CTNF 18/566,420 CTNF 87423 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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 those that are labeled as “an apparatus” in claims 1, 5-7, 9, 11, 12, and 14. The claims describe the various modules in functional terms of what they do, rather than how they do it. Under 35 USC 112(f), the Specification must identify a specific and readily-identifiable algorithm in the Specification associated with the claimed function. 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. According to MPEP 2181, II, B, “In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. HYPERLINK "https://rdms-mpep-vip.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/ch2100_d222e6_13a14_1cb" PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale … the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose microprocessor to a special purpose computer so that a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement the disclosed algorithm to achieve the claimed function. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338, 86 USPQ2d at 1242.” A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding algorithm for performing the claimed functions as described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Figs. 2, 3, 5, 6 and paragraphs [0036, 0039, 0041, 0044, 0048, 0049], as published. 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 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-13 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being unpatentable by Arne BALLANTINE et al. (US 20190317152), hereinafter ‘Ballantine’ . With regards to Claim 1 , Ballantine discloses A battery testing apparatus comprising: a first connecting unit connected to a positive electrode of each of a plurality of battery cells; a second connecting unit connected to a negative electrode of each of the plurality of battery cells; wherein the battery testing apparatus is configured to charge or discharge the plurality of battery cells through the first connecting unit and the second connecting unit (Fig.1; [0035, 0040]) ; and a battery management apparatus (System 100, Fig.1; Figs. 7 and 12; central controller 138, Fig.1) configured to obtain state information [0029, 0030, 0071, 0079, 0149] in at least any one of a charging state, a discharging state, and an idle state of each of the plurality of battery cells ( [0029, 0030, 0040, 0121]) . With regards to Claim 2, Ballantine discloses the first connecting unit comprises a plurality of first terminals respectively connected to positive electrodes of the plurality of battery cells, and the second connecting unit comprises a plurality of second terminals respectively connected to negative electrodes of the plurality of battery cells (Fig.1). With regards to Claim 3, Ballantine discloses the first terminal and the second terminal are electrically connected to be charged or discharged (Fig.1; [0035, 0037]) . With regards to Claim 4, Ballantine discloses the state information comprises at least one of a voltage, a temperature, electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) data, and a self-discharging current ( [0040, 0041], Abstract). With regards to Claim 5, Ballantine discloses the battery management apparatus is further configured to transmit the measured state information of each of the plurality of battery cells to a server ([0120, 0123, 0133]). With regards to Claim 6, Ballantine discloses wherein the server is configured to control an amount of charge of the plurality of battery cells ([0040, 0054]). With regards to Claim 7, Ballantine discloses generate a machine learning model that determines whether each of the plurality of battery cells are is defective, based on the measured state information of the plurality of battery cells ([0030, 0149]). With regards to Claim 8, Ballantine discloses the server receives the state information of each of the plurality of battery cells and determines whether each of the plurality of battery cells is defective ([0003, 0052, 0053, 0076, 0121, 0150, 0160, 0164]; Fig.1). With regards to Claim 9, Ballantine discloses the claim limitations as discussed with regards to Claim 1. In addition, Ballantine discloses a battery testing system (Figs.1 and 2). With regards to Claim 10, Ballantine discloses the claim limitations as discussed with regards to Claims 9 and 4. With regards to Claim 11, Ballantine discloses the claim limitations as discussed with regards to Claims 9 and 5. With regards to Claim 12, Ballantine discloses the claim limitations as discussed with regards to Claims 9 and 6. With regards to Claim 13, Ballantine discloses the claim limitations as discussed with regards to Claims 9 and 8. With regards to Claim 18, Ballantine discloses the claim limitations as discussed with regards to Claims 9 and 2. With regards to Claim 19, Ballantine discloses the claim limitations as discussed with regards to Claims 9 and 3 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballantine in view of Joachim Fetzer et al. (US 20120189879), hereinafter ‘Fetzer’ . With regards to Claim 14 , Ballantine discloses the claimed invention as discussed in regards to Claim 11. However, Ballantine is silent on a pressure generator configured to apply pressure to the plurality of battery cells. Fetzer discloses a pressure generator configured to apply pressure to the plurality of battery cells (FIG. 5: shows a battery having a plurality of cells and piezoelectric pressure generating means arranged at one end [0034]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ballentine in view of Fetzer to use a pressure generator configured to apply pressure to the plurality of battery cells that premature battery wear or a premature battery aging process can be prevented (Fetzer [0011]. With regards to Claim 15 , Ballantine in view of Fetzer discloses the claimed invention as discussed in regards to Claim 14. Ballantine is also silent on the pressure generator is positioned in a space between the plurality of battery cells accommodated in the tray. Fetzer additionally discloses the pressure generator is positioned in a space within a battery with the plurality of battery cells accommodated in the tray (Figs. 5 and 6, pressure application elements 18, pressure generating means 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ballentine in view of Fetzer to position the pressure generator in a space between the plurality of battery cells accommodated in the tray to more effectively apply pressure to several cells as compared to applying pressure to one top plane as shown in Figs. 5 and 6, Fetzer). With regards to Claim 16 , Ballantine in view of Fetzer discloses the claimed invention as discussed in regards to Claim 14, where Fetzer discloses that the pressure generator is connected to a pneumatic feeder or a hydraulic feeder (Another possibility is to use a mechanical-hydraulic pressure generating device, which has a piston-cylinder unit and a pump, for example. It is furthermore possible to use a mechanical-pneumatic pressure generating device [0019]). With regards to Claim 17 , Ballantine in view of Fetzer discloses the claimed invention as discussed in regards to Claim 16. Ballantine discloses using a server-based control as discussed in Claim 6 and using wired/wireless connection to a server [0076]. However, Ballantine is silent on the pneumatic feeder or the hydraulic feeder is connected to the server through a wireless or wired network. Fetzer discloses a control unit, which performs open-loop or closed-loop control of the setting of the respective pressure value required as a function of the state of battery charge and/or of the battery volume [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ballentine in view of Fetzer to connect pneumatic feeder or the hydraulic feeder to the server through a wireless or wired network to enable a remote control of pressure settings based on collected state of charge information from the server (a control unit which offsets the theoretical, calculated pressure values against the pressure values that are to be set owing to the change in volume and/or the change in the state of charge, Fetzer [0027]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (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 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/566,420 Page 2 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/566,420 Page 3 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/566,420 Page 4 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/566,420 Page 5 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/566,420 Page 6 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/566,420 Page 7 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/566,420 Page 8 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/566,420 Page 9 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/566,420 Page 10 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/566,420 Page 11 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/566,420 Page 12 Art Unit: 2857