DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claim 13 has been withdrawn.
Claims 2-4, 6, and 14-20 are canceled.
Claim 1 has been amended; support for the amendment can be found in original claim 6.
Claim 21 is newly added; support for this claim can be found in [0028] of the specification.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 8-12 and 21 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Li is now relied on to teach an accelerometer operatively connected with the shock sensor, wherein the shock sensor is configured to activate the accelerometer to measure a magnitude of the impact on the one or more battery cells.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 1, “A battery pack, comprising” should read ---A battery pack comprising---,
In claim 10, line 2, “adjacent the” should read ---adjacent to the---
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7-12 and 21 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation of “an impact” in line 18 refers back to the recitation of “an impact” in line 6, line 8 or to another impact. For examination, the second interpretation is used. Claims 5, 7-12 and 21 are rejected for dependence on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the plurality of battery cells" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination, this recitation interpreted as referring to more than one of the “one or more electrical battery cells” of claim 1. Claims 5, 7-12 and 21 are rejected for dependence on claim 1.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation "the plurality of battery cells" refers to more than one of the “one or more electrical battery cells” or to other battery cells. For examination, this recitation interpreted as referring to more than one of the “one or more electrical battery cells” of claim 1. Claims 5, 7-12 and 21 are rejected for dependence on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the impact thereon" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination, this recitation interpreted as referring to the “impact on the one or more battery cells” of claim 1. Claims 5, 7-12 and 21 are rejected for dependence on claim 1.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the rection of “the impact” in line 21 refers to the recitation of “impact” in line 6, 8 or 18. For examination, the second interpretation is used. Claims 5, 7-12 and 21 are rejected for dependence on claim 1.
Claim 5 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation “a magnitude of the impact to the plurality of battery cells” refers back to the “magnitude of the impact on the one or more battery cells” or to another impact. For examination, the former interpretation is used.
Claim 7 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation of “a fault” in line 2 refers to the previous recitation of “a fault” in line 16 of claim 1 or to another fault. For examination, the former interpretation is used. Claims 8-10 are rejected for dependence on claim 7.
Claim 9 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation of “a gas” in line 3 refers back to the recitation of “a gas” in claim 7, line 2 or to another gas. For examination, the former interpretation is used.
Claim 12 is indefinite because it is unclear from the recitation “measured by at least one of the temperature sensor and by the at least one fault detection sensor” if measurement by both or at least one of the temperature sensor and the fault detection sensor is required. For examination, this limitation is interpreted as “measured by at least one of the temperature sensor and the at least one fault detection sensor”.
Claim 21 is indefinite because seemingly applicant is claiming a method step with the recitation “wherein the accelerometer is in a low power mode until triggered by the shock sensor to activate an accelerometer measurement” in a product claim, thus confusing the metes, bounds and scope of claim 21. Claim 21 is rejected because it is not clear whether applicant is claiming a product or a process. For examination, this recitation is interpreted as “wherein the accelerometer is configured to be in a low power mode until triggered by the shock sensor, and the accelerometer being triggered activates an accelerometer measurement”.
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, 5, 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 plurality ([0028]) of battery cells (“battery 240”; [0025]) when the impact ([0035]; [0062]) thereon 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 plurality of battery cells when the impact thereon 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 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..
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, 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.
Li discloses at least one fault detection sensor (“plurality of detection deivces 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 Zadesky’s shock sensor in place of the shock sensor taught by Mull in view of Zhao and Li 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]).
Mull in view of Zhao, Li and Zadesky fails to disclose 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.
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 a plurality of 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 plurality of 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 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]) of the 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 wherein the passive shock sensor includes a plurality of spring contacts having different stiffness levels.
However, 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 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 it has been held that the duplication of parts is obvious absent any new or unexpected results.
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 a 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 a 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 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 by 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]) to activate ([0046]) an accelerometer measurement (“three-axis accelerometer tracking test is automatically started”; [0046]).
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]).
Conclusion
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