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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 01/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/20/2026.
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 out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the battery under test" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUMAR (US PGPUB 2024/0125867) in view of Alber et al. (US Pat. 5,744,962).
Regarding claim 1, KUMAR teaches a system for testing a rechargeable battery, the system comprising: a power cycler (106); a rechargeable battery (302) comprising a negative terminal and a positive terminal (as shown in fig. 3), and an opposition battery (304) comprising a negative terminal and a positive terminal (as shown in fig. 3), wherein the positive terminal of the opposition battery (304) is connected to the positive terminal of the rechargeable battery (302) (as shown in fig. 3), and wherein the power cycler (106) is configured to inject a predetermined amount of current to the rechargeable battery (302) (as disclosed in para. 0058).
KUMAR fails to specifically teach a power cycler comprising a negative terminal and a positive terminal; wherein the negative terminal of the rechargeable battery is connected to the negative terminal of the power cycler; wherein the negative terminal of the opposition battery is connected to the positive terminal of the power cycler. Alber et al. teaches a power cycler comprising a negative terminal (56) and a positive terminal (58); wherein the negative terminal of the rechargeable battery (5) is connected to the negative terminal of the power cycler (10) (through V2 and other circuit parts, as shown in fig. 3); wherein the negative terminal of the opposition battery (6) is connected to the positive terminal of the power cycler (through V3 and other circuit parts, as shown in fig. 3).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the power cycler comprising a negative terminal and a positive terminal; wherein the negative terminal of the rechargeable battery is connected to the negative terminal of the power cycler; wherein the negative terminal of the opposition battery is connected to the positive terminal of the power cycler as taught by Alber et al. with the invention of KUMAR in order to accurately and efficiently monitor the reliability of the batteries.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of KUMAR and Alber et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, KUMAR teaches a plurality of sensors (308 and 306) configured to measure a performance of the battery under test when the predetermined amount of current is being injected to the rechargeable battery (302) (as disclosed in para. 0065).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUMAR (US PGPUB 2024/0125867) and Alber et al. (US Pat. 5,744,962) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ENGEL (CN 112526373A).
Regarding claims 2-3, the combination of KUMAR and Alber et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of KUMAR and Alber et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the power cycler is connected to a power grid and wherein the power cycler is configured to withdraw power from and recycle power back to the power grid. However, ENGEL teaches wherein the power cycler is connected to a power grid and wherein the power cycler is configured to withdraw power from and recycle power back to the power grid (see description section in translated document).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the power cycler connected to a power grid and wherein the power cycler is configured to withdraw power from and recycle power back to the power grid as taught by ENGEL with the invention of the combination of KUMAR and Alber et al. in order to provide the appropriate voltage for the batteries to effectively operate.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUMAR (US PGPUB 2024/0125867) and Alber et al. (US Pat. 5,744,962) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JUNGVID (EP 4047947A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of KUMAR and Alber et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of KUMAR and Alber et al. fails to specifically teach wherein a capacity of the opposition battery is at least five times of a capacity of the rechargeable battery. However, JUNGVID teaches wherein a capacity of the opposition battery is at least five times of a capacity of the rechargeable battery (as disclosed in para. 0058).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the capacity of the opposition battery at least five times of a capacity of the rechargeable battery as taught by JUNGVID with the invention of the combination of KUMAR and Alber et al. in order to have a lighter and more compact battery design.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUMAR (US PGPUB 2024/0125867) and Alber et al. (US Pat. 5,744,962) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of SUR (RU 27668296C9).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of KUMAR and Alber et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of KUMAR and Alber et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the opposition battery has a lower voltage rating than the rechargeable battery. However, SUR teaches wherein the opposition battery (V2) has a lower voltage rating than the rechargeable battery (V1) (as disclosed in para. 0083).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the opposition battery have a lower voltage rating than the rechargeable battery as taught by SUR with the invention of the combination of KUMAR and Alber et al. in order to the opposition battery be the first to dissipate energy (SUR para. 0083).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUMAR (US PGPUB 2024/0125867) and Alber et al. (US Pat. 5,744,962) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of NGUYEN et al. (PG PUB 2022/0360091).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of KUMAR and Alber et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of KUMAR and Alber et al. fails to specifically teach wherein a capacity of the opposition battery is dynamically reconfigurable. However, NGUYEN et al. teaches wherein a capacity of the opposition battery is dynamically reconfigurable (as disclosed in para. 0049).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have wherein a capacity of the opposition battery is dynamically reconfigurable as taught by NGUYEN et al. with the invention of the combination of KUMAR and Alber et al. in order to achieve the desired waveform of output voltage or output current capacity based on charging or discharge characteristics of the battery cells, and on the state-of-health of the battery cells (NGUYEN et al. para. 0049).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUMAR (US PGPUB 2024/0125867) and Alber et al. (US Pat. 5,744,962) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Berger (CN 113138350A).
Regarding claims 7-8, the combination of KUMAR and Alber et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of KUMAR and Alber et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the predetermined amount of current comprises a pulse current representative of a sudden breaking of an electric vehicle and wherein the predetermined amount of current comprises a pulse current representative of a sudden acceleration of an electric vehicle. However, Berger teaches wherein the predetermined amount of current comprises a pulse current representative of a sudden breaking of an electric vehicle and wherein the predetermined amount of current comprises a pulse current representative of a sudden acceleration of an electric vehicle (see description section in translated document).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the predetermined amount of current comprise a pulse current representative of a sudden breaking of an electric vehicle and wherein the predetermined amount of current comprises a pulse current representative of a sudden acceleration of an electric vehicle as taught by Berger with the invention of the combination of KUMAR and Alber et al. in order to simulate actions that influence power consumption.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO VELEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8597. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-3:30pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571)272-7924. 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.
/ROBERTO VELEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858