception and, therefore, the pending claims are “directed to” a judicial exception under USPTO Step 2A. More specifically, each claim as a whole does not appear to reflect the combination of additional elements as: (1) improving the functioning of a computer itself or improving another technology or technical field, (2) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine/manufacture that is integral to the claim, (3) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (4) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Instead, any improvement is to the underlying abstract idea of supply chain management (“control”) of input materials (“precursor feed” or “recycle feed” used for manufacturing/production) based on environmental information {“recyclate feed content of…recycled precursor(s)” determined based on (i) “recycling data” and (ii) “operation data”}, such that “it can be ensured that the output product adheres to emission and performance requirements” or “fulfills the required chemical performance” via “regulatory requirements” (Haardt at ¶¶ [0050], [0244] and [0235]) and “a… management of material resources… achieved…” (Haardt at ¶ [0230]). SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12590, Slip. Op. 13 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2018) (“What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract realm.”). Although the claims require “determining…a recyclate feed content” based on “recycling data and…operation data”, this technique encompasses a mental process and/or a mathematical concept in the form of formulas, equations, and calculations which also have been determined to constitute abstract ideas. See Memorandum, "Grouping of Abstract Ideas" and cases cited in footnote 12, such as enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (84 Fed. Reg. 50). As noted on page 4 of the “October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” issued by the USPTO, Examiner notes that a claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number (e.g., “content” as recited in Claims 1 and 14) using mathematical methods may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim, in light of the specification, encompasses one or more mathematical calculations. See Applicant’s published specification at ¶ [0103] explaining that “[t]he term ‘processor’ may refer to an arbitrary logic circuitry configured to perform basic operations of a computer or system…or… a device which is configured for performing calculations or logic operations” (Haardt at ¶ [0103] with bolding emphasis added). Applicant’s additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not appear to be integrated into a practical application since they embody mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or mere use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, do no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., See Figures 3a, 3b and 3c of Applicant’s drawings as well as “FIGS. 3a to 3c illustrate different computing environments” per Haardt at ¶¶ [0099]–[0100] of Applicant’s published disclosure with bolding emphasis added; and Haardt at ¶ [0053] notes that Applicant’s “plant as used herein may be understood broadly and may include any plant producing batteries, battery components, battery materials or electrode active materials” with bolding emphasis added}, and amount to no more than combining the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s operations/processes of “providing” (pre-solution activities), “generating an operation instruction” and “producing… based on the operation instruction” (post-solution activities), as recited in Applicant’s pending claims, as further explained below. In addition, Examiner notes that “generating an operation instruction for controlling…for the production” and “producing… based on the operation instruction” does not explicitly require any specific physical outcome because the pending claims recite only the idea of an outcome (i.e., “production of at least one component of a battery” as recited in the preamble of Claim 1) and Applicant’s pending claims do not recite any particular use of an “operation instruction” other than simply reciting that the “producing” (e.g., by “at least one production plant”, etc.) is based on the “operation instruction” — “production plant may be operated based on such operation instructions” per Haardt at ¶ [0240] — without specifying how a solution to a problem is actually accomplished (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The “at least one production plant” and battery component to be produced, as currently recited, is merely a technological environment in which the method could operate (MPEP § 2106.05 (h)) and merely reciting “producing… based on the operation instruction” can be viewed as nothing more than insignificant post-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05 (g)) given the high level at which the “generating an operation instruction for controlling…for the production” and “producing… based on the operation instruction” are currently claimed. Therefore no practical application of the abstract idea is present in the pending claims. For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) analysis of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2B: Under Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), Applicant’s instant claims do not recite limitations, taken individually and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea because Applicant’s claims do not recite, as further explained in detail below, an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, an application with or by a particular machine, a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, unconventional steps confining the claim to a particular useful application, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Examiner notes that each of Claims 1-12, 15 and 17 is drawn to a method; however, the method steps do not recite, require, or indicate implementation by a particular machine since none of limitations recited in Applicant’s method claims are performed by any computer, processing device or production plant since recited use of a computing device encompasses a situation where the computing device does no more than assist/help a person perform such steps/processes or thoughts when the person is using the computing device (e.g., to perform “producing the at least one component of the battery” such as via command/instruction by the person). Even if a computer/machine was implied in Claims 1-12, 15 and 17, Applicant’s claim limitations taken individually and in combination would be merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and would require no more than generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., Applicant’s “FIGS. 3a to 3c illustrate different computing environments” per Haardt at ¶¶ [0099]–[0100] with bolding emphasis added by Examiner; and Haardt at ¶ [0053] notes that Applicant’s “plant as used herein may be understood broadly and may include any plant producing batteries, battery components, battery materials or electrode active materials” with bolding emphasis added), and having the abstract idea combined with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of “providing” (pre-solution activities), “generating an operation instruction” and “producing… based on the operation instruction” (post-solution activities), as further explained below. Examiner also notes that albeit limitations recited in Claim 14 are performed by the generically recited “one or more processing nodes” (Claim 14) while limitations recited in Claim 16 are performed by generically recited “computing devices of a computing environment” (Claim 16), these claim limitations taken individually and in combination are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., Applicant’s “FIGS. 3a to 3c illustrate different computing environments” per Haardt at ¶¶ [0099]–[0100] with bolding emphasis added by Examiner; and Haardt at ¶ [0053] notes that Applicant’s “plant as used herein may be understood broadly and may include any plant producing batteries, battery components, battery materials or electrode active materials” with bolding emphasis added}, and no more than a combination of the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of “providing”, “generating an operation instruction” and “producing… based on the operation instruction”, as further explained below. As mentioned above, the claim elements in addition to the abstract idea arguably include: each of Applicant’s steps/processes of “providing”, “generating an operation instruction” and “producing… based on the operation instruction” as currently recited in Applicant’s pending claims; (only Claim 14) an apparatus comprising: one or more processing nodes; and one or more non-transitory machine-readable media having thereon machine-executable instructions that are structured and executable by the one or more processing nodes; and (only Claim 16) a non-transitory computer program element with instructions, which, when executed by computing devices of a computing environment, is configured. However, each of these components is recited at a high level of generality that taken individually and in combination perform corresponding generic computer functions of “providing” and “generating an operation instruction” and a generic production plant function of “producing… based on … operation instruction” {see Applicant’s “plant as used herein… understood broadly and may include any plant producing … battery components…” per Haardt at ¶ [0053]} — there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology since the additional elements taken individually and collectively merely provide generic implementations known to the industry. Furthermore, Examiner notes that none of the processes/steps recited in the pending claims taken individually and in combination impose a meaningful limit on the claim’s scope since none of recited processes/steps taken individually and in combination involve activity that amounts to more than generic computer functions/activity. The steps/processes of “providing”, “generating an operation instruction” and “producing… based on the operation instruction”, as currently recited individually and in combination in Applicant’s claims, are considered to be generic functions since they involve having the abstract idea combined with insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use previously known to the industry — each of the steps of “providing”, “generating an operation instruction” and “producing… based on the operation instruction” encompasses a data output/transmittal function or command function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716‐17; see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and see Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2014)}. In addition, Examiner notes that Applicant’s disclosure mentions that “FIGS. 3a to 3c illustrate different computing environments” per Haardt at ¶¶ [0099]–[0100] and, Haardt at ¶ [0105] mentions that “The computing nodes 101, 101.1 . . . 101.n may include multiple structures 106 often referred to as an ‘executable component, executable instructions, computer-executable instructions or instructions’…. The term “executable component” or any equivalent thereof may be the name for a structure that is well understood to one of ordinary skill in the art in the field of computing as being a structure that can be software, hardware, or a combination thereof or which can be implemented in software, hardware, or a combination” (Haardt at ¶ [0105] with bolding emphases added by Examiner). Also see the “July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” document, at page 7, second and sixth bullet points (July 30, 2015) regarding various well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer. Examiner notes that it may be worth being mindful that employing well-known computer functions individually and in combination to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the computer-implemented abstract idea in Flook (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 19 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1978)) to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims do not satisfy Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Consequently, based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 1-12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. For information regarding 35 U.S.C. 101, please see Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instructional materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes guidance, memoranda, and updates regarding SME under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 (AIA ) 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the AIA as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0224158 ECKART et al. (hereinafter “Eckart”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0391606 of Wang et al. (hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding Claim 1, Eckart discloses a computer-implemented method for production of at least one component of a battery, the method comprising:
providing recycling data associated with a use of one or more recycled precursor(s) in the production of the at least one component of the battery (e.g., “manufacturers…of the battery 104… update data associated with…the production of the battery, carbon footprint data…associated with the production…of the battery 104, physical specifications of the battery 104 (e.g., electrical/chemical composition…)…”, “composition of the battery 104 … includes a lithium-ion battery energy source” and “battery…components may be repurposed or recycled” —Eckart at ¶¶ [0050], [0054] and [0029]; “recycle batteries and their components” —Eckart at ¶ [0040]; “process and securely communicate the battery passport 102” and “battery passport 102 …analyzed by value chain stakeholders to determine if the battery 104 is … produced… in an environmentally sustainable manner (e.g., with a low carbon footprint)…and in an operational sustainable manner (e.g., the battery…components may be repurposed or recycled)…. battery related data included within the battery passport 102 may enable value chain stakeholders to have confidence in…. accountability with respect to the raw materials mining, materials purchase, production, … recycling and…reconditioning of the battery 104 and… components of the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶¶ [0026] and [0029]; “data store 208 …to store a battery profile 210 of the battery 104. The battery profile 210 … to store data pertaining to the identification of the battery 104…. the battery profile 210… store … codes that pertain to the chemical composition of the battery 104…. the chemical composition of the battery 104 … includes a lithium-ion battery energy source”, “energy storage configurations …may include… Lithium Ion (Li-Ion)” and “physical specifications of the battery 104 (e.g., …chemical composition, cell and pack level of the battery 104)…and… components of the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶¶ [0054], [0032] and [0050]; and “battery passport application 108… to assign sustainability scoring data values to each of the particular battery related data characteristics that pertain to the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0040]); and
providing operation data associated with at least one operation property of at least one production plant (e.g., “value chain stakeholders such as…manufacturers…of the battery 104… update data associated with…the production of the battery, carbon footprint data…associated with the production…, physical specifications of the battery 104 (e.g., electrical/chemical composition…)… and the like” —Eckart at ¶ [0050]; “manufacturers…. associated with the…production….of the battery 104,…. value chain stakeholders… provide and update respective battery related data…” such as “supply chain stakeholder identification (e.g., manufacturers… component manufacturers…” —Eckart at ¶ [0049] and [0051]; “materials reconditioning/recycling… services… involved with the repurposing, recycling…of the battery 104 and/or one or more components of the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0051]; “data pertaining to the identification of the battery 104…include… a manufacturer of the battery 104, a model of the battery 104, an identification code (e.g. alpha-numeric code) associated with the battery 104…. the battery profile 210 … store data… that pertain to the chemical composition of the battery 104…. that includes a lithium-ion battery energy source” —Eckart at ¶ [0054]; and “passport processing module 308 may update the battery passport 102 with a manufacturer of the battery 104, a model of the battery 104, an identification code (e.g. alpha-numeric code) associated with the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0070]), but Eckart arguably fails to explicitly disclose all of: determining, based on the recycling data and the operation data, a recyclate feed content of the one or more recycled precursor(s); generating an operation instruction for controlling a precursor/recyclate feed based on the recyclate feed content of the one or more recycled precursor(s) for the production; and producing the component based on the operation instruction. However, Wang teaches determining, based on recycling data and operation data, a recyclate feed content of one or more recycled precursor(s) (e.g., “recycling of lithium ion batteries …for battery manufacturers by providing an … supply of… material for new batteries” —Wang at ¶ [0008]; “Recycling of the charge material in the lithium batteries… yields active charge material for new batteries” and “Exhausted [lithium-ion batteries] (LIBs) … extracting the useful elements Co (cobalt), Ni (nickel), Mn (manganese), and Li (lithium)… and utilizing the recycled elements to produce active materials for new batteries” —Wang at ¶¶ [0007] and [0005]; and Wang at ¶¶ [0005]–[0007], [0012]–[0014], [0030], [0042], [0050], [0059], [0061], [0071] and [0076]); generating an operation instruction for controlling a precursor/recyclate feed based on the recyclate feed content of the one or more recycled precursor(s) for production of at least one component of a battery (e.g., Wang at ¶¶ [0005]–[0008], [0012]–[0014], [0030], [0042], [0050], [0059], [0061], [0071] and [0076]); and producing the battery component based on the operation instruction (e.g., “utilizing the recycled elements to produce active materials for new batteries” —Wang at ¶ [0005]; and Wang at ¶¶ [0005]–[0008], [0012]–[0014], [0030], [0042], [0050], [0059], [0061], [0071] and [0076]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate determining, based on the recycling data and the operation data, a recyclate feed content of the one or more recycled precursor(s); generating an operation instruction for controlling a precursor/recyclate feed based on the recyclate feed content of the one or more recycled precursor(s) for the production; and producing the component based on the operation instruction, as taught by Wang, into the method/system disclosed by Eckart, which is directed toward value chain stakeholders operating computer systems to recycle and repurpose battery materials/components as well as to produce new battery components according to physical specifications specified for a battery, such as electrical/chemical composition (e.g., Eckart at ¶¶ [0048]–[0051] and [0077]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckart in view of Wang as applied to Claim 1 above and Eckart teaching wherein the recycling data includes a recyclate amount of one or more precursor(s), a recyclate quota for the one or more precursor(s) and/or a total recyclate feed content for the at least one component of the battery (e.g., “scoring data values to each of the particular battery related data characteristics” —Eckart at ¶ [0040]; “update data associated with raw material mining of the battery 104… and… the production of the battery, carbon footprint data that may be associated with the production… of the battery 104, physical specifications of the battery 104 (e.g., …chemical composition…), a chain of custody of the battery 104 and… components of the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0050]; “assign a sustainability value (e.g., 1-3 value) to each of the sustainability categorizations that have been assigned to each of the particular battery related data characteristics. The battery passport application 108 may be configured to further aggregate the sustainability values that are assigned to each of the sustainability categorizations to output a level of sustainability associated with the battery 104 (e.g., an overall sustainability level) that pertains to the environmental impact… associated with raw materials mining… recycling and/or reconditioning of the battery 104 and/or the components of the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0043]; and Eckart at ¶¶ [0026], [0032], [0044], [0051], [0054], [0070], [0077] and [0079]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckart in view of Wang as applied to Claim 1 above and Eckart teaching providing target performance parameter(s) associated with a chemical performance of the component to be produced (e.g., “performance tracking … across the value chain towards goals set by a 'policy consortium’ (e.g. reduce total GHG footprint of the value chain by 50% by 2030)” —Eckart at ¶ [0007] with GHG referring to greenhouse gas; and “carbon footprint data … associated with the production…of the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0050] and [0062]; “update data associated with raw material mining of the battery 104… and… the production of the battery, carbon footprint data that may be associated with the production… of the battery 104, physical specifications of the battery 104 (e.g., …chemical composition…), a chain of custody of the battery 104 and… components of the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0050]; “update data to the value chain computing infrastructure 110 that … pertain to… import/export compliance information, supply chain stakeholder identification (e.g., manufacturers, shipping companies, exporters, importers, ports of call, component manufacturers, battery sellers, vehicle manufacturers, vehicle/battery owners, etc.), and… materials reconditioning/recycling/disposal services… involved with the repurposing, recycling, and…one or more components of the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0051]; “sustainability standards… set by… global policy consortiums to enable … value chain stakeholders that are involved in raw materials sourcing… repurposing…of the battery 104 and… its components to determine if the battery 104 is sustainable” and “environmentally sustainable manner (e.g., with a low carbon footprint)” —Eckart at ¶¶ [0028] and [0029]; “… battery 104 surpasses acceptable requirements associated with raw materials mining, materials purchase, production, … recycling and/or reconditioning of the battery 104 and/or the components of the battery 104. For example, the quality sea[l] may be utilized to indicate a high level of compliance with carbon emissions” —Eckart at ¶ [0077]; and “manufacturers …repurposing of batteries based on an evaluation of battery related data included within the battery passport” —Eckart at ¶ [0030]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckart in view of Wang as applied to Claim 1 above and Eckart teaching providing at least one emission target related to the use of one or more recycled precursor(s) in the production of the at least one component, wherein the recyclate feed content is determined based on the at least one emission target related to the use of the one or more recycled precursor(s) (e.g., “performance tracking … across the value chain towards goals set by a 'policy consortium’ (e.g. reduce total GHG footprint of the value chain by 50% by 2030)” —Eckart at ¶ [0007] with GHG referring to greenhouse gas; and “carbon footprint data … associated with the production…of the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0050] and [0062]; “update data associated with raw material mining of the battery 104… and… the production of the battery, carbon footprint data that may be associated with the production… of the battery 104, physical specifications of the battery 104 (e.g., …chemical composition…), a chain of custody of the battery 104 and… components of the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0050]; “update data to the value chain computing infrastructure 110 that … pertain to… import/export compliance information, supply chain stakeholder identification (e.g., manufacturers, shipping companies, exporters, importers, ports of call, component manufacturers, battery sellers, vehicle manufacturers, vehicle/battery owners, etc.), and… materials reconditioning/recycling/disposal services… involved with the repurposing, recycling, and…one or more components of the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0051]; “sustainability standards… set by… global policy consortiums to enable … value chain stakeholders that are involved in raw materials sourcing… repurposing…of the battery 104 and… its components to determine if the battery 104 is sustainable” and “environmentally sustainable manner (e.g., with a low carbon footprint)” —Eckart at ¶¶ [0028] and [0029]; “… battery 104 surpasses acceptable requirements associated with raw materials mining, materials purchase, production, … recycling and/or reconditioning of the battery 104 and/or the components of the battery 104. For example, the quality sea[l] may be utilized to indicate a high level of compliance with carbon emissions” —Eckart at ¶ [0077]; and “manufacturers …repurposing of batteries based on an evaluation of battery related data included within the battery passport” —Eckart at ¶ [0030]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckart in view of Wang as applied to Claim 1 above and Eckart teaching further comprising: providing a total emission target for producing the at least one component, wherein the recyclate feed content is determined based on the total emission target for producing the at least one component (e.g., “performance tracking … across the value chain towards goals set by a 'policy consortium’ (e.g. reduce total GHG footprint of the value chain by 50% by 2030)” —Eckart at ¶ [0007] with GHG referring to greenhouse gas; and “carbon footprint data … associated with the production…of the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0050] and [0062]; “update data associated with raw material mining of the battery 104… and… the production of the battery, carbon footprint data that may be associated with the production… of the battery 104, physical specifications of the battery 104 (e.g., …chemical composition…), a chain of custody of the battery 104 and… components of the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0050]; “update data to the value chain computing infrastructure 110 that … pertain to… import/export compliance information, supply chain stakeholder identification (e.g., manufacturers, shipping companies, exporters, importers, ports of call, component manufacturers, battery sellers, vehicle manufacturers, vehicle/battery owners, etc.), and… materials reconditioning/recycling/disposal services… involved with the repurposing, recycling, and…one or more components of the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0051]; “sustainability standards… set by… global policy consortiums to enable … value chain stakeholders that are involved in raw materials sourcing… repurposing…of the battery 104 and… its components to determine if the battery 104 is sustainable” and “environmentally sustainable manner (e.g., with a low carbon footprint)” —Eckart at ¶¶ [0028] and [0029]; “… battery 104 surpasses acceptable requirements associated with raw materials mining, materials purchase, production, … recycling and/or reconditioning of the battery 104 and/or the components of the battery 104. For example, the quality sea[l] may be utilized to indicate a high level of compliance with carbon emissions” —Eckart at ¶ [0077]; and “manufacturers …repurposing of batteries based on an evaluation of battery related data included within the battery passport” —Eckart at ¶ [0030]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckart in view of Wang as applied to Claim 5 above and Eckart teaching wherein the total emission target is related to the recyclate feed content and/or the at least one operation property of the production plant (e.g., “performance tracking … across the value chain towards goals set by a 'policy consortium’ (e.g. reduce total GHG footprint of the value chain by 50% by 2030)” —Eckart at ¶ [0007] with GHG referring to greenhouse gas; and “carbon footprint data … associated with the production…of the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0050] and [0062]; “update data associated with raw material mining of the battery 104… and… the production of the battery, carbon footprint data that may be associated with the production… of the battery 104, physical specifications of the battery 104 (e.g., …chemical composition…), a chain of custody of the battery 104 and… components of the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0050]; “update data to the value chain computing infrastructure 110 that … pertain to… import/export compliance information, supply chain stakeholder identification (e.g., manufacturers, shipping companies, exporters, importers, ports of call, component manufacturers, battery sellers, vehicle manufacturers, vehicle/battery owners, etc.), and… materials reconditioning/recycling/disposal services… involved with the repurposing, recycling, and…one or more components of the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0051]; “sustainability standards… set by… global policy consortiums to enable … value chain stakeholders that are involved in raw materials sourcing… repurposing…of the battery 104 and… its components to determine if the battery 104 is sustainable” and “environmentally sustainable manner (e.g., with a low carbon footprint)” —Eckart at ¶¶ [0028] and [0029]; “… battery 104 surpasses acceptable requirements associated with raw materials mining, materials purchase, production, … recycling and/or reconditioning of the battery 104 and/or the components of the battery 104. For example, the quality sea[l] may be utilized to indicate a high level of compliance with carbon emissions” —Eckart at ¶ [0077]; and “manufacturers …repurposing of batteries based on an evaluation of battery related data included within the battery passport” —Eckart at ¶ [0030]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckart in view of Wang as applied to Claim 4 above and Eckart teaching wherein the production plant meeting the at least one emission target for use of precursor(s) and/or a total emission target production of the at least one component is selected (e.g., “performance tracking … across the value chain towards goals set by a 'policy consortium’ (e.g. reduce total GHG footprint of the value chain by 50% by 2030)” —Eckart at ¶ [0007] with GHG referring to greenhouse gas; and “carbon footprint data … associated with the production…of the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0050] and [0062]; “update data associated with raw material mining of the battery 104… and… the production of the battery, carbon footprint data that may be associated with the production… of the battery 104, physical specifications of the battery 104 (e.g., …chemical composition…), a chain of custody of the battery 104 and… components of the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0050]; “update data to the value chain computing infrastructure 110 that … pertain to… import/export compliance information, supply chain stakeholder identification (e.g., manufacturers, shipping companies, exporters, importers, ports of call, component manufacturers, battery sellers, vehicle manufacturers, vehicle/battery owners, etc.), and… materials reconditioning/recycling/disposal services… involved with the repurposing, recycling, and…one or more components of the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0051]; “sustainability standards… set by… global policy consortiums to enable … value chain stakeholders that are involved in raw materials sourcing… repurposing…of the battery 104 and… its components to determine if the battery 104 is sustainable” and “environmentally sustainable manner (e.g., with a low carbon footprint)” —Eckart at ¶¶ [0028] and [0029]; “… battery 104 surpasses acceptable requirements associated with raw materials mining, materials purchase, production, … recycling and/or reconditioning of the battery 104 and/or the components of the battery 104. For example, the quality sea[l] may be utilized to indicate a high level of compliance with carbon emissions” —Eckart at ¶ [0077]; and “manufacturers …repurposing of batteries based on an evaluation of battery related data included within the battery passport” —Eckart at ¶ [0030]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckart in view of Wang as applied to Claim 1 above and Eckart teaching wherein operation data includes availability data relating to an availability of one or more recycled precursor(s) for producing the at least one component of the battery, wherein the availability data is derived from battery or material identifiers associated with recycled material (e.g., “enable value chain stakeholders to determine specific batteries and/or components of specific batteries …available within the marketplace for purchase, resale, utilization, recycling, and/or reconditioning” —Eckart at ¶ [0044]; “value chain stakeholders such as…manufacturers…of the battery 104… update data associated with…the production of the battery, carbon footprint data…associated with the production…, physical specifications of the battery 104 (e.g., electrical/chemical composition…)… and the like” —Eckart at ¶ [0050]; “manufacturers…. associated with the…production….of the battery 104,…. value chain stakeholders… provide and update respective battery related data…” such as “supply chain stakeholder identification (e.g., manufacturers… component manufacturers…” —Eckart at ¶ [0049] and [0051]; “materials reconditioning/recycling… services… involved with the repurposing, recycling…of the battery 104 and/or one or more components of the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0051]; “data pertaining to the identification of the battery 104…include… a manufacturer of the battery 104, a model of the battery 104, an identification code (e.g. alpha-numeric code) associated with the battery 104…. the battery profile 210 … store data… that pertain to the chemical composition of the battery 104…. that includes a lithium-ion battery energy source” —Eckart at ¶ [0054]; and “passport processing module 308 may update the battery passport 102 with a manufacturer of the battery 104, a model of the battery 104, an identification code (e.g. alpha-numeric code) associated with the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0070]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckart in view of Wang as applied to Claim 1 above and Eckart teaching wherein operation data includes capacity data associated with a capacity of the at least one production plant for producing the component of the battery, process data relating to process specifics of the at least one production plant for producing at least one component of the battery and/or emission data relating to emissions of the at least one production plant for producing at least one component of the battery (e.g., “performance tracking … across the value chain towards goals set by a 'policy consortium’ (e.g. reduce total GHG footprint of the value chain by 50% by 2030)” —Eckart at ¶ [0007] with GHG referring to greenhouse gas; and “carbon footprint data … associated with the production…of the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0050] and [0062]; “update data associated with raw material mining of the battery 104… and… the production of the battery, carbon footprint data that may be associated with the production… of the battery 104, physical specifications of the battery 104 (e.g., …chemical composition…), a chain of custody of the battery 104 and… components of the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0050]; “update data to the value chain computing infrastructure 110 that … pertain to… import/export compliance information, supply chain stakeholder identification (e.g., manufacturers, shipping companies, exporters, importers, ports of call, component manufacturers, battery sellers, vehicle manufacturers, vehicle/battery owners, etc.), and… materials reconditioning/recycling/disposal services… involved with the repurposing, recycling, and…one or more components of the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0051]; “sustainability standards… set by… global policy consortiums to enable … value chain stakeholders that are involved in raw materials sourcing… repurposing…of the battery 104 and… its components to determine if the battery 104 is sustainable” and “environmentally sustainable manner (e.g., with a low carbon footprint)” —Eckart at ¶¶ [0028] and [0029]; “… battery 104 surpasses acceptable requirements associated with raw materials mining, materials purchase, production, … recycling and/or reconditioning of the battery 104 and/or the components of the battery 104. For example, the quality sea[l] may be utilized to indicate a high level of compliance with carbon emissions” —Eckart at ¶ [0077]; “manufacturers …repurposing of batteries based on an evaluation of battery related data included within the battery passport” —Eckart at ¶ [0030]; and Eckart at ¶ [0055]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckart in view of Wang as applied to Claim 1 above and Eckart teaching selecting the production plant for producing the at least one component of the battery, wherein the selection depends on operation data (e.g., “manufacturers …repurposing of batteries based on an evaluation of battery related data included within the battery passport” —Eckart at ¶ [0030]; “value chain stakeholders such as…manufacturers…of the battery 104… update data associated with…the production of the battery, carbon footprint data…associated with the production…, physical specifications of the battery 104 (e.g., electrical/chemical composition…)… and the like” —Eckart at ¶ [0050]; “manufacturers…. associated with the…production….of the battery 104,…. value chain stakeholders… provide and update respective battery related data…” such as “supply chain stakeholder identification (e.g., manufacturers… component manufacturers…” —Eckart at ¶ [0049] and [0051]; “materials reconditioning/recycling… services… involved with the repurposing, recycling…of the battery 104 and/or one or more components of the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0051]; “data pertaining to the identification of the battery 104…include… a manufacturer of the battery 104, a model of the battery 104, an identification code (e.g. alpha-numeric code) associated with the battery 104…. the battery profile 210 … store data… that pertain to the chemical composition of the battery 104…. that includes a lithium-ion battery energy source” —Eckart at ¶ [0054]; and “passport processing module 308 may update the battery passport 102 with a manufacturer of the battery 104, a model of the battery 104, an identification code (e.g. alpha-numeric code) associated with the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0070]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckart in view of Wang as applied to Claim 10 above and Eckart teaching wherein the selection of the production plant for producing the at least one component of a battery depends on operation data, at least one emission target, a total emission target, and/or the determined recyclate feed content (e.g., “manufacturers …repurposing of batteries based on an evaluation of battery related data included within the battery passport” —Eckart at ¶ [0030]; “performance tracking … across the value chain towards goals set by a 'policy consortium’ (e.g. reduce total GHG footprint of the value chain by 50% by 2030)” —Eckart at ¶ [0007] with GHG referring to greenhouse gas; and “carbon footprint data … associated with the production…of the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0050] and [0062]; “update data associated with raw material mining of the battery 104… and… the production of the battery, carbon footprint data that may be associated with the production… of the battery 104, physical specifications of the battery 104 (e.g., …chemical composition…), a chain of custody of the battery 104 and… components of the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0050]; “update data to the value chain computing infrastructure 110 that … pertain to… import/export compliance information, supply chain stakeholder identification (e.g., manufacturers, shipping companies, exporters, importers, ports of call, component manufacturers, battery sellers, vehicle manufacturers, vehicle/battery owners, etc.), and… materials reconditioning/recycling/disposal services… involved with the repurposing, recycling, and…one or more components of the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0051]; “sustainability standards… set by… global policy consortiums to enable … value chain stakeholders that are involved in raw materials sourcing… repurposing…of the battery 104 and… its components to determine if the battery 104 is sustainable” and “environmentally sustainable manner (e.g., with a low carbon footprint)” —Eckart at ¶¶ [0028] and [0029]; and “… battery 104 surpasses acceptable requirements associated with raw materials mining, materials purchase, production, … recycling and/or reconditioning of the battery 104 and/or the components of the battery 104. For example, the quality sea[l] may be utilized to indicate a high level of compliance with carbon emissions” —Eckart at ¶ [0077]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckart in view of Wang as applied to Claim 1 above and Eckart teaching wherein the at least one component of the battery is an electrode active material, wherein the one or more recycled precursor(s) are derived from black mass material (e.g., Eckart at ¶¶ [0032] and [0044]).
Regarding Claim 14, Eckart in view of Wang teaches an apparatus for production of at least one component of a battery, the apparatus comprising: one or more processing nodes; and one or more non-transitory machine-readable media having thereon machine-executable instructions that are structured such that, when executed by the one or more processing nodes, cause the apparatus (e.g., Figures 1-2 of Eckart) to perform respective processes/steps as recited in Claim 1, and, therefore, Claim 14 is rejected on the same basis(es) as applied above with respect to Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15, Eckart in view of Wang teaches a method of using the recyclate feed content generated recited in the method of claim 1, and, therefore, Claim 15 is rejected on the same basis(es) as applied above with respect to Claim 1 regarding using the recyclate feed content generated and Eckart disclosing the method comprising using the recyclate feed content to determine an environmental footprint of the at least one component of the battery to be produced or to verify a recycling quota of the battery (e.g., “performance tracking … across the value chain towards goals set by a 'policy consortium’ (e.g. reduce total GHG footprint of the value chain by 50% by 2030)” —Eckart at ¶ [0007] with GHG referring to greenhouse gas; and “carbon footprint data … associated with the production…of the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0050] and [0062]; “update data associated with raw material mining of the battery 104… and… the production of the battery, carbon footprint data that may be associated with the production… of the battery 104, physical specifications of the battery 104 (e.g., …chemical composition…), a chain of custody of the battery 104 and… components of the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0050]; “update data to the value chain computing infrastructure 110 that … pertain to… import/export compliance information, supply chain stakeholder identification (e.g., manufacturers, shipping companies, exporters, importers, ports of call, component manufacturers, battery sellers, vehicle manufacturers, vehicle/battery owners, etc.), and… materials reconditioning/recycling/disposal services… involved with the repurposing, recycling, and…one or more components of the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0051]; “sustainability standards… set by… global policy consortiums to enable … value chain stakeholders that are involved in raw materials sourcing… repurposing…of the battery 104 and… its components to determine if the battery 104 is sustainable” and “environmentally sustainable manner (e.g., with a low carbon footprint)” —Eckart at ¶¶ [0028] and [0029]; “… battery 104 surpasses acceptable requirements associated with raw materials mining, materials purchase, production, … recycling and/or reconditioning of the battery 104 and/or the components of the battery 104. For example, the quality sea[l] may be utilized to indicate a high level of compliance with carbon emissions” —Eckart at ¶ [0077]; and “manufacturers …repurposing of batteries based on an evaluation of battery related data included within the battery passport” —Eckart at ¶ [0030]).
Regarding Claim 16, Eckart in view of Wang teaches a non-transitory computer program element with instructions, which, when executed by computing devices of a computing environment, is configured (e.g., Figures 1-2 of Eckart) to perform respective method processes/steps as recited in Claim 1, and, therefore, Claim 16 is rejected on the same basis(es) as applied above with respect to Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 17, Eckart in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the operation data are process data, capacity data, and/or emission data (e.g., “value chain stakeholders such as…manufacturers…of the battery 104… update data associated with…the production of the battery, carbon footprint data…associated with the production…, physical specifications of the battery 104 (e.g., electrical/chemical composition…)… and the like” —Eckart at ¶ [0050]; “manufacturers…. associated with the…production….of the battery 104,…. value chain stakeholders… provide and update respective battery related data…” such as “supply chain stakeholder identification (e.g., manufacturers… component manufacturers…” —Eckart at ¶ [0049] and [0051]; “materials reconditioning/recycling… services… involved with the repurposing, recycling…of the battery 104 and/or one or more components of the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0051]; “data pertaining to the identification of the battery 104…include… a manufacturer of the battery 104, a model of the battery 104, an identification code (e.g. alpha-numeric code) associated with the battery 104…. the battery profile 210 … store data… that pertain to the chemical composition of the battery 104…. that includes a lithium-ion battery energy source” —Eckart at ¶ [0054]; and “passport processing module 308 may update the battery passport 102 with a manufacturer of the battery 104, a model of the battery 104, an identification code (e.g. alpha-numeric code) associated with the battery 104” —Eckart at ¶ [0070]).
(continued on next page)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Amendment filed on March 27, 2026, have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner notes recitation above to U.S. Patent Application Publication Nos. 2023/0224158 (“Eckart”) and 2021/0391606 (“Wang”) in view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments in “Amendment”.
Applicant's Arguments in the Amendment
(Page 7) Applicant asserts that the pending claims, as currently amended, are drawn to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
(Pages 8-9) Applicant asserts that the independent claims, as currently amended, are not anticipated by Eckart.
(Page 9) Applicant asserts that Claims 2-12 and 15-17, which depend from independent Claim 1 and include respective limitations therein (i.e., recited in Claim 1), are patentable over Eckart based on at least “the same reasons” provided with respect to independent Claim 1.
Examiner’s Response to Applicant's Arguments
Please see updated/modified § 101 rejections above regarding examined claims being drawn to ineligible subject matter in view of considering all relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole including amended portions of the independent claims.
Applicant's argument(s) is moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection(s) necessitated by Applicant’s Amendment. The new ground(s) of rejection(s) in this Office action relies on U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0391606 (“Wang”) as noted above with respect to citations to Wang included Examiner’s § 103 rejections of Applicant’s pending claims.
Please see above prior art rejections with respect to independent Claim 1 for at least the same reasons provided with respect to independent Claim 1 that Claims 2-12 and 15-17, depending from independent Claim 1 and including the limitations therein, are not patentable based on dependency from a respective independent claim.
Conclusion
The following references are considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, and are being made of record albeit the references are not relied upon as a basis for rejection in this Office action:
United Kingdom Application Publication No. GB 2643510 A of Brouwer et al. (“Brouwer”), which is not prior art, but similar to this case.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0402667 of Warren
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0275279 of Huang
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0084454 of Sakaino
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0033430 of Bai
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0085424 A1 of Searl et al. (hereinafter “Searl”) f
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0264347 of Tran
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0005374 of BROUWER et al. (hereinafter “Brouwer”) for “EU Commission Regulation No. 493/2012 of 11 Jun. 2012 lays down detailed rules regarding the calculation of recycling efficiencies. This Regulation shall apply to the recycling processes carried out in respect of waste batteries and accumulators from 1 Jan. 2014. The recycling targets are 75% by average weight for nickel-cadmium batteries, 65% for lead acid batteries, and 50% for others” —Brouwer at ¶ [0003].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0371658 of Borges et al. (“Borges”), such as cited in App. No. 18/848,393.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0106185 of Kruglick “assigning rechargeable batteries to recycling processes according to battery conditions and identification codes”.
International Publication No. WO/2021/198637
International Publication No. WO/2021/244963
International Publication No. WO/2020/069882
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 Mathew Syrowik whose telephone number is 313-446-4862. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM (Eastern Time). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf, can be reached at telephone number 517-270-3948. 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 Patent Center. Status information of published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information of unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, please contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) or by email at EBC@uspto.gov. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conference using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, please email Mathew.Syrowik@USPTO.gov or applicant may use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form. For additional information or questions, please contact the Inventors Assistance Center at 1-800-786-9199 (toll free), 571-272-1000 (local), or 1-800-877-8339 (TDD/TTY).
/Mathew Syrowik/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights