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 .
The preliminary amendment filed on 2/22/2024 has been entered. Claims 1-19 are presented for examination.
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 1-19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,613,206 and in view of U.S. Patent No. 12,736,498. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they essentially recite the same limitations.
Claims 1-4, 11-12 and 16-19 are rejected in in view of claim 1 of the ‘380 application in that they recite:
Claim 1 of the application
Claim 1 of the ‘206 patent
1. (Original) Circuitry for processing an output of an electrochemical cell comprising
a first electrode and a second electrode, the circuitry comprising:
drive circuitry configured to apply a stimulus to the first electrode;
measurement circuitry configured to obtain an output signal from the output of the electrochemical cell in response to the stimulus;
processing circuitry configured to: apply the stimulus to a model of the electrochemical cell; obtain a modelled output signal from the model in response to the stimulus;
determine an error in the modelled output signal based on the output signal and the modelled output signal
1. Circuitry for determining one or more characteristics of an electrochemical cell comprising a first working electrode and a counter electrode, the circuitry comprising:
drive circuitry configured to apply a first stimulus to the first working electrode;
measurement circuitry configured to measure a first response to the first stimulus at the first working electrode; and
processing circuitry configured to: apply compensation to the first response to obtain a first corrected response of the electrochemical cell to the first stimulus; and
determine a first characteristic of the one or more characteristics of the electrochemical cell based on the first corrected response, the first characteristic associated with the first working electrode; wherein applying compensation to the first response comprises subtracting the first stimulus from the first response.
Claim 1 of the ‘498 patent
1. Circuitry for measuring a characteristic of an electrochemical cell, the circuitry comprising:
a comparator having a first comparator input, a second comparator input and a comparator output; a feedback path between the comparator output and the second comparator input configured to provide a feedback signal to the second comparator input;
an integrator in the feedback path, the integrator comprising a data input coupled to the comparator output and an integrator output; and a loop filter configured to apply filtering to the feedback path to generate the feedback signal, wherein the loop filter comprises the electrochemical cell.
As can be seen, though the claimed languages are not identical, it would have been obvious that claims 1 of the ‘206 patent and claim 1 of ‘498 patent recite all essential limitations of claim 1 of the instant application. Thus, the patent protections have been granted to earlier filed patent application.
Claim 2 is rejected in view of claims 1-2 of the’206 patent.
Claim 3 is rejected in view of claims 1-2 of the ‘206 patent.
Claim 4 is rejected in view of claim 4 of the ‘206 patent.
Claim 8 is rejected in view of claims 1-2 of the ‘206 patent.
Claim 12 is rejected in view of claims 1-2 of the ‘206 patent.
Claim 16 is rejected in view of claim 23 of the 206 patent.
Claim 17 is rejected in view of claim 23 of the ‘206 patent.
Claim 18 is rejected in view of claim 23 of the ‘206 patent.
Claim 19 is rejected in view of claims 1, 24 and 25 of the ‘206 patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 and 13-15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to disclose:
i. Circuitry of claim 4, wherein filter taps of the FIR filter are adapted in dependence on the comparison of the output signal and the modelled output signal as recited in claim 5.
ii. Circuitry of claim 3, wherein the model comprises one or more infinite impulse response.IIR, filters as recited in claim 6. Claim 7 depends on claim 6.
iii. Circuitry of claim 8, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:detect a transient signal in the output signal based on the modelled output signal, wherein the correction factor is determined based on the transient signal as recited in claim 8. Claims 9-10 depends on claim 9.
iv. Circuitry of claim 12, wherein the characteristic comprises one of the following:a) a fault; b) a state of health; b) a state of charge; c) a power fade; d) a capacity fade; e) ageing as recited in claim 13.
v. Circuitry of
vi. Circuitry of
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THIEN MINH LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2396. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-5:00 PM M-Th..
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/THIEN M LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights