DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
2. Applicant’s amendments submitted on 3/2/26 have been received. Claim 69 has been amended. Claims 1-68 have been cancelled. Claim 84 is new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 69 and 70-84 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.
5. Claim 69 recites the limitation "the cell" in lines 3-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as "the electrochemical cell" as there is antecedent basis.
6. Claims 70-84 are rejected as depending from claim 69.
7. Claims 70-83 recite the limitation "the cell". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as "the electrochemical cell" as there is antecedent basis.
8. Claims 70-75 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. Claims 70-75 recite the limitation "at a first rate or current" in lines 2-3. It is not clear whether it is the same first rate or current as recited in claim 69 from which it depends. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as “at the first rate or current".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claim(s) 69, 70, 72, 74, and 76-83 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salasoo et al. (US 2010/0019718) as cited in IDS dated 9/27/24.
Regarding claim 69, Salasoo discloses an electrochemical cell management system (Fig. 1, [0015]) comprising: an electrochemical cell comprising a metallic anode(battery 114, Fig. 1, [0023], [0056], [0063]); and at least one controller (energy management system 116, Fig. 1, [0019]) configured to control the electrochemical cell to induce a discharge of the electrochemical cell at a first rate or current(see discharging opportunity D2 in Fig. 3, [0036], [0038]), through at least a threshold capacity of the cell(SOCmin , Fig. 3, [0038], [0036]), before a beginning of a charging step of the electrochemical cell that charges the electrochemical cell slower than the first rate or current(see charging opportunity C2 in Fig. 3, [0038]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 70, Salasoo discloses the at least one controller is configured to control the electrochemical cell to induce a discharge of the electrochemical cell at the first rate or current, through at least 5% of a discharge capacity of the electrochemical cell, before a beginning of a charging step of the electrochemical cell that charges the electrochemical cell slower than the first rate or current(Fig. 3, [0038]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 72, Salasoo discloses the at least one controller is configured to control the electrochemical cell to induce a discharge of the electrochemical cell at the first rate or current, through at least 10% of a discharge capacity of the electrochemical cell, before a beginning of a charging step of the electrochemical cell that charges the electrochemical cell slower than the first rate or current(Fig. 3, [0038]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 74, Salasoo discloses the at least one controller is configured to control the electrochemical cell to induce a discharge of the electrochemical cell at the first rate or current, through at least 15% of a discharge capacity of the electrochemical cell, before a beginning of a charging step of the electrochemical cell that charges the electrochemical cell slower than the first rate or current(Fig. 3, [0038]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 76, Salasoo discloses the at least one controller is configured to control the electrochemical cell to induce the discharge at a rate that is higher than an average discharging rate of a previous discharge cycle(see discharging opportunity D2 with discharge profile 306 compared with discharging opportunity D1 with discharging profile 302 in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 77, Salasoo discloses the at least one controller is configured to control the electrochemical cell to induce the discharge at a rate that is higher than an average discharging rate of a latest previous discharge cycle(see discharging opportunity D2 with discharge profile 306 compared with discharging opportunity D1 with discharging profile 302 in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 78, Salasoo discloses the at least one controller is configured to control the electrochemical cell to induce the discharge at a current that is higher than an average discharging current of a previous discharge cycle(see discharging opportunity D2 compared with discharging opportunity D1 in Fig. 3, [0037]-[0038]).
Regarding claim 79, Salasoo discloses the at least one controller is configured to control the electrochemical cell to induce the discharge at a current that is higher than an average discharging current of a latest previous discharge cycle(see discharging opportunity D2 compared with discharging opportunity D1 in Fig. 3, [0037]-[0038]).
Regarding claim 80, Salasoo discloses the at least one controller is configured to control the electrochemical cell to induce the discharge at a rate that is higher than an average charging rate of a previous charge cycle(see discharging opportunity D2 compared with charging opportunity C1 in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 81, Salasoo discloses the at least one controller is configured to control the electrochemical cell to induce the discharge at a rate that is higher than an average charging rate of a latest previous charge cycle(see discharging opportunity D2 compared with charging opportunity C1 in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 82, Salasoo discloses the at least one controller is configured to control the electrochemical cell to induce the discharge at a current that is higher than an average charging current of a previous charge cycle (see discharging opportunity D2 compared with charging opportunity C1 in Fig. 3, [0037]-[0038]).
Regarding claim 83, Salasoo discloses the at least one controller is configured to control the electrochemical cell to induce the discharge at a current that is higher than an average charging current of a latest previous charge cycle(see discharging opportunity D2 compared with charging opportunity C1 in Fig. 3, [0037]-[0038]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Claim(s) 71, 73, and 75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salasoo et al. (US 2010/0019718) as cited in IDS dated 9/27/24.
Regarding claim 71, Salasoo discloses the at least one controller is configured to control the electrochemical cell to induce a discharge of the electrochemical cell at the first rate or current, through at least 5% of a discharge capacity of the electrochemical cell(Fig. 3, [0038]), since the duration of D2 is small, it may be desirable to discharge the battery at the default (unadjusted) maximal discharging rate, as depicted by discharging profile 306([0038]). Salasoo discloses in the ensuing charging opportunity, C2, based on the longer duration of charging available, the power transfer rate and target SOC to be obtained at the end of C2 (SOCc2) may be appropriately calculated, to additionally take advantage of the beneficial effects of slow charging on battery life ([0038]) but does not explicitly disclose before and less than 10 minutes before a beginning of a charging step of the electrochemical cell that charges the electrochemical cell slower than the first rate or current.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrochemical cell management system of Salasoo with discharge of the electrochemical cell at a first rate or current, through at least 5% of a discharge capacity of the electrochemical cell, before and less than 10 minutes before a beginning of a charging step of the electrochemical cell that charges the electrochemical cell slower than the first rate or current in order to take advantage of the beneficial effects of slow charging on battery life, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.05 (II-A).
Regarding claim 73, Salasoo discloses the at least one controller is configured to control the electrochemical cell to induce a discharge of the electrochemical cell at the first rate or current, through at least 10% of a discharge capacity of the cell(Fig. 3, [0038]), since the duration of D2 is small, it may be desirable to discharge the battery at the default (unadjusted) maximal discharging rate, as depicted by discharging profile 306([0038]). Salasoo discloses in the ensuing charging opportunity, C2, based on the longer duration of charging available, the power transfer rate and target SOC to be obtained at the end of C2 (SOCc2) may be appropriately calculated, to additionally take advantage of the beneficial effects of slow charging on battery life ([0038]) but does not explicitly disclose before and less than 10 minutes before a beginning of a charging step of the electrochemical cell that charges the electrochemical cell slower than the first rate or current.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrochemical cell management system of Salasoo with discharge of the electrochemical cell at the first rate or current, through at least 10% of a discharge capacity of the electrochemical cell, before and less than 10 minutes before a beginning of a charging step of the electrochemical cell that charges the electrochemical cell slower than the first rate or current in order to take advantage of the beneficial effects of slow charging on battery life, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.05 (II-A).
Regarding claim 75, Salasoo discloses the at least one controller is configured to control the electrochemical cell to induce a discharge of the electrochemical cell at the first rate or current, through at least 15% of a discharge capacity of the electrochemical cell(Fig. 3, [0038]), since the duration of D2 is small, it may be desirable to discharge the battery at the default (unadjusted) maximal discharging rate, as depicted by discharging profile 306([0038]). Salasoo discloses in the ensuing charging opportunity, C2, based on the longer duration of charging available, the power transfer rate and target SOC to be obtained at the end of C2 (SOCc2) may be appropriately calculated, to additionally take advantage of the beneficial effects of slow charging on battery life ([0038]) but does not explicitly disclose before and less than 10 minutes before a beginning of a charging step of the electrochemical cell that charges the electrochemical cell slower than the first rate or current.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrochemical cell management system of Salasoo with discharge of the electrochemical cell at the first rate or current, through at least 15% of a discharge capacity of the electrochemical cell, before and less than 10 minutes before a beginning of a charging step of the electrochemical cell that charges the electrochemical cell slower than the first rate or current in order to take advantage of the beneficial effects of slow charging on battery life, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.05 (II-A).
Double Patenting
15. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
16. Claim 69 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,658,352.
Regarding claim 69, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 9, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,658,352 teach the limitations recited in claim 69 of the instant application.
Allowable Subject Matter
17. Claim 84 is 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. And the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this office action on claims 69-84 is overcome.
In particular, the allowable limitation is the electrochemical cell management system comprises the electrochemical cell as a first electrochemical cell and further comprises a second electrochemical cell; and the at least one controller is configured to control the first electrochemical cell to induce a discharge of the first electrochemical cell individually at the first rate or current and to charge the first electrochemical cell and the second electrochemical cell in parallel at a second rate or current slower than the first rate or current.
Salasoo discloses the electrochemical cell management system comprises the electrochemical cell as a first electrochemical cell and further comprises a second electrochemical cell([0067]); and the at least one controller is configured to control the first electrochemical cell to induce a discharge of the first electrochemical cell individually at the first rate or current (Fig. 3, [0038]) but does not disclose, teach or render obvious and to charge the first electrochemical cell and the second electrochemical cell in parallel at a second rate or current slower than the first rate or current.
Response to Arguments
18. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 69-83 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.
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 VICTORIA HOM LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-0489. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/VICTORIA H LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724