DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communications: Application filed on 10/23/2024.
Claims 1-20 are presented for Examination. Claims 1 and 12 is independent.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing to meet the written description and enablement requirements.
The specification does not provide an adequate written description to show that the inventor was in possession of the full scope of the claimed invention at the time of filing, nor does it enable one of ordinary skill to make and use the invention without undue experimentation (MPEP § 2163 and § 2164).
Specifically, Claim 15 recites a controller that is "configured to calculate electrochemical recovery parameters for the battery based on features of the battery."
Claim 4 recites "instructing a programmable charging device to deliver energy to the battery based upon electrochemical recovery parameters."
The specification, in paragraphs [0062] and [0070], mentions that the controller may execute an "electrochemical recovery program" to determine energy parameters based on battery features. However, the disclosure fails to provide any specific details, algorithms, or operative steps for how this calculation is performed. The disclosure provides an example (EL1 program) with fixed values for one specific battery type (180Ah valve-regulated), but it does not disclose how to calculate these parameters for other batteries based on their "features" (e.g., degree of charge, type, size, etc., as listed in paragraph [0050]).
Without a disclosure of the specific software, algorithm, or method for calculating these "electrochemical recovery parameters," the specification does not support the full functional scope of this claim language. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be required to engage in undue experimentation to create a program that could calculate these parameters for the vast range of batteries and features alluded to in the specification.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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a "method for restoring the energy parameters of a battery.".
Claim 3 recites "restore one or more energy parameters of the battery."
Claims 4 and 15 recite "electrochemical recovery parameters."
Claim 12 recites a "device for restoring energy parameters of a battery."
The specification, in paragraph [0044], defines "energy parameters" as "characteristics of batteries such as operating life, discharge capacity, charge acceptance, and the like, as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art." The use of the phrase "and the like" renders the term indefinite. It is unclear what other "commercially preferred traits" fall within the scope of this term. An examiner cannot determine the precise scope of the claim, as the metes and bounds of "energy parameters" are not reasonably ascertainable.
Similarly, paragraph [0045] defines "electrochemical recovery parameters" as "calculated or known parameters that can be used by the controller...to optimize the restoration of energy parameters." This definition is functional and fails to provide a clear, objective standard. The parameters are defined by what they do ("optimize the restoration") rather than what they are. The specification further states that these may include "the value of the current and the value of the voltage" but is not limited to them, making it impossible to determine which specific parameters are being claimed.
For these reasons, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the exact scope of the invention, and the claims are therefore indefinite.
Since the independent claims of 1 and 12 are rejected under 112(b) and hence its dependent claims also are rejected under 112(b).
Appropriate correction is requested.
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 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.
Claims 1-11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2013/0065111 A1), hereinafter "Kim," in view of Platonov (US 2011/0031932 A1), and further in view of Dasgupta et al. (US 2003/0013006 A1), hereinafter "Dasgupta."
Regarding Independent Claim 1,
Kim teaches that a method for restoring the energy parameters of a battery, the method comprising:
fixing the battery in a battery container [Kim ¶¶[0017], [0039]-[0041], [0053]; Figs. 1-3 (tray 10 receives battery cells 1, with tray cover 13; tray placed in chamber 20)];
rotating the battery fixed in the battery container [Kim ¶¶[0013], [0021], [0048], [0055]; Figs. 1-2 (rotary shaft 52, support frames 54, driving source/motor 56 rotate chamber 20 and tray 10)];
homogenizing an electrolyte concentration within internal components of at least one cell contained within the battery [Kim ¶¶[0026]-[0027], [0041], [0054]-[0055] (rotation/oscillation increases electrolyte impregnation and uniform wetting); Dasgupta ¶¶[0004]-[0005], [0033] (electrolyte concentration affects capacity and battery condition)]; and
However, Kim does not explicitly teach connecting the battery to a bipolar overvoltage pulser and applying alternating positive and negative pulses.
Platonov teaches that connecting the battery to a bipolar overvoltage pulser and applying alternating positive and negative pulses to the battery (Platonov ¶¶[0021], [0024], [0029], [0033]-[0039]; Figs. 1-2 (charging unit 2 and discharging unit 10 are connected to battery 1 and provide rectangular charging pulses with discharge actions in intervening pauses)).Platonov teaches a method for recovering accumulator batteries comprising connecting the battery to a charging unit and applying rectangular current pulses with specific parameters (400-480A amplitude, duty factor 100-400) [Platonov ¶[0029]], followed by discharging during intervals between these pulses [Platonov ¶¶[0021], [0023], [0024]]. Platonov's system includes a processor-controlled charging unit that applies pulses to clean battery plates from lead sulfate and recover chemical structure of battery elements [Platonov ¶[0028]].
Dasgupta teaches conventional lead-acid battery construction with electrodes and electrolyte that can suffer from concentration gradients affecting performance [Dasgupta ¶¶[0004]-[0005], [0033]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the electrolyte homogenization technique of Kim with the pulse-based recovery method of Platonov, as modified by the battery construction teachings of Dasgupta, because all three references address battery degradation and capacity loss issues. Kim focuses on electrolyte distribution, Platonov addresses plate sulfation through pulse treatment, and Dasgupta provides context for conventional battery construction. A skilled artisan would recognize that combining mechanical homogenization (rotation) with electrical recovery (pulsing) would yield synergistic benefits for comprehensive battery restoration, as supported by MPEP § 2143(I)(A) (combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Regarding Claim 2
The method of claim 1, further comprising weight-balancing the battery when the battery is fixed in the battery container (Kim ¶[0048] (rotary shaft 52 supported via bearings 51 for stability during rotation); Platonov ¶[0036] (processor 3 controls charging parameters based on measured conditions, inherently requiring balanced mechanical setup for reliable measurements)].
Regarding Claim 3
The method of claim 1, further comprising electrically contacting the battery and a programmable charging device to restore one or more energy parameters of the battery, wherein restoring the one or more energy parameters occurs simultaneously with rotating the battery fixed in the battery container ([Platonov ¶[0035]; Fig. 1 (charging unit 2 connected to battery 1 and controlled by processor 3/decoder 9)] to restore one or more energy parameters of the battery [Platonov ¶¶[0027]-[0029], [0036]-[0040] (recovery of capacity and chemical structure)], wherein restoring the one or more energy parameters occurs simultaneously with rotating the battery fixed in the battery container [Kim ¶¶[0054]-[0055] (rotation can occur during processing); Platonov ¶[0039] (recovery process continues until predetermined parameters are met); obvious combination for simultaneous operations).
Regarding Claim 4
The method of claim 1, further comprising instructing a programmable charging device to deliver energy to the battery based upon electrochemical recovery parameters (Platonov ¶¶[0029]-[0030], [0035]-[0039]; Fig. 1 (processor 3 receives current, voltage, temperature, and electrolyte-density data and controls charging unit 2 based on monitored versus stored recovery parameters)).
Regarding Claim 5
Claim 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the battery is in operation (Platonov ¶[0005] (addresses "self-contained power sources" generally); Dasgupta ¶[0002] (automotive batteries in operation)).
Regarding Claim 6
Claim 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the battery is inoperably stored (Platonov ¶[0007] (recovery of degraded batteries); Kim ¶[0005] (batteries requiring electrolyte impregnation often stored before activation)).
Regarding Claim 7
Claim 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the battery is a lead-acid battery (Dasgupta ¶¶[0001]-[0003], [0009]; Figs. 1-6 (automotive battery; disclosure identifies VRLA lead-acid batteries in background); Platonov ¶[0007] (lead-acid accumulator context)).
Regarding Claim 8
Claim 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the battery is a valve-regulated battery (Dasgupta ¶[0002] (mentions "VRLA (Valve Regulated Lead Acid)" batteries)).
Regarding Claim 9
Claim 9. The method of claim 1, wherein the battery comprises a glass mat separator (Dasgupta ¶[0002] (mentions "AGM (Absorptive Glass Mat) separators")).
Regarding Claim 10
Claim 10. The method of claim 1, wherein rotating the battery comprises rotating the battery around a center axis of rotation (Kim ¶¶[0013], [0048], [0055]; Figs. 1-2 (rotary shaft 52 installed at both ends of chamber 20, defining center axis of rotation)).
Regarding Claim 11
Claim 11. The method of claim 10, wherein the battery comprises a positive electrode on a first end, a negative electrode on a second end, and the center axis of rotation that corresponds to a center of the battery with respect to the first and seconds ends (Dasgupta ¶[0040]; Figs. 1-2 (terminals T1 and T2 on battery cover, positioned at opposite ends); Kim Figs. 1-2 (rotation axis through chamber center, corresponding to battery center when properly positioned)).
Regarding Claim 19
Claim 19. The device of claim 12, wherein the battery is a valve regulated battery (Dasgupta ¶[0002] (VRLA batteries)).
Regarding Claim 20
Claim 20. The device of claim 12, wherein the battery comprises a glass mat separator [Dasgupta ¶[0002] (AGM separators)].
Claims 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2013/0065111 A1), hereinafter "Kim," in view of Platonov (US 2011/0031932 A1)"
Regarding independent Claim 12
Kim teaches that a device for restoring energy parameters of a battery, the device comprising:
a supporting frame [Kim ¶[0013], [0048]; Figs. 1-2 (support frames 54)];
a battery container configured to receive the battery therein [Kim ¶¶[0007], [0039]-[0041]; Figs. 1-3 (tray 10 and chamber 20)], the battery container being operably coupled to:a motor [Kim ¶[0048]; Figs. 1-2 (driving source 56, e.g., step or servo motor)]; and
Kim fails to teach but Platonov teaches that a controller (Platonov ¶¶[0035]-[0036]; Fig. 1 (processor 3));
a controlling inverter configured to regulate a rotational speed of the motor (Platonov ¶[0036] (processor controls charging parameters; obvious to extend speed control to rotation motor using inverter technology well-known in the art)]; anda bipolar overvoltage battery pulser configured to connect to the battery and apply alternating positive and negative pulses to the battery (Platonov ¶¶[0029], [0035]; Fig. 1 (charging unit 2 with pulse generation capability)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the electrolyte homogenization technique of Kim with the pulse-based recovery method of Platonov, because all two references address battery degradation and capacity loss issues. Kim focuses on electrolyte distribution, and Platonov addresses plate sulfation through pulse treatment. A skilled artisan would recognize that combining mechanical homogenization (rotation) with electrical recovery (pulsing) would yield synergistic benefits for comprehensive battery restoration, as supported by MPEP § 2143(I)(A) (combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Regarding Claim 13
Claim 13. The device of claim 12, further comprising a programmable charging device, wherein the controller is configured to communicate with the programmable charging device (Platonov ¶¶[0035]-[0036]; Fig. 1 (processor 3 controls charging unit 2 through decoder 9)).
Regarding Claim 14
Claim 14. The device of claim 12, further comprising:
a bearing axle having a central portion (Kim ¶[0048]; Figs. 1-2 (rotary shaft 52 supported via bearings 51)]; and a slip ring mounted on the bearing axle [Obvious mechanical expedient for maintaining electrical connections during rotation, as evidenced by standard engineering practice in rotating electrical systems].
Regarding Claim 15
Claim 15. The device of claim 12, wherein the controller is configured to calculate electrochemical recovery parameters for the battery based on features of the battery [Platonov ¶¶[0036]-[0039]; Fig. 1 (processor 3 monitors and calculates optimal charging parameters based on measured battery conditions)].
Regarding Claim 16
Claim 16. The device of claim 12, wherein the controller operates remotely via a wireless connection (Obvious networking enhancement for industrial equipment control, as wireless communication was well-known in the art at the time of invention).
Regarding Claim 17
Claim 17. The device of claim 12, wherein the controller is contained within the programmable charging device (Platonov Fig. 1 (processor 3 integrated with charging system components)).
Regarding Claim 18
Claim 18. The device of claim 12, wherein the battery is a lead acid battery (Platonov ¶[0007]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8439. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 6:00pm.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached on 571-272-2060. 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.
/MUHAMMAD S ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights