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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 06/16/2026, with respect to claims 1, and 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the claims has been withdrawn due to amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 06/16/2026, with respect to claim 4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The applicant canceled the claim.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 06/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s)1-15 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Onnerud et al. (US 2013/0017421), herein after Onnerud, and Sink et al. (US 6,270,916), herein after Sink.
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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IRVIMÄKI, M., "COMPONENT TESTING FOR SPACECRAFT POWER SUBSYSTEM PASSIVATION FUNCTION" TAMPEREEN TEKNILLINEN YLIOPISTO TAMPERE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, (2017), Newton (US 9,263,903), Onnerud (US 2013/0017421), and Sink (US 6,270,916).
Regarding claim 1, Maxim discloses an inerting device for a battery (page 17, 3.5 section) comprising:
a first terminal and a second terminal, the first terminal and the second terminal presenting opposite polarity (battery if fig. 3. 10 has two terminals with the opposite polarity),
the inerting device comprising a connection circuit, the connection circuit connecting the battery to at least one charging circuit the connection circuit comprising a first connector, a second connector and a switching unit (see the annotated fig below),
PNG
media_image1.png
558
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. I
However, Maxim is silent about the switching unit configured to switch between a first position in which the first connector is connected to the first terminal and a second position in which the first connector is connected to the second terminal, wherein in the second position, a polarity of the battery is reversed and causes a forced discharge of the battery until the battery reaches a fully passivated, irreversible state.
Newton discloses an apparatus for detecting and switching battery polarity in a battery charger (abstract). Newton further discloses the switching unit (DPDT analog SW, fig. 1) being able to switch between a first position in which the first connector is connected to the first terminal and a second position in which the first connector is connected to the second terminal (fig. 1 shows switch circuit is used to connect the battery terminals at the two position, e.g. first terminal can be connected to the first connector at the first position and connect with the second connector at the second position; Col. 3, lines 22-44).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maxim’s switching circuit to include dipole type of switches to change the polarity of the batteries with the connection circuit as taught by Newton, in order to have the simple, cost-effective and compact control for changing the polarity of a DC circuit.
Although, newton does disclose the switching unit which reverse the battery polarity, however, Newton does not explicitly disclose by reversing the polarity of the battery, the battery is forcefully discharge until the battery reaches a fully passivated, irreversible state.
Onnerud discloses a system to respond to detection of a safety event. Onnerud discloses by reversing the polarity of the battery, the battery is forcefully discharge until the battery reaches in a safer energy state (paragraph [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maxim’s switching circuit in view of newton to have the safety event where the battery is discharged to the level of safer energy state as taught by Onnerud, in order to manage the battery depth of discharge.
However, they do not explicitly disclose that the battery is discharged up to passivated irreversible state.
Sink discloses the batter is completely discharged up to the disposal level (Col. 1, lines 10-13).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maxim’s switching circuit in view of newton and Onnerud to completely discharged the battery as taught by sink, in or der to eliminate stored electrical energy, making the battery chemically inert and safe to shred or process without the risk of accidental fires.
Regarding claim 2, Maxim in view of Newton, Onnerud , and Sink discloses the inerting device of claim 1. Newton further discloses wherein the switching unit is also able to connect the second connector to the second terminal in the first position and to connect the second connector to the first terminal in the second position (fig. 1 shows switch circuit is used to connect the battery terminals at the two position, e.g. second terminal can be connected to the first connector at the first position and connect with the second connector at the second position; Col. 3, lines 22-44).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maxim’s switching circuit to include dipole type of switches to change the polarity of the batteries with the connection circuit as taught by Newton, in order to have the simple, cost-effective and compact control for changing the polarity of a DC circuit.
Regarding claim 3, Maxim in view of Newton, Onnerud , and Sink disclose the inerting device of claim 1. Newton further discloses wherein the switching unit is also able to switch to a third position in which the battery is in short circuit or open circuit (a fully-open tri-state condition to exist when the circuit is powered, Col. 4, line 29, can be considered the open circuit when the battery terminals are not connected to any connector).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maxim’s switching circuit to include dipole type of switches to change the polarity of the batteries with the connection circuit as taught by Newton, in order to have the simple, cost-effective and compact control for changing the polarity of a DC circuit.
Regarding claim 5, Maxim in view of Newton, Onnerud, and Sink discloses the inerting device of claim 1. Newton discloses wherein the switching unit includes at least one two-position contactor (two switches with the connection position, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maxim’s switching circuit to include dipole type of switches to change the polarity of the batteries with the connection circuit as taught by Newton, in order to have the simple, cost-effective and compact control for changing the polarity of a DC circuit.
Regarding claim 6, Maxim in view of Newton, Onnerud, and Sink discloses the inerting device of claim 1. Newton discloses wherein the switching unit is a set of two two-position contactors (two switches with the connection position, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maxim’s switching circuit to include dipole type of switches to change the polarity of the batteries with the connection circuit as taught by Newton, in order to have the simple, cost-effective and compact control for changing the polarity of a DC circuit.
Regarding claim 7, Maxim in view of Newton, Onnerud, and Sink discloses the inerting device of claim 6. Newton discloses wherein each contactor is connected to a respective connector (contactor is connected to the charger outputs (connector), fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maxim’s switching circuit to include dipole type of switches to change the polarity of the batteries with the connection circuit as taught by Newton, in order to have the simple, cost-effective and compact control for changing the polarity of a DC circuit.
Regarding claim 8, Maxim in view of Newton, Onnerud, and Sink disclose the inerting device of claim 6. Newton discloses wherein each contactor is connected to a respective terminal (contactor is connected to the battery terminals, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maxim’s switching circuit to include dipole type of switches to change the polarity of the batteries with the connection circuit as taught by Newton, in order to have the simple, cost-effective and compact control for changing the polarity of a DC circuit.
Regarding claim 9, Maxim in view of Newton, Onnerud , and Sink discloses a power supply unit including a battery and an inerting device for the battery (see the annotated fig above), the inerting device is according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Maxim in view of Newton discloses the power supply unit of claim 9. Maxim further discloses wherein the battery is a battery comprising lithium (page 6, sect. 2.3).
Regarding claim 11, Maxim in view of Newton, Onnerud , and Sink discloses a system including a charging circuit and a power supply according to claim 9 (solar arrays and PDU, fig. 3.10)).
Regarding claim 12, Maxim in view of Newton discloses the system of claim 9. Maxim further discloses wherein the charging circuit is a solar panel or the control and power distribution circuit (solar arrays and PDU, fig. 3.10).
Regarding claim 13, Maxim discloses a method for inerting a battery (page 17, 3.5 section) comprising:
a first terminal and a second terminal, the first terminal and the second terminal having opposite polarity(battery in fig. 3. 10 has two terminals with the opposite polarity), the method being implemented by an inerting device comprising a connection circuit, the connection circuit connecting the battery to at least one charging circuit the connection circuit comprising a first connector, a second connector and a switching unit (see the annotated fig. I above). Maxim further discloses the method includes a step of discharging the battery through the charging circuit (table 3.1 batteries section; 3.2 battery level section).
However, Maxim is silent about the method comprising a step of switching between a first position in which the first connector is connected to the first terminal and a second position in which the first connector is connected to the second terminal.
Newton discloses an apparatus for detecting and switching battery polarity in a battery charger (abstract). Newton further discloses the method comprising a step of switching between a first position in which the first connector is connected to the first terminal and a second position in which the first connector is connected to the second terminal (fig. 1 shows switch circuit is used to connect the battery terminals at the two position, e.g. first terminal can be connected to the first connector at the first position and connect with the second connector at the second position; Col. 3, lines 22-44).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maxim’s switching circuit to include dipole type of switches to change the polarity of the batteries with the connection circuit as taught by Newton, in order to have the simple, cost-effective and compact control for changing the polarity of a DC circuit.
Although, newton does disclose the switch unit which reverse the battery polarity, however, Newton does not explicitly disclose by reversing the polarity of the battery, the battery is forcefully discharge until the battery reaches a fully passivated, irreversible state.
Onnerud discloses a system to respond to detection of a safety event. Onnerud discloses by reversing the polarity of the battery, the battery is forcefully discharge until the battery reaches in a safer energy state (paragraph [0086] where the battery is discharged on the same path as used for charging the battery).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maxim’s switching circuit in view of newton to have the safety event where the battery is discharged to the level of safer energy state as taught by Onnerud, in order to manage the battery depth of discharge.
However, they do not explicitly disclose that the battery is discharged up to irreversible state.
Sink discloses the batter is completely discharged up to the disposal level (Col. 1, lines 10-13).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maxim’s switching circuit in view of newton and Onnerud to completely discharged the battery as taught by sink, in or der to eliminate stored electrical energy, making the battery chemically inert and safe to shred or process without the risk of accidental fires.
Regarding claim 14, Maxim in view of Newton, Onnerud, and Sink discloses the inerting method of claim 13. However, Maxim is silent about the switching circuit can switch in the specific position.
Newton discloses the specific position of the battery with the battery charger, for example, in the first position the second connector is connected to the second terminal, in the second position, the second connector is connected to the first terminal (fig. 1 shows switch circuit is used to connect the battery terminals at the two position, e.g. second terminal can be connected to the first connector at the first position and connect with the second connector at the second position; Col. 3, lines 22-44).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maxim’s switching circuit to include dipole type of switches to change the polarity of the batteries with the connection circuit as taught by Newton, in order to have the simple, cost-effective and compact control for changing the polarity of a DC circuit.
Regrading claim 15, Maxim in view of Newton, Onnerud , and Sink discloses the inerting method of claim 14.
Maxim further discloses wherein during the discharge step, the battery is successively in a discharge phase, in an over discharge phase, in a reversal phase and then in a fully passivated state (Battery disconnection, battery discharge, battery short-circuit, so1ar army disconnection and solar array short-circuit passivation functions were selected for the test of the components. According to passivation study performed on Airbus DS LEO PCDUs, in most of the requirement specifications the passivation methods are defined as battery disconnection, solar array disconnection and combination of battery and solar array disconnection. Page 18).
However, they do not explicitly disclose that the battery is discharged up to irreversible state.
Sink discloses the batter is completely discharged up to the disposal level (Col. 1, lines 10-13).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maxim’s switching circuit in view of newton and Onnerud to completely discharged the battery as taught by sink, in or der to eliminate stored electrical energy, making the battery chemically inert and safe to shred or process without the risk of accidental fires.
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 SADIA KOUSAR whose telephone number is (571)272-3386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-5:30pm.
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.
SADIA . KOUSAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights