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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 1, line 13, the comma should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding amended claim 1, lines 12-13 and 18-19 recite sorting based on multiple properties into multiple progressive pluralities of energy storage devices. The sorting based on a single property and then on two properties and then on three properties at each sorting step is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey these progressive sorting steps
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.
Claims 15 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiaux (WO 09419838) in view of Kumar et al (US Pub 2022/0016675 A1) and Tanii (EP 1009049).
Regarding claim 15, Wiaux discloses a system for sorting energy storage devices, the system comprising: a chemical sensing device configured to measure a chemical property of the energy storage devices (element 12); a plurality of rerouting devices configured to set a movement path of the energy storage devices based on at least one of the physical property (see Fig.1; elements 2, 4, 6, and 7), the magnetic property, or the chemical property, but Wiaux does not disclose a physical sensing device configured to measure a physical property of the energy storage devices; a magnetic sensing device configured to measure a magnetic property of the energy storage devices, wherein the sorting is based on a machine learning classification model that processes measurement data received from at least one of the physical sensing device, the magnetic sensing device, or the chemical sensing device; and a central processing unit in communication with the physical sensing device, the magnetic sensing device, the chemical sensing device, and the plurality of rerouting devices
Kumar teaches a physical sensing device configured to measure a physical property of the energy storage devices (element 110); the sorting is based on a machine learning classification model that processes measurement data received (paragraph 0059 where a machine learning system may be used identify and classify material pieces), a central processing unit in communication with the physical sensing device, the magnetic sensing device, the chemical sensing device, and the plurality of rerouting devices (element 107) for the purpose of classifying materials according a set of physical characteristics (paragraph 0038). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Wiaux, as taught by Kumar, for the purpose of classifying materials according a set of physical characteristics.
Tanii teaches a magnetic sensing device configured to measure a magnetic property of the energy storage devices (elements 30, 32, 40, and 84) for the purpose of detecting changes in the magnetic field to sort batteries by their classification and size (see Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Wiaux, as taught by Tanii, for the purpose of detecting changes in the magnetic field to sort batteries by their classification and size.
Regarding claim 19, Wiaux does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Kumar teaches the physical sensing device include a camera (element 109) for the purpose of classifying materials according a set of physical characteristics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Wiaux, as taught by Kumar, for the purpose of classifying materials according a set of physical characteristics.
Regarding claim 20, Wiaux does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Kumar teaches the physical sensing device includes a plurality of cameras operating in at least one of: the X-ray spectrum, the infrared spectrum, and/or the visible spectrum (paragraph 0058) for the purpose of classifying materials according a set of physical characteristics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Wiaux, as taught by Kumar, for the purpose of classifying materials according a set of physical characteristics.
Regarding claim 21, Wiaux does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Kumar teaches the chemical sensing device includes a radiation source and a detector, the detector configured to detect an output radiation reflected or backscattered from an energy storage device (paragraphs 0025 and 0039) for the purpose of classifying materials according a set of physical characteristics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Wiaux, as taught by Kumar, for the purpose of classifying materials according a set of physical characteristics.
Regarding claim 22, Wiaux discloses the energy storage devices include at least one of an electrochemical cell (element 4) or a battery pack.
Regarding claim 23, Wiaux discloses a feeding subsystem, the feeding subsystem including at least one of a robotic arm, a pusher, or a conveyor belt configured to transport the energy storage devices to a location for analysis by the physical sensing device (see Fig. 2; element C1).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiaux/Kumar/Tanii in view of Sloop et al (USP 9,484,606 B1).
Regarding claim 17, Wiaux does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Sloop teaches a pretreatment subsystem, the pretreatment subsystem including instrumentation configured to remove and isolate at least one of: coverings of energy storage devices, non- energy storage device items, debris, or flame-retardant materials (see Fig. 10; element 72 breeching the cell) for the purpose of accessing the internal components of the battery cell for further processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Wiaux, as taught by Sloop, for the purpose of accessing the internal components of the battery cell for further processing.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiaux/Kumar/Tanii in view of Lai et al (CN 107857066).
Regarding claim 13, Wiaux does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Lai teaches isolating a problematic energy storage device upon detecting a dangerous condition in the energy storage device, the dangerous condition determined by measuring at least one of a temperature of the energy storage device (Description page 4, lines 20-24 where the temperature is monitored to determine the safe state of the battery), a gas composition in an immediate area surrounding the energy storage device, a state-of charge of the energy storage device, an impedance of the energy storage device, acoustic properties of the energy storage device, or visual properties of the energy storage device for the purpose of monitoring a safe state of a battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Wiaux, as taught by Lai, for the purpose of monitoring a safe state of a battery.
Regarding claim 16, Wiaux does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Lai teaches a safety monitoring device, the safety monitoring device configured to monitor at least one of a temperature of the energy storage devices (Description page 4, lines 20-24 where the temperature is monitored to determine the safe state of the battery), a gas composition in an immediate area surrounding the energy storage devices, a state-of charge of the energy storage devices, an impedance of the energy storage devices, acoustic properties of the energy storage devices, or visual properties of the energy storage devices for the purpose of monitoring a safe state of a battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Wiaux, as taught by Lai, for the purpose of monitoring a safe state of a battery.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiaux/Kumar/Tanii/Sloop in view of Kalpen et al (WO 2014/153570) (the relevant portion of the 500+ page reference is included).
Regarding claim 18, Wiaux/Sloop does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Lai teaches the pretreatment subsystem includes at least one of a vacuum or a blower (page 54, paragraph 4, lines 10-12 where the battery is pretreated with a vacuum to clear particles near the battery cases) for the purpose of recycling component parts of the battery cases. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Wiaux, as taught by Kalpen, for the purpose of recycling component parts of the battery cases.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art discloses a method of sorting used energy storage devices. The closest prior art does not disclose or make obvious sorting the third plurality of energy storage devices into a fourth plurality of energy storage devices and a fifth plurality of energy storage devices based on the measured physical property, and measured magnetic property and sorting the fifth plurality of energy storage devices into a sixth plurality of energy storage devices and a seventh plurality of energy storage devices based on the measured physical property, measured magnetic property, and measured chemical property in conjunction with the other structures in claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection under USC 103
Regarding Applicant’s argument,” In response, and without acquiescing to the rejection, Applicant has amended claim 15 to advance prosecution of the application. Specifically, claim 15 has been amended to recite, in part, "a physical sensing device configured to measure a physical property of the energy storage devices; a magnetic sensing device configured to measure a magnetic property of the energy storage devices; a chemical sensing device configured to measure a chemical property of the energy storage devices; a plurality of rerouting devices configured to sort the energy storage devices based on at least one of the physical property, the magnetic property, or the chemical property, wherein the sorting is based on a machine learning classification model that processes measurement data received from at least one of the physical sensing device, the magnetic sensing device, or the chemical sensing device; and a central processing unit in communication with the physical sensing device, the magnetic sensing device, the chemical sensing device, and the plurality of rerouting devices." As discussed during the Examiner interview, none of the cited references, either individually or in combination, teach or suggest, inter alia, sorting used energy storage devices based on a machine learning classification model as required by amended claim 15,” the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner asserts, upon further investigation, the teaching reference Kumar teaches using a machine learning system to collect and analyze data (paragraph 0058) to identify and classify material pieces for sorting.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kalyanavenkateshware Kumar whose telephone number is (571)272-8102. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 08:00-16:30.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached on 571-272-7805. 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 system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would 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.
/K.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653