DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/12/2024 and 12/02/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7 and 9-23 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the differential capacity peaks" in line 11 and “the corresponding preset cycle numbers” in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitations "the differential capacity peaks" in line 10 and “the corresponding preset cycle numbers” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitations “the life determination process” in line 7, "the differential capacity peaks" in line 7 and “the corresponding preset cycle numbers” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 2, 4-5, 7 and 11-23 depending from claims 1 or 9 are rejected for the same reasons as mentioned above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim could be directed to a signal per se.
Regarding claim 10, line 1 recites a “computer-readable storage medium”. The specification, paragraph 0135, recites “The computer program for implementing the method in the present disclosure may be written in at least one programming languages. These computer programs may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer, a special purpose computer, or another programmable data processing apparatus, such that the computer programs, when executed by the processor, implement the functions/operations specified in a flowchart and/or a block diagram. The computer program may be completely or partially executed on a machine, partially executed on the machine as an independent software package and partially executed on a remote machine or completely executed on the remote machine or a server. [0136] In the context of the present disclosure, the computer-readable storage medium may be a tangible medium, which may contain or store a computer program for use by an instruction execution system, apparatus or device, or for use in combination with the instruction execution system, apparatus or device. The computer-readable storage medium may include but is not limited to an electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared or semiconductor system, apparatus or device, or any suitable combination of the above. Alternatively, the computer- readable storage medium may be a machine-readable signal medium. The machine-readable storage medium includes an electrical connection based on at least one lines, a portable computer disk, a hard disk drive, an Random Access Memory (RAM), an Read-Only Memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM) or a flash memory, fiber optic, a portable compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), an optical storage device, a magnetic storage device, or any suitable combination of the above”. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed computer-readable medium covers signals per se, which doesn’t fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 9-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and/or 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2, 4-5, 7, 11-15, 16-23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-5, 7 and 11-15, the prior art fails to specifically teach a method for determining life of battery, comprising a first linear determination process and a life determination process, wherein the first linear determination process comprising: executing the life determination process when the differential capacity peaks of the differential capacity curves and the corresponding preset cycle numbers satisfy a first linear relationship, and the capacity fade values and the corresponding preset cycle numbers satisfy a second linear relationship; the life determination process comprising: determining a cycle number corresponding to a capacity fade threshold of the battery to be tested based on the second linear relationship, determining the cycle number corresponding to the capacity fade threshold of the battery to be tested as a life of the battery to be tested, in combination with all the limitations of the claims.
Regarding claims 9 and 16-23, the prior art fails to specifically teach an electronic device, comprising: execute the life determination process when the differential capacity peaks of the differential capacity curves and the corresponding preset cycle numbers satisfy a first linear relationship, and the capacity fade values and the corresponding preset cycle numbers satisfy a second linear relationship; the life determination process comprising: determine a cycle number corresponding to a capacity fade threshold of the battery to be tested based on the second linear relationship, determine the cycle number corresponding to the capacity fade threshold of the battery to be tested as a life of the battery to be tested, in combination with all the limitations of the claims.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art fails to specifically teach a computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-readable storage medium stores a computer instruction, and the computer instruction is used to implement the following steps: execute the life determination process when the differential capacity peaks of the differential capacity curves and the corresponding preset cycle numbers satisfy a first linear relationship, and the capacity fade values and the corresponding preset cycle numbers satisfy a second linear relationship; the life determination process comprising: determine a cycle number corresponding to a capacity fade threshold of the battery to be tested based on the second linear relationship, determine the cycle number corresponding to the capacity fade threshold of the battery to be tested as a life of the battery to be tested, in combination with all the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liaw et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0214399) teaches energy storage cell qualification and related systems, methods, and devices.
MANDLI et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0203780) teaches a method and system for predicting onset of capacity fading in a battery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO VELEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8597. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-3:30pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571)272-7924. 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.
/ROBERTO VELEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights