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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/27/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The following is in response to the applicant’s remarks filed 10/27/25.
The applicant submits that the newly amended limitations overcome the previous rejection as the combination of references do not teach or suggest “a plurality of holes extending through the second plate and configured to allow air in the space from the plurality of pressure sensors to pass through the second plate”. Separately, the applicant argues that Sohn would not be applicable to the claimed instance as it does not teach pressure sensors.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes the distinction presented by the applicant which submits that the pressure sensors of the instant application can be filled with air which is absent from the teachings of the prior art. However, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the amended limitation for “air in the space from the plurality of pressure sensors” does not limit the claim to the structures discussed by the applicant. For instance, any air which is at any point in the vicinity of the pressure sensors can be reasonably interpreted as “from the plurality of pressure sensors”. Then, the proposed combination wherein the pressure sensor of Choi is modified to correspond to holes in a second plate as taught by Mook wherein theses holes are further utilized to promote battery cooling through the case as in Sohn reads on the claimed limitations. That is, the structural required of the product is holes through the second plate capable of allowing air therethrough which has been in or around the sensors. Since the holes of modified Choi are not isolated from air from the sensors they are capable of the claimed function.
Regarding the arguments directed at Sohn, Sohn does not need to teach pressure sensors to be relevant to the proposed combination. The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Additionally, the applicant’s remarks are directed at individual references and not the combination as a whole. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Then the rejection is maintained.
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.
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 – 7, and 10 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, US20200076011A1, and Mook, KR20170112495A, and Sohn, US20110183177A1.
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches an apparatus for measuring a pressure of a battery cell (battery system)[0007], the apparatus comprising:
a pressure sensor array configured to measure a surface pressure of the battery cell (pressure sensor (110))[0033]; and
a first plate (frame (15)) arranged between the battery cell and the pressure sensor array so as to be in contact with the battery cell and a first surface of the pressure sensor array [fig. 3]
further comprising a second plate (11) arranged to be in contact with a second surface of the pressure sensor array opposite the first surface of the pressure sensor array [fig. 3].
Choi does not teach the pressure sensor array comprises a plurality of pressure sensors, and the second plate comprises a plurality of holes extending through the second plate and configured to allow air in the space from the plurality of pressure sensors to pass through the second plate, wherein the plurality of holes are positioned on the second plate at positions corresponding to each of the plurality of pressure sensors., wherein the plurality of pressure sensors are disposed in a space between a first and second plate
Mook teaches an apparatus for measuring pressure in a battery cell [0006] wherein the pressure sensor array (120) comprises a plurality of pressure sensors (121)[0027], and the second plate (111) comprises a plurality of holes (124)[fig. 1] formed at positions corresponding to each of the plurality of pressure sensors [fig. 1]. Further, Mook teaches the plurality of holes to reduce the space required for the pressure sensor [0035]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the structures of Mook as shown to reduce the space required for the sensors.
Sohn teaches a battery pack comprising an external case (200) comprising a first (800) and second plate on either side of a battery module (110) wherein the second plate (700) comprises a plurality of holes extending through the second plate that are configured to allow air in the space between the first plate and the second plate to pass through the second plate (holes in plate (700))[0056][fig. 2][fig. 4]. Further, Sohn teaches having holes in the second plate that allows air to flow between the first and second plates which cools the battery [0060]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the holes of Sohn in to the end plate of combined Choi comprising pressure sensors disposed therein to improve battery cooling.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the amended limitation for “air in the space from the plurality of pressure sensors” is present in the proposed combination above. For instance, any air which is at any point in the vicinity of the pressure sensors can be reasonably interpreted as “from the plurality of pressure sensors”. Then, the proposed combination wherein the pressure sensor of Choi is modified to correspond to holes in a second plate as taught by Mook wherein theses holes are further utilized to promote battery cooling through the case as in Sohn reads on the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 4, combined Choi teaches the apparatus of claim 2,
Further, Choi teaches further comprising a third plate (15) arranged to contact the battery cell on an opposite side of the battery cell from the pressure sensor array [fig. 3].
Regarding claim 5, combined Choi teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein:
Choi does not teach the first, second, and third plates are coupled to each other via a fixing member.
Mook teaches an apparatus for measuring pressure in a battery cell [0006] wherein the first, second, and third plates are coupled to each other via a fixing member (fixing means such as a wire or bolt)[0026].
Regarding claim 6, combined Choi teaches the apparatus of claim 5, wherein:
the first, second, and third plates (plates (11) and (15)) are wider than the pressure sensor (110) array and the battery cell (13) [fig. 3], and
Choi does not teach the fixing member is coupled to portions of the first, second, and third plates that extend widthwise beyond the pressure sensor array and the battery cell.
Mook teaches an apparatus for measuring pressure in a battery cell [0006] wherein the fixing member (fixing means such as a wire or bolt)[0026] is coupled to portions of the first, second, and third plates that extend widthwise beyond the pressure sensor array and the battery cell [0026].
Regarding claim 7, combined Choi teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein:
the first, second, and third plates (plates (11) and (15)) cover the pressure sensor array (110) and the battery cell (13)[fig. 2][fig. 3].
Regarding claim 10, combined Choi teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the pressure sensor array comprises:
a connector (inherent feature of electrical components); and
a transmitter connected to the connector (controller (20))[0027]
Choi does not teach a plurality of pressure sensors, a connector that connects the plurality of pressure sensors to each other and configured to output a sum of pressure values measured by the plurality of pressure sensors.
Mook teaches an apparatus for measuring pressure in a battery cell [0006] wherein a plurality of pressure sensors (121)[fig. 1], a connector that connects the plurality of pressure sensors to each other (sensors are connected to a controller)[0040] and configured to output a sum of pressure values measured by the plurality of pressure sensors (sensors output pressure data to controller)[0040].
Regarding claim 11, combined Choi teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the pressure sensor array comprises:
a connector (inherent feature of electrical components); and
a transmitter connected to the connector (controller (20))[0027]
Choi does not teach a plurality of pressure sensors; a connector that connects at least each column or each row the plurality of pressure sensors to each other; and a transmitter connected to the connector and configured to separately output a pressure value measured for each column or each row of the plurality of pressure sensors.
Mook teaches an apparatus for measuring pressure in a battery cell [0006] wherein a plurality of pressure sensors (121)[fig. 1], a connector that connects at least each column or each row the plurality of pressure sensors to each other (sensors are connected to a controller creating a connection with one another)[0040] and configured to separately output a pressure value measured for each column or each row of the plurality of pressure sensors (sensors arranged in columns output pressure data to controller)[0040][fig. 1].
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, US20200076011A1, and Mook, KR20170112495A, and Sohn, US20110183177A1 as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kobayashi, US20150171411A1.
Regarding claim 8, Choi teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein:
Combined Choi does not teach at least one of the first, second, and third plates has a thickness of 0.5 mm.
Kobayashi teaches a battery cell housing wherein the shell comprises a first, second, and third plate (walls of shell (12)) wherein the plates have a thickness of 0.5 mm (0.3 mm – 2 mm)[0053]. Further, Kobayashi teaches this dimension is suitable for battery cell plate thicknesses thereby indicating that the listed thicknesses achieve predictable results. Then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the thickness of Kobayashi into the plates of combined Choi as a simple substitution of known parts which yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, Choi teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein:
Combined Choi does not teach each of the first, second, and third plates comprises aluminum.
Kobayashi teaches a battery cell housing wherein the shell comprises a first, second, and third plate (walls of shell (12))[fig. 1] wherein the plates are made of aluminum [0052]. Further, Kobayashi teaches that aluminum is selected for battery cell plates as it is lightweight and heat conductive [0052]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the aluminum plates of Kobayashi into the battery of combined Choi to decrease the weight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-1340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached on (571)270-5256. 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.
/PATRICK MARSHALL GREENE/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724