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 .
Examiner Note
Applicant defines the term “pre-leaving voltage” in [0030] where “a pre-leaving measuring step S421 is performed first to measure a pre-leaving second voltage VB2a, which is the battery voltage VB of each battery 10 (see FIG. 6) before leaving. The battery voltage VB of each battery 10 is once equalized to the same first voltage VB1 by the CCCV charging as described above. However, immediately after the CCCV charging is terminated, the battery voltage VB decreases by that amount of voltage drop occurring in a battery resistance by a charged current during CV charging. In addition, even when the battery(s) 10 is not short-circuited, the battery voltage VB gradually decreases over time as described later (see FIG. 6). Therefore, the pre- leaving second voltage VB2a of each battery 10 after charged to the first voltage VB1.” Where it is indicated the pre-leaving measuring step is the initial voltage value after the initial charge/discharge of the battery to obtain a specific value.
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 1-6 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 “a time difference between an oldest adjustment completion time of an oldest adjusted device that is completely adjusted to the first device voltage at an adjustment completion time that is oldest and a newest adjustment completion time of a newest adjusted device that is completely adjusted to the first device voltage at an adjustment completion time that is newest from among the restrained devices included in the single restrained-device module” in pg 1 line 26- page 2 line 4. It is unclear what the parameters are for the time difference, specifically what “an oldest adjustment completion time of an oldest adjusted device that is completely adjusted to the first device voltage at an adjustment completion time that is oldest” and “a newest adjustment completion time of a newest adjusted device that is completely adjusted to the first device voltage at an adjustment completion time that is newest” is unclear. For continued prosecution “an oldest adjustment completion time of an oldest adjusted device that is completely adjusted to the first device voltage at an adjustment completion time that is oldest” is taken to mean the time of the recorded voltage measurement at the start of the voltage drop time period, and “a newest adjustment completion time of a newest adjusted device that is completely adjusted to the first device voltage at an adjustment completion time that is newest” is taken to mean the time of the recorded voltage measurement at the end of the voltage drop time period. Therefore, claim 1 and further dependent claims 2-6 are indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “obtaining either a shortest standby time or an earliest start timing that allows start of measuring the pre-leaving voltage, from the largest adjustment timing difference, based on a predetermined standby time function for obtaining the shortest standby time after the newest adjustment completion time until the start of measuring the pre-leaving voltage is allowed, in which the shortest standby time is obtained longer as the largest adjustment timing difference is larger” in page 2 lines 5-10. It is unclear if it is the shortest standby time or the earliest start timing, or both are “based on a predetermined standby time function for obtaining the shortest standby time after the newest adjustment completion time until the start of measuring the pre-leaving voltage is allowed, in which the shortest standby time is obtained longer as the largest adjustment timing difference is larger.” For the purpose of prosecution both the standby time and the earliest start time are based on said limitation. Therefore, claim 1 and further dependent claims 2-6 are indefinite.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to the abstract concept of performing mental steps without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract concepts in BOLD of
Claim 1. A method for inspecting a power storage device for short circuit, the method comprising:
adjusting a voltage of a power storage device, which has been initially charged, to a first device voltage by charging or discharging the power storage device,
restraining a plurality of the power storage devices each having been adjusted to the first device voltage by a restraining member while the power storage devices are unconnected to each other, to constitute a restrained-device module including a plurality of restrained devices which are the power storage devices under restraint,
measuring a pre-leaving device voltage of each of the restrained devices included in a single restrained-device module;
leaving the restrained-device module that has been measured for the preleaving device voltage;
measuring a post-leaving device voltage of each of the restrained devices included in the single restrained-device module after leaving the restrained-device module;
obtaining a voltage drop rate based on the pre-leaving device voltage and
the post-leaving device voltage for each of the restrained devices; determining whether or not each of the restrained devices included in the single restrained-device module is short-circuited by use of the voltage drop rate of each of the restrained devices included in this restrained-device module, which are obtained in obtaining the voltage drop rate;
after adjusting the voltage of a power storage device but before measuring the pre-leaving voltage, calculating a largest adjustment timing difference that is a time difference between an oldest adjustment completion time of an oldest adjusted device that is completely adjusted to the first device voltage at an adjustment completion time that is oldest and a newest adjustment completion time of a newest adjusted device that is completely adjusted to the first device voltage at an adjustment completion time that is newest from among the restrained devices included in the single restrained-device module;
obtaining either a shortest standby time or an earliest start timing that allows start of measuring the pre-leaving voltage, from the largest adjustment timing difference, based on a predetermined standby time function for obtaining the shortest standby time after the newest adjustment completion time until the start of measuring the pre-leaving voltage is allowed, in which the shortest standby time is obtained longer as the largest adjustment timing difference is larger; and
deferring measurement of the pre-leaving voltage until the shortest standby time elapses or until the earliest start timing is reached.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation the fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers performing mathematics or mental steps.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner notes that since the claimed methods and system are not tied to a particular machine or apparatus, they do not represent an improvement to another technology or technical field. Similarly, there are no other meaningful limitations linking the use to a particular technological environment. Finally, there is nothing in the claims that indicates an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or transform a particular article to a new state.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because power storage device, restraining member, restrained-device module, are generic computer elements and not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.
The additional element of adjusting a voltage of a power storage device to a first device voltage by charging or discharging the power storage device, restraining a plurality of the power storage devices each having been adjusted to the first device voltage by a restraining member while the power storage devices are unconnected to each other, measuring a pre-leaving device voltage of each of the restrained devices included in a single restrained-device module; leaving the restrained-device module that has been measured for the preleaving device voltage; measuring a post-leaving device voltage of each of the restrained devices included in the single restrained-device module after leaving the restrained-device module; is considered necessary data gathering and is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e., receiving data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Claims 2-6 further limit the abstract ideas without integrating the abstract concept into a practical application or including additional limitations that can be considered significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (JP 2013084508 A) hereinafter Ikeda in view of Nakayama et al. (JP 2014134395 A) hereinafter Nakayama.
Regarding Claim 1, Ikeda teaches adjusting a voltage of a power storage device, which has been initially charged, to a first device voltage by charging or discharging the power storage device ([0031] “In the SOC adjustment step of step S22, charging and discharging are performed so that the SOCs of the plurality of cells fall within a predetermined range (i.e., adjusting voltage to be within a certain range).”); restraining a plurality of the power storage devices each having been adjusted to the first device voltage by a restraining member while the power storage devices are unconnected to each other to constitute a restrained-device module including a plurality of restrained devices which are the power storage devices under restraint ([0030] “That is, in the cell inspection step of step S21, the initial charge / discharge step (step S11), the high temperature aging step (step S12), the cell self discharge step (step S13), and the shipping inspection step (step S11) shown in the first embodiment. S14) is included. In step S21, a plurality of cells are inspected.” Where each of the cells were unconnected and restrained and there is multiple of them as they are going to be stached in the next steps [0031] “In the SOC adjustment step of step S22, charging and discharging are performed so that the SOCs of the plurality of cells fall within a predetermined range. The stack process S23 includes a stack constraining process, a stack self-discharge process, and the like. For example, a plurality of cells whose SOC has been adjusted in step S22 are prepared. Then, a plurality of cells are stacked and restrained.” Where [0039] “The inspection is performed by the inspection method in the first and second embodiments. Then, the cells determined to be defective and the cell stacks are excluded (i.e., the separate cell stacks are unconnected from each other), and only the cells determined to be non-defectives and the cell stack are attached to the car.”), measuring a pre-leaving device voltage of each of the restrained devices included in a single restrained-device module ([0031] “In the SOC adjustment step of step S22, charging and discharging are performed so that the SOCs of the plurality of cells fall within a predetermined range (i.e., pre-leaving device voltage is measured).”); leaving the restrained-device module that has been measured for the pre-leaving device voltage ([0032] “That is, the cell stack is left for a certain period of time to measure the voltage drop due to self-discharge.” Where [0031] “In the SOC adjustment step of step S22, charging and discharging are performed so that the SOCs of the plurality of cells fall within a predetermined range. The stack process S23 includes a stack constraining process, a stack self-discharge process, and the like. For example, a plurality of cells whose SOC has been adjusted in step S22 are prepared. Then, a plurality of cells are stacked and restrained.”); measuring a post-leaving device voltage of each of the restrained devices included in the single restrained-device module after leaving the restrained-device module([0032] “That is, the cell stack is left for a certain period of time to measure the voltage drop due to self-discharge. If the voltage drop is larger than the threshold value, it is determined as a defective product in which a short circuit has occurred.”); obtaining a voltage drop rate based on the pre-leaving device voltage and the post-leaving device voltage for each of the restrained devices ([0032] “That is, the cell stack is left for a certain period of time to measure the voltage drop due to self-discharge. If the voltage drop is larger than the threshold value, it is determined as a defective product in which a short circuit has occurred.”); determining whether or not each of the restrained devices included in the single restrained-device module is short-circuited by use of the voltage drop rate of each of the restrained devices included in this restrained-device module, which are obtained in obtaining the voltage drop rate ([0032] “Therefore, in the present embodiment, after the stack constraining step, the cell stack is self-discharged to detect the presence or absence of a short circuit. That is, the cell stack is left for a certain period of time to measure the voltage drop due to self-discharge. If the voltage drop is larger than the threshold value, it is determined as a defective product in which a short circuit has occurred.” Where where [0034] “FIGS. 5 and 6 show how the voltages of the non-defective cell and the short circuit cell decrease.”).
Ikeda does not teach after adjusting the voltage of a power storage device but before measuring the pre-leaving voltage, calculating a largest adjustment timing difference that is a time difference between an oldest adjustment completion time of an oldest adjusted device that is completely adjusted to the first device voltage at an adjustment completion time that is oldest and a newest adjustment completion time of a newest adjusted device that is completely adjusted to the first device voltage at an adjustment completion time that is newest from among the restrained devices included in the single restrained-device module;obtaining either a shortest standby time or an earliest start timing that allows start of measuring the pre-leaving voltage, from the largest adjustment timing difference, based on a predetermined standby time function for obtaining the shortest standby time after the newest adjustment completion time until the start of measuring the pre-leaving voltage is allowed, in which the shortest standby time is obtained longer as the largest adjustment timing difference is larger; anddeferring measurement of the pre-leaving voltage until the shortest standby time elapses or until the earliest start timing is reached.
Nakayama teaches after adjusting the voltage of a power storage device but before measuring the pre-leaving voltage, calculating a largest adjustment timing difference that is a time difference between an oldest adjustment completion time of an oldest adjusted device that is completely adjusted to the first device voltage at an adjustment completion time that is oldest and a newest adjustment completion time of a newest adjusted device that is completely adjusted to the first device voltage at an adjustment completion time that is newest from among the restrained devices included in the single restrained-device module ([0015] “The secondary battery 1 is self-discharged at normal temperature, and the presence or absence of a micro short circuit is detected based on the voltage drop amount after a predetermined time has elapsed (i.e., determined before voltage measurements are run). At this time, the secondary battery 1 in which the voltage drop amount at the predetermined measurement point of each secondary battery 1 is larger than the threshold value is determined to be a short circuit, and is determined as a defective product.” Where [0018] “The secondary battery according to Comparative Example 1 has a battery capacity of 25 [Ah], and in the SOC adjustment step, according to the formula of (slope of discharge curve of secondary battery [V / SOC] / battery capacity [Ah]) After discharging to SOC: 20 [%] which is a value of SOC for which the value to be obtained is less than 0.05, the number of days taken for the short circuit test in the self-discharge step was measured. At this time, the value obtained by the formula of (slope of discharge curve of secondary battery [V / SOC] / battery capacity [Ah]) is 0.03 which is less than 0.05, and in this point, the present embodiment is implemented. It is different from the form. The number of inspection days required for the secondary battery according to Comparative Example 1 was 20 days. As mentioned above, compared with Example 1 to Example 3, the inspection days in the comparative example 1 are long. That is, in Example 1 to Example 3, the time required for the short circuit inspection can be shortened.”); obtaining either a shortest standby time or an earliest start timing that allows start of measuring the pre-leaving voltage, from the largest adjustment timing difference, based on a predetermined standby time function for obtaining the shortest standby time after the newest adjustment completion time until the start of measuring the pre-leaving voltage is allowed, in which the shortest standby time is obtained longer as the largest adjustment timing difference is larger ([0017] “The secondary battery according to the first embodiment has a battery capacity of 25 [Ah], and in the SOC adjustment step S12, a calculation formula of (slope of discharge curve of secondary battery [V / SOC] / battery capacity [Ah]) After discharging to SOC: 9 [%], which is a value of SOC at which the value obtained by the above becomes a value of 0.05 or more, the number of days taken for the short circuit test in the self-discharge step S13 was measured. The value determined by the formula of (the slope of the discharge curve of the secondary battery [V / SOC] / the battery capacity [Ah]) at this time is 0.05. The number of inspection days required for the secondary battery according to Example 1 was 10 days. The secondary battery according to the second embodiment has a battery capacity of 5 [Ah], and in the SOC adjustment step S12, a calculation formula of (slope of discharge curve of secondary battery [V / SOC] / battery capacity [Ah]) After discharging to SOC: 20 [%], which is a value of SOC at which the value obtained by the above becomes a value of 0.05 or more, the number of days taken for the short circuit test in the self-discharge step S13 was measured. The value obtained by the formula of (the slope of the discharge curve of the secondary battery [V / SOC] / the battery capacity [Ah]) at this time is 0.09. The number of inspection days required for the secondary battery according to Example 2 was 5 days. The secondary battery according to the third embodiment has a battery capacity of 10 [Ah], and in the SOC adjustment step S12, a calculation formula of (slope of discharge curve of secondary battery [V / SOC] / battery capacity [Ah]) After discharging to SOC: 15 [%], which is a value of SOC at which the value obtained by the above becomes a value of 0.05 or more, the number of days taken for the short circuit test in the self-discharge step S13 was measured. The value determined by the formula of (the slope of the discharge curve of the secondary battery [V / SOC] / the battery capacity [Ah]) at this time is 0.06. The number of inspection days required for the secondary battery according to Example 3 was 15 days.” And [0018] “The secondary battery according to Comparative Example 1 has a battery capacity of 25 [Ah], and in the SOC adjustment step, according to the formula of (slope of discharge curve of secondary battery [V / SOC] / battery capacity [Ah]) After discharging to SOC: 20 [%] which is a value of SOC for which the value to be obtained is less than 0.05, the number of days taken for the short circuit test in the self-discharge step was measured. At this time, the value obtained by the formula of (slope of discharge curve of secondary battery [V / SOC] / battery capacity [Ah]) is 0.03 which is less than 0.05, and in this point, the present embodiment is implemented. It is different from the form. The number of inspection days required for the secondary battery according to Comparative Example 1 was 20 days. As mentioned above, compared with Example 1 to Example 3, the inspection days in the comparative example 1 are long. That is, in Example 1 to Example 3, the time required for the short circuit inspection can be shortened.” Where example 2 determined that 5 days was the shortest standby time with the largest adjustment timing difference, a shortest standby time); and deferring measurement of the pre-leaving voltage until the shortest standby time elapses or until the earliest start timing is reached ([0017] “The secondary battery according to the second embodiment has a battery capacity of 5 [Ah], and in the SOC adjustment step S12, a calculation formula of (slope of discharge curve of secondary battery [V / SOC] / battery capacity [Ah]) After discharging to SOC: 20 [%], which is a value of SOC at which the value obtained by the above becomes a value of 0.05 or more, the number of days taken for the short circuit test in the self-discharge step S13 was measured. The value obtained by the formula of (the slope of the discharge curve of the secondary battery [V / SOC] / the battery capacity [Ah]) at this time is 0.09. The number of inspection days required for the secondary battery according to Example 2 was 5 days” where the measurement was deferred for 5 days before the voltage of the battery was measured.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the timing increments discussed in Nakayama to the method for inspecting a power storage device for short circuit discussed in Ikeda for the purpose of having a timing system to accurately measure the short of the circuit. This is advantageous because detecting the presence or absence of a short circuit following time increments allows for the SOC can be adjusted to the optimum SOC regardless of the battery capacity of the secondary battery, and the time required for the short circuit inspection can be shortened (e.g., [0005], Nakayama).
Regarding Claim 2, Ikeda and Nakayama teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Ikeda further teaches wherein the shortest standby time is a shortest elapsed time predicted such that a predicted drop rate difference falls below a predetermined upper-limit drop rate difference, the predicted drop rate difference being obtained by subtracting a second predicted drop rate corresponding to the voltage drop rate predicted to occur in the oldest adjusted device from a first predicted drop rate corresponding to the voltage drop rate predicted to occur in the newest adjusted device ([0032] “Therefore, in the present embodiment, after the stack constraining step, the cell stack is self-discharged to detect the presence or absence of a short circuit. That is, the cell stack is left for a certain period of time (i.e., standby time) to measure the voltage drop due to self-discharge. If the voltage drop (i.e., voltage measured at current time subtracted from initial voltage) is larger than the threshold value (i.e., a predicted drop rate difference falls below a predetermined upper-limit drop rate difference) , it is determined as a defective product in which a short circuit has occurred.”).
Regarding Claim 3 and 4, Ikeda and Nakayama teaches the limitations of claim 1 and 2, respectively.
Ikeda further teaches inspecting whether or not each of the restrained devices included in the single restrained-device module is short-circuited ([0035] “ On the other hand, when the self-discharge of the non-defective cell is small, the difference in voltage change between the non-defective cell and the short circuit cell becomes large. Therefore, it becomes easy to detect a short circuit. That is, (the voltage drop due to the short circuit) / (the voltage drop of the non-defective cell) increases as the self-discharge of the non-defective cell decreases, so that the short-circuited cell is easily detected. Therefore, if the self-discharge amount is measured under the condition that the self-discharge of the non-defective cell is small, the short-circuited cell can be easily detected.” Where there is voltage drop measured for a shorted circuit and a non-defective (no short) circuit.), and connecting the restrained devices included in the restrained-device module to each other when all of the restrained devices included in the restrained-device module are determined not to be short-circuited ([0039] “Then, the cells determined to be defective and the cell stacks are excluded, and only the cells determined to be non-defectives and the cell stack are attached to the car. Thus, manufacturing can be improved by manufacturing the secondary battery for motor vehicles.”).
Regarding Claim 5 and 6, Ikeda and Nakayama teaches the limitations of claims 3 and 4, respectively.
Ikeda further teaches removing at least one restrained device having been determined to be short- circuited in inspecting the short circuit from among the restrained devices included in a same restrained-device module of the restrained-device modules ([0039] “Then, the cells determined to be defective and the cell stacks are excluded, and only the cells determined to be non-defectives and the cell stack are attached to the car. Thus, manufacturing can be improved by manufacturing the secondary battery for motor vehicles.”); and re-restraining the remaining restrained devices that are determined not to be short-circuited in inspecting the short circuit together with a supplementary power storage device that is prepared in advance to reconstitute the re-restrained-device module ([0030] “First, the inspection process described in the first embodiment is performed (step S21). That is, in the cell inspection step of step S21, the initial charge / discharge step (step S11), the high temperature aging step (step S12), the cell self discharge step (step S13), and the shipping inspection step (step S11) shown in the first embodiment. S14) is included. In step S21, a plurality of cells are inspected.” Where the first inspection process reviews a singular cell, and the second process views the singular cells grouped together in a stack, and [0031] “Then, after the SOC adjustment step (step S22), the stack step (step S23) is performed. In the SOC adjustment step of step S22, charging and discharging are performed so that the SOCs of the plurality of cells fall within a predetermined range.The stack process S23 includes a stack constraining process, a stack self-discharge process, and the like. For example, a plurality of cells whose SOC has been adjusted in step S22 are prepared. Then, a plurality of cells are stacked and restrained.” Where the individual not shorted cells are stacked with supplementary storage devices (i.e., other batteries).) the supplementary power storage device having been included in another restrained-device module of the restrained-device modules and determined not to be short-circuited in inspecting the short circuit ([0030] “First, the inspection process described in the first embodiment is performed (step S21). That is, in the cell inspection step of step S21, the initial charge / discharge step (step S11), the high temperature aging step (step S12), the cell self discharge step (step S13), and the shipping inspection step (step S11) shown in the first embodiment. S14) is included. In step S21, a plurality of cells are inspected.” Where the first inspection process reviews a singular cell, and the second process views the singular cells grouped together in a stack, and [0031] “Then, after the SOC adjustment step (step S22), the stack step (step S23) is performed. In the SOC adjustment step of step S22, charging and discharging are performed so that the SOCs of the plurality of cells fall within a predetermined range. The stack process S23 includes a stack constraining process, a stack self-discharge process, and the like. For example, a plurality of cells whose SOC has been adjusted in step S22 are prepared. Then, a plurality of cells are stacked and restrained.” Where the individual not shorted cells are first inspected and found to not be shorted in the individual test before undergoing the stacked tests).).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emma L. Alexander whose telephone number is (571)270-0323. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8am-5pm 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, Catherine T. Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/EMMA ALEXANDER/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863