DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Flow diagrams from MPEP 2106(III) & 2106.04(II)(A), respectively.
Claims 1-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Claim 1:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “method” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
“analysing the derived impedance and lithium transport parameters to identify one or more outlier cells (312) in the battery (304);”
“and designating the outlier cells for reuse in a second application or for recycling based on the predicted degradation pathway.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
&
“It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation these limitations are directed towards either mathematical concepts or mental processes. Since “analysing”, “designating … based on the predicted” are limitations which could be done by the mind or by generic computer elements; especially since beyond the generic and conventional “battery” & “cells” there are no specific elements disclosed.
The Specification in pages 5-6 states:
“It is to be appreciated that all the aforementioned implementation forms can be combined. It has to be noted that all devices, elements, circuitry, units and means described in the present application could be implemented in the software or hardware elements or any kind of combination thereof. All steps which are performed by the various entities described in the present application as well as the functionalities described to be performed by the various entities are intended to mean that the respective entity is adapted to or configured to perform the respective steps and functionalities. Even if, in the following description of specific embodiments, a specific functionality or step to be performed by external entities is not
reflected in the description of a specific detailed element of that entity which performs that specific step or functionality, it should be clear for a skilled person that these methods and functionalities can be implemented in respective software or hardware elements, or any kind of combination thereof.”
Therefore at least under the BRI, the limitations which could be implemented within software are judicial exceptions of either mental processes or mathematical concepts.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim recites the additional limitations of:
“conducting one or more safety diagnostic tests on the battery;”
“measuring an Open Circuit Voltage (OCV) for each of a plurality of cells in the battery (304) to determine a state of charge of the battery;”
“performing an Electrochemical Dynamic Response (EDR) test on the battery to derive impedance and lithium transport parameters for each of the plurality of cells;”
“conducting one or more AC tests on the identified outlier cells to predict a degradation pathway for the cells over a lifetime of the battery;”
The claim recites the additional elements of:
“battery”, “cells”
Explanation:
Rule
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity.”
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.”
Analysis:
“Battery” and “cells” are not significantly more than indicating a technological environment corresponding to at least CPC symbol G01R 31/36: . “Arrangements for testing, measuring or monitoring the electrical condition of accumulators or electric batteries, e.g. capacity or state of charge [SoC]” or more specifically CPC symbol G01R 31/392 : . . “Determining battery ageing or deterioration, e.g. state of health”.
The limitations are directed towards generic testing of generic elements (batteries and cells), whose purpose is to gather data upon which to apply the inventive concept (a judicial exception), and is no more that which is within the understanding of a POSITA.
As explained by the ISA in “Incoming Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority (ISA)” filed 04/25/2025 page 4:
“Claim interpretation: the subject matter of claim 1 defines the tests performed by the desired outcome while not providing any detail to the specific technique and the parameter space the test is performed on, or mentions a relevant standard that would allow a comparison with the prior art.”
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Batteries and cells are generic and conventional elements to a POSITA.
The additional limitations listed in step 2A prong 2 (as above) are no more than that which is necessarily implied by the judicial exception(s) (i.e. determination of the health of a battery). They are then not significantly more than the judicial exception(s). They are not significantly more than data upon which the judicial exception(s) act. The testing is not significantly more than stating that ‘the data which is necessary for the judicial exception was obtained’.
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2): “2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.”
Analysis:
A search was conducted to establish the conventionality of the limitations directed towards the above listed combination of additional elements and limitations; and in particular to battery testing.
The search found the references of at least:
NPL “Battery pack remanufacturing process up to cell level with sorting and repurposing of battery cells” (Kampker, as cited by IDS 04/25/2025) see Fig. 6
NPL “A Fast and Automatic Methodology for Selecting Lithium-ion Cells for Second-Life Batteries.” (Moreira, as cited by IDS 04/25/2025) see Fig. 3 & Fig. 6
NPL “Assessment of spent EV batteries for second-life application” (Muhammad, as cited by IDS 04/25/2025) see Fig. 3
NPL “Comparison of Several Methods for Determining the Internal Resistance of Lithium Ion Cells” (Schweiger) see Fig. 5 & Fig. 6
The Applicant’s specifications in “Background” page 1, states:
“Generally, a number of electric vehicle (EV) batteries are manufactured, processed, and tested at an electric vehicle service station, for use in electric vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and the like. However, the testing is mostly limited to prototype testing or testing of newly manufactured batteries.”
Therefore, the testing is conventional.
Conclusion:
At least under the BRI, the combination of additional elements is not significantly more than testing of batteries and cells which would be well known and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 2:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards an “method” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the additional limitation of:
“further comprising determining whether the OCV for each of the plurality of cells in the battery is below a pre-defined threshold voltage.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 2 does not recite any additional elements
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Claim 2 does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 3:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “method” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the additional limitation of:
“further comprising identifying one or more damaged cells in the battery for replacement when the determined OCV is less than the pre-defined threshold voltage for the one or more damaged cells.”
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 3 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Claim 3 does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 4:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “method” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the additional limitation of:
“wherein the EDR test on the battery is further configured to derive a state of health of Direct Current (DC) discharge data of the battery based on at least one of: a correlation between capacity and temperature of the battery or a correlation between the capacity and voltage of the battery
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 4 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Claim 4 does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 5:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “method” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 4 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the additional limitation of:
“further comprising analysing the derived state of health to identify the one or more outlier cells in the battery.”
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 5 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Claim 5 does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 6:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “method” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 4 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the additional limitation of:
“further comprising comparing data from the derived state of health with a model dataset, having a plurality of predefined test values, of the battery to further evaluate the outlier cells of the battery.”
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 6 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Claim 6 does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 7:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “method” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the additional limitation of:
“wherein the one or more AC tests on the identified outlier cells are conducted either in-situ within the battery or ex-situ by removing the identified outlier cells from the battery.”
This is not significantly more than stating ‘apply it’ with regard to the judicial exception(s).
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 7 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Claim 7 does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 8:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “method” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 8 additionally recites:
“wherein the one or more AC tests are conducted on the identified outlier cells at different amplitudes and different frequencies.”
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 8 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Claim 8 does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 9:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “method” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 9 additionally recites:
“wherein the outlier cells are designated for reuse in the second application when the degradation pathway for the cells over the lifetime of the battery is predicted to be favourable for the reuse in the second application.”
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 9 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Claim 9 does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 10:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “method” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 10 additionally recites:
“wherein the outlier cells are designated for recycling when the degradation pathway for the cells over the lifetime of the battery is predicted to be unfavourable for reuse.”
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 10 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Claim 10 does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 11:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “method” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 11 additionally recites:
“wherein the identified outlier cells are removed from the battery (304) and replaced with cells having substantially similar impedance and state of health as that of healthy cells remaining in the battery (304).”
Taking a corrective action (such as replacing cells) is necessary post solution extra solution activity necessitated by the judicial exception(s).
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 10 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Claim 10 does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 12:
Claim 12 is similar to the analysis for claims 1-11. Claim 12 additionally recites the elements of “control circuit” & “test equipment”, which are not significantly more than technological environment limitations (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) corresponding to at least CPC symbol G01R 31/36, or to a computer environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These additional elements do not overcome the judicial exception(s) at either revised step 2A prong Two nor at step 2B.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12146917 B2 "Determination And Utilization Of Over-predictive Battery State Of Charge" (Bednar) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Figs. 3.
US 20230266400 A1 "Battery Diagnosing Apparatus And Method" (Kim) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Figs. 3 to 6.
US 20230266399 A1 .
US 20230204675 A1.
US 11018380 B2 "Reconditioned Battery Pack And Method Of Making Same" (Junger) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Figs. 4.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/RAUL J RIOS RUSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
