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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Curve/line 301 (paragraph 0072, line 1; paragraph 0074, line 2).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first voltage and the limitation of “the duration is the difference between a first initial time and a second time that is defined as the time when a first line reaches a second voltage delivered by the battery when the battery is relaxed, the first line being tangent to the origin of a curve corresponding to the evolution over time of a voltage delivered by the battery during the phenomenon of relaxation” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 12, and 15,
“a first initial time”, “a first line” are not defined.
“the time”, “the origin of a curve” lack antecedent basis. “The time” and “the origin of a curve” should be -- [[the]] a time -- and – [[the]] an origin of a curve --, respectively.
Claim 7, “a second discharge” (line 2) lacks antecedent basis. The first discharge is not recited. Examiner interprets a second discharge to be a first discharge.
Claims 9 and 19, “the first discharge” (line 4) lacks antecedent basis. “The first discharge” should be – a first discharge --. The first discharge is the second discharge (line 4) is unclear. Examiner interprets the first discharge is being recited.
The remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Note regarding 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.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, (MPEP 2106) the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claims 1 and 15 do not recite an abstract idea.
The respective dependent claims 2-4, 6-11, 16, and 18-20 do not recite an abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-4, 6-11, 16, and 18-20 are eligible under 35 USC 101.
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 5, 12-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claim 5 recites an abstract idea of a formula for calculating effective capacity (mathematical concept).
Claim 12 recites an abstract idea of “determining the aging of the battery as a function of the first measurement”.
Claim 17 recites an abstract idea of “the value of the end-of-charge current is defined as being equal to the typical capacity of the battery divided by 10 hours” (mathematical process).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Performing a first measurement during a phenomenon of relaxation of the battery, the first measurement measuring a first voltage delivered by the battery when in use from a duration is directed to an insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under step 2B, claims 5/3/2/1, 12, and 17/15 do not recite an additional element that is significantly more.
Performing a first measurement during a phenomenon of relaxation of the battery, the first measurement measuring a first voltage delivered by the battery when in use from a duration; wherein the duration is the difference between a first initial time and a second time that is defined as the time when a first line reaches a second voltage delivered by the battery when the battery is relaxed, the first line being tangent to the origin of a curve corresponding to the evolution over time of a voltage delivered by the battery during the phenomenon of relaxation, the phenomenon of relaxation of the battery is obtained by performing a partial charge of the battery until the battery requires an end-of-charge current, the phenomenon of relaxation appearing when the partial charge is interrupted, the partial charge is performed at constant current and at constant voltage are well-understood, routine, and conventional features known in the industry (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Dependent claim 13 recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14 recites a conventional element, which is not significantly more.
Accordingly, claim 5 and 17 are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101. Further, claim 12 and its dependent claims 13 and 14 are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang (US 20230009288).
Regarding claim 1, Kang discloses a method of measuring an effective capacity of a battery (Abstract, lines 7-8), the method comprising:
performing a first measurement during a phenomenon of relaxation of the battery, the first measurement measuring a first voltage delivered by the battery when in use from a duration (voltage measurement after duration, Fig. 2),
wherein the duration (duration, Fig. 2) is the difference between a first initial time (initial time of duration, Fig. 2) and a second time (second time of duration, Fig. 2) that is defined as the time when a first line reaches a second voltage (voltage line/curve reaches voltage at second time, Fig. 2) delivered by the battery when the battery is relaxed (curve between duration, Fig. 2), the first line being tangent to the origin of a curve (when line becomes curve, Fig. 2) corresponding to the evolution over time of a voltage delivered by the battery during the phenomenon of relaxation (voltage line/curve, Fig. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Bergstrom et al (US2020/0254864).
Regarding claim 2, Kang discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above with regard to claim 1.
Kang discloses the phenomenon of relaxation of the battery until end-of-charge current (after the charging of battery, Abstract, lines 3-6).
Kang does not disclose the phenomenon of relaxation of the battery is obtained by performing a partial charge of the battery until the battery requires an end-of-charge current.
Bergstrom et al. discloses performing a partial charge of the battery until the battery requires an end-of-charge current (paragraph 0191, lines 7-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Kang with performing a partial charge of the battery until the battery requires an end-of-charge current as disclosed by Bergstrom et al. for the purpose of entering the phenomenon of relaxation of the battery as suggested by Kang.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Baghdadi (EP 3870986).
Regarding claim 12, Kang discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above with regard to claim 1.
Kang does not disclose determining the aging of the battery as a function of the first measurement.
Baghdadi discloses determining the aging of the battery as a function of the first measurement (page 2, paragraph 5)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Kang with determining the aging of the battery as disclosed by Baghdadi for the purpose of improving the operation and driving pleasure of the vehicle (page 1, paragraph 2).
Claims 6, 7, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Song (US 2022/0399587).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Kang discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above with regard to claim 1.
Kang does not disclose performing a second measurement of a resistance of the battery when performing a second discharge of the battery with a first current.
Song discloses performing a second measurement of a resistance of the battery when performing a second discharge of the battery with a first current (paragraph 0047, lines 1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Kang with performing a measurement of a resistance of the battery as disclosed by Song for the purpose of determining whether the battery is deformed.
Regarding claim 7, Kang does not disclose performing the second measurement comprises performing a second discharge of the battery with a first current.
Song discloses performing the second measurement comprises performing a second discharge of the battery with a first current (paragraph 0047, lines 1-5).
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of KInsala (US 2019/0344949).
.
Regarding claims 11 and 14, Kang does not disclose the battery is a battery of an electronic cigarette.
KInsala discloses a lithium battery of an electronic cigarette (paragraph 0003, lines 1-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Kang with a lithium battery as disclosed by Kinsala for the purpose of providing power to an electronic cigarette.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Bergstrom et al. as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Fukui et al. (US 2015/0243949).
Regarding claim 3, Kang as modified by Bergstrom et al. does not disclose the partial charge is performed at constant current and at constant voltage.
Fukui et al. discloses a partial charge is performed at constant current and at constant voltage (paragraph 0032, lines 6-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Kang as modified with performing a partial charge at constant current and at constant voltage as disclosed by Song for the purpose of charging a battery.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Bergstrom et al. as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Otaki et al. (JP 2017059534).
Regarding claim 4, Kang as modified by Bergstrom et al. does not disclose the value of the end-of-charge current is defined as being equal to the typical capacity of the battery divided by 10 hours.
.
Otaki et al. discloses a typical capacity of the battery divided by 10 hours (end current at 10 hour rate – C/10, page 10, paragraph 9) for defining an end of charge current.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Kang as modified with a typical capacity of the battery divided by 10 hours as disclosed by Otaki et al. for the purpose of defining an end of charge current.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Baghdadi as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Ferran et al. (US 2018/0301767).
Regarding claim 13, Kang as modified by Baghdadi does not disclose determining the aging of the battery comprises finding a ratio of the effective capacity of the battery to the typical capacity of the battery.
Ferran et al. discloses determining the aging of the battery comprises finding a ratio of the effective capacity of the battery to the typical capacity of the battery (paragraph 0008, lines 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Kang as modified with finding a ratio of the effective capacity of the battery to the typical capacity of the battery as disclosed by Ferran et al. for the purpose of determining the aging of the battery.
Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Song as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Fukui et al. (US 2015/0243949).
Regarding claim 16, Kang as modified by Song does not disclose the partial charge is performed at constant current and at constant voltage.
Fukui et al. discloses a partial charge is performed at constant current and at constant voltage (paragraph 0032, lines 6-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Kang as modified with performing a partial charge at constant current and at constant voltage as disclosed by Song for the purpose of charging a battery.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Song as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Otaki et al. (JP 2017059534).
Regarding claim 17, Kang as modified by Song does not disclose the value of the end-of-charge current is defined as being equal to the typical capacity of the battery divided by 10 hours.
.
Otaki et al. discloses a typical capacity of the battery divided by 10 hours (end current at 10 hour rate – C/10, page 10, paragraph 9) for defining an end of charge current.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Kang as modified with a typical capacity of the battery divided by 10 hours as disclosed by Otaki et al. for the purpose of defining an end of charge current.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Song as applied to claims 1, 6, 7, and 15 above, and further in view of Tani et al. (US 2020/0176771).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Kang as modified by Song does not discloses the first current is greater than 500 mA.
Tani et al. discloses a first current is greater than 500 mA until the voltage reached 2.75 (discharge current at 800 mA, paragraph 0086, lines 3-6) to measure the discharge capacity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Kang as modified with a first current is greater than 500 mA until the voltage reached 2.75 as disclosed by Tani et al. for the purpose of measuring the discharge capacity.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Song as applied to claims 1, 6, 7, and 15 above, and further in view of Tani et al. as applied to claims 8 and 18 above, and further in view of Bergstrom et al (US2020/0254864).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Kang discloses the phenomenon of relaxation of the battery is interrupted (after the charging of battery, Abstract, lines 3-6), and wherein the first discharge is the second discharge (paragraph 0078, lines 1-4).
Kang as modified by Song and Tani et al. does not disclose the phenomenon of relaxation of the battery is obtained by performing a partial charge of the battery until the battery requires an end-of-charge current.
Bergstrom et al. discloses performing a partial charge of the battery until the battery requires an end-of-charge current (paragraph 0191, lines 7-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Kang as modified with performing a partial charge of the battery until the battery requires an end-of-charge current as disclosed by Bergstrom et al. for the purpose of entering the phenomenon of relaxation of the battery as suggested by Kang.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Song as applied to claims 1, 6, 7, and 15 above, and further in view of Tani et al. as applied to claims 8 and 18 above, and further in view of Bergstrom et al as applied to claims 9 and 19 above and further in view of Chang (US 9,893,332).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Kang as modified by Song, Tani et al., and Bergstrom et al does not disclose the battery is a Lithium Ferro-Phosphate type battery.
.
Chang discloses a battery is a Lithium Ferro-Phosphate type battery (Abstract) for providing power (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Kang as modified with a Lithium Ferro-Phosphate type battery as disclosed by Chang et al. for the purpose of providing power.
Prior Art Note
Claim 5 does not have a prior art rejection.
The combination as claimed wherein a method of measuring an effective capacity of a battery, the method comprising the effective capacity is given by the following recited formula (claim 5) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 July 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights