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 without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 06/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/25/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The small text on both graphs shown in Fig. 3 appear blurry and illegible. For example, it is unclear in the right-hand graph of Fig. 3 which lines represent cell numbers #706, #707, #653, #657 and #655
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The Abstract recites: “A method of improving electrode wetting of a battery of a portable electronic device, the method implemented by the portable electronic device or battery-stimulation apparatus thereof, the method comprising: applying a stimulation signal, being a fluctuating or alternating electrical signal, to at least one terminal of the battery to stimulate a mechanical response of electrodes of the battery.”
The feature that the method is “implemented by the portable electronic device” does not appear possible or supported (see the 112(a) rejection below). Therefore, the recitation of this feature in the abstract needs to be remedied.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The instant specification recites: “the method implemented by the portable electronic device or battery-stimulation apparatus thereof” (P6, 103), “the method implemented by the portable electronic device” (P7, 9, 179, 190), “Such methods may be implemented by the portable electronic device or battery-stimulation apparatus thereof” (P88), and “wherein the method is implemented by the portable electronic device or battery-stimulation apparatus thereof” (P187).
The feature that the method is “implemented by the portable electronic device” does not appear possible or supported (see the 112(a) rejection below). Therefore, the recitation of this feature in the specification needs to be remedied.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2-4, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: improper grammar and failure to invoke full and proper antecedent basis.
Grammar:
Claim 1 recites in part: “applying a stimulation signal, being a fluctuating or alternating electrical signal, to..”
This is not grammatically correct. The Examiner recommends: “applying a stimulation signal, wherein the stimulation signal is a fluctuating or alternating electrical signal, to..”
Claim 19 recites “Battery stimulation apparatus” with no article and is grammatically improper.
Full and Proper Antecedent Basis
Claims 2-4, 10, 14, 171are objected to for failure to invoke full and proper antecedent basis and should correct “the mechanical response” to “the mechanical response of the electrodes of the battery” wherever it occurs
Claim 5 should correct “electrodes of the battery” to “the electrodes of the battery.”
Claim 19 is further objected to for failure to invoke full and proper antecedent basis and should correct “the apparatus” (occurring in lines 2 and 3) to “the battery-stimulation apparatus”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is reproduced below with emphasis added:
A method of improving electrode wetting of a battery of a portable electronic device, the method implemented by the portable electronic device or battery-stimulation apparatus thereof, the method comprising:
applying a stimulation signal, being a fluctuating or alternating electrical signal, to at least one terminal of the battery to stimulate a mechanical response of electrodes of the battery.
Although the claim is an original claim, and there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976)). The feature that the method claimed, is “implemented by the portable electronic device” does not appear possible or supported. A portable electronic device are described at P2 of the instant specification, as would also be immediately understood by one having ordinary skill in the art, as cellphones, laptops, tablet computers, wearable electronic devices, and power tools (P2). Other options include pagers, radios, CD players, camcorder, etc. Selecting a power tool as an example, it is entirely unclear how a power tool is capable of implementing the method claimed of “applying a stimulation signal, being a fluctuating or alternating electrical signal, to at least one terminal of the battery to stimulate a mechanical response of electrodes of the battery.” This is not a standard, routine feature of portable electronic devices, and the disclosure is silent as to how a portable electronic device achieves the method implemented.
Instead, the disclosure teaches and supports that a controller 100 is configured to treat the battery, in particular to stimulate a mechanical response of the battery and may be referred to as a battery-stimulation apparatus (P29). The controller is also being described as an onboard charger (P30). The disclosure adequately describes and supports how the controller 110 (or variant controller 110A, variant controller 110B, or variant controller 110C) is capable of achieving the method implemented (at least P29-33, 56-59, 79-84). This is also apparent in the product claims 19 and 20 drawn to [A] battery stimulation apparatus that is configured to carry out the method of claim 1.
The Examiner thus recommends claim 1 is amended as shown below (including the above grammar correction):
A method of improving electrode wetting of a battery of a portable electronic device, the method implemented by a battery-stimulation apparatus of the portable electronic device
applying a stimulation signal, wherein the stimulation signal is a fluctuating or alternating electrical signal, to at least one terminal of the battery to stimulate a mechanical response of electrodes of the battery.
Appropriate correction and/or explanation (if contesting the rejection) is required.
In view of this, the Examiner has rejected the claims with prior art to the best of their ability.
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 6, 9, and 13 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.
Regarding claims 6 and 9, the claims recite the term “substantially”.
In claim 6, the use of the term “substantially” in combination with the value as claimed, i.e., "wherein a DC component of the stimulation signal is: substantially at 0 V" renders the claim indefinite because there is nothing in the specification or prior art to provide any indication as to what range is covered by the term "substantially" (see Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 18 USPQ2d 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (MPEP 2173.05(b)].
In claim 9, the use of the term “substantially” in combination with the limitation as claimed, i.e., "wherein the stimulation signal is configured such that its frequency spectrum is substantially constant over time" renders the claim indefinite because there is nothing in the specification or prior art to provide any indication as to what range is covered by the term "substantially" (see Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 18 USPQ2d 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (MPEP 2173.05(b)].
It is noted that the use of approximation terms or terms of degree such as “substantially” are not indefinite when the specification provides some standard allowing for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand the scope of the term. If the specification does not provide some standard for measuring that degree, a determination must be made as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art could nevertheless ascertain the scope of the claim (e.g., a standard that is recognized in the art for measuring the meaning of the term of degree). For example, in Ex parte Oetiker, 23 USPQ2d 1641 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992), the phrases "relatively shallow," "of the order of," "the order of about 5mm," and "substantial portion" were held to be indefinite because the specification lacked some standard for measuring the degrees intended. The meaning of every term used in a claim should be apparent from the prior art or from the specification and drawings at the time the application is filed. Claim language may not be "ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention." Packard, 751 F.3d at 1311.
In the instance scenario, there specification fails to make clear what would or would not be covered by the ranges of “substantially at 0 V” and "substantially constant over time" There is not any disclosure of how much the range may vary from the endpoints, and no examples of materials outside the endpoint examples.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites the limitation "the duration D" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 recites “… wherein the mechanical response is for improving electrolyte wetting of electrodes of the battery.”
Claim 3 depends from claim 1, which recites “A method of improving electrode wetting of a battery of a portable electronic device, the method implemented by the portable electronic device or battery-stimulation apparatus thereof, the method comprising: applying a stimulation signal, being a fluctuating or alternating electrical signal, to at least one terminal of the battery to stimulate a mechanical response of electrodes of the battery.”
Given claim 1 states “a method for improving electrode wetting” and then recites only a singular step (“applying a stimulation signal, being a fluctuating or alternating electrical signal, to at least one terminal of the battery to stimulate a mechanical response of electrodes of the battery”), then it follows that this singular step would achieve the result of improving electrode wetting as claimed.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9, 12-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meadows et al (US 5378551 A) in view of Yamada et al (US 20010032386 A1) in view of Popescu (US 20040217737 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Meadows teaches during the charging process, a small AC signal (a “stimulation signal” being an alternating electrical signal) is superimposed on the DC current signal, and applied to a battery cell 10 via appropriate current collectors 22 contained in the cell as substrates within the electrodes, wherein the current collectors are used as leads (“terminals”) for providing vibration and charging of the cell (C3/L40-55; see also claim 12).
Meadows teaches that the use of forced convection by mechanical excitation has been used extensively to provide enhanced efficiency of electrochemical processes in the chemical industry (C1/L19-32). Meadows describes that wetting of the electrodes with the liquid electrolyte is necessary to thereby permit ionic and transfer thereof (C2/L35-39). Ultrasonic vibration increases the rate of ion transfer (i.e., intrinsically allowing for the increase/improvement of electrode wetting) within the electrolyte and electrodes (C2/L44-52).
Accordingly, the charging process as described in the context of Meadows is considered “a process (“method”) of improving electrode wetting of a battery…” in view of the above teachings. Alternatively, implementing the taught charging process achieving the described result of increased rate of ion transport within the electrolyte and electrodes (by way of intrinsically allowing for improved/increased electrode wetting) in view of these teachings to provide “a method of improving electrode wetting of a battery” is considered an obvious and naturally flowing method from that which is described.
Further, given the AC signal is superimposed on the DC current signal in the process of Meadows, it is inherent that there would be some sort of “battery stimulation apparatus” that creates the AC signal. Alternatively, selecting a known apparatus to creating the disclosed AC signal (for example, an alternator) would be immediately obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, given the AC signal must be provided by some sort of apparatus to be applied to the battery.
However, Meadows is silent to the battery being “a battery of a portable electronic device” and that the battery stimulation apparatus is a part of the portable electronic device.
In a similar field of endeavor, Popescu discloses rechargeable batteries. i.e. secondary batteries, have been widely used to provide power for driving battery powered electronic appliances (P2). Popescu teaches battery powered electronic appliances may include, by way of example, portable radio cassette players, portable computers, camcorders, digital cameras, cellular telephones, PDAs and other devices (P2). Popescu teaches rechargeable batteries require an electronic charger for recharging depleted batteries (P3). Popescu teaches a charger may be configured as internal charger circuit incorporated into a battery-powered appliance (P3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Popescu and provided a portable electronic device including an internal charger circuit incorporated therein, such as one of the battery powered electronic appliances of Popescu having an internal charger circuit, having the battery taught by Meadows inside to provide power, wherein the internal charger circuit is configured to implement the process/method of Meadows, given Meadows discloses their battery to be a rechargeable battery, Meadows teaches their method to be utilized during a charging process, Popescu teaches rechargeable batteries have been widely used to provide power for driving battery powered electronic appliances, and Popescu teaches a charger may be configured as internal charger circuit incorporated into a battery-powered appliance.
Regarding claim 2, Meadows discloses wherein the mechanical response is a vibrational response (during the charging process, a small AC signal is superimposed on the DC current signal, and applied to the battery cell 10 via appropriate current collectors 22 contained in the cell as substrates within the electrodes, wherein the current collectors are used as leads (“terminals”) for providing vibration and charging of the cell; see entire disclosure and especially C3/L40-55 and claim 12).
Regarding claim 4, Meadows discloses wherein a frequency spectrum and/or electrical power of the stimulation signal is configured for stimulating the mechanical response (the vibration is disclosed by Meadows to be induced through an alternating (AC) electric signal, therefore, the frequency spectrum and/or electrical power of the electric signal (or field thereof) would be configured for stimulating the vibration; see entire disclosure and especially C2 / L44-52, C3/L40-55).
Regarding claim 5, Meadows discloses wherein the stimulation signal is configured to induce a fluctuating or alternating electric field between electrodes of the battery (the vibration is disclosed by Meadows to be induced through electrical signals from an alternating (AC) electric signal, therefore, there would be an alternating electric field between the electrodes of the battery; see entire disclosure and especially C2 / L44-52, C3/L40-55).
Regarding claim 6, Meadows discloses wherein a DC component of the stimulation signal is: substantially at 0 V; and/or at or below a tenth or a hundredth of a value which would cause a charging current to flow which would charge the battery from empty within one hour; and/or at or below a tenth or a hundredth of a value which would cause a discharging current to flow which would empty the battery from full within one hour (the vibration is disclosed by Meadows to be induced through electrical signals from an alternating (AC) electric signal; Meadows discloses that the AC signal is used to vibrate the parts of the cell; therefore, there stimulation signal comprises an AC component, not a DC component, so the DC component of the stimulation signal would be “substantially” at 0 V; see entire disclosure and especially C3/L40-55).
Regarding claim 9, Meadows discloses wherein the stimulation signal is configured such that its frequency spectrum is substantially constant over time or is time-varying (the AC signal utilized intrinsically has a frequency spectrum, therefore, it would inherently have either a frequency spectrum that is “substantially” constant over time or a frequency spectrum that is time-varying).
Regarding claim 12, Meadows teaches during the charging process, a small AC signal (a “stimulation signal” being an alternating electrical signal) is superimposed on the DC current signal, and applied to the battery cell 10 via appropriate current collectors 22 contained in the cell as substrates within the electrodes, wherein the current collectors are used as leads (“terminals”) for providing vibration and charging of the cell (C3/L40-55; see also claim 12), therefore, the AC signal (stimulation signal) would inherently be applied for a certain duration of time, this period of time being “a treatment period”.
Given at least some duration of time is linked to the charging process of Meadows, it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the determination of an optimum or workable time amount to achieve the desired level of vibration (“mechanical response”) to lead to the desired mass transport through the battery (C4 / L27-31) is an endeavor in routine optimization. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 13, Meadows teaches during the charging process, a small AC signal (a “stimulation signal” being an alternating electrical signal) is superimposed on the DC current signal, and applied to the battery cell 10 via appropriate current collectors 22 contained in the cell as substrates within the electrodes, wherein the current collectors are used as leads (“terminals”) for providing vibration and charging of the cell (C3/L40-55; see also claim 12).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the configuration and/or duration of the AC signal (stimulation signal) is based on a state of charge (SOC) of the battery.
Regarding claim 19, modified Meadows meets the limitation “Battery-stimulation apparatus for use by a portable electronic device to improve electrode wetting of a battery of a portable electronic device, the apparatus configured to carry out the method of claim 1” (given the internal charger circuit of modified Meadows is configured to implement the process/method of Meadows; see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 20, modified Meadows meets the limitation “A portable electronic device comprising the battery-stimulation apparatus according to claim 19, and optionally comprising the battery.” (the method of modified Meadows is implemented by a battery-stimulation apparatus (internal charger circuit) of a portable electronic device (given the portable electronic device (battery powered electronic appliance) of modified Meadows includes the internal charging circuit and the battery of modified Meadows; see the rejection of claim 1).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meadows et al (US 5378551 A) in view of Yamada et al (US 20010032386 A1) in view of Popescu (US 20040217737 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Ronkanen et al (Displacement Control of Piezoelectric Actuators Using Current and Voltage).
Regarding claim 7, Meadows discloses the vibration to be induced through electrical signals from an alternating (AC) electric current. An alternating electric current would intrinsically have a voltage, therefore, alternating electric current stimulation signal can be considered a voltage signal, with a peak amplitude between a lower voltage value and an upper voltage value.
Alternatively, Ronkanen teaches piezoelectric actuators are commonly controlled by using voltage as an input signal (Page 160, Left Column, Introduction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Ronkanen and chosen to control the vibration of Meadows with a voltage alternating electric current stimulation signal, given Ronkanen teaches piezoelectric actuators are commonly controlled by using voltage as an input signal.
Regarding claim 8, Meadows discloses the vibration to be induced through electrical signals from an alternating (AC) electric current. An alternating electric current would intrinsically have a current, therefore, alternating electric current stimulation signal can be considered a current signal with a peak amplitude between a lower current value and an upper current value.
Alternatively, Ronkanen teaches feedforward charge control where the operating current is controlled (Page 160, Left Column, Introduction). Ronkanen teaches the main benefit achieved using charge control is the reduction of hysteresis and drift (Page 160, Left Column into Right Column, Introduction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Ronkanen and chosen to control the vibration of Meadows with a charge (current)-controlled alternating electric current stimulation signal, given Ronkanen teaches this can reduce hysteresis and drift.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meadows et al (US 5378551 A) in view of Yamada et al (US 20010032386 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of APC International, Ltd. (A Piezo Electric Element: Frequency and Relationships, hereinafter referred to as “APC”).
Regarding claim 10, Meadows discloses wherein the stimulation signal has a peak/dominant frequency, or a plurality of peak/dominant frequencies (the AC signal utilized intrinsically would intrinsically have at least a peak/dominant frequency).
Regarding the limitation “wherein each peak/dominant frequency is selected or controlled to stimulate said mechanical response”:
It would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the selection of a specific AC signal and its basic components (i.e., voltage range, amplitude, frequency, etc.) to achieve the desired level of vibration (“mechanical response”) is an endeavor in routine optimization given Meadows teaches it is the AC signal that is providing the vibrating effect.
Further, APC teaches a piezoelectric ceramic element exposed to an alternating electric field changes dimensions cyclically at the frequency of the field (Page 1). Therefore, the selection/control of the peak/dominant frequency of the AC signal of Meadows (stimulation signal) to achieve the desired level of vibration (“mechanical response”) is an endeavor in routine optimization given Meadows teaches it is the AC signal that is providing the vibrating effect and APC teaches a piezoelectric material (ceramic element) changes dimensions cyclically at the frequency of an alternating electric field.
Regarding claim 11, Meadows discloses wherein the stimulation signal has a peak/dominant frequency or a plurality of peak/dominant frequencies (the AC signal utilized intrinsically would intrinsically have at least a peak/dominant frequency).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the stimulation signal has a peak/dominant frequency or a plurality of peak/dominant frequencies which are: greater than or equal to 100 Hz; and/or between 1 kHz and 200 kHz; and/or between 10 kHz and 40 kHz; and/or greater than or equal to 10 kHz”:
It would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the selection of a specific AC signal and its basic components (i.e., voltage range, amplitude, frequency, etc.) to achieve the desired level of vibration (“mechanical response”) is an endeavor in routine optimization given Meadows teaches it is the AC signal that is providing the vibrating effect.
Further, APC teaches a piezoelectric ceramic element exposed to an alternating electric field changes dimensions cyclically at the frequency of the field (Page 1). Therefore, the selection of the peak/dominant frequency value(s) of the AC signal of Meadows (stimulation signal) to achieve the desired level of vibration (“mechanical response”) is an endeavor in routine optimization given Meadows teaches it is the AC signal that is providing the vibrating effect and APC teaches a piezoelectric material (ceramic element) changes dimensions cyclically at the frequency of an alternating electric field.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Luo et al (Effect of Ultrasonic Excitation on Discharge Performance of a Button Zinc–Air Battery)
“In this paper, a method to enhance the output power and increase the rating capacity of a commercialized button zinc–air battery is proposed and demonstrated. In the structural design of the device, a piezoelectric ring was used as a vibration source, which was bonded to the top of the battery to excite an ultrasonic field inside the battery. The experimental results show that the output power of the battery increased from 22.2 mW to 32.6 mW, and the rating capacity increased from 330.56 mA·h to 396.89 mA·h when the vibration velocity is 52.8 mm/s (the corresponding vibration amplitude was 277 nm) at 161.2 kHz. The vibration velocity was the averaged peak–peak value of the out-of-plane vibration velocity on the upper surface of piezoelectric ring. In addition, the AC (alternating current) impedance of the battery was measured and computed to analyze the working principle. The analyses showed that the ultrasonic effects in electrolyte solution, such as acoustic microstreaming vortices and viscosity decrease, contribute to the discharge performance improvement by enhancing the uniformity of OH− distribution and decreasing the resistance of mass transfer” (Page 2, Introduction).
“A strategy to enhance the output power of a zinc–air battery by ultrasonic vibration is proposed and demonstrated. A piezoelectric ring bonded onto a commercialized button zinc–air battery is used to the produce ultrasonic field inside the battery. There is a 48% increase in the output power of the battery when the vibration velocity is 52.8 mm/s at 161.2 kHz, and the ultrasonic vibration can increase the rating capacity by about 20%. Based on the measured AC impedance and computed acoustofluidic field, the discharge performance improvement is attributed to the acoustic microstreaming vortices and viscosity decrease of the electrolyte solution, caused by ultrasonic excitation. This principle can also be applied to a battery pack to enhance the discharge performance and rating capacity by using a suitable ultrasonic vibration system” (Pages 9-10, Conclusion).
Cui et al (Electrocapillary boosting electrode wetting for high-energy lithium-ion batteries)
“Electrolyte filling is a quality-critical and cost-intensive process in battery production, especially for high-energy batteries employing thick and highly compressed electrodes. In this perspective, first, the fundamental principles and characterization approaches involved in electrode wetting, which include conventional surface analysis methods, electrochemical methodologies, and in situ spectroscopic imaging techniques, are outlined” (Page 42, Conclusion and Perspective).
Galleguillos-Silvia et al (Wettability of a surface subjected to high frequency mechanical vibrations)
“It is shown that it is possible to control the apparent wettability of a given liquid/solid/gas system by applying sonic-ultrasonic vibrations of controlled amplitude at the interface” (Page 134, Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Harris whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/MARY GRACE HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
1 Although claims 14 and 17 are in a withdrawn state, it should still be reviewed for clarity such that it is in a position to be eligible for rejoinder at the time of finding an allowable claim.
Prosecution Insights