DETAILED ACTION
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 This action is in response to amendment filed on 6/26/2026, in which claims 1, and 15 – 16 was amended, and claims 1 – 20 was presented for further examination.
3. Claims 1 – 20 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 - 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Remarks
5.1 As per rejection of amended claims 1 – 20 under 35 USC 101, applicant argues in substance pages 8 – 9 that the amendment recites “forming a solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) layer comprising an anion of lithium salt for the lithium secondary battery using at least one of the one or more target substances”.
Examiner respectfully responds that the claims as explained in the detail rejection discloses collecting and storing of organic substance in a database and selects some of the organic substances for creating a lithium secondary battery. The amended portion only disclose composition of element included in creating the battery. The claims has not provided any process required for mixing the substance with applicable parameter for forming the battery. The claims only listed the element. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
5.2 As per amended claim 1, applicant argues in substance in pages 9 – 12 that Nagai et al (US 2024/0320192 A1), Srivastava et al (US 2012/0130690 A1), YI (CN 114284560 A) does not specifically disclose “organic substances”.
In response to applicant’s argument, Examiner respectfully responds that the newly cited art Hoon et al (KR 2009-0083763 A) discloses organic substances (pg.2 lines 2 – 19).
Hoon discloses generating a database consists of electrochemical substances, search the database for candidate chemical substances for forming lithium secondary battery (see pg.2 lines 2 – 19). Thus, electrochemical substances is interpreted as “organic substances” as claimed.
5.3 Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
6. Claims 1 – 10, 11, and 13 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 10, 12, and 13 – 20 of co-pending Application No. 19/233,494). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims discloses similar features of generating a database that consists of organic substance and selecting based on various criteria a combination of the organic substance from database to build a secondary lithium battery. The only different between both application is that instant application “configured to form a solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) layer comprising an anion of a lithium salt”, while a co-pending application “configured to form at least a part of a low-resistance solid electrolyte interphase (SEl) layer on an anode of the lithium secondary battery”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include low-resistance solid electrolyte of co-pending application into a composition of secondary battery production of the instant application for understanding the effectiveness of the alternative embodiment available for production of lithium secondary battery, thereby enabling the producer to identify and select the most effective component for production of lithium secondary battery.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application #: 19/054,127
Pending Application #: 19/233,494
1. A method for screening a material configured to be used in a lithium secondary battery and using the material in the lithium secondary battery, the method comprising: receiving information about one or more organic substances; generating a database by storing the information about the one or more organic substances based on a plurality of parameters; and applying at least one filter to the database to generate output information about one or more target substances configured to be used in the lithium secondary battery, the one or more target substances selected from the one or more organic substances, and forming a solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) layer comprising an anion of lithium salt for the lithium secondary battery using at least one of the one or more target substances.
1. A method of screening materials configured to be used in a lithium secondary battery, comprising: receiving information about one or more organic substances; generating a database by storing the information about the one or more organic substances based on a plurality of parameters; and applying at least one filter to the database to generate output information about a target substance configured to be used in the lithium secondary battery, the target substance selected from the one or more organic substances,
wherein the target substance is configured to form at least a part of a low-resistance solid electrolyte interphase (SEl) layer on an anode of the lithium secondary battery.
2. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of parameters comprises an ion type, a molecular weight, an electron affinity, an ionization energy, a lithium ion (Li+) reaction energy, or a coordination energy between the one or more organic substances and an anion of a lithium salt.
2. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of parameters comprises an ion type, a molecular weight, an electron affinity, an ionization energy, a lithium-ion (Li+) interaction energy, a LUMO (lowest unoccupied molecular orbital) energy, a LUMO energy of a lithium-ion complex containing the one or more organic substances, or an electron affinity of the lithium-ion complex containing the one or more organic substances.
3. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one filter comprises a first filter, wherein the first filter filters out a candidate material having an electron affinity greater than a predetermined electron affinity threshold.
3. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one filter comprises a first filter, and wherein the first filter filters out a candidate material having an ionization energy greater than a predetermined ionization energy threshold.
4. The method as claimed in claim 3, wherein the predetermined electron affinity threshold is related to an electron affinity of an organic solvent previously determined to be used in the lithium secondary battery
4. The method as claimed in claim 3, wherein the predetermined ionization energy threshold is related to an ionization energy of an organic solvent previously determined to be used in the lithium secondary battery.
5. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one filter comprises a second filter, wherein the second filter filters out a candidate material having an ionization energy greater than a predetermined ionization energy threshold
5. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one filter comprises a second filter, and wherein the second filter filters out a candidate material having a lithium-ion interaction energy greater than a first predetermined lithium-ion interaction energy threshold
6. The method as claimed in claim 5, wherein the predetermined ionization energy threshold is related to an internal environment of the lithium secondary battery.
6. The method as claimed in claim 5, wherein the first predetermined lithium-ion interaction energy threshold is related to a lithium-ion interaction energy of an organic solvent previously determined to be used in the lithium secondary battery.
7. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one filter comprises a third filter, wherein the third filter filters out a candidate material having a lithium ion reaction energy less than a predetermined lithium ion reaction energy threshold
7. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one filter comprises a third filter, and wherein the third filter filters out a candidate material having a lithium- ion interaction energy less than a second predetermined lithium-ion interaction energy threshold.
8. The method as claimed in claim 7, wherein the predetermined lithium ion reaction energy threshold is related to a reaction energy between a lithium ion and an electrolyte additive previously determined to be used in the lithium secondary battery.
8. The method as claimed in claim 7, wherein the second predetermined lithium-ion interaction energy threshold is related to an interaction energy between an electrolyte additive previously determined to be used in the lithium secondary battery, and lithium ions.
9 . The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one filter comprises a fourth filter, wherein the fourth filter filters out a candidate material having a coordination energy between the candidate material and a hexafluorophosphate ion (PFe-) less than a predetermined hexafluorophosphate ion coordination energy threshold.
9. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one filter comprises a fourth filter, and wherein the fourth filter filters out a candidate material having a LUMO energy of a lithium-ion complex less than a predetermined LUMO energy threshold.
10. The method as claimed in claim 9, wherein the redetermined hexafluorophosphate ion coordination energy threshold is related to a coordination energy between the hexafluorophosphate ion and an organic solvent previously determined to be used in the lithium secondary battery
10. The method as claimed in claim 9, wherein the predetermined LUMO energy threshold is related to a LUMO energy of a lithium-ion complex comprising an organic solvent previously determined to be used in the lithium secondary battery
11. The method as claimed in claim 4, wherein the organic solvent comprises ethylene carbonate (EC), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), ethylmethyl carbonate (EMC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), ethyl propionate (EP), or ethyl acetate (EA).
12. The method as claimed in claim 4, wherein the organic solvent is ethylene carbonate (EC), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC),dimethyl carbonate (DMC), ethyl propionate (EP), or ethyl acetate (EA).
13. The method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: receiving an input for selecting at least one of the plurality of parameters; and receiving information about a numerical range for the at least one of the plurality of parameters, wherein the at least one filter comprises a fifth filter, and wherein the fifth filter filters out a candidate material in which the numerical range comprises information related to the at least one of the plurality of parameters.
13. The method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: receiving an input for selecting at least one of the plurality of parameters; and receiving information about a numerical range for the at least one of the plurality of parameters, wherein the at least one filter comprises a sixth filter, and wherein the sixth filter filters out a candidate material in which the numerical range comprises information related to the at least one of the plurality of parameters.
14. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the generating of the output information comprises: receiving an input of selecting at least one of the plurality of parameters on a user interface; and generating output information about the at least one of the plurality of parameters selected from the output information about the one or more target substances on the user interface
14. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the generating of the output information comprises: receiving an input of selecting at least one of the plurality of parameters on a user interface; and generating output information about the at least one of the plurality of parameters selected from the output information about the target substance onto the user interface.
15. A computer program stored in a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium for executing the method as claimed in claim 1on a computer.
15. A computer program stored on a computer-readable recording medium for executing the method according to claim 1 on a computer.
16. An information processing system comprising: a communication module; a memory; and at least one processor connected to the memory and configured to execute at least one computer-readable program comprised in the memory, wherein the at least one program comprises instructions for: receiving information about one or more organic substances, generating a database by storing the information about the one or more organic substances based on a plurality of parameters, and applying at least one filter to the database to generate output information about one or more target substances configured to be used in a lithium secondary battery, the one or more target substances selected from the or more organic substances, and forming a solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) layer comprising an anion of lithium salt for the lithium secondary battery using at least one of the one or more target substances
16. An information processing system comprising: a communication module; a memory; and at least one processor connected to the memory and configured to execute at least one computer-readable program comprised in the memory, wherein the at least one program comprises instructions for: receiving information about one or more organic substances; generating a database by storing the information about the one or more organic substances based on a plurality of parameters; and applying at least one filter to the database to generate output information about a
target substance configured to be used in the lithium secondary battery, the target substance selected from the one or more organic substances, wherein the target substance is configured to form at least a part of a low- resistance solid electrolyte interphase (SEl) layer on an anode of the lithium secondary battery.
17. The information processing system as claimed in claim 16, wherein the at least one filter comprises a first filter, wherein the first filter filters out a candidate material having an electron affinity greater than a predetermined electron affinity threshold.
17. The information processing system as claimed in claim 16, wherein the at least one filter comprises a first filter, and wherein the first filter filters out a candidate material having an ionization energy greater than a predetermined ionization energy threshold.
18. The information processing system as claimed in claim 16, wherein the at least one filter comprises a second filter, wherein the second filter filters out a candidate material having an ionization energy greater than a predetermined ionization energy threshold
18. The information processing system as claimed in claim 16, wherein the at least one filter comprises a second filter, and wherein the second filter filters out a candidate material having a lithium-ion interaction energy greater than a first predetermined lithium-ion interaction energy threshold.
19. The information processing system as claimed in claim 16, wherein the at least one filter comprises a third filter, wherein the third filter filters out a candidate material having a lithium ion reaction energy less than a predetermined lithium ion reaction energy threshold.
19. The information processing system as claimed in claim 16, wherein the at least one filter comprises a third filter, and wherein the third filter filters out a candidate material having a lithium-ion interaction energy less than a second predetermined lithium-ion interaction energy threshold.
20. The information processing system as claimed in claim 16, wherein the at least one filter comprises a fourth filter, wherein the fourth filter filters out a candidate material having a coordination energy between the candidate material and a hexafluorophosphate ion (PFe-) less than a predetermined hexafluorophosphate ion coordination energy threshold.
20. The information processing system as claimed in claim 16, wherein the at least one filter comprises a fourth filter, and wherein the fourth filter filters out a candidate material having a LUMO energy of a lithium-ion complex less than a predetermined LUMO energy threshold.
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.
7. Claims 1 - 20 are directed are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1,
Step 1: Claim 1 recites an apparatus, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the limitation of
receiving information about one or more organic substances (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper i.e. data gathering).
generating a database by storing the information about the one or more organic substances based on a plurality of parameters (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper i.e. observation)
applying at least one filter to the database to generate output information about one or more target substances configured to be used in the lithium secondary battery (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper i.e. observation i.e. evaluation)
the one or more target substances selected from the one or more organic substances (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper i.e. observation i.e. evaluation)
forming a solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) layer comprising an anion of lithium salt for the lithium secondary battery using at least one of the one or more target substances (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. judgement)).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of
receiving information about one or more organic substances (the step is directed to receiving information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
generating a database by storing the information about the one or more organic substances based on a plurality of parameters (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
the one or more target substances selected from the one or more organic substances (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
forming a solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) layer comprising an anion of lithium salt for the lithium secondary battery using at least one of the one or more target substances (the step is directed to output information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity and is well understood, routine, and conventional activity of preparing data for presentation (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))))).
Although the additional element limits the identified judicial exceptions. The limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional element
receiving information about one or more organic substances (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
generating a database by storing the information about the one or more organic substances based on a plurality of parameters (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
applying at least one filter to the database to generate output information about one or more target substances configured to be used in the lithium secondary battery (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
the one or more target substances selected from the one or more organic substances (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
As explained above, the additional element are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to collecting, evaluating, and presenting information are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The recitation of a computer to perform these limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites an apparatus, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein the plurality of parameters comprises an ion type, a molecular weight, an electron affinity, an ionization energy, a lithium ion (Li+) reaction energy, or a coordination energy between the one or more organic substances and an anion of a lithium salt (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. observation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
wherein the plurality of parameters comprises an ion type, a molecular weight, an electron affinity, an ionization energy, a lithium ion (Li+) reaction energy, or a coordination energy between the one or more organic substances and an anion of a lithium salt (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites an apparatus, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein the at least one filter comprises a first filter, wherein the first filter filters out a candidate material having an electron affinity greater than a predetermined electron affinity threshold (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
wherein the at least one filter comprises a first filter, wherein the first filter filters out a candidate material having an electron affinity greater than a predetermined electron affinity threshold (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites an apparatus, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein the predetermined electron affinity threshold is related to an electron affinity of an organic solvent previously determined to be used in the lithium secondary battery (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
wherein the predetermined electron affinity threshold is related to an electron affinity of an organic solvent previously determined to be used in the lithium secondary battery (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites an apparatus, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein the at least one filter comprises a second filter, wherein the second filter filters out a candidate material having an ionization energy greater than a predetermined ionization energy threshold (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
wherein the at least one filter comprises a second filter, wherein the second filter filters out a candidate material having an ionization energy greater than a predetermined ionization energy threshold (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites an apparatus, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein the predetermined ionization energy threshold is related to an internal environment of the lithium secondary battery (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
wherein the predetermined ionization energy threshold is related to an internal environment of the lithium secondary battery (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites an apparatus, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein the at least one filter comprises a third filter, wherein the third filter filters out a candidate material having a lithium ion reaction energy less than a predetermined lithium ion reaction energy threshold. (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
wherein the at least one filter comprises a third filter, wherein the third filter filters out a candidate material having a lithium ion reaction energy less than a predetermined lithium ion reaction energy threshold (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites an apparatus, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein the predetermined lithium ion reaction energy threshold is related to a reaction energy between a lithium ion and an electrolyte additive previously determined to be used in the lithium secondary battery (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
wherein the predetermined lithium ion reaction energy threshold is related to a reaction energy between a lithium ion and an electrolyte additive previously determined to be used in the lithium secondary battery (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites an apparatus, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein the at least one filter comprises a fourth filter, wherein the fourth filter filters out a candidate material having a coordination energy between the candidate material and a hexafluorophosphate ion (PFe-) less than a predetermined hexafluorophosphate ion coordination energy threshold (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
wherein the at least one filter comprises a fourth filter, wherein the fourth filter filters out a candidate material having a coordination energy between the candidate material and a hexafluorophosphate ion (PFe-) less than a predetermined hexafluorophosphate ion coordination energy threshold (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites an apparatus, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein the predetermined hexafluorophosphate ion coordination energy threshold is related to a coordination energy between the hexafluorophosphate ion and an organic solvent previously determined to be used in the lithium secondary battery (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
wherein the predetermined hexafluorophosphate ion coordination energy threshold is related to a coordination energy between the hexafluorophosphate ion and an organic solvent previously determined to be used in the lithium secondary battery (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites an apparatus, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein the organic solvent comprises ethylene carbonate (EC), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), ethylmethyl carbonate (EMC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), ethyl propionate (EP), or ethyl acetate (EA) (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. observation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
wherein the organic solvent comprises ethylene carbonate (EC), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), ethylmethyl carbonate (EMC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), ethyl propionate (EP), or ethyl acetate (EA) (the step is directed to observing information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
As per claim 12, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites an apparatus, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein the electrolyte additive comprises vinylene carbonate (VC) or fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. observation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
wherein the electrolyte additive comprises vinylene carbonate (VC) or fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) (the step is directed to observing information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
As per claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites an apparatus, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
receiving an input for selecting at least one of the plurality of parameters and receiving information about a numerical range for the at least one of the plurality of parameters (FEC) (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. observation)).
wherein the at least one filter comprises a fifth filter, and wherein the fifth filter filters out a candidate material in which the numerical range comprises information related to the at least one of the plurality of parameters (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
receiving an input for selecting at least one of the plurality of parameters and receiving information about a numerical range for the at least one of the plurality of parameters (the step is directed to observing information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
wherein the at least one filter comprises a fifth filter, and wherein the fifth filter filters out a candidate material in which the numerical range comprises information related to the at least one of the plurality of parameters (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)) The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
As per claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites an apparatus, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein the generating of the output information comprises: receiving an input of selecting at least one of the plurality of parameters on a user interface (FEC) (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
and generating output information about the at least one of the plurality of parameters selected from the output information about the one or more target substances on the user interface (i.e .judgement)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
wherein the generating of the output information comprises: receiving an input of selecting at least one of the plurality of parameters on a user interface (the step is directed to observing information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
and generating output information about the at least one of the plurality of parameters selected from the output information about the one or more target substances on the user interface (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 15 recites a computer program product, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. As per other analysis, claim 15 is a computer program product claim correspond to method claim 1, thus the rationale discussed above regarding claim 1 is applied to claim 15.
Claims 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 recites a system, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. As per other analysis, claims 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are system claim correspond to method claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 respectively, thus the rationale discussed above regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 is applied to claims 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
8. Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoon et al (KR 2009-0083763 A), in view of Srivastava et al (US 2012/0130690 A1), and further in view of YI (CN 114284560 A).
As per claim 1, Hoon et al (KR 2009-0083763 A) discloses,
A method of screening a material configured to be used in a lithium secondary battery and using the material in the lithium secondary battery (pg.5 lines 31 – 33; “automatically calculates electrochemical property values of various chemical substances that can be used in electrochemical applications such as lithium secondary batteries by various equations according to computational chemistry theory. To provide a system and method that can be made into a database”).
the method comprising: receiving information about one or more organic substances (pg.2 lines 6; “searching chemical material”, pg.2 lines 18 – 19; “repeatedly storing the basic information, the calculated electrochemical property values, and the generated image in a database and a file store, respectively, to repeatedly construct a database and a file store”, and pg.5 lines 31 – 33; “automatically calculates electrochemical property values of various chemical substances that can be used in electrochemical applications such as lithium secondary batteries”, where chemical substance is interpreted as “organic substances” as claimed).
generating a database by storing the information about the one or more organic substances based on a plurality of parameters (pg.2 lines 18 – 19; “repeatedly storing the basic information, the calculated electrochemical property values, and the generated image in a database and a file store, respectively, to repeatedly construct a database and a file store”).
applying at least one filter to the database to generate output information about one or more target substances configured to be used in the lithium secondary battery (pg.2 lines 8 – 9; “database a variety of electrochemical property values for the candidate chemical group used in the electrochemical application product and then to effectively develop a candidate group of chemicals that can be used in the product “ and pg.3 lines 24 – 26; “receives the search request information and reads the electrochemical property information of the chemical group corresponding to the search condition from the database”).,
the one or more target substances selected from the one or more organic substances (pg.5 lines 20 – 21; “selecting a candidate group of chemicals that can be used in the product during the development of an electrochemical application product (typically, a lithium secondary battery)”).
and forming a solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) layer comprising an anion of lithium salt for the lithium secondary battery using at least one of the one or more target substances (NOTE: pg.5 lines 9 - 10; “lithium secondary batteries ….. formation of an effective SEI (Solid Electrolyte Interface)”).
Hoon discloses searching of database for electronic compound to manufacture lithium secondary battery, which is analogous to filtering of chemical substance, but to further explain the obviousness of applying filter to the database.
Srivastava et al (US 2012/0130690 A1) in an analogous art discloses,
applying at least one filter to the database (para.[0037]; “screening or filtering of a wide variety of positive and negative electrode materials which are then used with given electrolyte materials for system level design of all cylindrical and prismatic Li-ion battery cells”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate composition of content of electrode materials in a database of the system of Srivastava into generation of electrochemical substance database of the system of Hoon to provide a database for obtaining different combinations of electrode properties for manufacturing a lithium secondary battery.
Neither Hoon nor Srivastava specifically disclose anion of a lithium salt.
However, YI (CN 114284560 A) in an analogous art discloses,
solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) layer comprising an anion of a lithium salt (pg.2 lines 9 – 10; “electrolyte for lithium iron phosphate batteries, in which lithium salts LiSiF4SO4 and LiSiF4C2O4”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate lithium salt of the system of Yi into composition of content of electrode materials in a database of the system of Srivastava to provide resourceful material for constructing a lithium secondary database, thereby enabling users to have a variation of materials for selection in generating optimal lithium secondary battery.
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Hoon et al (KR 2009-0083763 A) discloses,
wherein the plurality of parameters comprises an ion type, a molecular weight, an electron affinity, an ionization energy, a lithium ion (Li*) reaction energy, or a coordination energy between the one or more organic substances and an anion of a lithium salt (pg.6 lines 17 – 19; “electrochemical property values include dipole moment, high Occupied Molecular Orbital (HOMO), low Occupied Molecular Orbital (LUMO), ionization energy (ON), OP (oxidation potential, Oxidation Potential) ), EA (electron affinity, Electron Affinity) and RP (Reduction Potential), any one selected from the group” and pg.9 lines 36 – 37; “electrochemical property information includes ID, name, molecular weight, chemical formula, dipole moment, HOMO, LUMO, IP, EA, OP and RP”).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Srivastava et al (US 2012/0130690 A1) discloses,
wherein the at least one filter comprises a first filter, wherein the first filter filters out a candidate material having an electron affinity greater than a predetermined electron affinity threshold (para.[0052]; “filtering the chosen or designed candidate materials structures. The screened or filtered structures are those that have been classified such that structures in the same classification have the same or similar properties”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate lithium salt of the system of Yi into composition of content of electrode materials in a database of the system of Srivastava to provide different criteria for selecting appropriate organic substances to building a lithium secondary database.
As per claim 4 the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated and further Srivastava et al (US 2012/0130690 A1) discloses,
wherein the predetermined electron affinity threshold is related to an electron affinity of an organic solvent previously determined to be used in the lithium secondary battery (para.[0055]; “compositional formula is defined in field 356, which includes a list of different elements, such as Ni, Co, Mn, etc. Each element is included in the formula with a given percentage to form the compositional formula”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate lithium salt of the system of Yi into composition of content of electrode materials in a database of the system of Srivastava to provide different criteria for selecting appropriate organic substances to building a lithium secondary database.
As per claim 5 the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Srivastava et al (US 2012/0130690 A1) discloses,
wherein the at least one filter comprises a second filter, wherein the second filter filters out a candidate material having an ionization energy greater than a predetermined ionization energy threshold (para.[0060]; “the inputs include the material class or type, the composition, and the formula, but other inputs, such as morphology, particle size, etc., are also possible”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate lithium salt of the system of Yi into composition of content of electrode materials in a database of the system of Srivastava to provide different criteria for selecting appropriate organic substances to building a lithium secondary database.
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated and further Hoon et al (KR 2009-0083763 A) discloses,
wherein the predetermined ionization energy threshold is related to an internal environment of the lithium secondary battery (pg.8 lines 34 – 35; “electrochemical property value calculation module 23 to calculate the electrochemical property value of the electrolyte X used in the lithium secondary battery” and pg.8 line 10; “calculate electrochemical properties such as ionization potential”)
As per claim 7 the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Srivastava et al (US 2012/0130690 A1) discloses,
wherein the at least one filter comprises a third filter, wherein the third filter filters out a candidate material having a lithium ion reaction energy less than a predetermined lithium ion reaction energy threshold (para.[0060]; “the inputs include the material class or type, the composition, and the formula, but other inputs, such as morphology, particle size, etc., are also possible”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate lithium salt of the system of Yi into composition of content of electrode materials in a database of the system of Srivastava to provide different criteria for selecting appropriate organic substances to building a lithium secondary database.
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated and further YI (CN 114284560 A) discloses,
wherein the predetermined lithium ion reaction energy threshold is related to a reaction energy between a lithium ion and an electrolyte additive previously determined to be used in the lithium secondary battery (pg.3 lines 29 – 31; “the additives include: at least one of fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) and Vinylene Carbonate (VC); and tris (trimethylsilane) phosphate (TMSP); and ethylene Carbonate (VEC)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate lithium salt of the system of Yi into composition of content of electrode materials in a database of the system of Srivastava to provide resourceful material for building a lithium secondary database, thereby enabling users to have a variation of materials for selection in generating optimal lithium secondary battery.
As per claim 9 the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Srivastava et al (US 2012/0130690 A1) discloses,
wherein the at least one filter comprises a fourth filter, wherein the fourth filter filters out a candidate material having a coordination energy between the candidate material and a hexafluorophosphate ion (PFe-) less than a predetermined hexafluorophosphate ion coordination energy threshold (para.[0052]; “filtering the chosen or designed candidate materials structures. The screened or filtered structures are those that have been classified such that structures in the same classification have the same or similar properties”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate lithium salt of the system of Yi into composition of content of electrode materials in a database of the system of Srivastava to provide different criteria for selecting appropriate organic substances to building a lithium secondary database.
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated and further YI (CN 114284560 A) discloses,
wherein the predetermined hexafluorophosphate ion coordination energy threshold is related to a coordination energy between the hexafluorophosphate ion and an organic solvent previously determined to be used in the lithium secondary battery (pg.9 lines 1 – 2; “electrolytic solution is a lithium main body, the positive electrode active material constituting the positive electrode (ii) is not particularly limited as long as it is a material that can be charged and discharged”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate lithium salt of the system of Yi into composition of content of electrode materials in a database of the system of Srivastava to provide resourceful material for building a lithium secondary database, thereby enabling users to have a variation of materials for selection in generating optimal lithium secondary battery.
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated and further YI (CN 114284560 A) discloses,
wherein the organic solvent comprises ethylene carbonate (EC), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), ethylmethyl carbonate (EMC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), ethyl propionate (EP), or ethyl acetate (EA) (pg. 2 lines 29 – 30; “additive consists of fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), Vinylene Carbonate (VC), tris (trimethylsilane) phosphate (TMSP), Vinyl Ethylene Carbonate (VEC), and vinyl sulfate (DTD)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate lithium salt of the system of Yi into composition of content of electrode materials in a database of the system of Srivastava to provide resourceful material for building a lithium secondary database, thereby enabling users to have a variation of materials for selection in generating optimal lithium secondary battery.
As per claim 12, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated and further YI (CN 114284560 A) discloses,
wherein the electrolyte additive comprises vinylene carbonate (VC) or fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) (pg.3 lines 29 – 31; “the additives include: at least one of fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) and Vinylene Carbonate (VC); and tris (trimethylsilane) phosphate (TMSP); and ethylene Carbonate (VEC)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate lithium salt of the system of Yi into composition of content of electrode materials in a database of the system of Srivastava to provide resourceful material for building a lithium secondary database, thereby enabling users to have a variation of materials for selection in generating optimal lithium secondary battery.
As per claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Srivastava et al (US 2012/0130690 A1) discloses,
further comprising: receiving an input for selecting at least one of the plurality of parameters (para.[0043]; “Through the GUI the user selects the parameters related to the different possible simulations and combinations of materials.”).
and receiving information about a numerical range for the at least one of the plurality of parameters (para.[0037]; “allows a user to select inputs ( e.g., composition for simulation), request computations, generate capacity information, specify hierarchical screening criteria”).
wherein the at least one filter comprises a fifth filter, and wherein the fifth filter filters out a candidate material in which the numerical range comprises information related to the at least one of the plurality of parameters (para.[0037]; “screening or filtering of a wide variety of positive and negative electrode materials which are then used with given electrolyte materials for system level design of all cylindrical and prismatic Li-ion battery cells”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate lithium salt of the system of Yi into composition of content of electrode materials in a database of the system of Srivastava to provide different criteria for selecting appropriate organic substances to building a lithium secondary database.
As per claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Srivastava et al (US 2012/0130690 A1) discloses,
wherein the generating of the output information comprises: receiving an input of selecting at least one of the plurality of parameters on a user interface (para.[0037]; “allows a user to select inputs ( e.g., composition for simulation), request computations, generate capacity information, specify hierarchical screening criteria” and para.[0130]; “User Interface ( GUI) of the development engine for searching battery materials”).
and generating output information about the at least one of the plurality of parameters selected from the output information about the one or more target substances on the user interface (para.[0132]; “Receive user input to select the single, composite, or solid solution lattice types, mole or composition ratio of active elements, and end functional group to determine the composition to be screened” and para.[0133]; “Create a set of all possible models of the target composition from the database of modular building blocks”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate lithium salt of the system of Yi into composition of content of electrode materials in a database of the system of Srivastava to provide different criteria for selecting appropriate organic substances to building a lithium secondary database.
Claim 15 is a computer program product corresponding to method claim 1, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claims 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are information processing system corresponding to method claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 respectively, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 respectively above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 AUGUSTINE KUNLE OBISESAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2020. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at (571) 272-3906. 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.
/AUGUSTINE K. OBISESAN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2156
9/1/2026
Prosecution Insights