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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 09/02/25 has been considered.
Drawings
The previous objection to Figure 1 has been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Claim Objections
The previous objection to claim 2 has been withdrawn in light of the amendments. Note that although the “means” in the claim amendment was inadvertently removed from the marked up claims, it is clear that applicant intended to remove and replace the term as suggested in the last office action.
Claim Interpretation
The claims are directed to a battery fire prevention and diagnosis system. The limitations of claim 1 are directed towards an apparatus and thus the system claims will be treated as apparatus claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection to claim 7 has been withdrawn in light of the amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1/2) as being anticipated by Rozenboim (US 20160370435).
Regarding claim 1, Rozenboim discloses a battery fire prevention and diagnosis system (abstract where battery systems are monitored along with cell temperature [0024]), comprising: a high frequency current transformer (HFCT) ([0020] Rogowsky coil) connected to at least one of a ground wire, a positive wire, or a negative wire of a battery system (abstract and see Fig. 1 where the coils 105/108 are coupled to the conductors 106/107)); a data acquiring unit ([0028] attached acquisition devices) for receiving frequency signal data measured from the HFCT; a diagnosis unit for determining abnormality of the battery system ([0025] external digital system); wherein the battery system is installed in an energy storage system (ESS) [0026].
Regarding the limitations:
“noise-and-defect cause database including on-site noise data related to a site in operation, and defect-cause data…, a cause of a defect based on the frequency signal data acquired from the data acquiring unit, and the on-site noise data and the defect-cause data in the noise-and-defect cause database” do not add further structure to the device and are considered to be intended use. As discussed above, Rozenboim takes measurements, collects data, and identifies issues and is thus capable of being used as intended.
“removes noise by comparing the frequency signal data with the on-site noise data stored in the noise-and-defect cause database” does not add further structure to the device and is considered to be intended use. Rozenboim discloses wherein the diagnosis unit further includes a demodulator to remove noise [0028]. As discussed above, Rozenboim discloses where the data can be discriminated, filtered and demodulated and thus is capable of being used as intended.
“after the noise is primarily removed, the diagnosis unit draws at least one of pulse size, wave, frequency, and time difference through signal analysis, and compares it with the data on causes of defects to determine abnormality and any cause of a defect” does not add further structure and is considered to be intended use. Rozenboim discloses where the data can be discriminated, filtered and demodulated [0028] and thus is capable of being used as intended.
“wherein the defect-cause data is obtained by simulating battery cell swelling caused by overheating and overcharging due to internal defects, and by measuring and analyzing internal discharge signals occurring, during an ESS fire sequence, after the battery cell swelling and before activation of a protective system” is a process limitation on how to obtain data which does not add further structure and is considered to be intended use. As discussed above, Rozenboim takes measurements, collects data, and identifies issues and is thus capable of being used as intended.
“wherein the on-site noise data in the noise data is obtained by measuring on-site noise at a site currently in operation” does not add further structure and is considered to be intended use. Rozenboim discloses where the data can be discriminated, filtered and demodulated [0028], detecting cell state (abstract), storing historical data [0015], identifying abnormalities [0034] and thus is capable of being used as intended.
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." MPEP 2114.II.
Regarding claim 2, Rozenboim further discloses wherein the battery system further comprises a battery rack including multiple battery modules, each of which includes multiple battery cells ([0002]).
Regarding claim 5, Rozenboim discloses where the data can be discriminated, filtered and demodulated [0028], detecting cell state (abstract), estimate a defect location ([0027] each cell has a unique identifier which is transmitted with every packet of acquired information) and thus is capable of being used as intended. The limitation “if the abnormality of the battery system is determined, the diagnosis unit is configured to estimate a defect location based on the pulse time difference to identify an abnormal battery module or battery cell” does not add further structure and is considered to be intended use. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." MPEP 2114.II.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rozenboim (US 20160370435) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Du et al. (CN106771933A, English machine translation is provided with this office action).
Regarding claim 7, Rozenboim discloses the HFCT attached to the battery but does not explicitly disclose that it is attached by clamps.
Du discloses the use of a HFCTs to monitor the discharged frequency (abstract). The HFCT used is a Rogowski coil and is clamped in place (see page 3/last four lines).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system of Rozenboim such that the HFCT is attached by clamps as taught by Du because utilizing well-known ways to also hold an HFCT in place is well within the ambit of ordinary skill the in art. Furthermore, the combination of known elements (clamps and HFCT) to provide the expected result of holding it in place is obvious see MPEP 2143 IA/C/D.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the argument that amended claim 1 requires that the “defect-cause data in the noise-and defect database be obtained by simulating…is neither disclosed nor addressed in Rozenboim”, it should be noted that the claims are directed towards an apparatus and not a method. How and/or when the data/data type is obtained does not add further structure to the claim and is considered to be intended use. As discussed above, Rozenboim discloses where the data can be discriminated, filtered and demodulated [0028], detecting cell state (abstract), storing historical data [0015], identifying abnormalities [0034] and thus is capable of being used as intended. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." MPEP 2114.II.
Regarding the argument that targeted temporal window-after cell swelling but before protective system activation is a distinctive feature is neither disclosed nor addressed by Rozenboim, the limitation is a process limitation. Because the claims are directed towards an apparatus (battery fire prevention and diagnosis system) and not a method, Rozenboim merely has to be capable of the intended use. As discussed above, Rozenboim discloses where the data can be discriminated, filtered and demodulated [0028], detecting cell state (abstract), storing historical data [0015], identifying abnormalities [0034], cells can be measured every 10 seconds [0032] and thus is capable of being used as intended.
Regarding the argument directed to claim 7 and Du does not provide the fundamentally different diagnostic interoperation, as commented above, the claims are directed towards an apparatus and not a method. Rozenboim discloses where the data can be discriminated, filtered and demodulated [0028], detecting cell state (abstract), storing historical data [0015], identifying abnormalities [0034] and thus is capable of being used as intended. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." MPEP 2114.II.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US12449447 is by the same assignee and discloses a similar battery fire prevention and diagnosis system which may require a terminal disclaimer should the application be found allowable.
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 SUSAN D LEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1487. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 8am-4pm, EST.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at (571) 272-2450. 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.
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754