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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on December 6, 2024 and May 2, 2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because empty boxes in FIGS. 3, 6, and 7 need suitable descriptive legends (see MPEP §608.02 [R-2], Section V: DRAWING STANDARDS, item (n) and (o); and 37 CFR 1.84 (o)). 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: it recites a feature “incremental capacity”, which has never been defined in all claims from which claim 9 is dependent directly and/or indirectly. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this feature. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
According to MPEP 2112.02: Process Claims, it is noted that “Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device” (emphasis added). It is also noted in that same MPEP section that “The Federal Circuit upheld the Board’s finding that "Donley inherently performs the function disclosed in the method claims on appeal when that device is used in ‘normal and usual operation’" and found that a prima facie case of anticipation was made out” (emphasis added). Id. at 138, 801 F.2d at 1326. It was up to applicant to prove that Donley's structure would not perform the claimed method when placed in ambient light.).”
With regard to claims 11-20, these claims present a method according to the system of claims 1-10. Therefore, the argument made against claims 1-10 also applies, mutatis mutandis, to claims 11-20. In addition, it is clearly seen that claims 11-20 are process claims which present a process of using the system as claimed in claims 1-10, respectively.
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 (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 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, 2, 5, 11, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Huemiller et al. (US 2023/0198034 A1).
Huemiller et al. teaches a quality control system in a battery manufacturing process comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
510
906
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
762
1116
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 1 and 11, a system (FIG. 6, capacitive measurement apparatus 600) for monitoring a capacitance across a battery cell (FIG. 6, intermediate product 620) during electrolyte wetting and cell formation (FIG. 6 in view of FIG. 1, formation process at block 180), the system (FIG. 6, capacitive measurement apparatus 600) comprising: a battery cell (FIG. 6, intermediate product 620); a first conductive plate (FIG. 6, first conductive plate 210) positioned over a first end (FIG. 6, left end of intermediate product 620) of the battery cell (FIG. 6, intermediate product 620), the first conductive plate (FIG. 6, first conductive plate 210) separated from the first end (FIG. 6, left end of intermediate product 620) of the battery cell (FIG. 6, intermediate product 620) by a gap (FIG. 6, pouch 510); a second conductive plate (FIG. 6, second conductive plate 250) positioned on a second end (FIG. 6, right end of intermediate product 620) of the battery cell (FIG. 6, intermediate product 620), the second conductive plate (FIG. 6, second conductive plate 250) comprising a component (FIG. 6, cathodes 420) of the battery cell (FIG. 6, intermediate product 620), the second end (FIG. 6, right end of intermediate product 620) of the battery cell (FIG. 6, intermediate product 620) opposite the first end (FIG. 6, left end of intermediate product 620) of the battery cell (FIG. 6, intermediate product 620); and a capacitance measurement system (FIG. 6, LCR meter 260) electrically coupled to the first conductive plate (FIG. 6, first conductive plate 210) and the second conductive plate (FIG. 6, second conductive plate 250), the capacitance measurement system (FIG. 6, LCR meter 260) configured to measure a capacitance across the first conductive plate (FIG. 6, first conductive plate 210) and the second conductive plate (FIG. 6, second conductive plate 250) (For more details, please read: Abstract; and paragraphs: [0037]-[0045] and [0060]-[0061]).
With regard to claims 2 and 12, the capacitance measurement system (FIG. 6, LCR meter 260) is further configured to generate, during an electrolyte wetting process in which a liquid electrolyte (FIG. 6, electrolyte 610) is introduced into the battery cell (FIG. 6, intermediate product 620), a capacitance-time curve (FIG. 1, monitoring stage S7 at block 180).
With regard to claims 5 and 15, the capacitance measurement system (FIG. 6, LCR meter 260) is further configured to generate, during a formation cycling process for the battery cell (FIG. 6, intermediate product 620), a capacitance-voltage curve (emphasis added). It is noted that an LCR meter is a specialized piece of electronic test equipment used to measure the inductance (L), capacitance (C), and resistance (R) of electronic components. By applying an AC signal, it determines the impedance and key parameters like Equivalent Series Resistance (ESR) and Q-factor, which are vital for troubleshooting, PCB diagnostics, and component testing. Therefore, the LCR meter inherently generates a capacitance-voltage curve.
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.
Claims 3, 4, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huemiller et al. in view of Johanson Dielectrics (“Ceramic Capacitor Aging Made Simple”).
Huemiller et al. teaches all that is claimed as discussed in the rejections of claims 1, 2, 5, 11, 12 and 15 above including the capacitance measurement system (FIG. 6, LCR meter 260), but it does not specifically teach the following features:
Further configured to identify, in the capacitance-time curve, a first region dominated by a linearly decreasing capacitance over log time and a second region dominated by a linearly stable capacitance over log time.
Further configured to identify an improper wetting condition for the battery cell according to an absolute value of a capacitance of the battery cell within the second region.
With regard to claims 3 and 13, Johanson Dielectrics teaches a method for analyzing dielectric aging, particularly in Class II ceramic capacitors (e.g., X7R, X5R) or ionic transport in thin films. This behavior is characterized by a logarithmic decay, often expressed as C(t) = C0 – m.log10(t/t0), where C0 is the initial capacitance and m is the aging rate. The method identifies a region of linearly decreasing capacitance over logarithmic time (log-time) in a capacitance-time (C-t) curve.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the quality control system in a battery manufacturing process of Huemiller et al. to identify, in the capacitance-time curve, a first region dominated by a linearly decreasing capacitance over log time and a second region dominated by a linearly stable capacitance over log time as taught by Johanson Dielectrics since Johanson Dielectrics teaches that such an arrangement is beneficial to provide a useful method for analyzing dielectric aging that offers significant advantages for a more detailed understanding of comprehensive aging assessment.
With regard to claims 4 and 14, Huemiller et al. teaches the capacitance measurement system (FIG. 6, LCR meter 260) is further configured to identify an improper wetting condition for the battery cell (FIG. 6, intermediate product 620) according to an absolute value of a capacitance of the battery cell (FIG. 6, intermediate product 620) within the second region (Paragraph: [0059]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 and 16-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants’ attention is invited to the followings whose inventions disclose similar devices.
Miyamoto et al. (US 6215311 B1) teaches a method and apparatus for detecting mistaken insertion of each battery cell in the manufacturing process of a battery having plural battery cells.
Poon (WO 2026/000244 A1) teaches a battery health monitoring system and a vehicle.
Ishikawa (JP H06333606 A) teaches a capacity sensor used for measuring the remaining capacity of lead acid batteries.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2170. The examiner can normally be reached MON-THURS (7:00 AM - 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, LEE E. RODAK can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858