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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 14, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that, in amended claim 1, the impedance measurements begin only after a threshold deformation measurement. However, the claim amendment states, "if the measured deformation is equal to or greater than the reference deformation amount: obtain the measured impedance from the impedance sensor." If impedance measurements are taken regardless of deformation state, this conditional will always be satisfied. In other words, the claim makes no requirements for impedance measurements when deformation has not reached the threshold.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knobloch et al. (“Fabrication of Multimeasurand Sensor for Monitoring of a Li-Ion Battery,” Journal of Electronic Packaging 104(3), 031002, September 2018) in view of Lim et al. (US Patent 10,355,319 B1), Yebka et al. (US 2017/0170672 A1), and Laguna et al. ("Failure Detection and Prediction through Metrics," https://engineering.purdue.edu/dcsl/a2i2/failure-detection-and-prediction-through-metrics/, March 2015; retrieved February 10, 2026).
Regarding claim 1, Knobloch teaches a battery (a 5 A-h Li-ion pouch cell, which necessarily includes an electrode assembly, electrolyte, case/pouch, and terminals) with a deformation sensor attached to the outer surface of the case and configured to measure deformation of the cell (Knobloch Pack Integration and Measurement Locations, Fig. 6), and a controller configured to determine whether the battery is swelled based on the measured deformation (Knobloch Figs. 5 and 10, and Three-Cell Validation, final paragraph; the sensor sends information to the data acquisition system, which determines expansion/swelling).
Knobloch does not teach that the battery includes an impedance sensor, or that measured impedance is used to determine whether the battery is swelled. Lim teaches that measuring internal impedance in addition to deformation provides additional information on the condition of the battery (Lim 13:63 – 14:9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to include an impedance sensor to the battery of Knobloch in order to provide additional information on the condition of the battery.
Lim does not teach that swelling is determined based on the measured impedance. Yebka teaches that impedance measurements provide information about the swelling of a battery (Yebka [0042]-[0043]), and that using impedance-based swelling measurements can improve safe operation of the battery by providing a cutoff threshold (Yebka [0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use impedance data to determine swelling in order to improve safe operation of the battery.
Modified Knobloch teaches that the cutoff impedance threshold is based on current operating conditions (Yebka [0050]). The simplest possible method of taking both impedance and deformation into account is two fixed thresholds. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to incorporate all available information, including deformation, in order to accurately set the threshold.
Taking the deformation and impedance measurements independently necessarily means that impedance would be measured even after deformation reaches the threshold value.
Modified Knobloch does not teach that the controller is configured to determine whether the measured impedance is increasing, or to give a warning to a user when an increase is detected. Laguna teaches that using recent measurements of a failure metric to forecast values in the future allows for more accurate failure prediction and gives time for the recovery mechanism before the failure occurs (Laguna Summary, (2) Failure Prediction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to configure the controller to determine when impedance is increasing in order to predict when failure will occur to give time for the recover mechanism (i.e. disabling/replacing the failing battery; Yebka [0058] and Lim 14:63-66), and warning the user to do so (Yebka [0058]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Knobloch teaches that swelling is determined based on comparison of impedance measurement to reference values, and does not include deformation measurements in that determination (Yebka, [0048]). I.e., the cutoff of modified Knobloch is based on impedance and not deformation.
Regarding claim 3, modified Knobloch teaches that the prediction is used to give time for the recovery mechanism (Laguna Summary, (2) Failure Prediction), which includes the controller disabling the failing battery (Yebka [0058]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Knobloch teaches that impedance is measured after the deformation measurement (Lim Fig. 6). This would necessarily require the controller to perform the measurement in response to receiving a deformation measurement, including when the measured deformation values are above a reference amount.
Regarding claim 5, the sensor of Knobloch includes a temperature sensor. Yebka teaches that the swelling cutoff may incorporate temperature measurements (Yebka [0057]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the temperature measurements to improve the swelling cutoff consideration.
Regarding claim 6, modified Knobloch teaches that the cutoff impedance threshold is based on current operating conditions (Yebka [0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to incorporate all available information, including deformation and temperature, in order to accurately set the impedance threshold.
Regarding claim 10, Knobloch teaches that the sensor is designed for use in a vehicle battery (specifically a Ford Focus; see Knobloch Conclusions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the battery of Knobloch for its intended purpose.
Regarding claim 11, modified Knobloch teaches that the battery may be shorted to ground or rendered inoperable upon reaching the threshold, which would necessarily interrupt charging or discharging, for safety reasons (Yekbka [0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to disable the battery upon reaching the threshold when necessary for safety.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2007/0264535 A1) in view of Knobloch, Lim, Yebka, and Laguna.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a battery pack comprising a pouch type battery cell (Lee Abstract) with an electrode assembly 30 comprising an electrolyte, a case 20, and terminals 40 and 41 (Lee Fig. 1 and [0007]).
Lee does not teach that the battery includes a deformation sensor. Knobloch teaches a deformation sensor attached to the outer surface of a battery case and configured to measure deformation of the cell (Knobloch Pack Integration and Measurement Locations, Fig. 6), and a controller configured to determine whether the battery is swelled based on the measured deformation (Knobloch Figs. 5 and 10, and Three-Cell Validation, final paragraph; the sensor sends information to the data acquisition system, which determines expansion/swelling). Knobloch teaches that this may be used on a pouch battery (Knobloch Expansion Sensor Design), and that its use may improve battery utilization and decrease system cost (Knobloch Conclusions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the sensor of Knobloch on the battery of Lee in order to improve battery utilization and decrease system cost.
Modified Lee does not teach that the battery includes an impedance sensor, or that measured impedance is used to determine whether the battery is swelled. Lim teaches that measuring internal impedance in addition to deformation provides additional information on the condition of the battery (Lim 14:10-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add an impedance sensor to the battery of Lee in order to provide additional information on the condition of the battery.
Modified Lee does not teach that swelling is determined based on the measured impedance. Yebka teaches that impedance measurements provide information about the swelling of a battery (Yebka [0042]-[0043]), and that using impedance-based swelling measurements can improve safe operation of the battery (Yebka [0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use impedance data to determine swelling in order to improve safe operation of the battery.
Modified Lee teaches that the cutoff impedance threshold is based on current operating conditions (Yebka [0050]). The simplest possible method of taking both impedance and deformation into account is two fixed thresholds. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to incorporate all available information, including deformation, in order to accurately set the threshold.
Taking the deformation and impedance measurements independently necessarily means that impedance would be measured even after deformation reaches the threshold value.
Modified Lee does not teach that the controller is configured to determine whether the measured impedance is increasing, or to give a warning to a user when an increase is detected. Laguna teaches that using recent measurements of a failure metric to forecast values in the future allows for more accurate failure prediction and gives time for the recovery mechanism before the failure occurs (Laguna Summary, (2) Failure Prediction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to configure the controller to determine when impedance is increasing in order to predict when failure will occur to give time for the recover mechanism (i.e. disabling/replacing the failing battery; Yebka [0058] and Lim 14:63-66), and warning the user to do so (Yebka [0058]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Lee teaches that swelling is determined based on comparison of impedance measurement to reference values, and does not include deformation measurements in that determination (Yebka [0048]). I.e., the cutoff of modified Lee is based on impedance and not deformation.
Regarding claim 3, modified Lee teaches that the prediction is used to give time for the recovery mechanism (Laguna Summary, (2) Failure Prediction), which includes the controller disabling the failing battery (Yebka [0058]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Lee teaches that impedance is measured after the deformation measurement (Lim Fig. 6). This would necessarily require the controller to perform the measurement in response to receiving a deformation measurement, including when the measured deformation values are above a reference amount.
Regarding claim 5, the sensor of Knobloch includes a temperature sensor. Yebka teaches that the swelling cutoff may incorporate temperature measurements (Yebka [0057]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the temperature measurements to improve the swelling cutoff consideration.
Regarding claim 6, modified Lee teaches that the cutoff impedance threshold is based on current operating conditions (Yebka [0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to incorporate all available information, including deformation and temperature, in order to accurately set the threshold.
Regarding claim 7, modified Lee teaches a pouch battery comprising an accommodation portion (Lee Fig.1, receiving part 23) and a sealing portion around the accommodation portion (Lee case body 21). The sensor of Knobloch is made to be attached to the flat face of a battery (Knobloch Fig. 6), which corresponds to the accommodation portion of Lee.
Modified Lee does not teach that the impedance sensor should be on a sealing portion of a battery. Modified Lee teaches that the impedance sensor may be embedded in a protection circuit (Lim 14:3-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to embed the impedance sensor in the protection circuit in order to simplify the device. Lee teaches that the protection circuit (Lee 400) is on a sealing portion (Lee 120) of the battery (Lee Fig. 8). Embedding the impedance sensor in this protection circuit would necessarily result in an impedance sensor on the sealing portion.
Regarding claim 8, the sealing portion of Lee is folded toward the accommodation portion (Lee Fig. 8). The protection circuit (400) and, therefore, an embedded impedance sensor, is between the sealing portion and the accommodation portion.
Regarding claim 11, modified Lee teaches that the battery may be shorted to ground or rendered inoperable upon reaching the threshold, which would necessarily interrupt charging or discharging, for safety reasons (Yekbka [0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to disable the battery upon reaching the threshold when necessary for safety.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Lee, Knobloch, Lim, Yebka, and Laguna as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Henrici et al. (US 2015/0132621 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the sensor of modified Lee is elongated, with one end attached to a printed circuit board and the other attached to face of the battery (Knobloch Fig. 5 and 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to embed this protection circuit in the protection circuit as with the impedance sensor. Since the protection circuit of Lee is perpendicular to the face of the battery (Lee Fig. 8) and the attachment component of Knobloch is co-planar with the circuit, the deformation sensor would necessarily have to be bent. In addition, bending a force sensor to conform to the shape of a pouch cell is a known method to allow the sensor to be attached to the face of the cell while still being connected to leads at the side of the battery. See Henrici, Fig. 8. Force sensor 430 is applied to the face of the accommodation portion of pouch cell 400 and bent to allow connection with the sealing portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to bend the force sensor of modified Lee as necessary to allow a sensor applied to the accommodation portion to be connected to leads on the sealing portion.
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 JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/J.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights