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 papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 02/06/2023 and 05/16/2023 are acknowledged by the examiner.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “a reference overpotential fraction representation that is available in memory” in lines 13 and 15. The term “fraction” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim is unclear.
Claim 1 recites “the battery “ in line 15. It is unclear whether this limitation, “the battery” , is referring to the “ connected battery “, as recited in claim 1, line 13, or “the connected battery”, as recited in claim 1, lines 1-2. Thus , the metes claim is unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “the battery “ in line 21. It is unclear whether this limitation, “the battery” , is referring to the “ connected battery “, as recited in claim 1, line 13, or “the connected battery”, as recited in claim 1, lines 1-2. Thus , the metes claim is unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “ the negative and positive electrodes’ in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. The limitation should be written as “negative and positive electrodes” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “ the battery ’ in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. For examination purpose the limitation is considered as the same as in claim 1 lines 1-2 "the connected battery” . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “ a connected battery ’ in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. For examination purpose the limitation is considered as the same as in claim 1 lines 1-2 "the connected battery” . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “ the present state of the connected battery” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. The limitation should be written as “a present state of the connected battery”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “ the state parameters” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. For examination purpose the limitation is considered as the same as in claim 1 line 5 and should be written as "the one or more battery state parameters” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “ the instantaneous cell potential” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. For examination purpose the limitation should be written as "an instantaneous cell potential” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “ the state of charge” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. For examination purpose the limitation should be written as "a state of charge” Appropriate correction is required
Claim 1 recites “the battery open-circuit potential” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. For examination purpose the limitation should be written as "the connected battery open circuit potential” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “the open -circuit electrode potentials for the negative and/or positive electrodes”. In line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. For examination purpose the limitation should be written as " open -circuit electrode potentials for the negative and/or positive electrodes the connected battery open circuit potential” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “the overpotentials for the one or more of the positive and negative electrodes—” line 11.. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. For examination purpose the limitation should be written as " overpotentials for the one or more of the positive and negative electrodes open -circuit electrode potentials for the negative and/or positive electrodes the connected battery open circuit potential” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “the estimated open-circuit potential for the reference battery” lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. For examination purpose the limitation should be written as " an estimated open-circuit potential for a reference battery” .Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites “the battery “ in line 1. It is unclear whether this limitation, “the battery” , is referring to the “ connected battery “, as recited in claim 1, line 13, or “the connected battery”, as recited in claim 1, lines 1-2. Thus , the metes claim is unclear. Appropriate correction is required..
Claim 2 recites “a reference battery” line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. For examination purpose the limitation should be written as " the reference battery” .Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites “a reference battery” lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. For examination purpose the limitation should be written as " the reference battery” .Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “the battery “ in line 3. It is unclear whether it is referring to the “ connected battery “, as recited in claim 1, line 13, or “the connected battery”, as recited in claim 1, lines 1-2. Thus , the metes claim is unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “overpotential fraction” in lines 4 and 5. The term “fraction” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim is unclear
Claim 5 recites “the battery “ in line 1. It is unclear whether it is referring to the “ connected battery “, as recited in claim 1, line 13, or “the connected battery”, as recited in claim 1, lines 1-2. Thus , the metes claim is unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites “the battery “ in line 1. It is unclear whether it is referring to the “ connected battery “, as recited in claim 1, line 13, or “the connected battery”, as recited in claim 1, lines 1-2. Thus , the metes claim is unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “overpotential fraction” in lines 13 and 15. The term “fraction” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim is unclear
Claim 10 recites “the battery “ in line 15. It is unclear whether it is referring to the “ connected battery “, as recited in claim 10, line 13, or “the connected battery”, as recited in claim 10, lines 1-2. Thus , the metes claim is unclear. Appropriate correction is required
Claim 10 recites “ the negative and positive electrodes’ in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. The limitation should be written as “negative and positive electrodes” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “ the battery ’ in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. For examination purpose the limitation is considered as the same as in claim 10 lines 1-2 "the connected battery” . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “ a connected battery ’ in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. For examination purpose the limitation is considered as the same as in claim 10 lines 1-2 "the connected battery” . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “ the present state of the connected battery” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. The limitation should be written as “a present state of the connected battery”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “ the state parameters” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. For examination purpose the limitation is considered as the same as in claim 10 line 5 and should be written as "the one or more battery state parameters” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “ the instantaneous cell potential” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. For examination purpose the limitation should be written as "an instantaneous cell potential” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “ the state of charge” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. For examination purpose the limitation should be written as "a state of charge” Appropriate correction is required
Claim 10 recites “the battery open-circuit potential” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. For examination purpose the limitation should be written as "the connected battery open circuit potential” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “the open -circuit electrode potentials for the negative and/or positive electrodes” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. For examination purpose the limitation should be written as " open -circuit electrode potentials for the negative and/or positive electrodes the connected battery open circuit potential” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “the overpotentials for the one or more of the positive and negative electrodes—” line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. For examination purpose the limitation should be written as " overpotentials for the one or more of the positive and negative electrodes open -circuit electrode potentials for the negative and/or positive electrodes the connected battery open circuit potential” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “the estimated open-circuit potential for the reference battery” lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. For examination purpose the limitation should be written as " an estimated open-circuit potential for a reference battery” .Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “the reference battery” lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. For examination purpose the limitation should be written as " a reference battery” .Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites “the battery “ in line 1. It is unclear whether it is referring to the “ connected battery “, as recited in claim 1, line 13, or “the connected battery”, as recited in claim 10, lines 1-2. Thus , the metes claim is unclear. Appropriate correction is required
Claim 11 recites “a reference battery” line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. For examination purpose the limitation should be written as " the reference battery” .Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites “the battery “ in line 9. It is unclear whether it is referring to the “ connected battery “, as recited in claim 10, line 13, or “the connected battery”, as recited in claim 10, lines 1-2. Thus , the metes claim is unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 recites “overpotential fraction” in line 2. The term “fraction” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim is unclear
Claim 17 recites “a reference battery” line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. For examination purpose the limitation should be written as " the reference battery” .Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is required to revise all of the claims completely, and not just correct the indefinite and functional or operational language mentioned.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yoon et al. (US 2020/0150183) discloses in figures 1-6, a secondary battery [200], a control unit [150], storage unit [130] , and profile management module [152] and SOC Estimation module [153][the battery SOC an OVC are determined based on OCV of positive electrode and negative electrode potentials/SOC-OCV profiles/; see ¶006, ¶009-010, ¶0034 -0038].
Lee et al. (US 2016/000675) discloses in figures 1-6, OCV calculation based on OCV of positive electrode and OCV of negative electrode [see figure 4].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL BERHANU whose telephone number is (571)272-8430. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Julian A. Huffman can be reached at Julian.Huffman@uspto.gov. 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.
/SAMUEL BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859