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
Claims 1-8, 10, 12-17, 20, 25, 28, 33 and 35 set forth in the amendment submitted 9/25/2025 form the basis of the present examination.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 2-3, filed 8/25/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1-8, 10, 12-17 and 25 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 have been fully considered as follows:
Applicant’s Argument:
Applicant argues on page 2-3, of the remarks, filed on 8/25/2025, regarding the rejection(s) of Claims 1-8, 10, 12-17 and 25 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), that “By means of claim amendments, independent claim 1 is amended such that it currently recites "a monitoring system that is operably coupled with the electrochemical device", which comprises "an optical fiber probe arranged inside the electrochemical device, a light source apparatus, and a signal detection and processing apparatus", and the recited functions that were at issue in the OA are currently amended to be performed by the light source apparatus, and the signal detection and processing apparatus, respectively (please see amended claim 1 in the Amendments to the Claims section; support for these amendments can be seen in claim 19, para [0067-0068], and FIG. 2 in the specification as originally filed). Applicant believes that these above claim amendments shall render the independent claim 1, as well as other claims depending therefrom (i.e., claims 2-8, 10, and 12-17, etc.), to be definite.
In the OA, it is further indicated that claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 because of the unclear limitations recited for the "SPR layer".
By means of claim amendments, claim 25 is amended to currently recite the following: "the optical fiber probe further comprises an SPR layer...", and "wherein optionally, the optical fiber probe further comprises: a protective film layer over an outer (Remarks-Page 2) surface of the SPR layer...; or a transition film layer sandwiched between the cladding and the SPR layer..." (please see amended claim 1 in the Amendments to the Claims section; support for these amendments can be seen in para [0065] in the specification as originally filed). Applicant believes that these above claim amendments shall render current claim 25 to be definite.
In a corresponding manner, claims 2, 6, 10, 12, and 17 are further adoptively amended.
In light of these above claim amendments, each of the at-issue claims1-8, 10, and 12-17 shall currently become definite, and withdrawal of these claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 as indicated in the OA is therefore respectfully requested (Remarks-Page 3).”
Examiner Response:
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 2-3 (stated above), filed 8/25/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of the rejection(s) of Claims 1-8, 10, 12-17 and 25 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), as applied to the Non-Final office Action mailed on 4/24/2025 have been fully considered and is persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims which makes the claim limitation clear. And therefore, the rejection of the rejection(s) of the rejection(s) of Claims 1-8, 10, 12-17 and 25 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), as applied to the Non-Final office Action mailed on 4/24/2025, as set forth below.
4. Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 3-7, filed 8/25/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 12-17, 19, 28 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Raghavan et al. (Hereinafter, “Raghavan”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20150303723 A1, and the rejection of Claim(s) 20 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan ‘723 A1 in view of Saha et al. (hereinafter, “Saha”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20150280290 A1 have been fully considered as follows:
Applicant’s Argument:
Applicant argues on page 3-7, of the remarks, filed on 8/25/2025, regarding the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 12-17, 19, 28 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Raghavan et al. (Hereinafter, “Raghavan”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20150303723 A1, and the rejection of Claim(s) 20 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan ‘723 A1 in view of Saha et al. (hereinafter, “Saha”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20150280290 A1, that “By way of amendments, the independent claim 1 is currently amended to add a claim limitation "wherein detection of the output light transmitted from the optical fiber probe does not reply on absorption-based or reflectance-based measurements".
It is to be noted that support for this amendment can be found throughout the specification as originally filed. More specifically, one piece of such support can, for example, be intrinsicly indicated or suggested in one embodiment of the optical fiber probe as illustrated in FIG. 1A and described in para [0063], where the cladding is directly in contact with the electrolyte or electrode of the electrochemical device; and further in (Remarks-Page 3) another embodiment of the optical fiber probe as illustrated in in FIG. 1B and para [0064], where an SPR layer is optionally arranged to coat the outside of the cladding. In either of these two embodiments, the optical fiber probe comprises no functionalized material (e.g. dye, fluorescent, absorbent, etc., as in Raghavan) that allows for absorption-based or reflectance-based measurements. Furthermore, the specific Examples 1-3 also provide further pieces of support, where the optical fiber probe arranged inside an electrochemical device does not need to be functionalized, and can be used to detect the electrolyte turbidity, dendrite growth or SoC by analyzing the refractive index, the cladding mode, and/or the SPR mode without relying on absorption-based or reflectance-based measurements.
Applicant submits that this newly added claim limitation shall allow current claim 1 to patentably distinguish from Raghavan (Remarks-Page 4).
…..
However, in this claimed invention in currently amended claim 1, the optical fiber probe does NOT rely on any optical reagents and thus does NOT need to be functionalized, which can directly be used to detect SoH by examining the refractive index, the cladding mode, and/or the SPR mode. As such, the independent claim 1, as well as other claims that depend therefrom (e.g. 2-8, 10, 12-17, 20, 25, 28, 33, and 35), shall be patentable over this cited reference (i.e. Raghavan), by at least this above reason (Remarks-Page 5).”
Examiner Response:
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 3-7 (stated above), filed 8/25/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 12-17, 19, 28 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Raghavan et al. (Hereinafter, “Raghavan”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20150303723 A1, and the rejection of Claim(s) 20 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan ‘723 A1 in view of Saha et al. (hereinafter, “Saha”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20150280290 A1, as applied to the Non-Final office Action mailed on 4/24/2025 have been fully considered and is not persuasive. However, applicant has amended the claims and added the limitation, “wherein the monitoring system comprises an optical fiber probe arranged inside the electrochemical device, a light source apparatus, and a signal detection and processing apparatus, wherein the method comprises the steps of: (1) providing, by means of the light source apparatus, an input light into the optical fiber probe, and detecting, by means of the signal detection and processing apparatus, an output light transmitted from the optical fiber probe; and (2) determining, by means of the signal detection and processing apparatus, a state of | health (SoH) of the electrochemical device based on the output light; wherein detection of the output light transmitted from the optical fiber probe does not reply on absorption-based or reflectance-based measurements.” which necessitates a new ground of rejection. Dvorsky et al. (Hereinafter, “Dvorsky”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20150155605 A1 is applied to meet at least the new amended limitation, “wherein detection of the output light transmitted from the optical fiber probe does not reply on absorption-based or reflectance-based measurements” And claim 1 is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan et al. (Hereinafter, “Raghavan”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20150303723 A1 in view of Dvorsky et al. (Hereinafter, “Dvorsky”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20150155605 A1, as set forth below. See the rejection set forth below.
Applicant’s argument that, “the optical fiber probe does NOT rely on any optical reagents and thus does NOT need to be functionalized, which can directly be used to detect SoH by examining the refractive index, the cladding mode, and/or the SPR mode” is not persuasive. Because claim does not recite the limitation. To consider to reject the limitation or prior art should teach the limitation then the limitation should be in the claim.
In response to Applicant’s argument that does not include certain features of Applicant's invention, the limitations on which the Applicant relies (i.e., the optical fiber probe does NOT rely on any optical reagents and thus does NOT need to be functionalized, which can directly be used to detect SoH by examining the refractive index, the cladding mode, and/or the SPR mode) are not stated in the claims. It is the claims that define the claimed invention, and it is claims, not specifications that are anticipated or unpatentable. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064.
In response to Applicant's argument that Raghavan does not have the limitation of detect SoH by examining the refractive index, the cladding mode, and/or the SPR mode, applicant misinterprets the principle that claims are interpreted in the light of the specification. Although these elements (the optical fiber probe does NOT rely on any optical reagents and thus does NOT need to be functionalized, which can directly be used to detect SoH by examining the refractive index, the cladding mode, and/or the SPR mode) are found as examples or embodiments in the specification, they were not claimed explicitly. Nor were the words that are used in the claims defined in the specification to require these limitations. A reading of the specification provides no evidence to indicate that these limitations must be imported into the claims to give meaning to disputed terms. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064.
Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive. However, because of the amendment claim 1 is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan et al. (Hereinafter, “Raghavan”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20150303723 A1 in view of Dvorsky et al. (Hereinafter, “Dvorsky”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20150155605 A1, as set forth below. See the rejection set forth below.
Applicant’s Argument:
Applicant argues on page 5-6, of the remarks, filed on 8/25/2025, regarding the rejection(s) of rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 12-17, 19, 28 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Raghavan et al. (Hereinafter, “Raghavan”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20150303723 A1, and the rejection of Claim(s) 20 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan ‘723 A1 in view of Saha et al. (hereinafter, “Saha”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20150280290 A1, as applied to the Non-Final office Action mailed on 4/24/2025, that, “Regarding claim 2, although the Examiner has indicated that because refractometry is mentioned in Raghavan, the claim feature "refractive index" is disclosed in this cited reference (see page 7 of the OA, in the rejection of claim 2), Applicant respectfully submits that in light of the whole context where the word "refractometric" is mentioned in its disclosure, Raghavan does not disclose this claim feature as a matter of fact.”
Examiner Response:
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 5-6 (stated above), filed 8/25/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 12-17, 19, 28 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Raghavan et al. (Hereinafter, “Raghavan”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20150303723 A1, and the rejection of Claim(s) 20 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan ‘723 A1 in view of Saha et al. (hereinafter, “Saha”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20150280290 A1, as applied to the Non-Final office Action mailed on 4/24/2025 have been fully considered and is not persuasive because claim does not recite any process of calculation of refractive index. Claim only recites calculate refractive index. Therefore, although Raghavan does not disclose to calculate refractive index directly, however Raghavan discloses that refractometric can be used and which can calculate the refractive index. To differentiate the present reference claim needs to recite the process of calculating the refractive index to differentiate the present invention from the reference. Therefore, for the broadest reasonable interpretation Raghavan discloses the limitation. Applicant argument is not persuasive. See the rejection set forth below.
Applicant’s Argument:
Applicant argues on page 6, of the remarks, filed on 8/25/2025, regarding the rejection(s) of rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 12-17, 19, 28 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Raghavan et al. (Hereinafter, “Raghavan”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20150303723 A1, and the rejection of Claim(s) 20 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan ‘723 A1 in view of Saha et al. (hereinafter, “Saha”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20150280290 A1, as applied to the Non-Final office Action mailed on 4/24/2025, that, “Regarding claim 4, although it is indicated in the OA that Raghavan teaches the claim limitation that "the refractive index is calculated further with correction of the core mode" in light of para [0080], Applicant respectfully disagrees. Firstly, para [0080] in Raghavan deals only with the evanescent wave absorption-based fiber sensors, but not with refractive index, not to mention the calculation of the refractive index "with correction of the core mode". Secondly, although the fiber core is mentioned, yet it only recites: "[T]he propagation of the evanescent light wave through this region is connected with higher losses compared to the fiber core", thus it has nothing to do with the use of the core mode for the correction of refractive index in the claimed invention in claim 4. Thus claim 4 is patentable over Raghavan for these additional reasons. It is to be further noted that claim 16, which recites "the SoC is determined with further correction of the core mode", is also patentable over Raghavan for the same or similar reasons above.”
Examiner Response:
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 6 (stated above), filed 8/25/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 12-17, 19, 28 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Raghavan et al. (Hereinafter, “Raghavan”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20150303723 A1, and the rejection of Claim(s) 20 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan ‘723 A1 in view of Saha et al. (hereinafter, “Saha”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20150280290 A1, as applied to the Non-Final office Action mailed on 4/24/2025 have been fully considered and is not persuasive because of the same reason as stated above. Applicant argument is not persuasive. See the rejection set forth below.
Applicant’s Argument:
Applicant argues on page 7, of the remarks, filed on 8/25/2025, regarding the rejection(s) of rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 12-17, 19, 28 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Raghavan et al. (Hereinafter, “Raghavan”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20150303723 A1, and the rejection of Claim(s) 20 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan ‘723 A1 in view of Saha et al. (hereinafter, “Saha”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20150280290 A1, as applied to the Non-Final office Action mailed on 4/24/2025, that, “Regarding claim 10, the Examiner appears to treat the claim feature "secondary peak" as any value such as the concentration. Applicant respectfully objects to such treatment, and respectfully states that the term "secondary peak" is clearly defined in the specification as originally filed, as follows: "As used herein, the term “secondary peak’ is referred to as any peak other than the expected primary peak in the cladding mode or the SPR, with specific examples and more description provided below." (Please see para [0034] of the specification). Thus, in light of the definition, Applicant respectfully submits that this shall represent a novel feature that is not disclosed or taught by any of the cited references in the OA, and thus claim 10 is patentable over the cited references additionally for this above reason.”
Examiner Response:
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 7 (stated above), filed 8/25/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 12-17, 19, 28 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Raghavan et al. (Hereinafter, “Raghavan”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20150303723 A1, and the rejection of Claim(s) 20 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan ‘723 A1 in view of Saha et al. (hereinafter, “Saha”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20150280290 A1, as applied to the Non-Final office Action mailed on 4/24/2025 have been fully considered and is not persuasive because of the same reason as stated above. Applicant’s argument, “Applicant respectfully objects to such treatment, and respectfully states that the term "secondary peak" is clearly defined in the specification as originally filed, as follows: "As used herein, the term “secondary peak’ is referred to as any peak other than the expected primary peak in the cladding mode or the SPR, with specific examples and more description provided below." (Please see para [0034] of the specification).” The limitation should be in the claim to be considered. One of an ordinary skill would not understand what is the secondary pick and therefore any value can be considered as the secondary pick. The delimitation of secondary pick on which applicant relies on should be in the claim to be considered
In response to Applicant’s argument that does not include certain features of Applicant's invention, the limitations on which the Applicant relies (i.e., the term “secondary peak’ is referred to as any peak other than the expected primary peak in the cladding mode or the SPR, with specific examples and more description provided below." (Please see para [0034] of the specification)) are not stated in the claims. It is the claims that define the claimed invention, and it is claims, not specifications that are anticipated or unpatentable. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064. Applicant argument is not persuasive. See the rejection set forth below.
New claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan et al. (Hereinafter, “Raghavan”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20150303723 A1 in view of Dvorsky et al. (Hereinafter, “Dvorsky”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20150155605 A1, as set forth below. See the rejection set forth below.
For expedite prosecution Applicant is invited to call to discuss the present rejection also if any further clarification needed and to discuss any possible amendment to overcome the references to make the claims allowable.
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) 1-8, 10, 12-17, 28, 33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan et al. (Hereinafter, “Raghavan”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20150303723 A1 in view of Dvorsky et al. (Hereinafter, “Dvorsky”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20150155605 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Raghavan teaches a method for monitoring a state of an electrochemical device [410] (Figure 4 shows the battery management system 400 is shown monitoring a battery 410 that is connected to a load 420; Paragraph [0039] Line 3-4) by means of a monitoring system [400] (FIG. 4 is a block diagram of a battery management system (BMS) 400; Paragraph [0039] Line 1) that is operably coupled with the electrochemical device [410] (One or more internal sensors 411 are embedded within the battery. At least some of the internal sensors 411 are optical sensors which may measure one or more internal parameters such as temperature, stress, strain, acceleration, ion concentration, chemistry, and/or other internal parameters of the battery 410; Paragraph [0039] Line 4-9; FIG. 4 is a block diagram of a battery management system (BMS) 400; Paragraph [0039] Line 1-2), wherein the monitoring system [400] (FIG. 4 is a block diagram of a battery management system (BMS) 400; Paragraph [0039] Line ) comprises an optical fiber probe [411] (internal sensors 411 as the optical fiber probe) (In some embodiments, the optical sensors comprise a fiber (either single mode or multimode) comprising a FO end tip sensor consisting of a material sensitive to the chemical species to be sensed; Paragraph [0055] Line 1-4) arranged inside the electrochemical device [410] (One or more internal sensors 411 are embedded within the battery. At least some of the internal sensors 411 are optical sensors which may measure one or more internal parameters such as temperature, stress, strain, acceleration, ion concentration, chemistry, and/or other internal parameters of the battery 410; Paragraph [0039] Line 4-9; FIG. 4 is a block diagram of a battery management system (BMS) 400; Paragraph [0039] Line 1-2), a light source apparatus [440] (The light source may comprise, for example, a light emitting diode (LED), laser diode or other type of semiconductor light source; Paragraph [0040] Line 5-7; The internal optical sensors may be disposed on an optical fiber or waveguide. Battery management unit 430 is configured to control a light source 440 that provides input light to the internal sensors 411; Paragraph [0040] Line 1-5), and a signal detection and processing apparatus [450] (detector 450), wherein the method comprises the steps of:
(1) providing, by means of the light source apparatus, an input light [440] (The light source may comprise, for example, a light emitting diode (LED), laser diode or other type of semiconductor light source; Paragraph [0040] Line 5-7) into the optical fiber probe [411] (The internal optical sensors may be disposed on an optical fiber or waveguide. Battery management unit 430 is configured to control a light source 440 that provides input light to the internal sensors 411; Paragraph [0040] Line 1-5) and detecting, by means of the signal detection and processing apparatus (detector 450 detects) an output light transmitted from the optical fiber probe [411] (Each of the optical sensors is optically coupled to an optical detector that is arranged to receive output light from its associated sensor. The detector(s) 450, which are optically coupled to the sensor(s) 411, receive the output light and generate electrical detector signal(s) based on the output light; Paragraph [0041] Line 1-6); and
(2) determining, by means of the signal detection and processing apparatus [450] a state of health (SoH) of the electrochemical device [410] based on the output light (Each of the optical sensors is optically coupled to an optical detector that is arranged to receive output light from its associated sensor. The detector(s) 450, which are optically coupled to the sensor(s) 411, receive the output light and generate electrical detector signal(s) based on the output light. Thus, each detector signal varies with the amount of the gas sensed by the optical sensor. The battery management unit 430 receives the detector signal(s) and determines the state of the battery 410 based on the detector signal(s); Paragraph [0041] Line 1-11; Battery management circuitry determines the state of the battery based at least in part on the detector signal. The battery state determined can include the state of charge or state of health of the battery, for example; Paragraph [0004] Line 11-14; Claim 18. The system of claim 1, wherein the state of the battery comprises a state of health of the battery).
However, Raghavan fails to teach wherein detection of the output light transmitted from the optical fiber probe does not reply on absorption-based or reflectance-based measurements.
Dvorsky teaches methods and apparatus for periodic, if not continuous, monitoring of the development of impending faults in secondary or re-chargeable batteries at the cell level using optical signals during operation of the batteries in applications such as electric vehicles and electrical grid storage (Paragraph [0002] Line 2-7), wherein
detection of the output light transmitted from the optical fiber probe does not reply on absorption-based or reflectance-based measurements ([0017] A first embodiment of a battery cell 100 made in accordance with the teachings of the present application is shown in FIG. 1 wherein an edge of the battery cell 100 is shown. The battery cell 100 includes a battery cell separator 102 with electrolyte, which is a standard component, placed between the electrodes, anodes and cathodes, of battery cells. The separator 102 with electrolyte has light transmission characteristics that are a function of the state of impending faults of the battery cell 100. Light is transmitted into the separator 102 via a first optical fiber 104 from a light source 106 coupled to the first optical fiber 104. In accordance with the teachings of the present application, there may be one or more light sources such as light emitting diodes, semiconductor diodes, lasers, lamps and the like. In the embodiment of FIG. 1, light is transmitted through the separator 102 and received via a second optical fiber 108 by a light detector 110 coupled to the second optical fiber 108. The light detector 110 is sensitive to the wavelengths of interest which will depend on the specific structure and chemistry of the battery cell. [0018] The detector 110 may any conventional light detector, such as a photodiode, phototransistor or a more exotic detector currently or to become available in the future. Since the light transmission characteristics of the separator 102 with electrolyte is a characteristic of the fault state of the battery cell 100, the fault state of the battery cell 100 can be determined by a processing circuit 111 that processes the output signal from the detector 110 to estimate whether an incipient fault is present in the battery cell 100. The processing circuit 111 may also process the output signal from the detector 110 to determine a temperature profile along the battery cell 100, the chemical species along the battery cell 100, the internal pressure within the battery cell 100 and the like; Therefore, detector is used here measure the state of health and reflectance-based measurement is not used here). The purpose of doing so is to optimize parameter detection and even yield detection of localized faults within the cell, to identify impending faults so that appropriate warnings can be generated.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Raghavan in view of Dvorsky, because Dvorsky teaches to not reply on absorption-based or reflectance-based measurements optimizes parameter detection and even yield detection of localized faults within the cell (Paragraph [0019), identifies impending faults so that appropriate warnings can be generated (Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 2, Raghavan teaches a method,
wherein step (2) of determining, by means of the signal detection and processing apparatus [450], a state of health (SoH) of the electrochemical device based on the output light comprises the sub-steps of:
(i) obtaining a refractive index based on the output light (Optical sensing can employ optical transduction methods like optical absorption and luminescence to obtain information about the analyte gas. Indirect and/or reagent-mediated FO sensors may be used. In indirect sensing systems, the concentration of an analyte is monitored by the optical characteristics (luminescence, absorption) of an intermediate agent, typically a dye molecule: Paragraph [0056] Line 1-7; To functionalize the fiber for analyte detection, the guided mode field must overlap either directly with the analyte for refractometric or analyte-specific absorption measurements, or with an analyte-specific transducer (e.g., a fluorescent or absorbent dye); Paragraph [0057] Line 1-5; Refractometry means measuring refractive index;
From https://rudolphresearch.com/measuring-refractive-index-refractometry/-Refractive Index Measurement or Refractometry is the method of measuring substances refractive index and assess their composition or purity. Refractometry is a technique that measures how light is refracted when it passes through a given substance); and
(ii) determining the SoH of the electrochemical device based on a change of the refractive index relative to a prior state of the electrochemical device [410] (Claim 24: A method, comprising: optically sensing within an electrochemical battery an amount of a free or dissolved gas present within the battery; generating an electrical output signal in response to the sensed amount of gas; and determining state of the battery based at least in part on the output signal; See Claim 26).
Regarding claim 3, Raghavan teaches a method,
wherein sub-step (i) of obtaining a refractive index based on the output light comprises the sub-steps of:
(a) obtaining one of a cladding mode or a surface plasmon resonance (SPR) from the output light; and (6) calculating the refractive index based on the one of the cladding mode or the SPR (To functionalize the fiber for analyte detection, the guided mode field must overlap either directly with the analyte for refractometric or analyte-specific absorption measurements, or with an analyte-specific transducer (e.g., a fluorescent or absorbent dye). This can be achieved in various ways. For example, the fiber cladding can be functionalized, by replacing the cladding with a solid matrix containing the dye or being doped with an indicator (either fluorescent or absorbent). This configuration constitutes an evanescent field sensor. The mode field of the guided modes in the fiber leak out into the analyte sensitive cladding, which changes its optical properties when analyte is present. Sensor configurations with modified cladding are usually interrogated in transmission; Paragraph [0057] Line 1-14; Cladding mode).
Regarding claim 4, Raghavan teaches a method,
wherein in sub-step (a) of obtaining one of a cladding mode (To functionalize the fiber for analyte detection, the guided mode field must overlap either directly with the analyte for refractometric or analyte-specific absorption measurements, or with an analyte-specific transducer (e.g., a fluorescent or absorbent dye). This can be achieved in various ways. For example, the fiber cladding can be functionalized, by replacing the cladding with a solid matrix containing the dye or being doped with an indicator (either fluorescent or absorbent). This configuration constitutes an evanescent field sensor. The mode field of the guided modes in the fiber leak out into the analyte sensitive cladding, which changes its optical properties when analyte is present. Sensor configurations with modified cladding are usually interrogated in transmission; Paragraph [0057] Line 1-14; Cladding mode) or a surface plasmon resonance (SPR) from the output light, a core mode (Claim requires only one mode as the limitations are joined with “or”) is further obtained from the output light,
wherein in sub-step (b), the refractive index is calculated further with correction of the core mode (The readout of intensity-encoded sensors, both fiber-based sensors and non-fiber-based sensors, is typically accomplished by intensity measurements, either via analyzing the optical spectrum at a certain wavelength or by illumination with a light source of certain spectral range (which spectrally overlaps with the absorption spectrum of sensing layer) and measurement of the intensity of the light after interaction with the sensing later is recorded. In order to increase sensitivity, often a second wavelength which does not spectrally overlap with the absorption spectrum is measured for reference. Examples for absorption-based fiber sensors are evanescent wave absorption-based fiber sensors. The evanescent field of the guided light in the fiber overlaps with the sensing agent directly or with a transducing material (e.g., coating, in cladding incorporated dye, etc., in general called “sensing material” in the following discussion). The propagation of the evanescent light wave through this region is connected with higher losses compared to the fiber core. Furthermore, the losses sensed by the evanescent field alter with the concentration of agent to be sensed. Hence, the intensity of the transmitted light through the fiber depends on the agent concentration; Paragraph [0080] Line 1-22; Fiber core is compared and therefore refractive index is calculated with correction of the core mode).
Regarding claim 5, Raghavan teaches a method,
wherein sub-step (ii) of determining the SoH of the electrochemical device based on a change of the refractive index relative to a prior state of the electrochemical device further comprises:
determining that the electrochemical device is unhealthy if the refractive index is changed by at least 1% relative to the prior state of the electrochemical device (According to some embodiments, the sensor material 704 is arranged to interact with input light and asymmetrically alters a spectral distribution of the input light in response to presence of a specific gas concentration or gas concentration range. In such embodiments, the sensor material 704 ca n include Binuclear Rhodium Complexes for CO detection or Bromocresol purple for NH detection, and the specific gas concentration can be defined in the 50-80000 ppm (0.005%-8% partial pressure) range for CO and 5-1000 ppm for NH.sub.3, for example; Paragraph [0071] Line 1-10; Thus, CO.sub.2 is an attractive candidate for selective chemical sensing inside of Li-ion battery chemistries in order to monitor overcharging, over-discharging, leaking, cell abuse, cell formation and/or ageing mechanisms for commercial Li-ion cells. For example, CO.sub.2 concentration in the 2-10% (volume fraction) range may indicate aging of the cell, while anything in excess of 10% may indicate overcharge/over discharge; Paragraph [0100] Line 1-9; Claim recites refractive index changes at least 1% which is in the range of 0.005%-8% or concentration in the 2-10% (volume fraction) range may indicate aging of the cell…).
Regarding claim 6, Raghavan teaches a method,
wherein step (2) of determining, by means of the signal detection and processing apparatus [450] a state of health (SoH) of the electrochemical device based on the output light comprises the sub-steps of:
(i) obtaining one of a cladding mode (To functionalize the fiber for analyte detection, the guided mode field must overlap either directly with the analyte for refractometric or analyte-specific absorption measurements, or with an analyte-specific transducer (e.g., a fluorescent or absorbent dye). This can be achieved in various ways. For example, the fiber cladding can be functionalized, by replacing the cladding with a solid matrix containing the dye or being doped with an indicator (either fluorescent or absorbent). This configuration constitutes an evanescent field sensor. The mode field of the guided modes in the fiber leak out into the analyte sensitive cladding, which changes its optical properties when analyte is present. Sensor configurations with modified cladding are usually interrogated in transmission; Paragraph [0057] Line 1-14; Cladding mode) or a surface plasmon resonance (SPR) from the output light (Claim requires only one mode as the limitations are joined with “or”); and
(ii) determining the SoH of the electrochemical device based on a wavelength shift or an amplitude change of the one of the cladding mode or the SPR relative to a prior state of the electrochemical device [410] (The battery management unit 430 may implement sensor signal processing and an abnormality detection process using several techniques. Signal processing steps may include pre-processing and feature extraction, followed by detection and diagnosis. Pre-processing is performed to clean the data of noise. Some examples include de-noising, filtering and averaging. Features extracted may be in the time-domain, such as derivatives or statistical moments, in the frequency domain, such as wavelength shift or power spectral density, or in the wavelet domain that combines time- and frequency-domain features; Paragraph [0046] Line 1-11).
Regarding claim 7, Raghavan teaches a method, wherein sub-step (ii) of determining the SoH of the electrochemical device based on a wavelength shift or an amplitude change of the one of the cladding mode or the SPR relative to a prior state of the electrochemical device comprises the sub-steps of:
taking a derivative of the one of the cladding mode or the SPR with respect to one selected from a group consisting of time, voltage, current, resistance and capacity (By comparing the photocurrent produced by the adjacent detector elements 1308, 1310, a measure for the actual position of the centroid of the transmitted light is obtained. In order to make the read-out signal stable against intensity fluctuations, the signal can be normalized by the total incoming intensity and is typically called Differential Signal (S_Diff), which can be expressed as:
PNG
media_image1.png
75
351
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; Paragraph [0090] Line 1-8); and
determining the SoH of the electrochemical device [410] (Claim 18. The system of claim 1, wherein the state of the battery comprises a state of health of the battery) based on the derivative (The battery management unit 430 may implement sensor signal processing and an abnormality detection process using several techniques. Signal processing steps may include pre-processing and feature extraction, followed by detection and diagnosis. Pre-processing is performed to clean the data of noise. Some examples include de-noising, filtering and averaging. Features extracted may be in the time-domain, such as derivatives or statistical moments, in the frequency domain, such as wavelength shift or power spectral density, or in the wavelet domain that combines time- and frequency-domain features; Paragraph [0046] Line 1-11).
Regarding claim 8, Raghavan teaches a method, wherein sub-step (ii) of determining the SOH of the electrochemical device based on a wavelength shift or an amplitude change of the one of the cladding mode or the SPR relative to a prior state of the electrochemical device comprises:
(a) determining that the electrochemical device is unhealthy if an amplitude or wavelength of the one of the cladding mode or the SPR is changed by at least 1% relative to the prior state of the electrochemical device [410] (According to some embodiments, the sensor material 704 is arranged to interact with input light and asymmetrically alters a spectral distribution of the input light in response to presence of a specific gas concentration or gas concentration range. In such embodiments, the sensor material 704 ca n include Binuclear Rhodium Complexes for CO detection or Bromocresol purple for NH detection, and the specific gas concentration can be defined in the 50-80000 ppm (0.005%-8% partial pressure) range for CO and 5-1000 ppm for NH.sub.3, for example; Paragraph [0071] Line 1-10; Thus, CO.sub.2 is an attractive candidate for selective chemical sensing inside of Li-ion battery chemistries in order to monitor overcharging, over-discharging, leaking, cell abuse, cell formation and/or ageing mechanisms for commercial Li-ion cells. For example, CO.sub.2 concentration in the 2-10% (volume fraction) range may indicate aging of the cell, while anything in excess of 10% may indicate overcharge/over discharge; Paragraph [0100] Line 1-9; Claim recites refractive index changes at least 1% which is in the range of 0.005%-8% or concentration in the 2-10% (volume fraction) range may indicate aging of the cell…).
Regarding claim 10, Raghavan teaches a method,
wherein step (2) of determining, by means of the signal detection and processing apparatus [450], a state of health (SoH) of the electrochemical device [410] based on the output light comprises the sub-steps of:
(i) obtaining one of a cladding mode (To functionalize the fiber for analyte detection, the guided mode field must overlap either directly with the analyte for refractometric or analyte-specific absorption measurements, or with an analyte-specific transducer (e.g., a fluorescent or absorbent dye). This can be achieved in various ways. For example, the fiber cladding can be functionalized, by replacing the cladding with a solid matrix containing the dye or being doped with an indicator (either fluorescent or absorbent). This configuration constitutes an evanescent field sensor. The mode field of the guided modes in the fiber leak out into the analyte sensitive cladding, which changes its optical properties when analyte is present. Sensor configurations with modified cladding are usually interrogated in transmission; Paragraph [0057] Line 1-14; Cladding mode) or a surface plasmon resonance (SPR) from the output light (Claim requires only one mode as the limitations are joined with “or”); and
(ii) determining the electrochemical device [410] is unhealthy if at least one secondary peak is present in the one of the cladding mode or the SPR (The readout of intensity-encoded sensors, both fiber-based sensors and non-fiber-based sensors, is typically accomplished by intensity measurements, either via analyzing the optical spectrum at a certain wavelength or by illumination with a light source of certain spectral range (which spectrally overlaps with the absorption spectrum of sensing layer) and measurement of the intensity of the light after interaction with the sensing later is recorded. In order to increase sensitivity, often a second wavelength which does not spectrally overlap with the absorption spectrum is measured for reference. Examples for absorption-based fiber sensors are evanescent wave absorption-based fiber sensors. The evanescent field of the guided light in the fiber overlaps with the sensing agent directly or with a transducing material (e.g., coating, in cladding incorporated dye, etc., in general called “sensing material” in the following discussion). The propagation of the evanescent light wave through this region is connected with higher losses compared to the fiber core. Furthermore, the losses sensed by the evanescent field alter with the concentration of agent to be sensed. Hence, the intensity of the transmitted light through the fiber depends on the agent concentration; Paragraph [0080] Line 1-22; Claim does not recite what is secondary peak. Therefore, any value can be considered as the secondary peak and here concentration is considered as the secondary peak which determines the condition of the battery).
Regarding claim 12, Raghavan teaches a method,
further comprising, after step (1) of providing, by means of the light source apparatus an input light into the optical fiber probe and detecting by means of the signal detection and processing apparatus, an output light transmitted from the optical fiber probe [411]:
determining a state of charge (SoC) of the electrochemical device [410] based on the output light (Each of the optical sensors is optically coupled to an optical detector that is arranged to receive output light from its associated sensor. The detector(s) 450, which are optically coupled to the sensor(s) 411, receive the output light and generate electrical detector signal(s) based on the output light. Thus, each detector signal varies with the amount of the gas sensed by the optical sensor. The battery management unit 430 receives the detector signal(s) and determines the state of the battery 410 based on the detector signal(s); Paragraph [0041] Line 1-11; Battery management circuitry determines the state of the battery based at least in part on the detector signal. The battery state determined can include the state of charge or state of health of the battery, for example; Paragraph [0004] Line 11-14).
Regarding claim 13, Raghavan teaches a method,
wherein the determining a state of charge (SoC) of the electrochemical device based on the output light comprises the sub-steps of:
(i) obtaining one of a cladding mode or an SPR from the output light; and (ii) determining the SoC of the electrochemical device based on the one of the cladding mode or the SPR (To functionalize the fiber for analyte detection, the guided mode field must overlap either directly with the analyte for refractometric or analyte-specific absorption measurements, or with an analyte-specific transducer (e.g., a fluorescent or absorbent dye). This can be achieved in various ways. For example, the fiber cladding can be functionalized, by replacing the cladding with a solid matrix containing the dye or being doped with an indicator (either fluorescent or absorbent). This configuration constitutes an evanescent field sensor. The mode field of the guided modes in the fiber leak out into the analyte sensitive cladding, which changes its optical properties when analyte is present. Sensor configurations with modified cladding are usually interrogated in transmission; Paragraph [0057] Line 1-14; Cladding mode; Monitoring the gas composition from these reversible reactions with high accuracy can possibly allow for SOC estimation directly. Monitoring pH and/or gases and/or other chemicals reversibly formed or consumed during charge-discharge can be used as SOC indicators; Paragraph [0028] Line 8-13).
Regarding claim 14, Raghavan teaches a method, wherein sub-step (ii) of determining the SoC of the electrochemical device based on the one of the cladding mode or the SPR comprises:
calculating a refractive index based on the one of the cladding mode or the SPR (Optical sensing can employ optical transduction methods like optical absorption and luminescence to obtain information about the analyte gas. Indirect and/or reagent-mediated FO sensors may be used. In indirect sensing systems, the concentration of an analyte is monitored by the optical characteristics (luminescence, absorption) of an intermediate agent, typically a dye molecule: Paragraph [0056] Line 1-7; To functionalize the fiber for analyte detection, the guided mode field must overlap either directly with the analyte for refractometric or analyte-specific absorption measurements, or with an analyte-specific transducer (e.g., a