DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-12 are pending and are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 10-0812742 to Kim et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation) in view of Haltiner (US Patent No. 8,232,017 to Haltiner, Jr. et al.) and/or Lim (WO 2015/046635 to Lim et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches:
a temperature measurement device disposed in an energy storage device equipped with a plurality of device modules 10 arranged in multiple stages (Fig. 2, p. 2)
PNG
media_image1.png
696
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
432
632
media_image2.png
Greyscale
an optical fiber cable 410 including a plurality of sensing spots 411 for sensing temperature wherein the plurality of sensing spots are spaced apart from each other by a predetermined unit spacing (Figs. 5-6, p. 3)
a plurality of cable fixing units, or adhesive means, such as a tape disposed between the multiple stages of the plurality of power device modules and fixing the optical fiber cable between stages (Fig. 5, p. 3)
Insofar as “tape” does not reasonably read on “cable fixing unit” as claimed, the Office takes note that the drawings in Kim are schematic, showing floating cell modules without the usual supporting structure that was conventional in the art. Lim, from the same field of invention, regarding a battery pack with a plurality of modules, teaches frame partitions 200 between module stages, the frame partitions including temperature sensor harnesses fixed to the frame at mounting portions 231 (Figs. 6-7 and p. 5). Similarly, Haltiner teaches cassettes or intervening fixing structures between stacked modules of energy devices that house temperature sensors (abstract, Fig. 7, etc.). It would have been obvious to provide a fixing partition in Kim, either with the tape, or with substitutable fixing equivalents, such as known fasteners, hooks, or brackets, as taught in Lim and Haltiner, with the motivation to fix the cable between stacked moduels, since Kim is silent with respect to the necessary intervening structure. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Kim further teaches:
the optical fiber cable including inner sections along top/bottom surfaces of the staged modules and fixed to the cable fixing units (Fig. 5)
at least one outer section for connecting the plurality of inner sections to each other in series and having a length greater than the unit spacing (Figs. 2, 5)
Regarding Claim 3, Kim teaches:
wherein the outer section is located adjacent to one circumferential surface of an outermost power device in a stage (Fig. 5)
Regarding Claim 7, Kim teaches:
a number of sensing spots 411 located in the inner section(s) that is greater than the outer section(s) (Figs. 2-6)
Regarding Claim 9, Kim teaches:
a temperature measurement device disposed in an energy storage device equipped with a plurality of device modules 10 arranged in multiple stages (Fig. 2, p. 2)
an optical fiber cable 410 including a plurality of sensing spots 411 for sensing temperature wherein the plurality of sensing spots are spaced apart from each other by a predetermined unit spacing (Figs. 5-6, p. 3)
a plurality of cable fixing units, or adhesive means, such as a tape disposed between the multiple stages of the plurality of power device modules and fixing the optical fiber cable above individual stages (Fig. 5, p. 3)
Kim does not explicitly teach a “rack” as claimed, leaving its supporting structure out of the schematic drawings, showing floating cell modules without the usual supporting structure that was conventional in the art. Lim, from the same field of invention, regarding a battery pack with a plurality of modules, teaches frame partitions 200 between module stages, the frame partitions including temperature sensor harnesses fixed to the frame at mounting portions 231 (Figs. 6-7 and p. 5). Similarly, Haltiner teaches cassettes or intervening fixing structures between stacked modules of energy devices that house temperature sensors (abstract, Fig. 7, etc.). It would have been obvious to provide a “rack” with fixing partitions in Kim, either with the tape, or with substitutable fixing equivalents, such as known fasteners, hooks, or brackets, as taught in Lim and Haltiner, with the motivation to fix the cable between stacked moduels, since Kim is silent with respect to the necessary intervening structure. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
For evidence of ordinary skill in the art regarding “racks” for staged modules, see e.g. Singer (US 2023/0071601) which teaches a battery storage system with a clear rack structure. It would have been obvious to provide such a rack with the distributed temperature sensing system of Kim et al., with the motivation to support a plurality of modules in an upright manner. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 10, Kim teaches:
tape for fixing the cable
Hooks, brackets, and other fasteners were known fixing implements in the art for cables relating to energy device modules. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 12, Kim teaches:
a battery module
Claims 2, 4-6, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 10-0812742 to Kim et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation) in view of Haltiner (US Patent No. 8,232,017 to Haltiner, Jr. et al.) and/or Lim (WO 2015/046635 to Lim et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation), in further view of Marsh (US 2006/0115204 to Marsh et al.).
Regarding Claim 2, Kim teaches:
a controller connected to the optical fiber cable configured to interpret the sense data and control the battery pack (p. 3)
Kim does not explicitly teach:
“visualizing” and “graphing” on a display
These functions are routine programming tasks in the control arts. Marsh, for instance, concerning distributed temperature sensing systems via optical fibers, teaches measuring temperature “profiles,” amenable to graphing and display, as was common in standard engineering software suites (¶ 0024). Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). In the instant case, the benefits of using an optical fiber to create a temperature profile, interpretable as a graph, among other things, was well-known in the art and would have been obvious for helping a monitor interpret the sense data.
Regarding Claim 4, Kim teaches:
a curled portion that overlaps the horizontal top surfaces of modules in the form of a loop that is rolled at least once
Kim does not explicitly teach:
the outer section having a curled portion “rolled at least once”
Rolling the fiber at measurement points was conventional in the art. Marsh teaches a plurality of coils 20 at measurement points 16 in a distributed sensing system (¶ 0029-0031).
PNG
media_image3.png
410
640
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Rearranging and/or duplicating parts has been found to be obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CPPA 1950) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, while rearrangement of known parts is obvious when the device operates in the same fashion towards the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.04, VI [R-6]. It would have been obvious to provide coils on the outer portions of the loops as desired, in order to sense temperature at e.g. the connecting tabs/buses of the modules.
Regarding Claim 5, Kim teaches:
providing the outer portions in a row
As discussed above with respect to claim 4, it would have been obvious to provide sensing coils at outer portions of the sensing cable, and these would therefore be stacked “curled portions” since Kim teaches stacking the outer portions of the cable.
Regarding Claim 6, Kim teaches:
high curvature radius at the inner portions
The claimed curvature radius appears to fall within the ordinary range practiced in the art, and would have been obvious absent evidence of unexpected results. Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and MPEP 2144 IV. A. Where a prior art component has the same function as the instantly claimed component, motivation to alter the shape of the component to any other equally useful shape is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. Curvature radii smaller than 20x were known to put excessive stress on the cable and would have been obvious to avoid.
Regarding Claim 8, Kim teaches:
a plurality of outer sections, in front of a foremost power device
Kim does not explicitly teach:
locating an outer section at the rear of the device, such that outer sections alternate
It was known in the art to provide alternating connections between stacked energy device modules, including buses and other connectors. Moreover, Marsh, teaches alternating sides in a serpentine pattern (Fig. 10) between spatially distributed sensing spots. A structure or method step that is obvious to try— such as one that is chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 11, Kim teaches:
a curled portion that overlaps the horizontal top surfaces of modules in the form of a loop that is rolled at least once
Kim does not explicitly teach:
the outer section having a curled portion “rolled at least once”
Rolling the fiber at measurement points was conventional in the art. Marsh teaches a plurality of coils 20 at measurement points 16 in a distributed sensing system (¶ 0029-0031). Rearranging and/or duplicating parts has been found to be obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CPPA 1950) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, while rearrangement of known parts is obvious when the device operates in the same fashion towards the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.04, VI [R-6]. It would have been obvious to provide coils on the outer portions of the loops as desired, in order to sense temperature at e.g. the connecting tabs/buses of the modules.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2005/0213867
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723