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 statements (IDS) submitted on 12/22/2025, 1/15/2026, and 3/10/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
This Office action is responsive to amendments and remarks filed on 2/25/2026.
Claims 1, 9 and 13 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending of which 13-20 are withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
In light of the amendment the rejection to the claims under §112(b) is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the specific teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The applicant’s argument does not apply to the current combination of references, specifically US 20130011701 A1, PETZINGER was added to address the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The terms “a first concentration of a first gas”, “a first concentration of a second gas”, “a second concentration of the first gas” and finally “a second concentration of the second gas” is not supported in the specification.
[00238-00240] does support “a first concentration value of H2 gas and sense a second concentration value of CO gas.” For examination purposes the limitation of the claims will be interpreted as a first concentration is associated with H2 gas and the second concentration will be associated with CO gas.
Claims 2-12 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210283441 A1, CAO et al. disclosed in the IDS dated 12/17/2022 in view of US 20130011701 A1, PETZINGER, in further view of US 20190151691 A1, ADRAIN.
Regarding claim 1. CAO discloses [0019] a gas and [0016] flame detection system for [0006] a battery pack, which the reference calls a lithium battery energy storage unit, the flame detection system comprising:
[0006] a battery pack, which the reference calls a lithium battery energy storage unit, comprising a plurality of cells;
[0010] a controller, which is called a warning control system;
[0019] a first gas detector/combustible gas detector in communication with the battery pack and configured to sense a concentration value of one or more gases, wherein:
[0037] the first gas detector is electrically connected to the controller;
[0021] the first gas detector is configured to generate a gas alarm level return signal indicative of no alarm, a first alarm, [0019] the concentration value of the one or more gases;
[0019] the first gas detector is configured to transmit the gas alarm level return signal to the controller;
[0025] the controller is configured to output no alarm, the first alarm, called a first stage warning, or [0037] the second alarm, called a third stage warning, based upon the gas alarm level return signal received from the first detector;
CAO does not disclose the first gas detector is configured to sense a concentration of a first gas and a concentration of a second gas; wherein
the first alarm is configured to be generated when a first concentration of a first gas is exceeded, wherein
the first alarm is also configured to be generated when a first concentration of a second gas different from the first gas is exceeded, wherein
the second alarm is configured to be generated when a second concentration of the first gas is exceeded, and wherein
the second alarm is also configured to be generated when a second concentration of the second gas is exceeded;
PETZINGER [title] discloses A Battery Cooling Method And System where
PETZINGER [0042] the first gas detector called a sensor (72) is configured to sense a concentration of a first gas, called hydrogen gas and a concentration of a second gas, called carbon monoxide
PETZINGER [0042] also discloses that “Alternatively, the sensors 72 may detect a predetermined amount of a substance expelled by a battery undergoing thermal runaway”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used this sensor (72) disclosed by PETZINGER in order to generate a gas alarm that indicates a thermal runaway or failure of the battery cell.
Neither CAO nor PETZINGER disclose the first alarm is configured to be generated when a first concentration of a first gas is exceeded, wherein
the first alarm is also configured to be generated when a first concentration of a second gas different from the first gas is exceeded, wherein
the second alarm is configured to be generated when a second concentration of the first gas is exceeded, and wherein
the second alarm is also configured to be generated when a second concentration of the second gas is exceeded;
The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
It would have been obvious to duplicate the hydrogen gas and carbon monoxide sensors disclosed by PETZINGER in the detector disclosed by CAO.
Neither CAO nor PETZINGER disclose an infrared detector in communication with the battery pack and configured to sense a level of infrared radiation, wherein:
the infrared detector is electrically connected to the controller;
the infrared detector is configured to generate an infrared alarm level return signal indicative of no alarm or a third alarm based upon the level of infrared radiation;
the infrared detector is configured to transmit the infrared alarm level return signal to the controller; and
the controller is configured to output no alarm or the third alarm based upon the infrared alarm level return signal.
ADRAIN [abstract] discloses “A burglar defense or fire suppression system for a structure or location having a dispensing system for selectively dispensing water, or a deterrence or fire suppression substance, the system being retrofitted to utilize existing structures for substance distribution; and a sensing system operably mounted to the system, wherein the dispensing system is operable to dispense the deterrence or fire suppression substance when an intrusion or fire is sensed by the sensing system or when remotely activated.”
ADRAIN [0031] discloses an infrared detector, called a sensor which is used to detect fire which is analogous to the instant application’s detection of fire in a battery , wherein:
[0031] the infrared detector is electrically connected to the controller;
[0052] the infrared detector is configured to generate an infrared alarm level return signal indicative of no alarm or a third alarm based upon the level of infrared radiation/location of a fire;
[0031] the infrared detector is configured to transmit the infrared alarm level return signal to the controller; and
[0031] the controller is configured to output no alarm or the third alarm based upon the infrared alarm level return signal.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used an infrared detector disclosed by ADRAIN in order to detect flames or fire in a compartment or space, in the battery pack compartment disclosed by CAO along with the sensors disclosed by PETZINGER in order to detect a failure of the battery cells and take evasive action for said failure.
Regarding claim 4. CAO modified by PETZINGER and ADRAIN discloses the flame detection system of claim 1, wherein one or more spaces exists between the plurality of cells as shown in the annotated figure depicted below.
PNG
media_image1.png
479
891
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 5 and 6. CAO modified by PETZINGER and ADRAIN discloses the flame detection system of claim 1.
CAO discloses the first gas detector (11) is mounted in the one or more spaces between the plurality of cells as depicted in figure 2 satisfying the limitations of claim 6.
ADRAIN [0031] discloses an infrared detector.
Regarding claim 7. CAO modified by PETZINGER and ADRAIN discloses the flame detection system of claim 1.
CAO [0019] discloses the one or more gases comprise H2 gas and CO gas.
Regarding claim 10. CAO modified by PETZINGER and ADRAIN discloses the flame detection system of claim 1.
CAO [0019] discloses a second gas detector in communication with the battery pack and electrically connected to the controller, wherein
the first gas detector is configured to sense a concentration value of gaseous H2 within the battery pack and
the second gas detector is configured to sense a concentration value of gaseous CO within the battery pack.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210283441 A1, CAO et al. disclosed in the IDS dated 12/17/2022 in view of US 20130011701 A1, PETZINGER, in further view of US 20190151691 A1, ADRAIN as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20130071706 A1, LEE.
Regarding claims 2 and 3. CAO modified by PETZINGER and ADRAIN discloses the flame detection system of claim 1.
Modified CAO does not disclose a first port mounted on an exterior of the battery module, wherein the first port provides access to an interior of the battery module.
LEE [title] discloses A BATTERY PACK where,
Annotated figure 4 depicted below shows a first port mounted on an exterior of the battery module, wherein [0037] the first port called a discharge portion (121) provides access to an interior of the battery module as pertains to claim 2 and,
LEE [0039] further discloses “a gas measuring sensor S1 sensing whether gas is generated from the battery cell 10 or measuring the concentration of the generated gas may be mounted in the degassing cover 120. The position where the gas measuring sensor S1 is mounted may vary. For example, it is possible to mount the gas measuring sensor S1 in a position to sense whether gas is generated from the battery cell 10 or to measure gas in the battery pack 1” as pertains to claim 3.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to have mounted the sensor or detection devices of modified CAO inside the module as with an access port disclosed by LEE in order to detect the leaks coming from the battery cells.
PNG
media_image2.png
460
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 8, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210283441 A1, CAO et al. disclosed in the IDS dated 12/17/2022 in view of US 20130011701 A1, PETZINGER, in further view of US 20190151691 A1, ADRAIN as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of US 6204769 B1, ARAI et al. and US 20220085428 A1, ENGLE et al.
Regarding claims 8 and 9. CAO modified by ADRAIN discloses the flame detection system of claim 7.
CAO modified by ADRAIN does not disclose the controller outputs the first alarm if the first concentration value of H2 gas is between 100 and 150 parts per million or if the second concentration value of CO gas is between 400 and 500 parts per million or
the controller outputs the second alarm if the first concentration value of H2 gas is between 200 and 300 parts per million or if the second concentration value of CO gas is between 800 and 1000 parts per million
ARAI [title] discloses A Battery Control System for Electric Automobiles where
ARAI [col 7 lines 12-25] discloses “a hydrogen concentration of 6000 ppm is given” and
ARAI does not disclose CO, carbon monoxide detection
ENGLE [title] discloses A Thermal Runaway Detection System For Batteries Within Enclosures where
ENGLE [0008] discloses “During thermal runaway, the cell converts substantial cathode and electrolyte material into gas and vents the pressurized gas mixture in time spans of seconds when the faulted cell is at a high State of Charge, FIG. 1(b). Of the typical cell chemistries such as lithium-manganese-cobalt-oxide (NMC) batteries, Lithium Cobalt Oxide (LCO), and Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) batteries, thermal runaway testing has shown the release of several gases, including large quantities of carbon dioxide and hydrogen, see FIG. 5. Carbon dioxide is generally evolved during the oxidation reaction of carbonate solvents and hydrogen is generally released as a product of the reduction of water deriving from combustion reactions by carbon monoxide and/or free lithium”
ENGLE [0025, 0036] discloses a CO (carbon monoxide) sensor where vented gases include H2, CO, CO.sub.2, and hydrocarbons in sufficient concentration to be detected by the individual sensors.
ENGLE does not explicitly disclose the CO range but does disclose [0027] the “Carbon dioxide background concentration levels are generally less than 1,000 ppm, during a battery cell venting conditions, these concentrations can easily exceed 60,000 ppm within the enclosure, providing very robust gas signal for detection”
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) see MPEP 2144.05 I
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the sensors disclosed in both ENGLE and ARAI in the flame detection system disclosed by modified CAO in order to extinguish an overheated battery cell.
Regarding claim 12. CAO modified by ADRAIN discloses the flame detection system of claim 1.
CAO modified by ADRAIN does not disclose that the controller is further configured to output a signal selected to turn off an outgassing cell if the first alarm or the second alarm is output by the controller.
ENGLE [0043] discloses “the BMS would shut the vehicle down except for the heat exchanger system” this would in turn shut down the cell satisfying the limitation of this claim.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to use the controller or battery management system disclosed by ENGLE in the flame detection system disclosed by CAO modified by ADRAIN in order to shut down the malfunctioning battery cell.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210283441 A1, CAO et al. disclosed in the IDS dated 12/17/2022 in view of US 20130011701 A1, PETZINGER, in further view of US 20190151691 A1, ADRAIN as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fire Protection Systems (3rd Edition) by PIENTA, Gretchen.
Regarding claim 11. CAO modified by ADRAIN discloses the flame detection system of claim 1.
CAO [0028] discloses the controller is configured to trigger a release an extinguishing agent, but does not specify extinguishing agent a cooling agent.
PIENTA [title] discloses Fire Protection Systems where in chapter 2 titled Basic Chemistry and Physics of Fire
PIENTA [page 11] discloses “When attempting to control a fire, the aim is to break the chemical reaction or the continuous combination of fuel and oxygen. Another goal is to reduce one of its products: heat. Since fire is an exothermic reaction, one way to extinguish a fire is by cooling.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used a coolant disclosed by PIENTA to prevent or extinguish a fire in the flame detection system disclosed by modified CAO.
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 LAWRENCE LA RAIA III whose telephone number is (703)756-5441. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 6:00am-4:00pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571) 272-1330. 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.
LAWRENCE LA RAIA III
/L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights