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 statement(s) (IDS) submitted on or before 2024-08-16 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention B-II, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 2026-07-14 is acknowledged.
However, based on amendments filed 2026-07-14 the claims are now all directed to the elected invention. Therefore claims 1-8 and 10-19 will be fully examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-19 are 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.
Regarding Claim 1, and 8, the term “light load” in at least line 3 of claim 1 and at least line 9 of claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “light load” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this phrase such that any load that is smaller than an increased second load applied will be sufficient to read on the claim.
Claims 15, 16, and 17 recite the limitation " wherein the set of second parameters includes…" in lines 1-2 of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear how to interpret the metes and bounds of the claim as neither a first or second set of parameters are a part of the claim. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret these limitations such that if a prior art has the disclosed parameters, it shall be sufficient to read on the claims.
Regarding Claims 2-8 and 10-19, these claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
Examiner’s Note:
When the term “determining battery impedance…” (or terms similar in meaning) is used throughout the claims, the examiner is taking the interpretation as disclosed in the instant specification in paragraph [0043]. The determining battery impedance will therefore be interpreted as approximating the battery impedance through division of voltage over current as disclosed in paragraph [0043].
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 1, 5-7, 13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeller et al. (US-2016009180-A1 – From applicant IDS) in view of Sebastiani et al. (US-20130151181-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Zeller teaches placing a battery (Fig 3: battery, 180) into a beacon (Fig 3: transmitter, 130); and
measuring voltage and current of the battery (Fig 3: shows battery current sensor, 168, and battery voltage sensor, 170).
Zeller does not explicitly teach measuring under a light load and storing a set of light load values;
measuring voltage under an increased load and storing a set of increased load values;
determining a general chemistry of the battery from the set of light load values and the set of increased load values; and
adjusting a performance capability of the beacon based upon the general chemistry.
However, Sebastiani teaches measuring voltage under a light load and storing a set of light load values (Step 702 and 704 of Fig 7 shows measuring a voltage for an unloaded battery. Para [0039] teaches storing measured values in memory);
measuring voltage under an increased load and storing a set of increased load values (Step 702 and 704 of Fig 7 shows measuring a voltage for an increased load battery. Para [0039] teaches storing measured values in memory);
determining a general chemistry of the battery from the set of light load values and the set of increased load values (Para [0039] teaches determining a battery chemistry based on measured values obtained); and
adjusting a performance capability of the beacon based upon the general chemistry (Para [0047] teaches determining the remaining battery life based on the determined battery chemistry and may cause an alert to be generated when the remaining capacity is below a threshold). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Zeller, to include battery chemistry determination of Sebastiani. A motivation for this modification is knowing battery chemistry can help determine an estimated battery life as taught by Sebastiani in para [0047].
Regarding Claim 5, Zeller further teaches limiting a power level of the beacon (Para [0072] teaches maintaining a power level across the transmission bandwidth).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Zeller in view of Sebastiani, as presented with respect to claim 1, teaches adjusting an estimated battery life of the battery (Sebastiani - Para [0047] teaches determining the remaining battery life based on the determined battery chemistry and may cause an alert to be generated when the remaining capacity is below a threshold). These features are necessarily taught by the combination of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, Zeller further teaches advancing the beacon through an underground environment (Para [0008]); from a beacon antenna (Fig 1: transmitter, 130), generating an electromagnetic signal (Fig 1: electromagnetic depth signal, 120); and at an above ground location, detecting the electromagnetic signal (Para [0008]).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Zeller in view of Sebastiani, as presented with respect to claim 1, teaches thereafter, removing the first battery from the beacon; thereafter, placing a second battery into the beacon (Sebastiani - Para [0057] teaches that batteries may be replaced);
determining a battery chemistry of the second battery (Sebastiani - Para [0058] teaches updating battery profiles, including battery chemistry when new batteries are introduced); and
adjusting the performance capability of the beacon based upon the battery chemistry of the second battery (Sebastiani - Para [0047] teaches determining the remaining battery life based on the determined battery chemistry and may cause an alert to be generated when the remaining capacity is below a threshold). These features are necessarily taught by the combination of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Zeller in view of Sebastiani, as presented with respect to claim 13, teaches wherein the set of second parameters includes battery life expectancy (Sebastiani - Para [0061] teaches remaining battery life may be determined).These features are necessarily taught by the combination of claim 13.
Regarding Claim 16, Zeller further teaches wherein the set of second parameters includes a frequency of a transmitting antenna (Para [0057] teaches detecting a frequency of the beacon).
Regarding Claim 17, Zeller further teaches wherein the second set of parameters includes a power level of a transmitting antenna (Para [0072] teaches maintaining a power level across the transmission bandwidth).
Regarding Claim 18, Zeller further teaches with the second battery within the beacon, moving the beacon through an underground environment (Para [0008]);
when in the underground environment, transmitting an electromagnetic signal from the beacon (Fig 1: electromagnetic depth signal, 120); and
at an above-ground location, detecting the electromagnetic signal (Para [0008]).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Zeller in view of Sebastiani, as presented with respect to claim 13, teaches the first battery has a different battery chemistry than the second battery (Sebastiani - Para [0058] teaches updating battery profiles, including battery chemistry when new batteries are introduced). These features are necessarily taught by the combination of claim 13.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeller in view of Sebastiani in view of Lee et al. (US-20200343589-A1).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Zeller in view of Sebastiani teaches measuring voltage and current under light and increased load (as shown in claim 1). The combination does not teach determining battery resistance using the measured voltage and current under light load and increased load. However, Lee teaches determining battery resistance using voltage and current (Para [0172] teaches determining resistance using voltage divided by current). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of measuring voltage and current under light load and increased load to include the battery resistance detection of Lee. A motivation for this modification is determining battery resistance can help determine if a battery is deteriorated as taught by Lee in Para [0173].
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Zeller in view of Sebastiani teaches measuring voltage and current under light and increased load (as shown in claim 1). The combination does not teach determining battery impedance using the set of light load values and the set of increased load values. However, Lee teaches determining battery impedance values (Para [0172] teaches determining resistance using voltage change divided by current change, the same method disclosed by applicant for determining the battery impedance in para [0043] of the instant specification). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of measuring voltage and current under light load and increased load to include the battery resistance detection of Lee. A motivation for this modification is determining battery resistance can help determine if a battery is deteriorated as taught by Lee in Para [0173].
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Zeller in view of Sebastiani teaches providing a first load to the second battery; storing detected voltage and current values associated with the first load (Step 702 and 704 of Fig 7 shows measuring a voltage for an unloaded battery. Para [0039] teaches storing measured values in memory);
providing a second load to the second battery; storing detected voltage and current values associated with the second load (Step 702 and 704 of Fig 7 shows measuring a voltage for an increased load battery. Para [0039] teaches storing measured values in memory).
The combination does not teach from the detected voltage and current values, determining an impedance of the second battery. However, Lee teaches determining an impedance using voltage and current (Para [0172] teaches determining resistance using voltage change divided by current change, the same method disclosed by applicant for determining the battery impedance in para [0043] of the instant specification). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination to include the battery resistance detection of Lee. A motivation for this modification is determining battery resistance can help determine if a battery is deteriorated as taught by Lee in Para [0173].
Claims 4, 8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeller in view of Sebastiani in view of Lee in view of Mody et al. (US-5600224-A).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Zeller in view of Sebastiani in view of Lee does not teach wherein the step of determining the general chemistry comprises using the determined battery impedance. However, Mody teaches determining the general chemistry comprises using the determined battery impedance (col. 1 lines 66-67 through col. 2 lines 1-14 teach using battery impedance to distinguish between rechargeable and non-rechargeable batteries, and col. 1 lines 24-33 teach that rechargeable and non-rechargeable batteries contain differing chemistries). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of the combination, to include the battery chemistry determination of Mody. A motivation for this modification is operating a battery with different chemistry than designed may cause damage to equipment, as taught by Mody in col. 2 lines 22-28 and further determining impedance can help determine if a battery is deteriorated as taught by Lee in Para [0173].
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Zeller in view of Sebastiani, as presented with respect to claim 1, teaches a transmitting antenna (Zeller - Fig 1: transmitter, 130);
the battery (Zeller - Fig 3: battery, 180), configured to power the transmitting antenna; and
a system for determining a chemistry of the battery, the system comprising:
a plurality of sensors, the sensors configured to measure voltage and current from the battery (Zeller - Fig 3: shows battery current sensor, 168, and battery voltage sensor, 170); and
a processor (Sebastiani - Para [0034] teaches the methods taught by the reference may be performed by at least a processor) configured to perform the steps of measuring the voltage and current under the light load (Sebastiani - Step 702 and 704 of Fig 7 shows measuring a voltage for an unloaded battery. Para [0039] teaches storing measured values in memory), measuring the voltage and current under the increased load (Sebastiani - Step 702 and 704 of Fig 7 shows measuring a voltage for an increased load battery. Para [0039] teaches storing measured values in memory), and
determining the general chemistry of the battery (Sebastiani - Para [0039] teaches determining a battery chemistry based on measured values obtained). These features are necessarily taught by the combination of claim 1.
The combination does not teach wherein the step of determining the general chemistry of the battery comprises: determining a battery impedance value from the current and voltage values. However, Lee teaches determining an impedance using voltage and current (Para [0172] teaches determining resistance using voltage change divided by current change, the same method disclosed by applicant for determining the battery impedance in para [0043] of the instant specification). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination to include the battery resistance detection of Lee. A motivation for this modification is determining battery resistance can help determine if a battery is deteriorated as taught by Lee in Para [0173].
The combination of Zeller in view of Sebastiani in view of Lee does not teach the determination of the battery chemistry is from the impedance value. However, Mody teaches determining a battery chemistry from its impedance value (col. 1 lines 66-67 through col. 2 lines 1-14 teach using battery impedance to distinguish between rechargeable and non-rechargeable batteries, and col. 1 lines 24-33 teach that rechargeable and non-rechargeable batteries contain differing chemistries). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of the combination, to include the battery chemistry determination of Mody. A motivation for this modification is operating a battery with different chemistry than designed may cause damage to equipment, as taught by Mody in col. 2 lines 22-28 and further determining impedance can help determine if a battery is deteriorated as taught by Lee in Para [0173].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH J BARRON whose telephone number is (571)272-0902. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, Th, F 10:30-17:00 ET.
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 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.
/JEREMIAH J BARRON/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/DANIEL R MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
