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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
This is a response to Amendment/Req. Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection filed by Applicant on 05/21/2026.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7-15 are still pending.
Claims 1 and 5 have been amended.
Claims 3 and 6 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Title Objection:
On Page 2 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed on 05/21/2026, Applicant states “Please amend page 1, the title of the application as follows: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MEASURING CAPACITANCE AND/OR RESISTANCE OF ENERGY CELLS” Examiner has been able to corroborate the proposed new title; therefore, the Title Objection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. §103:
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed 05/07/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1 and 5 being rejected under §102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Emi et al. (U.S. Publ. Appl. 2017/0179737), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Uchida et al. JP 2011232262 in combination with the previously cited prior arts of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emi et al. US 2017/0179737 (Previously Cited; Provided by Applicant; Hereinafter Emi) in view of Uchida et al. JP 2011232262 (Newly Cited; Hereinafter Uchida; Machine Translation Provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 1, Emi teaches a measurement system (Claim 1; “…an impedance measurement circuit which is coupled to the secondary battery and measures impedance of the secondary battery…; [0053]; “The measurement method of the impedance Z…”) for measuring energy cells (Claim 1; [0053]) wherein the measurement system has an alternating voltage measuring bridge or a self-balancing measuring bridge (auto-balancing bridge) ([0053]; “The automatic balance bridge method is a method for measuring the impedance of a device under test (called a DUT) using a vector voltage ratio of the DUT to the range resistance and a resistance value of the range resistance, by flowing the same current as that to the DUT to the range resistance. The bridge method is a method for measuring the impedance of the DUT by searching for the balance condition of a Wheatstone bridge circuit including the DUT.”) and is designed to measure the electrical capacitance C and/or the ohmic resistance R of an energy cell by means of a high-frequency measurement ([0053]; “The measurement method of the impedance Z…”).
Emi does not specifically teach wherein the measurement system has a drum; and wherein the measurement system measures energy cells conveyed on the drum.
However, Uchida does teach wherein the measurement system has a drum ([0023, 0031-0072, 0105-0117]; rotating drum system, rotating drum); and wherein the measurement system measures energy cells conveyed on the drum ([0023, 0031-0072, 0105-0117]; rotating drum system, rotating drum).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery driven system of Emi by implementing the teachings of Uchida regarding wherein the measurement system has a drum; and wherein the measurement system measures energy cells conveyed on the drum; in order to “easily measure and test electric and optical characteristics of each chip component with multiple chip components installed on a substrate instead of dividing the chip components into individual pieces, and with a device configuration greatly simplified” (See Uchida; Abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Emi teaches a measurement method (Claim 1; “…an impedance measurement circuit which is coupled to the secondary battery and measures impedance of the secondary battery…; [0053]; “The measurement method of the impedance Z…”) for measuring energy cells (Claim 1; [0053]), wherein the energy cell is measured by means of a self-balancing bridge measuring method (auto-balancing bridge method) ([0053]; “The automatic balance bridge method is a method for measuring the impedance of a device under test (called a DUT) using a vector voltage ratio of the DUT to the range resistance and a resistance value of the range resistance, by flowing the same current as that to the DUT to the range resistance. The bridge method is a method for measuring the impedance of the DUT by searching for the balance condition of a Wheatstone bridge circuit including the DUT.”) with respect to electrical capacitance C and/or ohmic resistance R ([0053]; “The measurement method of the impedance Z…”).
Emi does not specifically teach wherein the measurement of the energy cell is carried out on a running conveyor belt or a rotating drum.
However, Uchida does teach wherein the measurement of the energy cell is carried out on a running conveyor belt or a rotating drum ([0023, 0031-0072, 0105-0117]; rotating drum system, rotating drum).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery driven system of Emi by implementing the teachings of Uchida regarding wherein the measurement of the energy cell is carried out on a running conveyor belt or a rotating drum; in order to “easily measure and test electric and optical characteristics of each chip component with multiple chip components installed on a substrate instead of dividing the chip components into individual pieces, and with a device configuration greatly simplified” (See Uchida; Abstract).
Claim(s) 2, 4, 9 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emi in view of Uchida in further view of Park et al. KR 101352740 (Previously Cited; Provided by Applicant; Hereinafter Park; Machine Translation Provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Emi and Uchida teaches the measurement system according to claim 1, but not specifically wherein the measurement system is designed to measure energy cells of a continuous product stream of energy cells.
However, Park does teach wherein the measurement system is designed to measure energy cells of a continuous product stream of energy cells (Fig. 2; Claim 2; Page 2, lines 28-41; “In order to solve the problems of the prior art, it is an object of the present invention to provide a pouch type lithium secondary battery which can continuously measure the insulation resistance of the pouch type lithium secondary battery”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Emi and Uchida by implementing the teachings of Park regarding wherein the measurement system is designed to measure energy cells of a continuous product stream of energy cells; for the purpose of “continuously measuring an insulation resistance of a pouch type lithium secondary battery that has been produced” (See Park; Page 2, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Emi and Uchida teaches the measurement system according to claim 1, but not specifically wherein the measurement system has a conveyor belt, wherein the measurement system is measures energy cells conveyed on the conveyor belt.
However, Park does teach wherein the measurement system has a conveyor belt, wherein the measurement system is measures energy cells conveyed on the conveyor belt (Fig. 2; Claim 2; Page 2, lines 28-41; “In order to solve the problems of the prior art, it is an object of the present invention to provide a pouch type lithium secondary battery which can continuously measure the insulation resistance of the pouch type lithium secondary battery”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Emi and Uchida by implementing the teachings of Park regarding wherein the measurement system has a conveyor belt, wherein the measurement system is measures energy cells conveyed on the conveyor belt; for the purpose of “continuously measuring an insulation resistance of a pouch type lithium secondary battery that has been produced” (See Park; Page 2, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Emi and Uchida teaches the measurement method according to claim 5, but not specifically wherein after measuring the electrical capacitance C and/or the ohmic resistance R of an energy cell, the respective electrical capacitance C and/or the ohmic resistance R is stored in a data processing device.
However, Park does teach wherein after measuring the electrical capacitance C and/or the ohmic resistance R of an energy cell, the respective electrical capacitance C and/or the ohmic resistance R is stored in a data processing device (Fig. 2; Claim 2; Page 2, lines 28-41; “In order to solve the problems of the prior art, it is an object of the present invention to provide a pouch type lithium secondary battery which can continuously measure the insulation resistance of the pouch type lithium secondary battery”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Emi and Uchida by implementing the teachings of Park regarding wherein after measuring the electrical capacitance C and/or the ohmic resistance R of an energy cell, the respective electrical capacitance C and/or the ohmic resistance R is stored in a data processing device; for the purpose of “continuously measuring an insulation resistance of a pouch type lithium secondary battery that has been produced” (See Park; Page 2, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Emi and Uchida teaches the measurement system according to claim 1, but not specifically wherein the energy cells are battery cells.
However, Park does teach wherein the energy cells are battery cells (Fig. 2; Claim 2; Page 2, lines 28-41; “In order to solve the problems of the prior art, it is an object of the present invention to provide a pouch type lithium secondary battery which can continuously measure the insulation resistance of the pouch type lithium secondary battery”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Emi and Uchida by implementing the teachings of Park regarding wherein the energy cells are battery cells; for the purpose of “continuously measuring an insulation resistance of a pouch type lithium secondary battery that has been produced” (See Park; Page 2, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Emi and Uchida teaches the measurement system according to claim 1, but not specifically wherein the energy cells are monocells.
However, Park does teach wherein the energy cells are monocells (Fig. 2; Claim 2; Page 2, lines 28-41; “In order to solve the problems of the prior art, it is an object of the present invention to provide a pouch type lithium secondary battery which can continuously measure the insulation resistance of the pouch type lithium secondary battery”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery driven system of Emi by implementing the teachings of Park regarding wherein the energy cells are monocells; for the purpose of “continuously measuring an insulation resistance of a pouch type lithium secondary battery that has been produced” (See Park; Page 2, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Emi and Uchida teaches the measurement method according to claim 5, but not specifically wherein the energy cells are battery cells.
However, Park does teach wherein the energy cells are battery cells (Fig. 2; Claim 2; Page 2, lines 28-41; “In order to solve the problems of the prior art, it is an object of the present invention to provide a pouch type lithium secondary battery which can continuously measure the insulation resistance of the pouch type lithium secondary battery”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Emi and Uchida by implementing the teachings of Park regarding wherein the energy cells are battery cells; for the purpose of “continuously measuring an insulation resistance of a pouch type lithium secondary battery that has been produced” (See Park; Page 2, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Emi and Uchida teaches the measurement method according to claim 5, but not specifically wherein the energy cells are monocells.
However, Park does teach wherein the energy cells are monocells (Fig. 2; Claim 2; Page 2, lines 28-41; “In order to solve the problems of the prior art, it is an object of the present invention to provide a pouch type lithium secondary battery which can continuously measure the insulation resistance of the pouch type lithium secondary battery”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Emi and Uchida by implementing the teachings of Park regarding wherein the energy cells are monocells; for the purpose of “continuously measuring an insulation resistance of a pouch type lithium secondary battery that has been produced” (See Park; Page 2, lines 1-3).
Claim(s) 7, 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emi in view Uchida in further view of Zhou CN 106291379 (Previously Cited; Provided by Applicant; Hereinafter Zhou; Machine Translation Provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Emi and Uchida teaches the measurement method according to claim 5, but not specifically wherein after measuring the ohmic resistance of an energy cell, the ohmic resistance R is compared with a limit value and the energy cell is ejected from a product stream if this limit value is not reached.
However, Zhou does teach wherein after measuring the ohmic resistance of an energy cell, the ohmic resistance R is compared with a limit value and the energy cell is ejected from a product stream if this limit value is not reached (Fig. 3; Claim 7; Page 2, lines 19-29).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Emi and Uchida by implementing the teachings of Zhou regarding wherein after measuring the ohmic resistance of an energy cell, the ohmic resistance R is compared with a limit value and the energy cell is ejected from a product stream if this limit value is not reached; for the purpose of “battery testing equipment, and in particular to a battery three in one fully automatic testing machine” (See Zhou; Page 2, lines 2-4).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Emi and Uchida teaches the measurement method according to claim 5, but not specifically wherein after measuring the ohmic resistance R of an energy cell, the ohmic resistance R is compared with a limit value and the energy cell, is stacked with further energy cells if this limit value is exceeded.
However, Zhou does teach wherein after measuring the ohmic resistance R of an energy cell, the ohmic resistance R is compared with a limit value and the energy cell, is stacked with further energy cells if this limit value is exceeded (Fig. 3; Claim 7; Page 2, lines 19-29).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Emi and Uchida by implementing the teachings of Zhou regarding wherein after measuring the ohmic resistance R of an energy cell, the ohmic resistance R is compared with a limit value and the energy cell, is stacked with further energy cells if this limit value is exceeded; for the purpose of “battery testing equipment, and in particular to a battery three in one fully automatic testing machine” (See Zhou; Page 2, lines 2-4).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Emi and Uchida teaches the measurement method according to claim 5, but not specifically wherein after measuring the electrical capacitance C of an energy cell, the electrical capacitance C is compared with an upper and/or lower limit value, and the energy cell is ejected from a product stream if the respective limit values are exceeded or not reached.
However, Zhou does teach wherein after measuring the electrical capacitance C of an energy cell, the electrical capacitance C is compared with an upper and/or lower limit value, and the energy cell is ejected from a product stream if the respective limit values are exceeded or not reached (Claim 7).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Emi and Uchida by implementing the teachings of Zhou regarding wherein after measuring the electrical capacitance C of an energy cell, the electrical capacitance C is compared with an upper and/or lower limit value, and the energy cell is ejected from a product stream if the respective limit values are exceeded or not reached; for the purpose of “battery testing equipment, and in particular to a battery three in one fully automatic testing machine” (See Zhou; Page 2, lines 2-4).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Emi and Uchida teaches the measurement method according to claim 5, but not specifically wherein after measuring the electrical capacitance C of a plurality of energy cells which can each have different electrical capacities C, are combined to form a stack with a total capacitance C_ges above a lower limit value and below an upper limit value.
However, Zhou does teach wherein after measuring the electrical capacitance C of a plurality of energy cells which can each have different electrical capacities C, are combined to form a stack with a total capacitance C_ges above a lower limit value and below an upper limit value (Claim 7).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Emi and Uchida by implementing the teachings of Zhou regarding wherein after measuring the electrical capacitance C of a plurality of energy cells which can each have different electrical capacities C, are combined to form a stack with a total capacitance C_ges above a lower limit value and below an upper limit value; for the purpose of “battery testing equipment, and in particular to a battery three in one fully automatic testing machine” (See Zhou; Page 2, lines 2-4).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Iwasaki et al. US 2004/0160231 - To provide a capacitance measurement system with which capacitance is measured at a high speed using a semiconductor parametric test system. The capacitance measurement system has test head 104 comprising multiple input/output terminals 152 and 154 that connect the element under test 114, source and measure unit 110 that supplies voltage or current, capacitance measurement unit 108 with an impedance measurement function, and switching matrix 112 that connects the multiple input/output terminals, the source and measure unit, and the capacitance measurement unit.
Hinterberger et al. US 2020/0225291 - A measurement arrangement for determining a complex impedance of a first electrical component, wherein the measurement arrangement comprises the first component and a measuring unit, which is coupled to the first component and adapted to determine the complex impedance of the first component. The measurement arrangement comprises at least one second electrical component, which is arranged with the first component in a parallel circuit, which is hooked up in parallel with the measuring unit, wherein the parallel circuit comprises at least one switching device by which an electrical connection between the first and second component can be broken.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL J RIOS RUSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-3459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 10am-6pm, EST.
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.
/RAUL J RIOS RUSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights