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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
As displayed on the DISQ document: the Terminal Disclaimer filed 03/24/2026 has been disapproved because all owners are not listed within the Terminal Disclaimer. The filed ADS shows two Applicants, and all Applicants must be listed. Please resubmit the Terminal Disclaimer. No fee is required if missing Applicant is listed on the same Terminal Disclaimer. If missing Applicant is filed separately, a fee will be required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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.
Claims 1, 2, 3 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 3 of copending Application No. 18/426,318 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application only differs in the language of “coating removal” as opposed to “film removal”. The reference range of a peak value of 550 mA to 1000 mA overlaps with the claimed range of 550 mA to 750 mA. The reference limitations read upon and overlap with every limitation of the respective claimed invention claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 would be found allowable if the rejection under non-statutory double patenting is overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claims 1 and 2 respectively require an apparatus and corresponding use method of removing a lead sulfate film generated on an electrode of a lead-acid battery, the apparatus and corresponding method comprising generating a removal signal of the lead sulfate film having a peak value of 550 mA to 750 mA, a pulse width of 5 nsec to 100 nsec, and a frequency of 5 kHz to 50 kHz, based on a signal extracted from the lead-acid battery; and supplying the generated removal signal to the electrode of the lead-acid battery. These tuned method and apparatus parameters provide a lead-acid battery with lower power consumption and damage of an electrode [0005, 0006].
Prior art reference US PGPub 2013/0141053 discloses a desulfation device that enables removal of sulfation on the electrodes of a battery [Abstract]. The frequency is 20 kHz [Abstract]. However, the pulse width is 1.6 µsec [Abstract], which is magnitudes higher than the claimed pulse width of 5 nsec to 100 nsec. The prior art range seeks to avoid resistor damage [0051, 0052] and is selected to reduce the temperature increase to a level equivalent to a conventional temperature increase [0054]. The claimed invention optimizes the smaller pulse width, higher peak removal signal value, and frequency relative to the recognized prior art ranges for the purposes of lower power consumption and electrode damage [0008, 0002, 0011].
None of the prior art references (above and IDS) recognize the benefits of the claimed invention as cited above. Therefore, taking into consideration the aforementioned reasons, the prior art does not disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed requirement of an apparatus and corresponding use method of removing a lead sulfate film generated on an electrode of a lead-acid battery, the apparatus and corresponding method comprising generating a removal signal of the lead sulfate film having a peak value of 550 mA to 750 mA, a pulse width of 5 nsec to 100 nsec, and a frequency of 5 kHz to 50 kHz, based on a signal extracted from the lead-acid battery; and supplying the generated removal signal to the electrode of the lead-acid battery.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER P DOMONE whose telephone number is (571)270-7582. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P DOMONE/Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights