NON-FINAL REJECTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings Objection
The drawings are objected because-
(1) The drawings are objected to because all of the drawings are blurred. The Fig.4, 6A-6D of PGPub and the originally filed drawings are not readable. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning (See MPEP 1.84 (l)).
(2) The drawings are objected to because of the font size of Fig.4, 6A-6D being too small. Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height (see MPEP 1.84(p)).
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.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/431,153 (“’153”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications recite limitations that are closely related and at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in claims 1-20 of the instant application, applicants claim a battery inspection method and system, comprising: a plurality of transducers; and a controller communicatively coupled to the plurality of transducers, the controller being configured to: send one or more commands to a first subset of the plurality of transducers for transmitting acoustic signals through a battery cell; receive, from a second subset of the plurality of transducers, response signals in response to the acoustic signals transmitted through the battery cell; determine a score indicative of quality of Solid Electrolyte Interphase (SEI) formation in the battery cell based on analyzing the response signals; and output the score.
The ‘153 application teaches a method comprising: transmitting acoustic signals through a battery cell via one or more first transducers; receiving response signals in response to the acoustic signals at one or more second transducers; and determining a cycle life performance score for the battery cell based on at least the response signals, the score indicating an estimated number of charge-discharge cycles that the battery cell will go through prior to reaching a threshold capacity (Claim 1/11); wherein the at least one score includes one or more of: a wetting score indicative of a soaking quality of the battery cell; a Solid Electrode Interphase (SEI) score indicative of a quality of SEI formation in the battery cell; an aging score indicative of a quality of aging of the battery cell; and a defect score indicative of presence of at least one physical defect in the battery cell (Claim 6/16).
Although the scope of claims 1-20 of the instant application and claims 1-20 of the ‘153 application are very similar, the difference between the present claimed invention and the ‘153 application is that the instant application utilizes outputting score, wherein the ‘153 application does not require that.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify or to eliminating the additional elements or limitations of claims 1-20 of ‘153 application to arrive at claims 1-20 of the instant application because one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that the remaining elements or limitations would perform the same functions as before to accomplish the goal of acquiring a capacitive sensor. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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, 5-10 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Tassell et al. (WO 2021/113879 A2, cited by Applicants, “Van Tassell”).
Regarding Claim 1, Van Tassell teaches a method ([0005], [0053], [0054], [0056]; figures 1-8) comprising: transmitting acoustic signals through a battery cell via one or more first transducers ([0005], [0056]); receiving response signals in response to the acoustic signals at one or more second transducers [0056]; determining a score indicative of quality of Solid Electrolyte Interphase (SEI) formation in the battery cell based on analyzing the response signals ([0029]; [0049], claim 8, [0054], [0056]); and outputting the score (412; fig.4, [0091]).
Regarding Claim 5, the method of claim 1 is taught by Van Tassell.
Van Tassell further teaches wherein the score is determined using a trained machine learning model (implicitly taught in database of [0091]).
Regarding Claim 6, the method of claim 5 is taught by Van Tassell.
Van Tassell further teaches wherein the trained machine learning model receives, as input, a subset of the response signals representing acoustic features corresponding to the SEI formation, and provides, as output, the score (implicitly taught in database of [0091]).
Regarding Claim 7, the method of claim 1 is taught by Van Tassell.
Van Tassell further teaches wherein the battery cell is going through a manufacturing process when the acoustic signals are transmitted therethrough ([0091]; [0096]).
Regarding Claim 8, the method of claim 1 is taught by Van Tassell.
Van Tassell further teaches wherein the score is outputted on a graphical user interface ([0101]; fig.6).
Regarding Claim 9, the method of claim 1 is taught by Van Tassell.
Van Tassell further teaches wherein the score is a weighted average of a plurality of scores, each of the plurality of scores corresponding to a different location on the battery cell through which one of the acoustic signals is transmitted ([0091], also the technique is well-known in the art).
Regarding Claim 10, Van Tassell teaches a battery inspection system (Fig.1A-1C), comprising: a plurality of transducers (126a-126c, 124a-124c, 146a-146c, 144a-144c; Fig.1B-1C); and a controller (128) communicatively coupled to the plurality of transducers (shown in fig.1B-1C), the controller being configured to: send one or more commands to a first subset of the plurality of transducers for transmitting acoustic signals through a battery cell ([0005], [0056]); receive, from a second subset of the plurality of transducers, response signals in response to the acoustic signals transmitted through the battery cell [0056]; determine a score indicative of quality of Solid Electrolyte Interphase (SEI) formation in the battery cell based on analyzing the response signals ([0029]; [0049], claim 8, [0054], [0056]); and output the score (412; fig.4, [0091]).
Regarding Claim 14, the battery inspection system of claim 10 is taught by Van Tassell.
Van Tassell further teaches wherein the score is determined using a trained machine learning model (implicitly taught in database of [0091]).
Regarding Claim 15, the battery inspection system of claim 14 is taught by Van Tassell.
Van Tassell further teaches wherein the trained machine learning model receives, as input, a subset of the response signals representing acoustic features corresponding to the SEI formation, and provides, as output, the score (implicitly taught in database of [0091]).
Regarding Claim 16, the battery inspection system of claim 10 is taught by Van Tassell.
Van Tassell further teaches wherein the battery cell is going through a manufacturing process when the acoustic signals are transmitted therethrough ([0091]; [0096]).
Regarding Claim 17, the battery inspection system of claim 10 is taught by Van Tassell.
Van Tassell further teaches wherein the score is outputted on a graphical user interface ([0101]; fig.6).
Regarding Claim 18, the battery inspection system of claim 10 is taught by Van Tassell.
Van Tassell further teaches wherein the score is a weighted average of a plurality of scores, each of the plurality of scores corresponding to a different location on the battery cell through which one of the acoustic signals is transmitted ([0091], also the technique is well-known in the art).
Regarding Claim 19, Van Tassell teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising computer-readable instructions, which when executed by one or more processors of a battery inspection system ([0005], [0053], [0054], [0056]; figures 1-8), cause the battery inspection system to: send one or more commands to a first subset of a plurality of transducers for transmitting acoustic signals through a battery cell ([0005], [0056]); receive, from a second subset of the plurality of transducers, response signals in response to the acoustic signals transmitted through the battery cell [0056]; determine a score indicative of quality of Solid Electrolyte Interphase (SEI) formation in the battery cell based on analyzing the response signals ([0029]; [0049], claim 8, [0054], [0056]); and output the score (412; fig.4, [0091]).
Regarding Claim 20, the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 19 is taught by Van Tassell.
Van Tassell further teaches wherein the score is determined using a trained machine learning model (implicitly taught in database of [0091]).
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 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 of this title, 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2-4 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Tassell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murphy et al. (WO 2021163056 A1, cited by the applicants, “Murphy”).
Regarding Claim 2, the method of claim 1 is taught by Van Tassell.
Van Tassell does not explicitly teach wherein determining the score comprises: pre-processing the response signals to determine a rate of change of the SEI formation across the battery cell; and determining the score based at least on the rate of change.
However, Murphy teaches battery testing systems and methods wherein determining the score comprises: pre-processing the response signals to determine a rate of change of the SEI formation across the battery cell; and determining the score based at least on the rate of change [0214].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Tassell’s method with the teaching of Murphy since this is a known technique in the art of battery inspection.
Regarding Claim 3, the method of claim 2 is taught by Van Tassell in view of Murphy.
Modified Van Tassell further teaches wherein pre-processing the response signals comprises: selecting a subset of the response signals representing acoustic features corresponding to the SEI formation (Van Tassell: ([0029]; [0049], claim 8, [0054], [0056], 412; fig.4, [0091]); determining the rate of change in each of the subset of the response signals (Murphy: [0214]); and performing an embedding process to determine the score (Van Tassell: ([0029]; [0049], claim 8, [0054], [0056], 412; fig.4, [0091]); Murphy: [0214]).
Regarding Claim 4, the method of claim 3 is taught by Van Tassell in view of Murphy.
Van Tassell further teaches wherein the embedding process is one of a principal component analysis or a non-linear embedding process [0131].
Regarding Claim 11, the battery inspection system of claim 10 is taught by Van Tassell.
Van Tassell does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to determine the score by: pre-processing the response signals to determine a rate of change of the SEI formation across the battery cell; and determining the score based at least on the rate of change.
However, Murphy teaches battery testing systems and methods wherein determining the score comprises: pre-processing the response signals to determine a rate of change of the SEI formation across the battery cell; and determining the score based at least on the rate of change [0214].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Tassell’s system with the teaching of Murphy since this is a known technique in the art of battery inspection.
Regarding Claim 12, the battery inspection system of claim 11 is taught by Van Tassell in view of Murphy.
Modified Van Tassell further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to pre-process the response signals by: selecting a subset of the response signals representing acoustic features corresponding to the SEI formation (Van Tassell: ([0029]; [0049], claim 8, [0054], [0056], 412; fig.4, [0091]); determining the rate of change in each of the subset of the response signals (Murphy: [0214]); and performing an embedding process to determine the score (Van Tassell: ([0029]; [0049], claim 8, [0054], [0056], 412; fig.4, [0091]); Murphy: [0214]).
Regarding Claim 13, the battery inspection system of claim 12 is taught by Van Tassell in view of Murphy.
Van Tassell further teaches wherein the embedding process is one of a principal component analysis or a non-linear embedding process [0131].
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon, are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
VAN TASSELL et al. (US 2021/0175553 Al) teaches systems and methods for acoustic signal-based analysis, include obtaining acoustic response signal data of at least a portion of a battery cell, the acoustic response signal data comprising waveforms generated by transmitting one or more acoustic excitation signals into at least the portion of the battery cell and recording response vibration signals to the one or more acoustic excitation signals. One or more metrics are determined from at least the acoustic response signal data, the one or more metrics being determined based on correlation of the one or more metrics to one or more characteristics of battery cells and a reference model is generated from the one or more metrics. A test battery can be evaluated using the reference model. Actionable insights or recommendations can be generated based on the evaluation. The reference model can also be updated based on the evaluation [Abstract].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN NATH whose telephone number is (571)270-1443. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, JOHN BREENE can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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 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.
/SUMAN K NATH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights