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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/19/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the alternating positive negative input currents” in lines 12-13 and in lines 17-18. The phrase appears to be grammatically incorrect.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 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 the limitation “the resonance heating cycle” in lines 26-27. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to the “resonance heating cycle” or the “further resonance heating cycle” recited in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further, dependent claims 2-14 are rendered indefinite due to their dependency on indefinite claim 1 as set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rastegar et al. (US 2020/0176835A1).
Regarding claim 15, Rastegar discloses a heating circuit for generating heat when coupled to an energy storage device having a core with an electrolyte, the energy storage device having inputs and internal surface capacitance between the inputs which can store electric field energy between internal electrodes of the energy storage device that are coupled to the inputs, the energy storage device also having resistance (see Title, Abstract; heating circuit for battery or energy storage device [0136], Fig. 22-43; battery or energy storage device necessarily has resistance), the heating circuit comprising:
a resonance circuit couplable to the energy storage device, wherein the resonance circuit is configured to provide a positive input current and a negative input current at the energy storage device in a resonance heating cycle when coupled to the energy storage device, wherein the positive input current flows in to the energy storage device and the negative input current flows out of the energy storage device (supercapacitor charger unit [0068], apply high frequency at which supercapacitor effectively shorts and causes inductances and resistors to generate heat [0075]; AC voltage frequency range can be performed in 0.5 MHz steps [0091]);
a controller (processor [0068]) configured to
periodically obtain a measurement that correlates to the temperature of the electrolyte ([0021]), and
control the resonance circuit to provide alternating positive and negative input currents at the energy storage device at a frequency sufficient to effectively short the internal surface capacitance of the energy storage device to generate heat and raise a temperature of the electrolyte when the measurement indicates that the temperature of the electrolyte is below an operational temperature of the energy storage device;
wherein diminishing positive and negative peak currents during the resonance heating cycle occur as oscillatory energy of the alternating positive and negative input currents is converted to heat by the resistance of the energy storage device, and the controller controls the resonant circuit to begin a further resonance heating cycle after diminishing positive and negative peak currents approach zero current (processor [0068]; apply high frequency at which supercapacitor effectively shorts and causes inductances and resistors to generate heat [0075]; AC voltage frequency range can be performed in 0.5 MHz steps [0091]; Since the heating circuit of Rastegar is disclosed to apply high frequency ([0075], [0091]) and capable of coupling to a battery or energy storage device ([0136]), the prior art is considered capable of providing diminishing positive and negative peak currents during the resonance heating cycle and begin a further resonance heating cycle);
a first switch, wherein the resonance circuit comprises a component configured to be charged by the energy storage device through operation of the first switch, and wherein the controller is configured to control the first switch to start and discontinue heating of the electrolyte (switch, superconductor charging [0086]-[0090], Fig. 9-10);
a second switch coupled to the component, wherein the second switch is configured to initiate discharging of the component, and wherein the controller is configured to control the second switch to start and discontinue discharging of the component (switch sw1,sw2 [0137]-[0140]),
wherein the controller is configured to close the first switch to capture information indicating voltage and current waveforms of the energy storage device when coupled to the energy storage device (input voltage and current waveform measured and used to calculate the supercapacitor impedance [0090]); and
an inductor coupled between the energy storage device and the component (inductances L1,L2 [0067], Fig. 2),
wherein when the second switch is coupled to control the discharge of the component with the discharge transferring a charge to the inductor (inductances L1,L2 [0067], Fig. 2; [0088], Fig. 9-10).
Regarding claim 16, Rastegar discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Rastegar further discloses the controller is configured to control the resonance circuit to repeatedly provide the alternating positive and negative input currents at the energy storage device (processor [0068]; apply high frequency at which supercapacitor effectively shorts and causes inductances and resistors to generate heat [0075]; AC voltage frequency range can be performed in 0.5 MHz steps [0091]) and the controller is configured to discontinue the alternating positive and negative input currents when the temperature of the electrolyte and/or the energy storage device is within the operational temperature range of the energy storage device (Abstract, [0021], [0025]).
Regarding claim 17, Rastegar discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Rastegar further discloses the resonance circuit comprising a chargeable component, wherein the controller is configured to control discharging the chargeable component when the chargeable component is charged to a voltage of the energy storage device as a result of the alternating positive and negative input currents ([0021], [0025]).
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegar et al. (US 2020/0176835A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0014137A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rastegar discloses a heating circuit for generating heat when coupled to an energy storage device having a core with an electrolyte, the energy storage device having inputs and internal surface capacitance between the inputs which can store electric field energy between internal electrodes of the energy storage device that are coupled to the inputs, the energy storage device also having resistance (see Title, Abstract; heating circuit for battery or energy storage device [0136], Fig. 22-43; battery or energy storage device necessarily has resistance), the heating circuit comprising:
a resonance circuit couplable to the energy storage device, wherein the resonance circuit is configured to provide alternating positive and negative input currents at the energy storage device in a resonance heating cycle when coupled to the energy storage device, wherein the positive input current flows in to the energy storage device and the negative input current flows out of the energy storage device, wherein the resonance circuit is configured to provide the alternating positive negative input currents stepwise at the energy storage device (supercapacitor charger unit [0068], apply high frequency at which supercapacitor effectively shorts and causes inductances and resistors to generate heat [0075]; AC voltage frequency range can be performed in 0.5 MHz steps [0091]);
a controller configured to control the resonance circuit to provide the alternating positive negative input currents at the energy storage device and controls the resonant circuit to begin a further resonance heating cycle after diminishing positive and negative peak currents approach zero current (processor [0068]; apply high frequency at which supercapacitor effectively shorts and causes inductances and resistors to generate heat [0075]; AC voltage frequency range can be performed in 0.5 MHz steps [0091]; Since the heating circuit of Rastegar is disclosed to apply high frequency ([0075], [0091]) and capable of coupling to a battery or energy storage device ([0136]), the prior art is considered capable of providing diminishing positive and negative peak currents during the resonance heating cycle and begin a further resonance heating cycle), and
wherein the resonance circuit is configured to provide the alternating positive and negative input currents at a frequency sufficient to effectively short the internal surface capacitance of the energy storage device to generate heat and raise a temperature of the electrolyte,
wherein the diminishing positive and negative peak currents during the resonance heating cycle occur as oscillatory energy of the alternating positive and negative input currents is converted to heat by the resistance of the energy storage device (apply high frequency at which supercapacitor effectively shorts and causes inductances and resistors to generate heat [0075]; AC voltage frequency range can be performed in 0.5 MHz steps [0091]; Since the heating circuit of Rastegar is disclosed to apply high frequency ([0075], [0091]) and capable of coupling to a battery or energy storage device ([0136]), the prior art is considered capable of providing diminishing positive and negative peak currents during the resonance heating cycle).
However, Rastegar does not explicitly disclose a step between the positive input current and the negative input current wherein no positive input current and negative input current is provided.
Lee discloses a battery heating system and method comprising an inverter configured to convert direct current power stored in the battery into alternating current having a plurality of phases, wherein a pulse width modulation control of the switching elements in the inverter may be performed to provide a current (Title, Abstract, [0039], Fig. 2-3).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Thus, the combination teaches a pulse width modulation control for producing AC which, when coupled to an energy storage device, is capable of producing a step between the positive input current and the negative input current wherein no positive input current and negative input current is provided and a step down to the step between the positive input current and the negative input current (pulse width modulation control, see Title, Abstract, [0039]; see, for example, Fig. 2-3 of Lee).
Regarding claim 2, modified Rastegar discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Rastegar further discloses the controller is configured to control the resonance circuit to repeatedly provide the alternating positive and negative input currents at the energy storage device and is configured to discontinue the repeated alternating positive and negative input currents when the temperature of the electrolyte and/or the energy storage device is within an operational temperature range of the energy storage device (Abstract, [0021], [0025]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Rastegar discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Rastegar further discloses the controller is configured to start the resonance circuit to provide the alternating positive and negative input currents at the one of the inputs when the temperature of the electrolyte and/or the energy storage device is lower than an operational temperature range of the energy storage device ([0073], Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, modified Rastegar discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Rastegar further discloses the controller is controller is configured to provide the alternating positive and negative input currents at the energy storage device through control of the switching network (switch, superconductor charging [0086]-[0090], Fig. 9-10; [0154], Fig. 34).
Regarding claim 5, modified Rastegar discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Rastegar further discloses a temperature sensor configured to provide a signal to the controller, wherein the signal is based on a sensed temperature of the electrolyte and/or a surface of the energy storage device, and wherein the controller is configured to start and stop the resonance circuit to provide the alternating positive and negative input currents at the one of the inputs in response to the signal ([0068]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Rastegar discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Rastegar further discloses a switch ([0154], Fig. 34), wherein the resonance circuit comprises a component configured to be charged by the energy storage device through the switch, and wherein the controller is configured to control the switch to start and discontinue heating of the electrolyte (switch, superconductor charging [0086]-[0090], Fig. 9-10).
Regarding claim 7, modified Rastegar discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Rastegar further discloses the switch is a first switch, the heating circuit comprising a second switch coupled to the component ([0154], Fig. 34), wherein the second switch is configured to initiate discharging of the component, and wherein the controller is configured to control the second switch to start and discontinue discharging of the component (switch sw1,sw2 [0137]-[0140]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Rastegar discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Rastegar further discloses the controller is configured to control the first switch to discontinue charging of the component after the component is charged to a potential of the voltage source and is thereafter configured to control the second switch to start discharging of the component (switch, superconductor charging [0086]-[0090], [0137]-[0140], Fig. 9-10).
Regarding claim 9, modified Rastegar discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Rastegar further discloses the heating circuit comprising a resistor coupled between the second switch and the component, and wherein the heating circuit is configured such that when the second switch is controlled to start discharging of the component, the discharging occurs through the resistor (resistors R1,R2 [0067], Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, modified Rastegar discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Rastegar further discloses the resistor is configured to be positioned in proximity to the energy storage device such that heat generated by the resistor during discharging of the component through the resistor heats the energy storage device (resistor R1,R2, see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, modified Rastegar discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Rastegar further discloses the resonance circuit comprising an inductor coupled between the component and the energy storage device when coupled to the energy storage device, and wherein the resonance circuit is configured such that when the second switch is controlled to start discharging of the component, the discharge transfers a charge to the inductor (inductances L1,L2 [0067], Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, modified Rastegar discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Rastegar further discloses the controller is configured to close the second switch to control the discharge of the component and is configured to open the second switch after the charge from the component has been transferred to the inductor and the charge from the inductor has been transferred back to the component by a resonant transfer ([0088], Fig. 9-10).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegar et al. (US 2020/0176835A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0014137A1), as applied to claims 1-12 above, in view of TWI691142B, refer to English equivalent US 2020/0403416 A1.
Regarding claim 13, modified Rastegar discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Rastegar does not further disclose a capacity sensor configured to provide an indication of a capacity of the energy storage device, wherein the controller is configured to enable and disable heating based on the indication of the capacity.
TWI691142B discloses determining whether a current capacity of the battery unit is lower than a preset capacity, and enabling a heating system to increase the battery temperature when the current capacity of the battery unit is lower than the preset capacity (Abstract) to improve the charging performance of the battery unit ([0032]).
Rastegar and TWI691142B are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely battery heating.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Rastegar to control the heating system based on the battery capacity because TWI691142B teaches improved charging performance of the battery.
Regarding claim 14, modified Rastegar discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Rastegar further discloses when heating is enabled, the controller is configured to start the resonance circuit to provide the alternating positive and negative input currents at the energy storage device in response to a predetermined temperature that is lower than an operational temperature range of the energy storage device ([0073], Fig. 3).
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 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,855,085 in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0014137A1).
Claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,855,085 disclose a charger including inputs for applying AC current to terminals of an energy storage device to effectively short the internal surface capacitance, but does not disclose a step between the positive input current and the negative input current wherein no positive input current and negative input current is provided.
Lee discloses a battery heating system and method comprising an inverter configured to convert direct current power stored in the battery into alternating current having a plurality of phases, wherein a pulse width modulation control of the switching elements in the inverter may be performed to provide a current (Title, Abstract, [0039], Fig. 2-3).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Thus, the combination teaches a pulse width modulation control for producing AC which, when coupled to an energy storage device, is capable of producing a step between the positive input current and the negative input current wherein no positive input current and negative input current is provided (see, for example Fig. 2-3 of Lee).
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,063,076 in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0014137A1).
Claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,063,076 disclose inputting by applying an AC current to terminals of an energy storage device using a charger to effectively short the internal surface capacitance, but does not disclose a step between the positive input current and the negative input current wherein no positive input current and negative input current is provided.
Lee discloses a battery heating system and method comprising an inverter configured to convert direct current power stored in the battery into alternating current having a plurality of phases, wherein a pulse width modulation control of the switching elements in the inverter may be performed to provide a current (Title, Abstract, [0039], Fig. 2-3).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Thus, the combination teaches a pulse width modulation control for producing AC which, when coupled to an energy storage device, is capable of producing a step between the positive input current and the negative input current wherein no positive input current and negative input current is provided (see, for example Fig. 2-3 of Lee).
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,211,809 in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0014137A1).
Claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,211,809 disclose switching between a positive input voltage and a negative input voltage to effectively short the internal surface capacitance of the energy storage device to generate heat, but does not disclose a step between the positive input current and the negative input current wherein no positive input current and negative input current is provided.
Lee discloses a battery heating system and method comprising an inverter configured to convert direct current power stored in the battery into alternating current having a plurality of phases, wherein a pulse width modulation control of the switching elements in the inverter may be performed to provide a current (Title, Abstract, [0039], Fig. 2-3).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Thus, the combination teaches a pulse width modulation control for producing AC which, when coupled to an energy storage device, is capable of producing a step between the positive input current and the negative input current wherein no positive input current and negative input current is provided (see, for example Fig. 2-3 of Lee).
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,211,810 in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0014137A1).
Claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,211,810 disclose a heating circuit including a controller configured to switch between a positive input voltage and a negative input voltage to effectively short the internal surface capacitance of the energy storage device to generate heat, but does not disclose a step between the positive input current and the negative input current wherein no positive input current and negative input current is provided.
Lee discloses a battery heating system and method comprising an inverter configured to convert direct current power stored in the battery into alternating current having a plurality of phases, wherein a pulse width modulation control of the switching elements in the inverter may be performed to provide a current (Title, Abstract, [0039], Fig. 2-3).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Thus, the combination teaches a pulse width modulation control for producing AC which, when coupled to an energy storage device, is capable of producing a step between the positive input current and the negative input current wherein no positive input current and negative input current is provided (see, for example Fig. 2-3 of Lee).
Claims 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,354,797B2 in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0014137A1).
Claims 1-21 of copending Application No. 17/200,844 (reference application) disclose a heating circuit including a controller configured to switch between a positive input current and a negative input current to effectively short the internal surface capacitance of the energy storage to generate heat , but does not disclose a step between the positive input current and the negative input current wherein no positive input current and negative input current is provided.
Lee discloses a battery heating system and method comprising an inverter configured to convert direct current power stored in the battery into alternating current having a plurality of phases, wherein a pulse width modulation control of the switching elements in the inverter may be performed to provide a current (Title, Abstract, [0039], Fig. 2-3).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Thus, the combination teaches a pulse width modulation control for producing AC which, when coupled to an energy storage device, is capable of producing a step between the positive input current and the negative input current wherein no positive input current and negative input current is provided (see, for example Fig. 2-3 of Lee).
Claims 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,381,044B2 in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0014137A1).
Claims 1-21 of copending Application No. 17/200,846 (reference application) disclose a heating circuit including a controller configured to switch between a positive input current and a negative input current to effectively short the internal surface capacitance of the energy storage to generate heat , but does not disclose a step between the positive input current and the negative input current wherein no positive input current and negative input current is provided.
Lee discloses a battery heating system and method comprising an inverter configured to convert direct current power stored in the battery into alternating current having a plurality of phases, wherein a pulse width modulation control of the switching elements in the inverter may be performed to provide a current (Title, Abstract, [0039], Fig. 2-3).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Thus, the combination teaches a pulse width modulation control for producing AC which, when coupled to an energy storage device, is capable of producing a step between the positive input current and the negative input current wherein no positive input current and negative input current is provided (see, for example Fig. 2-3 of Lee)..
Claim 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of US Patent No. 12,360,541B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-15 of US Patent No. 12,360,541B2 discloses subject matter that is substantially similar to the instant claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments directed to Rastegar and/or Lee failing to teach, disclose or suggest new limitations recited in claim 1 and 15 (see Remarks filed 3/19/2026), this is not found to be persuasive because the prior art is considered to meet the new claim limitations as long as the heating circuit of the prior art is configured to provide an alternating positive and negative input currents such that, when coupled to an energy storage device, the oscillatory energy of the alternating positive and negative input currents would be converted to heat with the energy storage device acting as a resistor if the heating circuit were to be coupled to the energy storage device.
With respect to applicant’s arguments directed to nonstatutory double patenting rejections (see Remarks filed 3/19/2026), these rejections have been maintained in this Office Action because the applicant has not specifically argued against the nonstatutory double patenting rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM.
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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at (571)270-3879. 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.
/James Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 5/14/2026
Prosecution Insights