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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 12/4/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/4/2025.
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 1-10 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 battery system, comprising: multiple battery cell blocks electrically coupled together in series; where all of the battery cell blocks of the battery system together form an asymmetric configuration of multiple battery cell blocks; where each of the battery cell blocks comprises one or more battery cells; and where each of the battery cell blocks has a total block charge capacity that is the same as a total block charge capacity of each of the other battery cell blocks” (emphasis added). Claim 1 is indefinite as to whether:
1) the second instance of “multiple battery cell blocks” is intended to refer back to the first instance of “multiple battery cell blocks” or a distinct ‘multiple’ thereof; and
2) “the battery cell blocks” is intended to refer back to the “multiple battery cell blocks” or distinct ‘battery cell blocks’ thereof (in which case “the battery cell blocks” lacks antecedent basis if distinct).
Claims 4-6 and 8 also each recite “the battery cell blocks”, and are similarly rejected as 2) above for claim 1. Claims 2-10 are also rejected as depending on claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the multiple cell blocks". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “asymmetric about any line extending through any serial electrical coupling between any two adjacent battery cell blocks of the of all of the battery cell blocks of the battery system” (emphasis added), rendering the claim unclear as to whether the emphasized portion is intended to include additional claim limitations or not.
Claim 8 recites the limitations "the first battery cell block" and "the second battery cell block". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 8 (dependent on claim 7) recites “the battery system has opposing first and second ends; where the first battery cell block is positioned nearer the first end of the battery system than is the second battery cell block”, rendering claim 8 indefinite as to whether each structure of “the first battery cell block” and “the second battery cell block” is intended to: refer back to claim 7 respectively reciting structures of “a first internal battery cell configuration” and “a second internal battery cell configuration”, or to be distinct structures thereof.
Claim 9 recites “the second battery cell block comprises multiple battery cells that differ in total number from a total number of the multiple battery cell blocks of the first battery cell block”, rendering the claim indefinite as to whether the ‘total numbers’ are intended to: instead be compared between the ‘battery cells’ of the ‘first and second battery cell blocks’, or comparing between distinct structures of the “multiple battery cell blocks” of the “first battery cell block” and the “multiple battery cells” of “first battery cell block” as is currently recited.
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.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Greening et al (US 10,236,694).
With respect to claim 1, Greening discloses a “battery pack” (i.e. claimed “battery system”) comprising “a plurality of asymmetrical banks” (Abstract), wherein fig. 2 depicts the battery system [200] comprises an asymmetric configuration of three banks (i.e. claimed “multiple battery cell blocks”) [205],[210],[215] electrically connected in series, each of the multiple battery cell blocks [205],[210],[215] comprises respectively battery cells [220],[225] for block [205], battery cells [230],[235] for block [210], and battery cells [240],[245],[250] for block [215] (col. 4, lines 43-52). Greening further discloses “Banks [i.e. the multiple battery cell blocks] 205, 210 and 215 may have different capacities and/or voltages from each other” (emphasis add, col. 4, lines 46-48), interpreted as meaning that when voltages for the multiple battery cell blocks [205],[210],[215] are different, either the capacities (e.g. claimed “total block charge capacity”) for each of blocks [205],[210],[215] are expected to be the same, or one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious that the capacities are the same. Alternatively (or in addition thereto), Greening also discloses “that because banks 205, 210 and 215 have different capacities and/or voltages, it is desirable to provide apparatuses and methods to balance the states of charge among the imbalanced banks so that they may possess equal or approximately equal states of charge, and/or reach the top of charge and bottom of charge at the same time during charging and discharging” (emphasis added, col. 5, lines 1-7), interpreted as meaning that when voltages for the multiple battery cell blocks [205],[210],[215] are different, each of blocks [205],[210],[215] has additional structure to provide “equal or approximately equal states of charge” (i.e. claimed “total block charge capacity”).
With respect to claim 2, Greening further depicts in fig. 2 the battery system [200] has at least a first block (i.e. claimed “first one”) [205] of the multiple battery cell blocks [205],[210],[215] having a first internal battery cell configuration of the battery cells [220],[225] that is different from a second block (i.e. claimed “second one”) [210] having a second internal battery cell configuration of the battery cells [230],[235] of the multiple battery cell blocks [205],[210],[215] (col. 4, lines 43-52).
With respect to claims 3-6, Greening further depicts in fig. 2 the battery system [200] has the multiple battery cell blocks [205],[210],[215] taken together in an overall configuration having no vertical axis of symmetry (i.e. claimed “axis of length symmetry” of claim 3; “asymmetric about a centerline that extends through a length of the overall configuration” of claim 4; or “asymmetric about any line that extends through a length of the overall configuration” of claim 5) nor horizontal axis of symmetry (i.e. claimed “axis of width symmetry” of claim 3; “asymmetric about a centerline that extends through a width of the overall configuration” of claim 4; or “asymmetric about any line that extends through a width of the overall configuration” of claim 5) with regard to battery cell size. Fig. 2 also depicts the overall configuration is asymmetric about any line extending through any serial electrical coupling between two adjacent battery cell blocks [205],[210] or [210],[215] or [205],[215] of all the multiple battery cell blocks [205],[210],[215].
With respect to claim 7, Greening further depicts in fig. 2 the battery system [200] comprises at least a first one [215] of the multiple battery cell blocks [205],[210],[215] has a first internal battery cell configuration that includes multiple battery cells [240],[245],[250], and at least a second one [205] of the multiple battery cell blocks [205],[210],[215] has a second internal battery cell configuration that includes two cells [220],[225] (col. 4, lines 48-52), with “at least one of the plurality of battery banks comprises one or more battery cells” (emphasis added, claim 4); thus Greening suggests for the second internal battery cell configuration to alternatively include only a single battery cell [220] or [225] instead of the two cells [220],[225].
With respect to claim 8, Greening further depicts in fig. 2 the battery system [200] has opposing first and second ends, wherein a first battery cell block [215] is positioned near the first end than a second battery cell block [205], and the second battery cell block [205] is positioned near the second end than the first battery cell block [215], wherein the multiple battery cell blocks [205],[210],[215] taken together in an overall configuration is asymmetric about any line that extends through a length of width of the overall configuration to separate the first and second battery cell blocks [215],[205].
With respect to claim 9, Greening further discloses in fig. 2 the multiple battery cell blocks [205],[210],[215] comprises at least first and second battery cell blocks [215],210 that each respectively comprises multiple battery cells [240],[245],[250] and [230],[235] that have an individual cell physical size and individual cell charge capacity represented by large [L], medium [M], or small [S] (col. 1, lines 45-49; col. 4, lines 45-59), wherein fig. 2 depicts the second battery cell block [210] comprises: a total number of the multiple battery cells [230],[235] different from a total number of the multiple battery cells [240],[245],[250] of the first battery cell block [215], and at least one battery cell [230] or [235] having a different individual cell physical size medium [M] or large [L] and different individual charge capacity than cell [245] being small [S] of the first battery cell block [215] (col. 1, lines 45-49; col. 4, lines 45-59).
With respect to claim 10, Greening further discloses in fig. 2 the multiple battery cell blocks [205],[210],[215] has at least first and second battery cell blocks [215] and [210], that each respectively comprises battery cells [240],[245],[250] and [230],[235] that are respectively electrically coupled together in parallel (col. 4, lines 48-52), with a number of the battery cells [240],[245],[250] of the first battery cell block [215] different from a number of the battery cells [230],[235] of the second battery cell block (fig. 2; col. 4, lines 43-52), and none of the battery cells [230],[235] have the same physical size as the physical size as a medium [M] of battery cell [245] of the first battery cell block [215] fig. 2; col. 1, lines 45-49; col. 2, lines 43-52).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A BAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm EST.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/MICHAEL A BAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794