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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1 and 11-14 in the reply filed on May 22, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the unity requirement here is very curious and clearly in error” as stated on Page 1 of the remarks submitted. The examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion. This is not found persuasive because the restriction requirement is made in view of the following passage of the MPEP Section 1850 quoted below:
II. DETERMINATION OF "UNITY OF INVENTION"
An international application should relate to only one invention or, if there is more than one invention, the inclusion of those inventions in one international application is only permitted if all inventions are so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (PCT Rule 13.1 ). With respect to a group of inventions claimed in an international application, unity of invention exists only when there is a technical relationship among the claimed inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression "special technical features" is defined in PCT Rule 13.2 as meaning those technical features that define a contribution which each of the inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. The determination is made on the contents of the claims as interpreted in light of the description and drawings (if any).
Whether or not any particular technical feature makes a "contribution" over the prior art, and therefore constitutes a "special technical feature," should be considered with respect to novelty and inventive step. For example, a document discovered in the international search shows that there is a presumption of lack of novelty or inventive step in a main claim, so that there may be no technical relationship left over the prior art among the claimed inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features, leaving two or more dependent claims without a single general inventive concept.
Lack of unity of invention may be directly evident "a priori," i.e., before considering the claims in relation to any prior art, or may only become apparent "a posteriori," i.e., after taking the prior art into consideration. For example, independent claims to A + X, A + Y, X + Y can be said to lack unity a priori as there is no subject matter common to all claims. In the case of independent claims to A + X and A + Y, unity of invention is present a priori as A is common to both claims. However, if it can be established that A is known, there is lack of unity a posteriori, since A (be it a single feature or a group of features) is not a technical feature that defines a contribution over the prior art.
The above quotations outlines the requirement of a “special technical feature” which makes a contribution over the prior art. As set forth in the restriction requirement sent on May 22, 2026, the restriction is made on the grounds that the special technical feature does not make a contribution in view of prior art. The Applicant argues that “All of the dependent claims, by virtue of being dependent from Claim 1, require all limitations of Claim 1, and so it is not enough to make a finding on just one aspect of Claim 1. There must be findings that all aspects of Claim 1 are not special technical features.” The Examiner agrees. The original Restriction Requirement maps all features of claim to Sherwood on p.4-5, which shows that all aspects of claim 1 are not special technical features.
Of additional note, the applicant includes a remark in their arguments which states that the examiner has not established that the subject matter of certain claim relationships are not “distinct [and] mutually exclusive” and cites to MPEP 1850. The examiner notes that this not mentioned in this section of the MPEP and is not required for restrictions made in view of Unity of Invention.
The Applicant points out that the groupings of claims appear to be based solely on dependency. This is the case, and it is based on the requirement to analyze claims for shared features. For example, all of claims 2-10 and 15 share the features of claim 2, and Sherwood was not analyzed to determine whether it disclosed the features of claim 2. MPEP §1850 §§II states:
If, however, an independent claim does not avoid the prior art, then the question whether there is still an inventive link between all the claims dependent on that claim needs to be carefully considered. If there is no link remaining, an objection of lack of unity a posteriori (that is, arising only after assessment of the prior art) may be raised.
Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanigawa (US 2017/0179550 A1), with claim 14 further evidenced by Matan (How does temperature affect the capacitance of a capacitor?):
PNG
media_image1.png
395
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
368
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
437
641
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
728
468
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Tanigawa teaches an electrical assembly having multi-zone temperature monitoring, comprising: a heat-generating electrical device (“temperature detecting apparatus used for managing a state of an assembled battery…formed by assembling a plurality of cells” [0003]. “In a charging and discharging process of the battery… the battery generates heat and a temperature of the battery is increased” [0005]) a measurement circuit (Figure 2 All Elements) having a plurality of temperature-dependent electrical measuring resistors (“temperature sensitive resistor[s]” Abstract Figure 2 Elements Rth1 -Rth6), wherein the plurality of temperature-dependent electrical measuring resistors are positioned in mutually spaced- apart temperature-measurement regions (each detecting circuit 10 is in a different cell of the battery, see Fig 1, [0039]) of the heat-generating device); and,
an analysis device (Figure 1 Element 20 “Processor”)
that has a measurement channel (Figure 1 Element 23 “Processing Part”) for detecting measured values (“The processing part 23 detects a temperature of each of the cells 101” [0049]); wherein the plurality of temperature-dependent electrical measuring resistors are electrically conductively connected to the measurement channel of the analysis device via a common measurement line (Figure 2 Element 15 “Detection Lines”) and the analysis device is designed to determine a temperature (“calculate the temperature” Figure 4 Element S13)… in at least one of the mutually spaced-apart temperature-measurement regions by analyzing a signal (“detection signal” [0015], [0049]) on the measurement channel.
Regarding Claim 11: Tanigawa further teaches an electrical assembly ((“temperature detecting apparatus used for managing a state of an assembled battery…formed by assembling a plurality of cells” [003]) wherein the leads (“capacitors” in series with each resistor, see Fig 2, [0043]) of a plurality of temperature-dependent electrical measuring resistors (“temperature sensitive resistor[s]” [0042] Figure 2 Rth1-6) have different capacitive properties and/or the different inductive properties of the leads (“In each of the detecting circuits 10, inductances of the coils L1 to L6 and capacitances of the Capacitors C1 to C6 are set so that resonance frequencies… become different values” [0043]. One example of which, wherein the different capacitance and inductive properties is shown in Figure 3) wherein the analysis device (Figure 1 Element 23 “Processing Part”), based on the different capacitive properties and/or the different inductive properties of the leads, associates at least one determined temperature and/or at least one determined temperature limit being exceeded with one of the plurality of temperature-dependent electrical measuring resistors (the different capacitance and inductive properties are used by the processing part to “ calculate the temperature of cell” as shown in Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 12: Tanigawa further teaches that the analysis device has integrated circuitry that checks a frequency-dependent total resistance (“the sum of the resistance value” [0053]), oscillation behavior, and/or a pulse response on the measurement channel (“the processing part calculates a resistance value of the temperature-sensitive resistor in each of the detecting circuits in which the frequency of the sine-wave detection signal corresponds to the resonance frequency, based on a voltage applied to the voltage-dividing resistor” [0021]).
Regarding Claim 13: Tanigawa further teaches that the capacitive properties of the leads are caused by capacitive components in the leads (“capacitor[s]” [0040] Figure 2 Elements C1-C6) or by a structure of conductor material of the leads, and/or - the inductive properties (“inductances” [0043]]) of the leads are caused by inductive components (“coils” [0043 Figure 2 Elements L1-L6) in the leads or by a structure of lead material of the leads.
Regarding Claim 14: Tanigawa further teaches that the leads of the plurality of temperature-dependent electrical measuring resistors, respectively, have different temperature-dependent capacities and/or different temperature- dependent inductances (Tanigawa provides one example of different capacities and inductances shown in Figure 3 of the Prior Art. Furthermore, capacitance, in particular varies naturally with temperature as evidenced by Matan 2023 which emphasizes that “Temperature affects a capacitor’s capacitance by altering the dielectric material’s properties, conductor resistance, and the capacitor’s dimensions”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLAN OLIVA whose telephone number is (571-)272-2518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-3:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-8241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-5569.
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.
/SOLAN OLIVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights