DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Title Objection
3. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
4. Claim 1-7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
5. Claim 1 is directed to “... calculate an internal impedance of the secondary battery at the prescribed timing from the measured discharge current and the measured voltage drop; ... estimate the degree of deterioration of the secondary battery from the calculated internal impedance”, which are mental-steps/mathematical-calculations that could also be performed by a general purpose processor. The additional elements “A battery deterioration estimation apparatus for estimating a degree of deterioration of a secondary battery that includes a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte provided between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, the negative electrode having a metallic lithium layer, the battery deterioration estimation apparatus comprising: a current measurer configured to measure a discharge current of the secondary battery at a prescribed timing directly after a start of discharging by the secondary battery; a voltage measurer configured to measure a voltage drop that is a difference between a voltage of the secondary battery before the start of discharging and a voltage of the secondary battery at the prescribed timing; a calculator configured to ... and an estimator configured to ...” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Independent claim 1 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
5.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 1 is directed to a battery deterioration estimation apparatus, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (Step 1: YES).
5.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 1 recites: “... calculate an internal impedance of the secondary battery at the prescribed timing from the measured discharge current and the measured voltage drop; ... estimate the degree of deterioration of the secondary battery from the calculated internal impedance”, which are mental-steps/mathematical-calculations that could also be performed with the help of a pen and paper. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
5.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 1 does not claim a particular machine because the battery deterioration estimation apparatus, current measurer, and voltage measurer are not claimed with sufficient specificity and the calculator and estimator are simply a general purpose computer processor, and does not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, the battery deterioration context, is simply linking the claim to a technological environment, industry or field of use of an MRI but does not explain with sufficient details so one ordinary skilled in the art could determine an improvement in the battery monitoring technology. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies that monitors secondary batteries, etc., and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application. The claim is just linking said judicial-exception/abstract-idea to the technological field relative to systems and a methods for estimating a degree of deterioration of a secondary battery).
5.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 1 recites the additional element(s) “A battery deterioration estimation apparatus for estimating a degree of deterioration of a secondary battery that includes a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte provided between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, the negative electrode having a metallic lithium layer, the battery deterioration estimation apparatus comprising: a current measurer configured to measure a discharge current of the secondary battery at a prescribed timing directly after a start of discharging by the secondary battery; a voltage measurer configured to measure a voltage drop that is a difference between a voltage of the secondary battery before the start of discharging and a voltage of the secondary battery at the prescribed timing; a calculator configured to ... and an estimator configured to ... ” of which when evaluated individually and as a whole, it is concluded that are/is simply mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea and/or routine and/or conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references below, and prior art made of record below, and on the IDS). Therefore, the claim limitations individually and as whole do not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
6. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 2 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
7. Claim 3 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 3 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
8. Claim 4 depends on claim 3 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 4 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
9. Claim 5 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 5 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
10. Claim 6 depends on claim 5 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 6 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
11. Claim 7 is directed to “... calculating an internal impedance of the secondary battery at the prescribed timing from the measured discharge current and the measured voltage drop; estimating the degree of deterioration of the secondary battery from the calculated internal impedance”, which are mental-steps/mathematical-calculations that could also be performed by a general purpose processor. The additional elements “A battery deterioration estimation method for estimating a degree of deterioration of a secondary battery that includes a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte provided between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, the negative electrode having a metallic lithium layer, the battery deterioration estimation method comprising: measuring a discharge current of the secondary battery at a prescribed timing directly after a start of discharging by the secondary battery; measuring a voltage drop that is a difference between a voltage of the secondary battery before the start of discharging and a voltage of the secondary battery at the prescribed timing...” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Independent claim 7 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
11.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 1 is directed to a battery deterioration estimation method, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a process (Step 1: YES).
11.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 7 recites: “... calculating an internal impedance of the secondary battery at the prescribed timing from the measured discharge current and the measured voltage drop; estimating the degree of deterioration of the secondary battery from the calculated internal impedance”, which are mental-steps/mathematical-calculations that could also be performed with the help of a pen and paper. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
11.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 7 does not claim a particular machine because the battery is not claimed with sufficient specificity and the method is performed by a general purpose computer processor, and does not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, the battery deterioration context, is simply linking the claim to a technological environment, industry or field of use of an MRI but does not explain with sufficient details so one ordinary skilled in the art could determine an improvement in the battery monitoring technology. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies that monitors secondary batteries, etc., and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application. The claim is just linking said judicial-exception/abstract-idea to the technological field relative to systems and a methods for estimating a degree of deterioration of a secondary battery).
11.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 7 recites the additional element(s) “A battery deterioration estimation method for estimating a degree of deterioration of a secondary battery that includes a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte provided between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, the negative electrode having a metallic lithium layer, the battery deterioration estimation method comprising: measuring a discharge current of the secondary battery at a prescribed timing directly after a start of discharging by the secondary battery; measuring a voltage drop that is a difference between a voltage of the secondary battery before the start of discharging and a voltage of the secondary battery at the prescribed timing ... ” of which when evaluated individually and as a whole, it is concluded that are/is simply mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea and/or routine and/or conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references below, and prior art made of record below, and on the IDS). Therefore, the claim limitations individually and as whole do not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Tateno (Pub. No.: US 2015/0107989) teaches “an apparatus in which an electrode insulation inactivating layer on the basis of charge and discharge which is a cause for deterioration of storage capacity of a rechargeable battery is regenerated by thermo-mechanical effects caused by dielectric relaxation loss, individual frequencies of dielectric relaxation loss of rechargeable batteries in general are automatically searched by an increase in high-frequency dependent charging current, the insulation layer is selectively decomposed, termination of charge of the storage battery” (Abstract).
b) TOJIGAMORI (Pub. No.: US 2018/0351167) teaches “A main object of the present disclosure is to provide an all-solid-state battery with an excellent capacity durability. The present disclosure achieve the object by providing an all-solid-state battery comprising: a cathode active material layer, an anode active material layer, and a solid electrolyte layer formed between the cathode active material layer and the anode active material layer; wherein at least one of the cathode active material layer and the anode active material layer contains a sulfide solid electrolyte and a conductive auxiliary material” (Abstract).
c) KIM (Pub. No.: US 2019/0198865) teaches “An anode, a lithium battery including the anode, and a method of preparing the anode. The anode includes a current collector; a first anode layer disposed on the current collector; a second anode layer disposed on the first anode layer” (Abstract).
d) KONOPKA (Pub. No.: US 2021/0328448) teaches “Methods and systems for charging (recharging) one or more battery cells are presented by generating a harmonically tuned charge signal, which may involve pulses of a charge signal. The harmonically tuned charge signal includes or otherwise corresponds to a harmonic frequency or frequencies associated with an optimal transfer of energy based on a real and/or an imaginary value of the energy transfer of the battery cell” (Abstract).
e) Konopka (Pub. No.: US 2022/0029443) teaches “Systems and methods that charge a battery using a signal with at least one harmonically tuned aspect based on impedance of the battery with a frequency or harmonic component. The system may further involve a power converter that may act in concert with charging to power a load” (Abstract).
f) Mizuno (Pub. No.: US 2022/0320611) teaches “A short-circuit prediction device for predicting the presence or absence of occurrence of an internal short circuit in a secondary battery is provided. The secondary battery has a positive electrode, a solid electrolyte, and a negative electrode that contains a lithium alloy. The short-circuit prediction device includes a measurement instrument that measures AC impedance of the secondary battery and a controller that predicts the internal short circuit in the secondary battery. The measurement instrument calculates electrolyte resistance of the secondary battery and reaction resistance of the secondary battery from the AC impedance” (Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO E. FORTICH whose telephone number is (571) 272-0944. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday from 8:30am to 5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Huy Phan, can be reached on (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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights