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 .
This office action is responsive to the application filed 09/11/2023 which claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/23/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11/20/2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7, 14 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, substitute “In a recycling stream of Li-ion batteries, a method for discharging a Li-ion battery” with -- A method for discharging a Li-ion battery in a recycling stream of Li-ion batteries, --.
In claim 1, insert “and discharge rate” after “the determined time” (see line 11).
Claim 4 recites “wherein computing the determined time and reverse voltage” (see line 1). Should this read as “wherein computing the determined time and discharge rate”?
Claims 2, 3, and 5-7 are objected to since they are dependent upon an objected claim.
In claim 14, substitute “The device of claim 1” with -- The device of claim 11 – (see line 1).
In claim 16, substitute “a reverse voltage” with – the reverse voltage – (see line 2).
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 2, 3, 5-7, 13, and 18 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 2 recites the limitation "the voltage source" in lines 2 and 3, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the current" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitations "the internal short circuits" in line 1; and “the cathode material” in line 2. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 6 is rejected to since it depends from a rejected claim, and inherit the problems of this claim.
Claim 7 recites “receiving electrical energy from a battery” (see line 2). It is unclear to the examiner whether the claimed battery is different from the battery recited in parent claim 1.
Claim 13 recites the limitations " the voltage supply" in line 2; and “the cathode material” in line 4. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the cathode material” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 15, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites the limitations computing an amount of energy stored in the battery, and determining a time and discharge rate for the battery attaining a zero energy state based on the computed amount of energy. This is directed towards an abstract idea because the “computing” and “determining” limitations, as drafted, are determined from a mathematical equation and/or mathematical relationships. This abstract idea can be performed as either a mental step and/or with pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
(a) the structure is general purpose circuitry which is commonly used in the art, including a battery, and an external power supply.
(b) the steps of “computing” and “determining” as claimed does not include any additional elements or limitations requiring computer implementation of the method and thus does not involve the use of a computer in any way. The recited steps of “computing” and “determining” can be performed by humans with the use of pen and paper. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the lack of additional elements to perform both the “computing” and “determining” render the claim not patent eligible.
Claim 15 recites the limitations detecting when a potential difference between the terminals is substantially zero, and computing an amount of energy to apply. This is directed towards an abstract idea because the “detecting” and “computing” limitations, as drafted, are determined from a mathematical equation and/or mathematical relationships. This abstract idea can be performed as either a mental step and/or with pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
(a) the structure is general purpose circuitry which is commonly used in the art, including a battery, and voltage supply.
(b) the steps of “detecting” and “computing” as claimed does not include any additional elements or limitations requiring computer implementation of the method and thus does not involve the use of a computer in any way. The recited steps of “detecting” and “computing” can be performed in the human mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the lack of additional elements to perform both the “detecting” and “computing” render the claim not patent eligible.
The dependent claims do not recite additional limitations beyond those identified as the judicial exception in the independent claims that would qualify as significantly more. The dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea. The dependent claims do not recite limitations that transforms the corresponding independent claims into a patent-eligible application of the otherwise ineligible abstract idea recited in the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaseda et al. (JP 2009199934A) (hereinafter referred to as Kaseda), cited by the applicants.
Kaseda discloses a device for a discharging Li-ion battery, comprising:
a pair of connections to the battery (10), each connection to a respective opposed electrode;
a power supply (20) for supplying a voltage; and
reverse biasing logic, the reverse biasing logic configured to apply a reverse bias voltage from the power supply to the pair of connections for causing a zero energy state in the battery (see pages 3 and 5-6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 9-13, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach, the features recited in claims 4, 9-13, and 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Han et al. (US 2024/0006672); Court et al. (US 2022/0368136)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to APRIL A TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-2403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 9am-6pm.
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, STEVEN S PAIK can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/APRIL A TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2876
/THIEN M LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights