DETAILED ACTION
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment to application 18/445,077 filed on April 28, 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 and 36 are still pending, with claims 2-7, 9, 11, 13, 17-19 and 36 being currently amended. Claims 20-35 and 37-170 are cancelled.
Status of Objections and Non-Prior Art Rejections
I. 35 USC § 112(f) Interpretations
Applicant has not amended claim 36 such that 112(f) is no longer invoked. Thus, claim 36 remains interpreted under 112(f).
II. 35 USC § 112(b) Rejections
Applicant’s amendments to claim 17 are accepted and the 112(b) rejections of claims 17-19 are therefore withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
On pages 6-7 of the remarks filed April 28, 2026, Applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully submits that Greening fails to disclose "determining, from the voltage response, an activation overvoltage due to the concentration shift," and "determining whether to adjust a parameter...based, at least in part, on the activation overvoltage due to the concentration shift," as recited in claim 1 (and similarly, claim 36).
Moreover, Applicant respectfully submits that Greening teaches using a "measured
diffusion time" instead of an "activation overvoltage due to the concentration shift." See, e.g., Greening, [0077]. That is, Greening discloses determining a "potential of a transport-limiting electrode with respect to a known reference," where "the potential is correlated with a lithium surface concentration potential relative to a reference." Greening [0141]. Greening's "potential" is based on a "measured diffusion time" "to adaptively control lithium surface concentration to keep this concentration below saturation." Greening, [0077]. Applicant's own disclosure underscores the superiority of "determining whether to adjust a parameter..." based "on the activation overvoltage due to the concentration shift" in at least FIG. 12F (reproduced below) and accompanying description (see, e.g., Specification, [0201, 0273]) where the diffusion time from E*Nernst to E Nernst occurs "over the course of one or more hours,"while the time period associated with the activation overv is "e.g., less than150 ms, such as approximately 50-100 ms)." Id.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Greening explicitly discloses in cited paragraph 142, that the potential determined in step 1902 “is correlated with the lithium surface concentration”. Furthermore, Greening states that the determined potential is used to determine whether to adjust charging voltage to maintain the concentration within set limits. Thus, when the “potential” needs to be lowered to be “within set limits” an activation overvoltage has been determined, and when the “potential” needs to be increased to be “within set limits” an activation undervoltage has been determined. Thus, Greening indeed teaches determining an activation overvoltage due to the concentration shift and adjusting a charge parameter (voltage or current) based on said determination.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are indicated in the table below, along with corresponding structure and/or lack thereof:
Claim limitation
Claim Numbers
Structure (PGPUB citation)
“control system”
36
[0076-0077] one or more processors and programming
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Greening et al. US PGPUB 2009/0259420.
Regarding claim 1, Greening discloses a method of charging an energy source [fig. 17], comprising:
applying a charge signal to an energy source such that a concentration shift occurs within the energy source [fig. 17; a charging signal is applied to battery 1702 via current source 1723 and the concentration shift is measured; pars. 53, 135-136 & 145-147];
measuring a voltage response to a current pulse applied to the energy source [fig. 17, voltmeter 1706 measures the voltage response; pars. 134, 136-137; furthermore the potential at the electrode is determined with respect to a reference (fig. 19)];
determining, from the voltage response, an activation overvoltage due to the concentration shift [pars. 141; fig. 19, step 1902; the potential with respect to a reference is determined (activation overvoltage)]; and
determining whether to adjust a parameter of the charge signal based, at least in part, on the activation overvoltage due to the concentration shift [fig. 17; par. 141; fig. 19, 1904; the charging signal is changed based on the activation overvoltage, which is caused by the current source].
Regarding claim 2, Greening discloses wherein the voltage response is a voltage drop occurring after termination of the current pulse over a time period [pars. 101-102, Eq. 37; the constant current is interrupted (pulsed) and the voltage drop (relaxation of the open circuit voltage) is determined].
Regarding claim 3, Greening discloses wherein the voltage response includes a first voltage drop due to ohmic loss and a second voltage drop due to activation loss [pars. 101-102; a resistive drop (“IR”) occurs as well as a slower relaxation (the drop due to activation loss)].
Regarding claim 15, Greening discloses adjusting the parameter of the charge signal [fig. 19, step 1904].
Regarding claim 16, Greening discloses wherein the parameter is at least one of: a charge current amperage [fig. 19, the charging current, step 1904], a frequency of pulses of the charge signal, a duty cycle of pulses of the charge signal, or a duration of pulses of the charge signal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greening et al. US PGPUB 2009/0259420.
Regarding claim 4, Greening does not explicitly disclose wherein the time period is 150 milliseconds or less.
However, Admitted Prior Art discloses using time periods in this range for voltage and current responses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Greening to further include wherein the time period is 150 milliseconds or less for the purpose of using a typical value, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
NB: Examiner took Official Notice with respect to the above limitation of claim 4 in the Non-Final Rejection mailed January 28, 2026. Applicant did not traverse or did not adequately traverse. Thus, the limitation is being treated as taught by admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greening et al. US PGPUB 2009/0259420 in view of Graovac US PGPUB 2011/0198936.
Regarding claim 36, Greening discloses a system configured to charge an energy source, comprising:
a battery module coupled with the converter [fig. 17, battery cell 1702 (can be multiple cells in series, par. 72)], the battery module having a plurality of battery cells connected in series and/or parallel [par. 72, series]; and
a control system [fig. 17, controller 1720; par. 138] configured to:
control application of a charge signal to each battery module such that a concentration shift occurs within the battery cells of the battery module [fig. 17; a charging signal is applied to battery 1702 via current source 1723 and the concentration shift is measured; pars. 53, 135-136 & 145-147];
control measurement of a voltage response to a current pulse applied to each battery module [fig. 17, voltmeter 1706 measures the voltage response; pars. 134, 136-137; furthermore the potential at the electrode is determined with respect to a reference (fig. 19)];
determine, from the voltage response, an activation overvoltage due to the concentration shift in the battery cells of the battery module [pars. 141; fig. 19, step 1902; the potential with respect to a reference is determined (activation overvoltage)]; and
determine whether to adjust a parameter of the charge signal based, at least in part, on the activation overvoltage due to the concentration shift [fig. 17; par. 141; fig. 19, 1904; the charging signal is changed based on the activation overvoltage, which is caused by the current source].
Greening does not explicitly disclose a plurality of converter modules, each converter module comprising a converter and wherein the plurality of converter modules are coupled together in at least one array configured to generate a voltage comprising a superposition of output signals from each of the plurality of converter modules.
However, Graovac determines a multi-converter power system comprising a plurality of converter modules, each converter module comprising a converter and wherein the plurality of converter modules are coupled together in at least one array configured to generate a voltage comprising a superposition of output signals from each of the plurality of converter modules [figs 1, 6, 9; pars. 48-49 & 54; a plurality of converters C1a are coupled in an array with their outputs being superimposed to form a combined output signal (fig. 6)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Greening to further include a plurality of converter modules, each converter module comprising a converter and wherein the plurality of converter modules are coupled together in at least one array configured to generate a voltage comprising a superposition of output signals from each of the converter modules for the purpose of forming a sinusoidal wave form from DC storage modules, as taught by Graovac (pars. 48-49 & 54).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-14 and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 5, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “wherein the activation overvoltage due to concentration shift is determined by: subtracting the first voltage drop due to ohmic loss from the measured voltage response to yield the second voltage drop due to activation loss; and subtracting an equilibrium voltage loss due to activation loss from the second voltage drop due to activation loss to yield the activation overvoltage due to concentration shift” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 5.
Claims 6-14, being dependent on claim 5, would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 5.
With respect to claim 17, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “wherein determining whether to adjust a parameter of the charge signal based, at least in part, on the activation overvoltage due to the concentration shift, comprises: comparing the activation overvoltage due to concentration shift with a threshold.
Claims 18-19, being dependent on claim 17, would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 17.
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 DAVID V HENZE whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/DAVID V HENZE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights