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 Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of amendment filed on 06/22/2026 in which claims 1,4-5 have been amended along with previously withdrawn claims 11-12, claim 3 has been canceled while claim 13 has been newly added.
By this amendment, claims 1-2,4-10 and 13 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s representative argues on pages 8 and 9 of remarks that:
Applicant notes that the Office did not address that "the battery state-of-health value is selected from at least one of . .. an energy density, a power density, an electromotive force, an open-circuit voltage, an operating voltage, an end-of-discharge voltage, and an operating current," of claim 3. Without acquiescing to the Office's assertions, Applicant respectfully submits that neither Fuji nor other cited references discloses or suggests "the battery state-of- health value comprising at least one of an energy density, a power density, an electromotive force, an open-circuit voltage, an operating voltage, an end-of-discharge voltage, or an operating current,” recited in amended claim 1,(emphasis added).
Examiner respectfully disagrees as the limitations presented before was as follows in previously presented claim 3 and as originally supported by the specification in paragraph [0070]: wherein the battery state-of-health value is selected from at least one of following parameters: a battery capacity(as detected in step S1 in Fig. 3 by controller 22; see [0045],[0048],[0064]), a remaining capacity, an energy density, a power density, an electromotive force, an open-circuit voltage, an operating voltage, an end-of-discharge voltage, and an operating current.
However, examiner noted that applicant had removed the limitations of “a battery capacity, a remaining capacity” and was previously presented in now canceled claim 3 and since the limitations was in the form of, at least one of, A,B, or C and this means the limitation is met if at least one of the conditions (A,B, or C) is met because the limitations of, the battery state-of-health value is selected from at least one of following parameters: a battery capacity(as detected in step S1 in Fig. 3 by controller 22; see [0045],[0048],[0064]); a remaining capacity, an energy density, a power density, an electromotive force, an open-circuit voltage, an operating voltage, an end-of-discharge voltage, and an operating current, are therefore met.
Since applicants have removed the limitations of, “a battery capacity, a remaining capacity” in the newly amended claim 1 although disclosed in paragraph [0070] of the specifications as originally presented, new rejections have been presented to address the following limitations: “ the battery state-of- health value comprising at least one of an energy density, a power density, an electromotive force, an open-circuit voltage, an operating voltage, an end-of-discharge voltage, or an operating current”.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2,8-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuji et al., (Fuji) US 2012/0212186 A1 in view of USPAT 6,448,776 B2 to Meissner et al., (Meissner)
Regarding claim 1: Fuji at least discloses and shows in Figs. 2-4: A method for recovering activity of a battery(10/(10a…10n)([0009]-[0010][0063])(see Fig. 1), comprising: obtaining a battery state-of-health value(as detected in step S1 in Fig. 3 by controller 22; see [0048],[0064]) of the battery(10) during a charging process(note- the charging apparatus includes a charging device 21 serving as a part of the battery capacity recovering unit or charging unit, a charging controller 22 including therein a remaining part of the battery capacity recovering unit as a logic, and an ammeter 24. The combination of the controller 22 and the charging device 21 exhibits the effect of the battery capacity recovering unit; see [0045],[0063]), the battery state-of-health value comprising at least one of an energy density, a power density, an electromotive force, an open-circuit voltage, an operating voltage, an end-of-discharge voltage, or an operating current; in response to the battery state-of-health value (construed as battery capacity determined in step S2 of Fig. 3)being less than or equal to a first preset threshold((VTH)(see Step S2 in Fig. 3), applying an activation voltage(construed as the charging voltage that is greater than normal preset value; see step S3 in Fig. 3; see [0039]-[0040]) to the battery(10), such that lithium ions at a lithium supplement agent(construed as oxidizable agent; see Fig. 4) of the battery(10) are released to an electrolyte solution([0027]-[0028],[0074]-[0076]), wherein the activation voltage is higher than a normal charging voltage of the battery(see step S3 of Fig. 3; see [0039]-[0040]); and in response to the battery state-of-health value(value of determined capacity) increasing to be greater than or equal to a second preset threshold(NO at step S2 and performing step S5 in Fig. 3), stopping application of the activation voltage, and continuing a normal charge-discharge cycle(see step S5, Fig. 3; [0066]).
Fuji discloses all the claimed invention except for the limitations of: the battery state-of-health value comprising at least one of an energy density, a power density, an electromotive force, an open-circuit voltage, an operating voltage, an end-of-discharge voltage, or an operating current.
In the same field of endeavor, method for measuring SOH(see col. 2, lines 38-40) of a storage battery, Meissner discloses factual evidence of, the battery state-of-health value comprising at least one of an energy density, a power density, an electromotive force, an open-circuit voltage(Uo), an operating voltage(U(t)), an end-of-discharge voltage, or an operating current(I(t))(see col. 5, lines 38-64).
Fuji and Meissner are battery SOH determination analogous art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine Fuji with Meissner by having the battery state-of-health value(fitness for use) comprising at least one of an energy density, a power density, an electromotive force, an open-circuit voltage, an operating voltage, an end-of-discharge voltage, or an operating current, as recited, for the advantages of ensuring that the energy content of the battery remains sufficient to start engine and to be further able to determine the characteristic of the battery which goes beyond establishing the battery charge and from which it is possible to infer the battery's fitness for use, as per the teachings of Meissner (col. 1, lines 24-26 and col. 2, lines 6-9).
Accordingly claim 1 would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Fuji in view of Meissner discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Fuji further discloses, wherein the lithium supplement agent is at a positive electrode of the battery(construed as oxidizable agent; see Fig. 4; [0026],[0032]).
Regarding claim 8, Fuji discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Fuji further discloses, wherein the normal charging voltage and the activation voltage are applied using a same charging device(21)([0066]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuji et al., (Fuji) US 2012/0212186 A1 in view of USPAT 6,448,776 B2 to Meissner et al., (Meissner) and in further view of Bulur et al., (Bulur) USPAT 9,557,387
Regarding claim 9, Fuji in view of Meissner discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. The combination of Fuji and Meissner does not expressly disclose, non-transitory readable storage medium storing a computer program that, when executed, causes the battery activation method of claim 1 to be performed.
Bulur teaches factual evidence of, a controller(104) embodying a non-transitory readable storage medium storing a computer program that, when executed, causes the battery activation method of claim 1 to be performed(col. 4, lines 18-38; col. 10, lines 42-49)
Fuji, Meissner and Bulur are battery applications analogous art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to avail of the teachings of Bulur by having the controller of Fuji as modified by Meissner having embodied a non-transitory readable storage medium storing a computer program that, when executed, causes the battery activation method of claim 1 to be performed, as recited, in order to improve cell maintenance in a multi-cell battery while providing accurate battery pack testing since such accuracy is crucial to indicate the health of a battery pack and predict life performance of the battery.
Accordingly claim 9 would have been obvious.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuji et al., (Fuji) US 2012/0212186 A1 in view of USPAT 6,448,776 B2 to Meissner et al., (Meissner) and Bulur et al., (Bulur) USPAT 9,557,387 and in further view of Joe et al., (Joe) USPAT 10,283,819
Regarding claim 10, Fuji in view of Meissner and Bulur discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 9 but fail to expressly states the limitations of, wherein the computer program is a battery management system program.
Joe teaches factual evidence of, wherein the computer program is a battery management system program (note-control unit may be a battery management system (BMS) which may be electrically coupled to a secondary battery, or a control element included in the BMS. The sensor 120 and the control unit 130 configure a battery management system (BMS), and the BMS may be included in the secondary battery managing apparatus 100; see col. 35, lines 6-24; col. 38, lines 39-41).
Fuji, Meissner, Bulur and Joe are battery systems analogous art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of Fuji as modified by Meissner and Bulur, wherein the computer program is a battery management system program, as recited, since it was known in the art that control unit may selectively include processors well known in the art, ASIC (application-specific integrated circuit), other chipsets, logic circuits, registers, communication modems, data processing devices or the like in order to execute various control logics and furthermore, Joe discloses that the control unit may be a battery management system (BMS) which may be electrically coupled to a secondary battery, or a control element included in the battery management system (BMS). It would have been to modify Fuji in view of Meissner and Bulur with Joe to minimize the number of parts and lower the manufacturing cost by integrating the control unit and its computer program in a battery management system program as a single module.
Accordingly claim 10 would have been obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 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.
Reasons for allowance for claims 4-7 were already given in the Non-Final office action paper No./Mail date 20260413.
Claim 13 is allowed over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 13, although Fuji discusses([0066],[0068]) the activation voltage being applied to the battery in response to the remaining capacity being lower than a threshold and Fuji further discusses repeating the operations of returning to the normal charging if the detected capacity is greater than a threshold and repeating the steps, Fuji does not expressly teach or reasonably suggest either taken alone or in combination thereof, among other patentable features, “wherein the activation voltage is higher than a normal charging voltage of the battery; and in response to the battery state-of-health value increasing to be greater than or equal to a second preset threshold, stopping application of the activation voltage, and continuing a normal charge-discharge cycle; wherein: the battery state-of-health value includes a real-time capacity Creal-time of the battery, an initial capacity of the battery in a first charge-discharge operation is Co, and the first threshold is Co x 80%, wherein the activation voltage is applied to the battery in response to Creal-time decreasing to be lower than or equal to Co x 80%;after the first charge-discharge operation, the activation voltage is not applied to the battery, and subsequent second to Nth charge-discharge operations are performed directly, wherein N is an integer from 2 to 500,000, and the second to Nth charge- discharge operations are performed at the normal charging voltage; and during the second to Nth charge-discharge operations, each time in response to Creal-time becoming lower than Co x 80%, the activation voltage Vactivation is applied to the battery for activity recovery, and in response to the battery state-of-health value increasing to be greater than or equal to the second preset threshold, the activation voltage is returned to the normal charging voltage, and the charge-discharge operations are continued”.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M'BAYE DIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 10:00AM-6:30PM and OFF most of the time Friday when working IFP.
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, DREW A DUNN can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
M'BAYE DIAO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/M BAYE DIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 July 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights