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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/23/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
The amendment/remarks submitted 02/23/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-9 are pending. Claims 5, 7, and 10-11 are cancelled. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-9 are examined herein.
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 1-4, 6, and 8-9 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 claim 1, the claim recites “comparing the detected fluid concentration to a first specified concentration threshold and a second specified concentration threshold.” The second specified concentration threshold may be intended to correspond to the critical specified concentration threshold in [0054] of the specification as filed in view of the last two lines of the instant claim regarding the fault message and deactivating. However, there is no recited relation between the first and second specified concentration threshold or what the second specified concentration threshold indicates. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim would include an embodiment wherein the second specified concentration threshold is less than the first specified concentration threshold or wherein they are equal. In view of the description of the critical concentration threshold indicating a critical situation, such as for example thermal runaway, it is believed the specification does not support any second specified concentration threshold. It is suggested applicant similar language to that previously specified in claim 5 (now cancelled), such as referring to a further specified critical concentration threshold and a critical situation. Claims 2-4, 6, and 8-9 depend from claim 1 and are rejected for the same reason.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0171495 A1 (“Yadgar”) in view of US 2020/0266405 A1 (“Pokora”).
Claim interpretation:
Claim 1 recites “comparing the detected fluid concentration to a first specified concentration threshold and a second specified concentration threshold; if the detected fluid concentration is below or equal to the first concentration threshold, continuing operation of the battery device to maintain the temperature below the first value; if the detected fluid concentration exceeds the first concentration threshold, adapting the maximum admissible operating temperature of the battery device to a second value lower than the first value and operating the battery device such that the second value for the maximum admissible operating temperature is not exceeded; and if the detected fluid concentration exceeds the second concentration threshold, generating a fault message and deactivating the battery device.”
These include contingent limitations. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04(II) and Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016).
In the instant case, the invention covers at least two methods, one in which the prerequisite condition for the continuing operation step is met and one in which the prerequisite condition for the adapting step is met. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim encompasses a method where the steps “comparing the detected fluid concentration to a first specified concentration threshold and a second specified concentration threshold; if the detected fluid concentration is below or equal to the first concentration threshold, continuing operation of the battery device to maintain the temperature below the first value” and are performed; or a method where the steps “comparing the detected fluid concentration to a first specified concentration threshold and a second specified concentration threshold” and “if the detected fluid concentration exceeds the first concentration threshold, adapting the maximum admissible operating temperature of the battery device to a second value lower than the first value and operating the battery device such that the second value for the maximum admissible operating temperature is not exceeded” are performed.
Regarding the limitation “if the detected fluid concentration exceeds the second concentration threshold, generating a fault message and deactivating the battery device,” while the claim requires comparing the detected fluid concentration to the second specified concentration threshold, the claim does not require “generating a fault message and deactivating the battery device” to be performed as the precedent condition can be not met (i.e. the detected fluid concentration can be equal to less than the second concentration threshold).
Regarding claims 1-3, Yadgar discloses a system and method for controlling operation of a battery system 200 (“battery device”) (Abstract). The battery system 200 comprises a number of cells 202 arranged within a battery housing (Fig. 2; [0055]-[0056]).
The method comprises monitoring a temperature of the battery system 200 with temperature sensor 208 ([0051], [0057], [0065]-[0066], [0068]).
The method further comprises controlling the battery system to maintain the temperature of the battery cells (necessarily below a first value), for example, by using heat exchanger 205 ([0057], [0065]-[0066]). The method further comprises detecting a level (i.e. concentration) of hydrogen released by battery 201 in an interior of the battery housing ([0112]). The hydrogen is a corrosion product of the battery (“a decomposition product of a battery cell material”). If the detected level of hydrogen is too high (i.e. compared to a threshold), operational parameters of battery 201, such as a temperature of the battery, are adjusted ([0112]).
Yadgar inherently discloses continuing operation of the battery device to maintain the temperature below the first value if the detected fluid concentration is below or equal to the concentration threshold as claimed because such a determination indicates that the detected level of hydrogen is not at an unacceptable level and the heat exchanger 205 is used to cool or heat the batteries based at least in part on the hydrogen concentration measurement ([0078], [0112]-[0113]).
Though not required in the instant claim (see claim interpretation above), the adjusting the temperature of the battery necessarily involves adapting a maximum admissible operating temperature and operating the battery system such that the maximum admissible operating temperature is not exceeded. Moreover, Yadgar discloses upon detection of a level or rate of hydrogen released by the battery above a threshold, adjusting operational parameters (e.g. temperature) of the battery 201 such that the rate or level of hydrogen release is kept within a predefined range ([0112]). Yadgar discloses causing the battery to operate such that the rate or level of hydrogen release is kept at a minimum or at any desirable rate or level ([0044]).
Yadgar does not expressly disclose the method comprises comparing the detected fluid concentration to a second specified concentration threshold.
Pokora discloses a battery module 200 and method of operating the battery module (Abstract). The battery module comprises gas sensors 206a and 206b inside the battery module housing (Fig. 2). The method comprises comparing a detected gas concentration 302 to a lower threshold 304a and an upper threshold 304b (Fig. 3). When gas concentration 302 crosses upper threshold 304 a battery module condition (e.g., a cell ventilation event which predicts the onset of a thermal runaway event) may be declared ([0037]). A third higher threshold may be used to identify when a thermal runaway event occurs ([0037]). The battery management circuitry takes actions in response to the detected gas concentration. For example, the battery management circuitry provides a warning to the user and disconnects the battery module ([0047]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the gas concentration thresholds taught by Pokora to warn a user (e.g. a driver) and safely shut down the battery pack ([0025]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Yadgar discloses the method of claim 1. Yadgar does not expressly disclose the method comprises comparing the detected fluid concentration to a specified concentration threshold includes using a predetermined operating temperature-concentration conversion table of the battery device; and adapting the maximum admissible operating temperature is based at least in part on the operating temperature-concentration conversion table and the comparison. However, Yadgar shows that lookup tables are known in the art to store correlations between parameters ([0093]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the lookup table as claimed because Yadgar changes the temperature of the battery based on the detected hydrogen concentration ([0112]) and Yadgar shows that lookup tables are known in the art for correlating parameters.
Regarding claim 6, modified Yadgar discloses the method of claim 1. Yadgar discloses the release of hydrogen is continuously measured by a sensor ([0044], [0078]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Yadgar discloses the method of claim 1. While Yadgar is silent regarding operating the battery device includes operating the battery device at the maximum admissible operating temperature, the claimed method would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Yadgar is interested in adjusting the temperature (e.g. cooling) of the battery in response to the detected level of hydrogen ([0078]-[0079], [0093], [0112]) and Yadgar teaches batteries have an optimal operating temperature ([0054]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0171495 A1 (“Yadgar”) in view of US 2020/0266405 A1 (“Pokora”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2014/0072839 A1 (“Park”).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yadgar discloses the method of claim 1. Yadgar does not expressly disclose the method comprises detecting an air pressure in the interior of the battery housing, wherein adapting the maximum admissible operating temperature depends at least in part on the detected air pressure.
Park discloses a system and method for controlling the cooling or heating of a battery (Abstract). The method comprises detecting an internal pressure of the battery (S100) and based on the detection, controlling the temperature of the battery (S210, S230, S310, S330) (Fig. 2; [0018]-[0023]). This allows for precise control of the battery temperature, so that the durability of the battery is improved and repair cost is reduced; and allows for electric energy to be efficiently managed, so that a driving distance is increased and marketability is enhanced ([0024]). For these reasons, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Park.
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment to claim 1, the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 5-6, filed 02/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3 and 6 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and claims 5-6 and 8-9 under 35 USC 103 (in particular the arguments to Jeong) 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 US 2015/0171495 A1 (“Yadgar”) in view of US 2020/0266405 A1 (“Pokora”).
The Office would like to note that while some features of claim 5 were incorporated into claim 1, the entirety of claim 5 was not incorporated. Therefore, these limitations are afforded a different interpretation from the interpretation of now cancelled claim 5. The new interpretation is noted in the rejection above.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Scott Carrico whose telephone number is (571)270-5504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:15AM-6PM ET.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
Robert Scott Carrico
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/Robert S Carrico/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727