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 .
Claim Status
Claims 2-4, 6 and 14-20 have been canceled.
Claim 13 has been withdrawn.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 21 have been amended; support for the amendment can be found in original claim 1 and [0020].
Claim 22 is newly added; support for this claim can be found in original claim 3.
Claims 1, 5, 7-12, 21 and 22 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that it is not clear why a PHOSITA would substitute the passive shock sensor of Zadesky for the shock sensor of Mull in view of Zhao in Li relying only on facts from the prior art (pg. 6, para. 3) and suggests impermissible hindsight (pg. 7, para. 1).
This argument is not found persuasive because substituting the passive shock sensor of Zadesky for the shock sensor of Mull in view of Zhao and Li involves the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. In the instant case, the shock sensors of Zadesky and Mull in view of Zhao and Li are both passive acceleration switches. Substituting one for another would have predictably yielded a switch function.
Applicant argues that by substituting Zadesky’s passive shock sensor for Li’s vibration switch, the wakeup feature of Li’s vibration switch is removed (pg. 7, para. 2). This argument is not found persuasive because the rejection below substitutes the spring mechanism of Zadesky for the undisclosed switching mechanism of Mull in view of Zhao and Li but does not affect the wake feature taught by Mull in view of Zhao and Li (Li [0046]). In other words, the modification changes how the switch opens and closes but does not change that the switch wakes the accelerometer when acceleration reaches a certain value as taught by Li ([0046]).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 5 and 22 are moot as a new grounds of rejection has been made which relies on Currano and Jenson as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1 “impact on” should read “impact to” to mirror the previous recitation of “an impact to the one or more electrical battery cells”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 22 is 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.
Claim 22 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation “a detection of the impact” refers to the recitation of “a detection of an impact” recited in claim 1 or to another detection. For examination, the former interpretation is used.
Claim 22 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation of the impact in line 3 refers to the previously recited “impact on the battery pack” or “impact to the one or more electrical battery cells” of claim 1. For examination, the latter interpretation is used.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 9-12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mull (US 20140342193 A1) in view of Zhao (US 20130252032 A1), Li (CN-103076046-A, machine translation used for rejection below), Zadesky (US 20080224879 A1) and Asai (JP2010025594A, machine translation used for rejection below).
Regarding claim 1, Mull discloses a battery pack (“smart battery assembly”; [0011]; Fig. 2) comprising:
one or more electrical battery cells (“battery 240”; [0025]);
a battery management system (Fig. 2; element 210) including at least one electronic processor (Fig. 2; element 212) configured to ([0025]) monitor parameters (“one or more aspects “; [0031]) of the battery pack (Fig. 2);
at least one fault detection sensor (“monitoring module”; [0031] as the monitoring module of [0030])
an accelerometer (“accelerometer 308”; [0035]), a magnitude of impact (“vibration, shock and falling of battery 240”; [0035]; “acceleration of the battery”; [0062]) on the one or more battery cells (battery 240),
wherein the battery management system (210) is configured to perform a remediation action (“the aspects of the battery to be controlled include directly interfering with the operation of the battery”; [0063]) responsive to detection of a fault (going over a “threshold” per [0064]; ex. “overcharged” [0063]) by the at least one fault detection sensor ([0031]),
and wherein the remediation action ([0063]) performed by the battery management system (210) responsive to a detection of an impact (“vibration, shock and falling of battery 240”; [0035]; “acceleration of the battery”; [0062]) includes:
shutting off ([0063]) the one or more ([0028]) electrical battery cells (“battery 240”; [0025]) when the impact ([0035]; [0062]) to the one or more electrical battery cells exceeds a predetermined impact threshold ([0018]; [0063-0064]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mull by shutting off the one or more electrical battery cells when the impact on the one or more electrical battery cells exceeds a predetermined impact threshold because Mull teaches that the behavior of the battery cells may be controlled in response to a threshold ([0064]) and teaches that the control may include turning off the battery cells ([0063]).
Mull fails to disclose the at least one fault detection sensor including at least: a shock sensor configured to measure an impact on the battery pack wherein the shock sensor is a passive shock sensor comprising at least one spring contact configured to vibrate to generate one or more electric current pulses in response to an impact to the one or more electrical battery cells; the accelerometer operatively connected with the shock sensor, wherein the shock sensor is configured to activate the accelerometer to measure the magnitude of the impact on the one or more battery cells, a housing enclosing the one or more battery cells, the battery management system, and the at least one fault detection sensor, and one of generating a visual or audio message indicating that the one or more electrical battery cells needs to be replaced; or generating a visual or audio message indicating that a medical device powered by the battery pack should be replaced with a new medical device..
Zhao discloses a battery pack ([0025]) comprising
one or more electrical battery cells ([0026]), a battery management system (“module controller”; [0048]) including at least one electronic processor (“module controller”; [0048]);
at least one fault detection sensor (“thermistor”; [0055]),
a housing (“housing” with “battery cover”; [0026]) enclosing the one or more battery cells ([0026]), the battery management system ([0048]) and the at least one fault detection sensor ([0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mull by adding the housing taught by Zhao to the invention of Mull such that the housing enclosed the one or more battery cells, the battery management system and the at least one fault detection sensor in order to achieve a battery pack that may be assembled quickly and that does not use excessive space as taught by Zhao ([0004]).
Mull in view of Zhao still fails to disclose the at least one fault detection sensor including at least: a shock sensor configured to measure an impact on the battery pack wherein the shock sensor is a passive shock sensor comprising at least one spring contact configured to vibrate to generate one or more electric current pulses in response to an impact to the one or more electrical battery cells; the accelerometer operatively connected with the shock sensor, wherein the shock sensor is configured to activate the accelerometer to measure the magnitude of the impact on the one or more battery cells; generating a visual or audio message indicating that the one or more electrical battery cells needs to be replaced; or generating a visual or audio message indicating that a medical device powered by the battery pack should be replaced with a new medical device.
Li discloses at least one fault detection sensor (“plurality of detection devices 100”; [0038]) including at least: a shock sensor (“vibration switch”; [0046]) configured to measure an impact (“when the acceleration reaches a certain value”; [0046]), wherein the shock sensor (“vibration switch”; [0046]) is a passive shock sensor (“passive vibration switch”; [0046]); an accelerometer (“triaxial accelerometer”; [0046]) operatively connected (“the three-axis accelerometer is connected to the chip through a passive vibration switch”; [0046]) with the shock sensor ([0046]), wherein the shock sensor ([0046]) is configured to activate (“when the acceleration reaches a certain value or when an interrupt signal given by the user is received the three-axis accelerometer tracking test is automatically started”; [0046]) the accelerometer ([0046]) to measure a magnitude of impact (“acceleration on any axis”; [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mull in view of Zhao by substituting the accelerometer of Mull in view of Zhao for the shock sensor and accelerometer taught by Li such that the at least one fault detection sensor includes at least: a shock sensor configured to measure an impact on the battery pack, wherein the shock sensor is a passive shock sensor; the accelerometer operatively connected with the shock sensor, wherein the shock sensor is configured to activate the accelerometer to measure the magnitude of the impact on the one or more battery cells. In doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to reduce energy consumption as taught by Li ([0012]).
Mull in view of Zhao and Li still fails to disclose the passive shock sensor comprising at least one spring contact configured to vibrate to generate one or more electric current pulses in response to an impact to the one or more electrical battery cells, and storing an occurrence of the impact in a memory when the impact on the plurality of battery cells is below the predetermined impact threshold; generating a visual or audio message indicating that the plurality of battery cells needs to be replaced; or generating a visual or audio message indicating that a medical device powered by the battery pack should be replaced with a new medical device...
Zadesky discloses a passive ([0014]) shock sensor ([0008]) comprising at least one spring contact (“cantilever spring”; [0013]) configured to vibrate (“the cantilever spring bends”; [0013]) to generate one or more electric current pulses (“shorts the first and second shock detection contacts”; [0013]) in response to an impact ([0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mull in view of Zhao and Li by substituting the manner in which the passive vibration switch of Mull in view of Zhao and Li opens and closes for the spring switch mechanism of Zadesky, such that the shock sensor comprises at least one spring contact configured to vibrate to generate one or more electric current pulses in response to an impact, in order to predictably provide an electrical signal in response to a shock event that exceeds an impact threshold level as taught by Zadesky ([0010]). The examiner notes that this modification changes how the switch of Mull in view of Zhao and Li opens and closes (i.e. using a spring instead of the ball or other structures used in conventional vibration switches) but does not affect the wake feature of the switch taught by Mull in view of Zhao and Li.
Mull in view of Zhao, Li and Zadesky fails to disclose generating a visual or audio message indicating that the one or more electrical battery cells needs to be replaced; or generating a visual or audio message indicating that a medical device powered by the battery pack should be replaced with a new medical device.
Asai discloses a battery pack (“portable device”; [0004]) comprising: a shock sensor (“impact detection means”; [0006]) and a remediation action (“a display indicating the abnormality of the battery unit (101) is performed”; [0006]) responsive to detection of an impact by the shock sensor ([0006]), including generating a visual message ([0062]) indicating that one or more electrical battery cells (“cell pack 200”; [0062]) needs to be replaced ([0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mull in view of Zhao, Li and Zadesky by adding the remediation action taught by Asai to the remediation action of Mull in view of Zhao, Li and Zadesky such that a visual message indicating that the one or more electrical battery cells needs to be replaced, is generated in response to detection of an impact by the shock sensor. In doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to prevent an accident and improve safety when using the battery pack as taught by Asai ([0064]).
Regarding claim 7, Mull in view of Zhao, Li, Zadesky and Asai discloses wherein the at least one fault detection sensor ([0031]) includes at least one gas sensor ([0031]) configured to detect the fault ([0041]) comprising a gas ([0041]) evolving from the plurality of battery cells ([0041]).
Regarding claim 9, Mull in view of Zhao, Li, Zadesky and Asai discloses wherein the remediation action ([0063]) performed by the battery management system (210) responsive to detection ([0041]) by the at least one gas sensor ([0031]) of the gas ([0041]) evolving from the one or more battery cells (240) includes shutting off ([0018]; [0063]) the plurality of battery cells (240).
Regarding claim 10, Mull in view of Zhao, Li, Zadesky and Asai fails to disclose wherein the housing includes at least one vent and the at least one gas sensor is disposed adjacent to the at least one vent.
Zhao discloses a battery pack ([0025]) comprising
one or more electrical battery cells ([0026]), a battery management system (“module controller”; [0048]) including at least one electronic processor (“module controller”; [0048]);
at least one fault detection sensor (“thermistor”; [0055]),
a housing (“housing” with “battery cover”; [0026]) enclosing the one or more battery cells ([0026]), the battery management system ([0048]) and the at least one fault detection sensor ([0055]),
wherein the housing ([0026]) comprises a vent (“gas vent manifold”; [0050]) and a gas sensor ([0060]) is disposed adjacent ([0060]) to the vent ([0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mull in view of Zhao, Li, Zadesky and Asai by adding at least one vent to the housing such the at least one gas sensor is disposed adjacent the at least one vent in order to predictably monitor for the presence of gas as taught by Zhao ([0060]).
Regarding claim 11, Mull in view of Zhao, Li, Zadesky and Asai discloses wherein the battery management system (210) includes at least one wireless transmitter or transceiver (“network interface”; [0027]) and the battery management system (210) is programmed to ([0019]) wirelessly ([0027]) transmit data ([0050]) measured by the at least one fault detection sensor ([0031]); and an identification ([0029]) of the battery pack ([0028]).
Regarding claim 12, Mull in view of Zhao, Li, Zadesky and Asai discloses wherein the battery management system (210) further includes:
a temperature sensor (“thermocouple”; [0031]) operatively connected with the battery management system ([0031]) and configured to measure a temperature ([0036]) of the plurality of battery cells (240), the housing (Zhao [0026]) further enclosing (the temperature sensor is a part of the fault detection sensor which is enclosed) the temperature sensor ([0031]); and a memory ([0019]; [0026]) configured to ([0032]) store data ([0050]) measured by at least one of the temperature sensor ([0031]) and the at least one fault detection sensor ([0031]).
Regarding claim 21, Mull in view of Zhao, Li, Zadesky and Asai discloses wherein the accelerometer (Li [0046]) is in a low power mode (“a sleep state, which greatly reduces the power consumption required”; [0046]) until triggered ([0046]) by the shock sensor (Zadesky’s shock sensor replaces Li’s passive vibration switch of [0046]) and the accelerometer ((Li [0046]) being triggered activates ([0046]) an accelerometer measurement (“three-axis accelerometer tracking test is automatically started”; [0046]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mull (US 20140342193 A1) in view of Zhao (US 20130252032 A1), Li (CN-103076046-A, machine translation used for rejection below), Zadesky (US 20080224879 A1) and Asai (JP2010025594A, machine translation used for rejection below) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Currano (US20140076696A1).
Regarding claim 5, Mull in view of Zhao, Li, Zadesky and Asai discloses wherein the passive shock sensor (Zadesky [0013]) includes a spring contact having a stiffness level (“spring constant of spring”; [0072]), the at least one electronic processor (212) is programmed to determine a magnitude (“impact threshold level”; [0072]) of the impact (Li “acceleration on any axis”; [0046]) to the one or more electrical battery cells (240) depending on the spring contact (Zadesky [0013]; [0072]) triggered.
Mull in view of Zhao, Li, Zadesky and Asai fails to explicitly disclose a plurality of spring contacts, each spring contact of the plurality of spring contacts having a different stiffness level than every other spring contact of the plurality of spring contacts, and the at least one electronic processor is programmed to determine a magnitude of the impact to the one or more electrical battery cells depending on which of the spring contact or contacts are triggered.
Currano teaches a plurality of spring contacts (Fig. 2; 14 of each switch 11 in Fig. 1), each spring contact (14) of the plurality of spring contacts (14) having a different stiffness level ([0033] teaches each spring may have a different design yielding a different impact threshold) than every other spring contact (14) of the plurality of spring contacts (14), and at least one electronic processor (“microprocessor”; [0036]) is programmed to determine a magnitude ([0036]) of an impact ([0036]) depending on which of the spring contact or contacts (14) are triggered ([0036]).
The examiner notes that a PHOSITA would interpret Currano’s disclosure of each spring contact having a different design resulting in a different impact threshold as a disclosure that each spring contact may have a different spring stiffness because it is known in the art that spring stiffness is one parameter of spring design that can affect the impact threshold of a spring as evidenced by Zadesky (“spring constant”; [0072]).
Currano and Mull are analogous art because they both relate to acceleration sensors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have duplicated the spring contact taught by Mull in view of Zhao, Li, Zadesky and Asai and modified each spring contact to have different stiffnesses such that the device of Mull in view of Zhao, Li, Zadesky and Asai included a plurality of spring contacts having different stiffness levels and the at least one electronic processor is programmed to determine a magnitude of the impact to the plurality of battery cells depending on which of the spring contact or contacts are triggered because Zadesky teaches that the impact threshold level may be modified by controlling the stiffness level of the spring contact ([0072]) and Currano teaches that employing a number of spring contacts with different impact thresholds can provide improved indication of the magnitude of acceleration ([0047]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mull (US 20140342193 A1) in view of Zhao (US 20130252032 A1), Li (CN-103076046-A, machine translation used for rejection below), Zadesky (US 20080224879 A1) and Asai (JP2010025594A, machine translation used for rejection below) as applied to claim 7 above and further in view of Golubkov (US-20190379030-A1).
Mull in view of Zhao, Li, Zadesky and Asai fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one gas sensor includes: a first gas sensor configured to measure hydrogen gas; and a second gas sensor configured to measure at least one of hydrogen gas, benzene, methane, and propylene.
Golubkov discloses a battery pack ([0019]) comprising a gas sensor ([0023]) including a first gas sensor (one of “sensors configured to detect… hydrogen”; [0023]) configured to measure hydrogen gas ([0023]);
and a second gas sensor (one of “sensors configured to detect… hydrogen…[and] methane”; [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mull in view of Zhao, Li, Zadesky and Asai by adding Golubkov’s first and second gas sensors to the at least one gas sensor such that the at least one gas sensor includes: a first gas sensor configured to measure hydrogen gas; and a second gas sensor configured to measure at least one of hydrogen gas, and methane in order to reliably detect different failure types or abnormal conditions as taught by Golubkov ([0022]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mull (US 20140342193 A1) in view of Zhao (US 20130252032 A1), Li (CN-103076046-A, machine translation used for rejection below), Zadesky (US 20080224879 A1) and Asai (JP2010025594A, machine translation used for rejection below) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Jenson (US 20040131925 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Mull in view of Zhao, Li, Zadesky and Asai fails to disclose wherein the remediation action performed by the battery management system responsive to a detection of the impact to the one or more electrical battery cells by the shock sensor includes storing an occurrence of the impact in a memory when the impact on the one or more electrical battery cells is below the predetermined impact threshold.
Jenson discloses wherein a remediation action (“This activity could then be noted by a timer or timing circuit 914, and then placed in memory 912”; [0137]) performed by a battery management system (“complete system”; [0012]) responsive to a detection of an impact (“event”; [0012] that is a “very low shock load”; [0137]) to one or more batteries ([0012]) by a shock sensor (“switches”; [0137]) includes storing an occurrence of the impact (“This activity could then be noted by a timer or timing circuit 914, and then placed in memory 912”; [0137]) in a memory ([0137]) when the impact ([0137]) to the one or more batteries ([0012]) is below a predetermined impact threshold (“a large shock load”; [0137]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mull in view of Zhao, Li, Zadesky and Asai by adding a second switch to the shock sensor and a memory to the battery management system such that the remediation action performed by the battery management system responsive to a detection of the impact to the one or more electrical battery cells by the shock sensor includes storing an occurrence of the impact in a memory when the impact on the one or more electrical battery cells is below the predetermined impact threshold in order to determine responsibility for large shock events and distinguish between low and large shock events as taught by Jenson ([0137]).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE A KENLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-1253. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-6:00 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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/G.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights