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 .
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.
Claim 11 is 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 11 recites the limitation "the plurality of resistors are resistive pressure sensors" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, on which claim 11 depends, does not include a resistor or a plurality of resistors. Additionally, none of the claims 2-10 recite a limitation regarding a plurality of resistors either. However, the instant specification describes FSR (force-sensing resistor) sensors, which are used as pressure sensors (pg. 2, L12-13).
Thus, the examiner suggests that applicant amend claim 11 to read, “the plurality of .” This is consistent with both the limitations of claim 1 and applicant’s specification. For the purposes of applying prior art, the examiner interprets claim 11 as reading, “the plurality of ,” as suggested above.
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.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. (JP2010276520A, published 9 Dec 2010, paragraphs cited from the provided English translation) in view of Ju et al. (US 20180261824 A1, published 13 Sep 2018).
Regarding claim 1, Sakai et al. discloses an apparatus (surface pressure distribution detector for a laminated battery) comprising: a pressure sensor array (surface pressure sensing portion 60, with a plurality of conductive portions 65) configured to measure a pressure of a plurality of battery cells (10) stacked in an interior of a battery module (fuel cell stack 100, [0027-0028]; Figs. 1,3). The surface pressure detecting portion (60) detects a pressure on a face orthogonal to the stacking direction of the unit cell (10). Sakai further teaches that the pressure sensor array (60) comprises a plurality of pressure sensors (conductive portions 65, [0034-0036], Figs. 1-3); and a transmitter connected to the plurality of pressure sensors (signal line connected to the pressure sensor array 60) and configured to output (signal line output to controller 90 which has a surface pressure signal detection circuit 91) an output value indicative of a cumulative pressure of the plurality of battery cells on the pressure sensor array ([0025]; Fig. 10), wherein the plurality of pressure sensors (65) are arranged on surfaces of the plurality of battery cells (10) to measure the pressure of the plurality of battery cells ([0034-0036]). Sakai fails to teach that each pressure sensor (65) is configured to output an individual pressure value. The pressure sensors of Sakai (65) instead output individual current density values, which are then utilized by the controller (90) and the pressure signal detection circuit (91) to output cumulative pressure.
Ju et al. discloses a pressure sensor divided into several regions, which is interpreted by the examiner as a plurality of pressure sensors ([0100]; Figs. 7A-7C). Ju further teaches that by detecting the pressure in each region (which would require each pressure sensor to output an individual pressure value) the electronic device (101) may more accurately determine battery swelling through information about the pressure detection position ([0100]; Figs. 7A-7C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for each pressure sensor of Sakai to be configured to output an individual pressure value, to more accurately determine the position of battery swelling as taught by Ju. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious (see MPEP § 2143, C.). Therefore, modified Sakai meets the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, modified Sakai et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Sakai further discloses that each pressure sensor (65) is configured to measure a respective pressure value, and wherein the transmitter (signal line) is configured to output a sum of the measured pressure values measured through the plurality of pressure sensors (65, and 60 as a whole). The signal line is connected to a surface pressure signal detection circuit (91) and a surface pressure calculation circuit (92) The surface pressure calculation circuit calculates the stack (and therefore the total or sum) surface pressure based on the detected surface pressure signal ([0025]). Therefore, modified Sakai meets the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, modified Sakai et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Sakai further discloses that each of the plurality of pressure sensors (65) comprises a current input connection (row electrodes 62) and a current output connection (column electrodes 63, [0030-0031, 0100-0101]; Figs. 3, 10), and wherein the transmitter (signal line) is connected to the plurality of current input connections and the plurality of current output connections (the signal line is connected to the pressure sensor array 60 as a whole, [0025]) and is configured to output (to controller 90 which has a surface pressure signal detection circuit 91) the one or more pressure values measured by the plurality of pressure sensors (65, [0025]; Fig. 2). Therefore, modified Sakai meets the limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, modified Sakai et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Sakai further discloses the plurality of battery cells (10), wherein each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells (10) comprises a cell body (10), a cell terrace (20, 30), and an electrode lead (signal line as taught in [0025], alternatively output terminal 21 as taught in [0016]; Fig. 1). The examiner interprets the current collector plate (20) and the insulating plate (30) provided at both ends of the laminated body of cells (10) as a cell terrace. No special definition is provided, so a cell terrace is broadly interpreted as a portion of the device positioned adjacent to the battery cells. Sakai also teaches that the plurality of pressure sensors (65) are arranged on a body surface of the cell body of one or more of the plurality of battery cells (10, [0034-0035], see Figs. 1, 3), and the surface pressure sensing portion (60) is provided between two cells ([0020]). Therefore, modified Sakai meets the limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, modified Sakai et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Sakai further discloses that the plurality of pressure sensors (65) on the surface of a battery cell (10) of the plurality of battery cells (10) are arranged in a rectangular grid (through the gaps in a lattice pattern [0034]; Fig. 3). Therefore, modified Sakai meets the limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, modified Sakai et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Sakai further discloses that each of the plurality of pressure sensors (65) is cylindrical (circular at the end faces, [0037-0038]; see Fig. 3). Additionally, the row electrodes (62) and column electrodes (63) form circular pressure detection positions ([0094-0095]; Fig. 9A). Furthermore, the plurality of pressure sensors (65) are arranged in the pressure sensor array (60) according to a pattern (through the gaps in a lattice pattern [0034]; Fig. 3). Therefore, modified Sakai meets the limitations of claim 6.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. (JP2010276520A, paragraphs cited from the provided English translation) in view of Ju et al. (US 20180261824 A1) as applied to claims 1-6 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 9509020 B1, published 29 Nov 2016).
Regarding claim 11, modified Sakai et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. While Sakai teaches that the controller (90) utilizes electrical resistance values collected by the pressure sensors (65) to calculate surface pressure ([0025, 0045]), Sakai does not clearly disclose that the plurality of pressure sensors are resistive pressure sensors, wherein each resistive pressure sensor is configured to measure a respective pressure at a corresponding location of the surfaces of the plurality of battery cells.
Wang et al. teaches that force-sensing resistors (FSRs) may be used as pressure sensors to provide an indication of when a batter pack has expanded sufficiently, e.g., to come into contact with some relatively immovable structure, such as a first interior surface of a housing. Wang further teaches that the battery pack (and FSR) may not normally be in contact with the first interior surface; however, if the battery pack degrades and expands, the battery pack may expand to contact the first interior surface. The resulting contact may cause the FSR to be compressed, and the resulting increase in compressive force may be observed from the data obtained from the FSR. Use of an FSR may also allow the degree of compression to be evaluated (col. 6, L56-67 – col. 7, L1-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that FSRs, as taught by Wang, could be substituted in place of the pressure sensors (conductive portions) of Sakai, to measure increases in pressure and allow the degree of compression to be evaluated as taught by Wang. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Therefore, modified Sakai meets the limitations of claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Ju et al. (US 20180261824 A1) has been added to address limitations regarding the output of individual pressure values.
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 ALEXANDRA J SIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)272-3036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30a - 6p.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/A.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728