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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on December 3, 2024 and March 26, 2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
According to MPEP 2112.02: Process Claims, it is noted that “Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device” (emphasis added). It is also noted in that same MPEP section that “The Federal Circuit upheld the Board’s finding that "Donley inherently performs the function disclosed in the method claims on appeal when that device is used in ‘normal and usual operation’" and found that a prima facie case of anticipation was made out” (emphasis added). Id. at 138, 801 F.2d at 1326. It was up to applicant to prove that Donley's structure would not perform the claimed method when placed in ambient light.).”
With regard to claims 1-13, these claims present an method according to the battery recycling system of claims 15-19. Therefore, the argument made against claims 15-19 also applies, mutatis mutandis, to claims 1-13. In addition, it is clearly seen that claims 1-13 are process claims which present a process of using the battery recycling system as claimed in claims 15-19, respectively.
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 1-11 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The eligibility analysis in the following rejection reflects both the 2019 PEG and the new form paragraphs published for use with the 2019 PEG.
With regard to claims 1, 14 and 15, each of these claims recites “receiving first discharge data associated with a first discharge rate for a battery; receiving second discharge data associated with a second discharge rate for the battery; receiving third discharge data associated with a third discharge rate for the battery”. The limitations of receiving first, second and third discharge data associated with a first, second and third discharge rate for a battery, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by at least one processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by at least one processor” language, “receiving” in the context of these claims encompasses the user manually receiving first, second and third discharge data associated with a first, second and third discharge rate for a battery.
Similarly, each of these claims further recites “estimating the cathode capacity of the battery based on the first discharge rate, the second discharge rate, the third discharge rate, the first discharge data, the second discharge data, and the third discharge data”. The limitation of estimating the cathode capacity of the battery based on the first discharge rate, the second discharge rate, the third discharge rate, the first discharge data, the second discharge data, and the third discharge data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by at least one processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by at least one processor” language, “estimating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually estimating the cathode capacity of the battery based on the first discharge rate, the second discharge rate, the third discharge rate, the first discharge data, the second discharge data, and the third discharge data.
With regard to claims 5 and 18, each of these claims further recites a limitation, “estimating a linear function representing a relationship between a discharge rate of the battery and a discharge capacity of a battery full-cell based on the first discharge rate, the second discharge rate, the third discharge rate, the first discharge data, the second discharge data, and the third discharge data”, which is mere performing mathematical calculations recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
With regard to claims 6 and 19, each of these claims further recites limitations, “calculating a first determination coefficient based on the first discharge rate, the second discharge rate, the third discharge rate, the first discharge data, the second discharge data, and the third discharge data” and “determining whether the first determination coefficient is greater than or equal to a threshold”, which are mere performing mathematical calculations recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitations fall within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
With regard to claim 7, similarly, this claim further recites “receiving fourth discharge data associated with a fourth discharge rate for the battery in response to determining that the first determination coefficient is less than the threshold; calculating a second determination coefficient based on the first discharge rate, the second discharge rate, the fourth discharge rate, the first discharge data, the second discharge data, and the fourth discharge data; and determining whether the second determination coefficient is greater than or equal to the threshold, and wherein the third discharge rate is less than the first discharge rate, the second discharge rate, and the fourth discharge rate”. The limitations of “receiving fourth discharge data”, “calculating a second determination coefficient” and “determining whether the second determination coefficient is greater than or equal to the threshold”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by at least one processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by at least one processor” language, “receiving”, “calculating” and “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually “receiving”, “calculating” and “determining” steps. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using at least one processor to perform the “receiving”, “calculating” and “determining” steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Each of these claims is not patent eligible.
With regard to claim 11, this claim further recites limitations, “determining a recycling method for a cathode of the battery based on the estimated cathode capacity of the battery”, which is mere performing mathematical calculations recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, each of these claims recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using at least one processor to perform the receiving and estimating steps. The processor in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of estimating the cathode capacity of the battery based on the first discharge rate, the second discharge rate, the third discharge rate, the first discharge data, the second discharge data, and the third discharge data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Each of these claims is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using at least one processor to perform the receiving and estimating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Each of these claims is not patent eligible.
With regard to claims 2-4, 8-10, 16 and 17, these claims are rejected at least by virtue of their dependencies directly or indirectly from the base claims, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-11 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (NPL: “Aging mechanisms of Li-ion batteries: seen from an experimental and simulation point of view”).
Li teaches aging mechanisms of Li-ion batteries comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
654
902
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
686
596
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 1, 14 and 15, a method for estimating a cathode capacity (Page 86, first paragraph), performed by at least one processor (Page, 23; and page 175, Section 7.3, first paragraph: inherently expressed in the process of determining the unknown parameters in the simulations and the corresponding software implemented in Matlab), comprising: receiving first discharge data associated with a first discharge rate for a battery (Fig. 4.1 shows at least 3 dicharge data curves for different rates 0.lC, 0.2C, 0.3C, etc.); receiving second discharge data associated with a second discharge rate for the battery (Fig. 4.1 shows at least 3 dicharge data curves for different rates 0.lC, 0.2C, 0.3C, etc.); receiving third discharge data associated with a third discharge rate for the battery (Fig. 4.1 shows at least 3 dicharge data curves for different rates 0.lC, 0.2C, 0.3C, etc.); and estimating the cathode capacity of the battery based on the first discharge rate, the second discharge rate, the third discharge rate, the first discharge data, the second discharge data, and the third discharge data (Page 83, first two paragraphs), wherein the first discharge rate, the second discharge rate, and the third discharge rate are different from each other (Fig. 4.1 shows at least 3 discharge data curves for different rates 0.lC, 0.2C, 0.3C, etc.).
With regard to claim 15, Li discloses a battery recycling system (electric vehicle EV) (page 23), which inherently comprises a memory; and at least one processor (engine control unit ECU) connected to the memory, and configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to cause the at least one processor to perform a method of claim 1 as discussed above. It is noted that the recitation, “battery recycling”, has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone.
With regard to claims 2 and 16, the first discharge rate comprises a maximum discharge rate of the battery (Fig. 4.1, rate 2C; it is noted that a maximum discharge rate of the battery is not further defined, so rate 2C can be interpreted as a maximum discharge rate).
With regard to claims 3 and 17, the first, second, and third discharge data comprise a discharge capacity of a battery full-cell associated with the first, second, and third discharge rates, respectively (Page 69, first paragraph).
With regard to claim 4, the first discharge rate, the second discharge rate, and the third discharge rate (Fig. 4.1, rates 0.lC-2C) are greater than or equal to a proportion of a maximum discharge rate of the battery.
With regard to claims 5 and 18, estimating a linear function representing a relationship between a discharge rate of the battery and a discharge capacity of a battery full-cell based on the first discharge rate, the second discharge rate, the third discharge rate, the first discharge data, the second discharge data, and the third discharge data (Fig. 4.1(b)).
With regard to claim 8, calculating the cathode capacity of the battery based on the linear function (Fig. 4.1(b); and page 71, last paragraph).
With regard to claim 9, the linear function is estimated via an extrapolation (Page 71, last paragraph).
With regard to claim 10, a cathode of the battery comprises lithium iron phosphate (LFP) (Figs. 3.1 and 4.1; and pages 69-70 and 95).
With regard to claim 11, determining a recycling method for a cathode of the battery based on the estimated cathode capacity of the battery (Pages 121-125; and subsection headers 6.2.2.3, 6.2.2.4, 6.2.2.5 and 6.2.2.6).
With regard to claim 14, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium is well- known to one having ordinary skill in the art for storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by circuitry, causes the at least one processor to perform the method of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 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, 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 6, 7, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li.
Li teaches all as discussed in the above rejection of claims 1-5, 8-11 and 14-18, but it does not explicitly teach the following features:
Calculating a first determination coefficient based on the first discharge rate, the second discharge rate, the third discharge rate, the first discharge data, the second discharge data, and the third discharge data; and determining whether the first determination coefficient is greater than or equal to a threshold.
Receiving fourth discharge data associated with a fourth discharge rate for the battery in response to determining that the first determination coefficient is less than the threshold; calculating a second determination coefficient based on the first discharge rate, the second discharge rate, the fourth discharge rate, the first discharge data, the second discharge data, and the fourth discharge data; and determining whether the second determination coefficient is greater than or equal to the threshold, and wherein the third discharge rate is less than the first discharge rate, the second discharge rate, and the fourth discharge rate.
Determining that the estimated cathode capacity of the battery is greater than or equal to a threshold; and transmitting a command to perform a direct recycling of the cathode of the battery to a battery recycling device in response to the determining that the estimated cathode capacity of the battery is greater than or equal to the threshold.
Determining that the estimated cathode capacity of the battery is less than a threshold; and transmitting a command to perform pyrometallurgy or hydrometallurgy on the cathode of the battery to a battery recycling device in response to the determining that the estimated cathode capacity of the battery is less than the threshold.
It is noted that:
With regard to claim 6, Li discloses in the last sentence of the first paragraph at page 82 that a more classical and convenient approach, which is based on the regression extrapolation of voltage discharge curves obtained under various loading conditions, is adopted. As well-known to one having ordinary skill in the art, regression extrapolation of voltage discharge curves helps predict battery life, estimate remaining useful life (RUL), and forecast performance degradation over time by fitting mathematical models to existing discharge data and extending them past measured points to find future voltage drop-off or end-of-life thresholds. Therefore, it is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to calculate a first determination coefficient based on the first discharge rate, the second discharge rate, the third discharge rate, the first discharge data, the second discharge data, and the third discharge data; then, determine whether the first determination coefficient is greater than or equal to a threshold.
With regard to claim 7, Li discloses receiving fourth discharge data associated with a fourth discharge rate for the battery (Fig. 4.1) in response to determining that the first determination coefficient is less than the threshold. It is clear that the step of “calculating a second determination coefficient based on the first discharge rate, the second discharge rate, the fourth discharge rate, the first discharge data, the second discharge data, and the fourth discharge data; and determining whether the second determination coefficient is greater than or equal to the threshold” is just a repetition of performing the function in claim 6 to collect more data. It is also clearly seen that “the third discharge rate is less than the first discharge rate, the second discharge rate, and the fourth discharge rate” is just under various loading conditions as Li mentioned in the last sentence of the first paragraph at page 82. Therefore, it is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to calculate a second determination coefficient based on the first discharge rate, the second discharge rate, the fourth discharge rate, the first discharge data, the second discharge data, and the fourth discharge data, and determine whether the second determination coefficient is greater than or equal to the threshold since such an arrangement is beneficial to provide a more accurate measurements with more collected data.
Claims 12, 13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Takahashi et al. (US 8,907,674 B2).
Li teaches all as discussed in the above rejection of claims 1-5, 8-11 and 14-18, but it does not explicitly teach the following feature:
a battery recycling device.
Takahashi et al. teaches a system and method for determining degradation of a rechargeable lithium ion battery comprising:
PNG
media_image3.png
384
634
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 12, 13, 19 and 20, a battery recycling device (FIG. 2, determination unit 60) (Abstract; and claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aging mechanisms of Li-ion batteries of Li to utilize a battery recycling device as taught by Takahashi et al. since Takahashi et al. teaches that such an arrangement is beneficial to determine whether said rechargeable lithium ion battery is reusable/recyclable as disclosed in the Abstract.
With regard to claims 12, 13, 19 and 20, it is well-known to one having ordinary skill in the art that common recycling methods for a battery cathode include: hydrometallurgical recycling (using liquid acid solutions to dissolve and separate valuable metals like lithium, cobalt, and nickel. This process breaks down the cathode material so workers can recover pure chemical compounds to make new batteries); pyrometallurgical recycling (using high-temperature smelting in a furnace to melt components and recover metals like cobalt and nickel, though it often loses the lithium); and direct recycling (repairing and restoring the physical structure of the cathode without breaking down the material into basic chemicals). It is noted that the features, as recited in claims 12 and 13 upon which applicants rely, merely automate, with conventional thresholds, the obvious choice between direct recycling and pyrometallurgy/hydrometallurgy based on cathode capacity, using standard command signaling; no technical effect or non-obvious adaptation arises. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aging mechanisms of Li-ion batteries of Li to carry out the features as recited in claims 12 and 13 since such an arrangement is beneficial to provide desirable and exemplary choices for a battery recycling system. Such an implementation can significantly increase the effectiveness of the battery recycling system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant' s attention is invited to the followings whose inventions disclose similar devices.
Gao et al. (CN 117786995 A) teaches a current safety shell whole leakage rate calculation method, device, device and medium.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2170. The examiner can normally be reached MON-THURS (7:00 AM - 5:00 PM).
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, LEE E. RODAK can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights