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 . If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-27 are pending in the application. Claims 7 & 11-27 are withdrawn. Claims 1-6 & 8-10 are presently examined.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-10) and Species A (claim 6), in the reply filed on 9/1/2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 7 and 11-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species or groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Currently, claim 1 is generic / linking for all species in Group I.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 1, 4, & 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20200259338A1 (Taylor).
Taylor teaches the following claim 1 limitations:
A method of forming an electrochemical cell in a battery formation system (abstract; paragraph 5, 13, 20, & 23: battery formation system and method) ,
the electrochemical cell including an anode material disposed on an anode current collector, a cathode material disposed on a cathode current collector, and a separator disposed between the anode material and the cathode material (Paragraph 25: lithium ion batteries. These are standard components of lithium ion batteries.), the method comprising:
transferring energy from an energy storage system (paragraphs 20 & 34; figure 1: power source 110) to the battery formation system (paragraphs 20, 23, & 34; figure 1: energy storage system 120) to charge the electrochemical cell (paragraphs 20 & 23; figure 1: battery modules 130);
transferring energy from the electrochemical cell to the energy storage system (paragraph 23: “transfer energy from the battery modules 130 to the energy storage system 120”)
Claim 1 also states that “transferring energy from the electrochemical cell to the energy storage system” is —
to prevent heat energy dissipation into the formation system
This intended purpose of the energy transfer does not limit the claim for examination purposes because it does not change the method performed. The present specification fails to teach any additional method implied by this purpose (paragraphs 4 & 58). Taylor teaches the method; therefore, Taylor’s method must result in this same purpose.
Claim 1 also states:
the energy transferred is direct current (DC)
Taylor fails to explicitly state that the energy transfer is DC; however, the energy is transferred to and from batteries, which function with DC. Taylor’s method thus must also use DC.
With regard to claim 4, Taylor teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claim 4 states:
energy losses from the formation of the electrochemical cell are reduced by at least about 100% of a full capacity of the electrochemical cell, as compared to a formation of an individual electrochemical cell without the use of the energy storage system
The present specification fails to teach any additional method, beyond the method of claim 1, for achieving this 100% (paragraphs 54-55). Taylor fails to explicitly describe this 100% energy loss reduction; however, Taylor teaches the method of claim 1; therefore, Taylor’s method must also achieve this 100% energy loss reduction.
With regard to claim 9-10, Taylor teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Taylor also teaches the following limitations of claims 9-10:
Claim 9
transferring energy from a renewable power source to the energy storage system; and storing the energy from the renewable power source in the energy storage system
Claim 10
the renewable power source includes a solar array
Taylor teaches that “the power source 110 can comprise both solar power plant and utility grids” (paragraph 52). Thus, Taylor’s utility grid portion of the power source 110 is equivalent to the claimed energy storage system, and Taylor’s solar power plant portion of the power source 110 is equivalent to the claimed renewable power source.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200259338A1 (Taylor).
With regard to claim 2, Taylor teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Taylor, however, fails to teach the following limitation of claim 2:
transferring energy from the energy storage system to the battery formation system is at a voltage of at least about 400 V
According to Joule's Law (P=I2R), power loss is proportional to electric current squared. The equation P=IV teaches that the same power can be transferred at a lower electric current by increasing voltage. Thus, power can be transferred at a higher voltage and lower current in order to reduce power loss. These are basic principles of electric power transfer that have been used for many decades. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, for Taylor’s to energy transfer to have been at ≥ 400 V, in order to reduce power loss.
With regard to claim 3, Taylor teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claim 3 states:
the energy is transferred between the formation system and the energy storage system without an alternating current (AC) transformer
Taylor doesn’t teach an AC transformer for the energy transfer; therefore, presumably Taylor doesn’t use one.
An AC transformer would increase equipment cost, and would increase power loss during the energy transfer, so one of ordinary skill in the art would not have used an AC transformer unless there was a need for AC current. For energy transfer between a battery, which would provide DC, and storage, there would be no need for AC current, and thus no need for an AC transformer. Thus, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, for Taylor’s battery formation system and method to NOT use an AC transformer, in order to avoid unnecessary equipment cost and wasted power.
With regard to claims 5-6 & 8, Taylor teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Claims 5-6 & 8 state:
Claim 5
providing backup energy for a building via the energy storage system
Claim 6
the energy storage system provides energy to at least one of a facility, a campus, or a macro grid level DC supply with a voltage of at least about 400 V
Claim 8
the energy storage system provides power to at least one of a facility, a campus, or a grid level AC power supply and backup
It is well known that a building, a facility, a campus, and a power supply need electrical power. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use Taylor’s battery formation system and method for a building, a facility, a campus, and/or a power supply, in order to provide a practical use for Taylor’s battery formation system and method.
Conclusion
Prior art not relied upon, but made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US20210359527A1 paragraphs 23-24 & figure 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
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.
/R.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights