DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 1/25/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 10-2021-0010309 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: in figure 6, P+ and P-. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the passage (PgPub 20250258238 ¶ [0045]) “The profile generating unit 110 may be configured to generate a differential profile representing a corresponding relationship between a differential voltage based on capacity and voltage and the capacity.” is nonsensical and/or includes typographical errors that must be corrected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 11 et seq.
Step 1: Is the Claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter?
Claims 1-11 recite a apparatus for classifying a material of a negative electrode of a battery. Thus, these claims are to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A: Prong One: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea?
Representative claim 1 recites:
1. An apparatus for classifying a material of a negative electrode of a battery, the apparatus comprising:
a processor; and
memory having programmed thereon instructions that, when executed, are configured to cause the processor to:
obtain a differential profile representing a relationship between a capacity of a battery and a differential voltage of the battery;
identify each of a first range of battery capacities and a non-overlapping second range of battery capacities in the differential profile; [the examiner finds that these elements are Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; or mental processes which could be done in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper]
determine a first peak differential voltage value in the first range of battery capacities; [the examiner finds that these elements are Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations]
determine a second peak differential voltage value in the second range of battery capacities; [the examiner finds that these elements are Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations] and
determine the material of the negative electrode of the battery based on the first peak differential voltage value and the second peak differential voltage value. [the examiner finds that these elements are Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations or mental processes which could be done in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper]
Step 2A: Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application?
The elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements.
The examiner finds that each of the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea:
“obtain a differential profile representing a relationship between a capacity of a battery and a differential voltage of the battery;” [the examiner finds these elements to be data gathering].
The examiner finds that each of the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use:
a processor; and
memory having programmed thereon instructions.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount to Significantly More Than the Abstract Idea?
The examiner finds that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The same analysis above applies mutatis mutandis to the other independent claim, claim 21, because that claim contains the same limitations written in method (process) form.
Regarding claims 12 & 22, the additional elements “determine a lowest differential voltage point within a predefined capacity region of the differential profile” and “divide the differential profile into the first range of battery capacities and the second range of battery capacities at the capacity corresponding to the lowest differential voltage point, such that the first range of battery capacities are capacities below the lowest differential voltage point and the second range are capacities above the lowest differential voltage point” do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely extends the abstract idea using mathematical concepts and/or mental processes that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
Regarding claim 13 & 23, the additional elements “wherein differential voltage values within the first range of battery capacities are predominantly influenced by the material of the negative electrode of the battery, and wherein differential voltage values within the second range of battery capacities are predominantly influenced by a material of a positive electrode of the battery” do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Regarding claim 14 & 24, the additional elements “determine, from among a plurality of peaks in the differential profile, a target peak at which the differential voltage is greatest; determine a first differential voltage based on the differential voltage of the target peak; determine a second differential voltage based on a lowest differential voltage of the differential profile; and set a threshold value to based on whichever of the first differential voltage or the second differential voltage is greater” do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they are mathematical concepts and/or mental processes that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
Regarding claim 15 & 25, the additional elements “set the first differential voltage as a value smaller than the differential voltage of the target peak by a first predetermined amount; and set the second differential voltage as a value greater than the lowest differential voltage by a second predetermined amount” do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they are mathematical concepts and/or mental processes that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
Regarding claim 16 & 26, the additional elements “classify the negative electrode as graphite-based based on each of the first peak differential voltage value and the second peak differential voltage value exceeding the threshold value; and classify the negative electrode as non-graphite-based based on at least one of the first peak differential voltage value or the second peak differential voltage value being less than the threshold value” do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they are mathematical concepts and/or mental processes that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
Regarding claim 17 & 27, the additional elements classify the battery as beginning of life (BOL) or middle of life (MOL) based on each of the first peak differential voltage value and the second peak differential voltage value exceeding the threshold value; and classify the battery as end of life (EOL) based on at least one of the first peak differential voltage value or the second peak differential voltage value being less than the threshold value” do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they are mathematical concepts and/or mental processes that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
Regarding claim 18 & 28, the additional elements “classify the battery into a first group based on the first peak differential voltage value and the second peak differential voltage value exceeding a threshold value, and classify the battery into a second group based on at least one of the first peak differential voltage value and the second peak differential voltage value not exceeding the threshold value” do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they are mathematical concepts and/or mental processes that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
Regarding claim 19 & 29, the additional elements “wherein the first group comprises batteries containing negative electrodes that are graphite-based, and wherein the second group comprises batteries containing negative electrodes that are non-graphite-based” do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they are mathematical concepts and/or mental processes that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
Regarding claim 20 & 30, the additional elements “wherein the first group comprises BOL and MOL batteries containing graphite-based negative electrodes, and wherein the second group comprises EOL batteries containing graphite-based negative electrodes” do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they are mathematical concepts and/or mental processes that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
Allowable Subject Matter
If the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections above were to be resolved in a manner favorable to the applicant, claims 11-30 would be allowable.
The closest prior art found during the examiner’s search is:
United States Patent App. Pub. No. 20210199723 to Kim et al., which discloses an apparatus for determining a differential voltage curve of a battery which determines battery degradation based on SOC calculations, but does not disclose determining the material in the negative electrode based on peaks of differential voltage;
United States Patent App. Pub. No. 20160254687 to Tanaka et al., which discloses a battery module and assembled battery having an electrode mixture layer that is determined by pre-assembly testing using sieve classification and wind flow classification of the materials to be used in the battery, but does not disclose using dV/dQ for that purpose;
Japanese Patent Document No. JP2016053564A to Torai et al., which discloses a battery capacity measurement system which uses dV/dQ and dV/dQ v. V to optimize a battery across multiple configurations of materials being inserted into the positive and negative electrodes, but does not disclose determining the material in the negative electrode based on peaks of differential voltage; and
United States Patent App. Pub. No. 20110012604 to Tsujiko et al., which discloses a battery system using dV/dQ to accurately detect the state of a battery, particularly failure, but does not disclose determining the material in the negative electrode based on peaks of differential voltage.
But none of the prior art of record discloses or fairly suggests:
in claim 11, “An apparatus for classifying a material of a negative electrode of a battery, the apparatus comprising . . . identify each of a first range of battery capacities and a non-overlapping second range of battery capacities in the differential profile; determine a first peak differential voltage value in the first range of battery capacities; determine a second peak differential voltage value in the second range of battery capacities; and determine the material of the negative electrode of the battery based on the first peak differential voltage value and the second peak differential voltage value,” and
in claim 21, “A method for classifying a material of a negative electrode of a battery, the method comprising . . . identifying each of a first range of battery capacities and a non-overlapping second range of battery capacities in the differential profile; determining a first peak differential voltage value in the first range of battery capacities; determining a second peak differential voltage value in the second range of battery capacities; and determining the material of the negative electrode of the battery based on the first peak differential voltage value and the second peak differential voltage value,”
in combination with all other limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert P Alejnikov whose telephone number is (571)270-5164. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00a-6:00p M-F.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571.272.2619. 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.
/ROBERT P ALEJNIKOV JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
