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 .
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. Claims 1 and 9 are amended. Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-9 are examined herein.
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 1-4, 6, 8-9 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is noted that if the detected fluid concentration exceeds the second concentration threshold, the detected fluid concentration also necessarily exceeds the first concentration threshold. Therefore, both the steps in lines 15-19 and lines 20-21 are performed. However, these conflict with each other as the method in lines 15-19 requires operating the battery device and the method in lines 20-21 requires deactivating the battery device. It is suggested line 15 be amended to recite “if the detected fluid concentration exceeds the first concentration threshold and is below or equal to the second concentration threshold.” For the purpose of this Office action, the claim will be interpreted in this manner. Claims 2-4, 6, 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, wherein the second specified concentration threshold is higher than the first specified concentration threshold and defines a critical concentration;
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, wherein the second value depends in part on an air pressure measured in the battery housing; 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 three methods:
wherein the precedent condition for the continuing operation step is met;
wherein the precedent condition for the adapting step is met; and
wherein the precedent condition for the generating a fault message step is met.
Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim encompasses the following methods:
1. a method where the steps “comparing the detected fluid concentration to a first specified concentration threshold and a second specified concentration threshold, wherein the second specified concentration threshold is higher than the first specified concentration threshold and defines a critical concentration; 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;
2. a method where the steps “comparing the detected fluid concentration to a first specified concentration threshold and a second specified concentration threshold, wherein the second specified concentration threshold is higher than the first specified concentration threshold and defines a critical concentration” and “if the detected fluid concentration exceeds the first concentration threshold and is below or equal to the second 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, wherein the second value depends in part on an air pressure measured in the battery housing” are performed (see the 112(b) rejection above); and
3. a method where the steps “comparing the detected fluid concentration to a first specified concentration threshold and a second specified concentration threshold, wherein the second specified concentration threshold is higher than the first specified concentration threshold and defines a critical concentration” and “if the detected fluid concentration exceeds the second concentration threshold, generating a fault message and deactivating the battery device” are performed.
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 (method 1. above) 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]).
Yadgar does not expressly disclose the method comprises comparing the detected fluid concentration to a second specified concentration threshold, wherein the second specified concentration threshold is higher than the first specified concentration threshold and defines a critical concentration.
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.
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(a) has been withdrawn, however, this has prompted a new ground of rejection under 35 USC 112(b).
Applicant's arguments filed 06/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Yadgar does not teach adapting the temperature limit based on a detected air pressure (previously recited in claim 9). However, the Office notes that only a portion of previous claim 9 was interpreted into claim 1 and the portion incorporated into claim 1 is part of a contingent limitation. If the precedent conditions are not met, the contingent limitation is not required. See the claim interpretation section. The rejection over Yadgar addresses the method 1. as described above. 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]).
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.
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
Prosecution Insights