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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of the amendment filed on 03/16/2026 in which claims 1 and 16-17 were amended and claims 18-19 added. Claims 5 and 15 stand as previously canceled. Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-18 are pending for examination below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 1 and 16-17, the amendment reads, “discharging discharging pulse”. This is unclear as it is not clear if it’s a typo or if there are two discharging pulses present.
Claims 2-4, 6-14, and 18-19 depend from the claims above and are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-14, 16, and 18-19 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayayama et al. [US 2020/0395775] in view of Saruwatari et al. [US 2016/0268604] and Berkowitz et al. [US 10,574,079].
With respect to claims 1 and 16, Hayayama discloses an energy storage apparatus [Fig. 1] comprising: an energy storage device with a positive electrode and a negative electrode [20] with a state of being partitioned by a separator [implicitly positive and negative electrodes need a separator to prevent short circuiting]; and a management unit [10], wherein the management unit executes detection processing of detecting a state in which a voltage of the energy storage device does not substantially change [11], and discharge processing of discharging the energy storage device in response to detection of the state in the detection processing [abstract, par. 0008,0067,0085, claims 1 and 10], and the management unit causes a charger to charge the energy storage device to which the management unit performs the discharge processing, after discharging the energy storage device in the discharge processing in an alternately fashion [par. 0038; first note the batteries are “secondary” batteries which are rechargeable batteries and therefore go through repeated cycles of charging and discharging, i.e. a feature implicit to secondary batteries, see also par. 0025-0026 which explicitly disclose that fact; i.e. the discharging control method during a period of long non-use is not the only/final process of the battery system; further note that as par. 0038 point out switch S6 reconnects after discharging cells 20 and thereby reconnects Eb to cells 20 in a serial manner which causes charging power to flow back into cells 20]. However, Hayayama fails to disclose the selected battery is of the type being immersed in a nonaqueous electrolyte solution and performing of an alternating discharge pulse.
Saruwatari relates to a nonaqueous electrolyte lithium based battery and teaches an energy storage device immersed in a nonaqueous electrolyte solution.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Hayayama to select a nonaqueous type of battery for the benefit of utilizing a battery with higher temperature tolerances as stated by Saruwatari and also for the known benefits nonaqueous batteries provide such as higher energy/power density and reduced corrosion.
Furthermore, utilizing different discharging profiles is known in the art of battery charging/discharging. For example, Berkowitz relates to battery charging techniques and teaches a process includes a discharging pulse for a first pulse time during which a current is continuously caused to flow constantly while alternately changing an intensity of the current and pausing the discharge for a discharge pause time [see at least Fig. 12M; which shows a discharge packets includes a multiple discharge pulses of alternating intensity and rest periods].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Hayayama to apply the specific discharge profile as taught by Berkowitz for the benefit of facilitating implementation of adaptive control and for battery protection as explicitly recited by Berkowitz [col. 3 lines 7-45].
With respect to claim 2, Hayayama further discloses wherein the state is a non-use state in which the energy storage apparatus is not used [par. 0008; “a state of non-use”].
With respect to claim 4, Hayayama further discloses wherein in the discharge processing, the management unit intermittently discharges the energy storage device, or discharges the energy storage device while alternately changing an intensity of a current [Fig. 6].
With respect to claim 6, Hayayama further discloses wherein the management unit discharges the energy storage device by a circuit other than a main circuit to which the energy storage device is connected in the discharge processing [Fig. 2C; i.e. discharges to the energy storage device Eb].
With respect to claim 7, Hayayama further discloses comprising a circuit breaker connected in series with the energy storage device, wherein in the discharge processing, the management unit causes a current for opening the circuit breaker or a current for closing the circuit breaker to flow from the energy storage device to the circuit breaker to discharge the energy storage device [S6].
With respect to claims 8-9, Hayayama further discloses a plurality of the energy storage devices; and an equalization circuit that has a discharge resistor and equalizes a voltage of each of the energy storage devices by discharging the energy storage device, having a relatively high voltage among the plurality of energy storage devices, with the discharge resistor, wherein the management unit causes the equalization circuit to discharge the energy storage device in the discharge processing [Fig. 2A; par. 0033-0034].
This citation relates to a separate embodiment (as compared to the previously referenced Fig. 2C). It would have been obvious to further modify the embodiment together, i.e. to incorporate the disclosed equalization circuit with Fig. 2C, for the benefit of providing a balancing/equalization method that prevents the individual batteries from becoming over/under charged as is well-known in the art.
With respect to claim 10, Hayayama further discloses wherein the management unit executes the discharge processing when the state in which the voltage of the energy storage device does not substantially change continues for a predetermined time or longer [par. 0008].
With respect to claim 11, Hayayama further discloses wherein the management unit executes the discharge processing when the state in which the voltage of the energy storage device does not substantially change is detected by the detection processing and when the voltage or a charge state of the energy storage device is a predetermined value or more [Fig. 3, see also S15].
With respect to claims 12, Hayayama fails to explicitly disclose the energy storage system being used in an uninterruptible power supply. However, official notice is taken that implementing Hayayama’s battery management technology with a UPS would be obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art. UPS technology is routine and well-known in the art and therefore utilizing Hayayama’s method to decrease degradation, as stated by Hayayama, yields the benefit of longer lasting batteries.
With respect to claims 13-14, Hayayama further discloses the energy storage system being mounted on a vehicle and being used in an energy storage system [title, Figs 1-2].
With respect to claim 18, Berkowitz as applied above further disclose the discharge pulses include multiple pulses at different times and at different intensities (i.e. weaker) [see figs 12D, 12I, and 12M].
With respect to claim 19, Hayayama as applied above fails to disclose any specific time periods. However, it would have been obvious to set the time periods to be the same since it has been held that finding optimum values/range only involves routine skill. Applicant’s specification fails to identify any criticality or unexpected results from setting the times the same and the person with ordinary skill would be presented with a finite amount of possibilities without undue experimentation. The benefit to having the values be the same (i.e. the charging time being longer than the discharging time) would be to allow the battery to reach a fully charged state and be ready for use.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayayama et al. [US 2020/0395775], Saruwatari et al. [US 2016/0268604], and Berkowitz et al. [US 10,574,079] as applied above, and further in view of Mukai et al. [US 2022/0293948].
With respect to claim 3, Hayayama discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the energy storage device is a lithium ion battery in which the positive electrode contains a ternary active material.
However, ternary active materials are well-known in lithium ion batteries, for example, Mukai teaches a nonaqueous lithium battery where the positive electrode contains a ternary active material [par. 0006]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify Hayayama as applied above to use a ternary active material as disclosed for the benefit of the intrinsic properties they provided such as significantly higher energy density.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/16/2026 have been considered but are moot because a new ground of rejection has been present in view of Berkowitz and applied has not yet had a chance to respond.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL R PELTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/NATHANIEL R PELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859