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 filed 3/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Murphy and Steingart references still combine to teach the claims as amended.
Applicant states in paragraph 1 on page 9 of the Remarks that the ODP rejections have been obviated by a Terminal Disclaimer filed therewith. But no TD has been received by the Office. It is the Office’s position that the amendment filed on 3/2/26 obviates the double patenting rejections. Therefore, a TD is not necessary.
The Applicant has not provided any substantive arguments pertaining to the combination of Murphy and Steingart. Instead, Applicant alludes to the Interview conducted on 1/29/25—referenced in the Advisory Action mailed 2/2/26 and summarized in a separate filing on 3/2/26. The basis of that conversation was the distinction between Examiner’s suggestion to specify that the determination, generation, and assessment occur prior to completion of the manufacturing of the battery. This limitation is now found in claim 1 and was not presented previously recited. It is the basis for the double patenting obviation. The Office agrees that this feature is not found in Murphy. However, Steingart provides means and motivation for addressing this limitation. The rejections have been updated to address the new limitations. The Applicant is suggested to contact the Examiner again after reviewing this action so that a better understanding can occur about how to move this application to allowance if possible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy (US 2020/0106137 A1) in view of Steingart (US 2016/0223498 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Murphy discloses a process comprising: determining acoustic features of at least two locations of a battery cell based on acoustic signals (paragraph 68); generating a score from the acoustic features associated with the distribution of the electrolyte (paragraph 69); assessing the battery using the score (paragraph 73). Murphy discloses that the transmitted waves are used to determine the State of Health (SoH) of the battery (paragraph 65) and the SoH is a quantitative score (paragraph 58). Murphy acknowledges the possibility of manufacturing irregularities as motivation to test the batteries (paragraph 56) but not specifically utilizing the testing results in battery manufacturing. Steingart—in an invention for determining SoH from acoustic signals in a battery (paragraph 8)—discloses utilizing SoH to evaluate or predict ensure that test batteries in the manufacturing process meet acceptable performance characteristics and adjusting the manufacturing accordingly (paragraph 57). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize the process of Steingart in Murphy to access battery health during manufacturing to adjust manufacturing in response. It is the Office’s position that the teachings of Steingart provides means and motivation for performing the process of Murphy during manufacture and prior to completion of the battery.
Regarding claim 2, Murphy discloses creating a map (database) based on locations across the battery (paragraph 153).
Regarding claim 3, Murphy discloses applying a dimension reduction algorithm on the acoustic features to determine the score (paragraph 158).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Murphy discloses that the acoustic features are transmitted over time and correlative to state of charge and state of health (paragraph 65).
Regarding claim 6, defects are not a necessary limitation of claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, Murphy discloses assessing aging and capacity (paragraph 48) and capacity (paragraph 58).
Regarding claim 8, Murphy discloses assessing time-of-flight and amplitude (paragraph 62).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMRAN AKRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3241. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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.
/IMRAN AKRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725