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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/02/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 is amended, Claim 3 is canceled and Claims 1-10 are pending.
Drawings
The objection to the drawings in the prior office action is withdrawn in view of applicants’ arguments.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2021025539 A1 – refer to US 20220278417 A1 for citations), hereinafter “Lee” as evidenced by the Senkox Battery Case Study, hereinafter “Senkox”. Lee et al. is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely energy storage systems.
In regard to Claim 1, Lee et al. discloses an energy storage system, comprising: a rack having a space inside (Lee, Paragraph [0029]), a plurality of modules in the space of the rack (Lee, Paragraph [0054]), each of the plurality of modules including a plurality of battery cells arranged in one direction therein (Lee, Paragraph [0072]), and a sensing line along one side of the plurality of modules (Lee, Paragraph [0014]).
Lee et al. also discloses wherein the plurality of battery cells are positioned vertically in the rack (Lee, Paragraph [0072, 0111]) and the sensing line partially extending linearly along the modules (Lee, Paragraph [0014]), as well as a section of the sensing line on the side of the module facing the gas discharge hole (Lee, Paragraph [0016]) and further, the sensing line being capable of detecting a plurality of points for more accurate temperature sensing (Lee, Paragraph [0032]).
While Lee is silent as to all of the directions the sensing line may be routed, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to route the sensing line to the plurality of points where temperature sensing is desired and to cover the most area possible by alternating the route of the sensing line to include the direction towards front and back of the module.
This is evidenced by the Senkox battery case study wherein it is demonstrated that a well-known technique for routing a sensing line is to alternate the line in a serpentine wave including front to back of the module in order to maximize coverage (Senkox, Installation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a linear temperature sensing line arranged in alternating directions with respect to the plurality of battery cells, including the front and back direction, which is capable of measuring multiple temperature points as taught in Lee and maximizing coverage as evidenced by Senkox, as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claim 2, Lee et al. as evidenced by Senkox discloses the energy storage system as claimed in claim 1. Lee et al. also discloses wherein the sensing line extends in a same direction as the one direction of the plurality of battery cells (Lee, Paragraphs [0014, 0062]).
In regard to Claim 4, Lee et al. as evidenced by Senkox discloses the energy storage system as claimed in claim 1. Lee et al. also discloses wherein the sensing line is configured as a constant-temperature sensing linear sensor (Lee, Paragraphs [0060-0061]).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2021025539 A1 – refer to US 20220278417 A1 for citations), hereinafter “Lee” as evidenced by the Senkox Battery Case Study, hereinafter “Senkox” as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Xu et al. (CN 210442486 U - Machine Translation), hereinafter “Xu”. Lee et al. and Xu et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely energy storage systems.
In regard to Claim 5, Lee et al. as evidenced by Senkox discloses the energy storage system as claimed in claim 1. Lee et al. also discloses wherein the sensing line includes a wiring structure having a dual wire coated with a temperature sensitive material (Lee, Paragraph [0061]) however, Lee is silent as to the material of the wire. Xu et al. discloses a sensing line wherein the sensing line includes a wiring structure having a twisted steel wire coated with a temperature sensitive material (Xu, Paragraph [161]) with the benefit of a high temperature threshold value capable of being set (Xu, Paragraph [161]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a twisted steel cable for the sensing line in Lee, as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Xu and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known material for another to obtain predictable results.
In regard to Claim 6, Lee et al. as evidenced by Senkox discloses the energy storage system as claimed in claim 1. Lee et al. also discloses the sensing line connected to the controller which sends a voltage signal through the circuit to detect resistance and determine the condition of the sensing line (Lee, Paragraphs [0060-0062]) but it fails to explicitly disclose wherein opposite ends of the sensing line are electrically connected to a power line and a ground line, respectively. Xu et al discloses wherein opposite ends of the sensing line are electrically connected to a power line and a ground line, respectively (Xu, Figure 5) which facilitates a measurable change in the line caused by heat melting the insulation and shorting the two steel wires to be detectable by the controller. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a circuit where the sensing line is connected to power and ground as disclosed in Xu et al. as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of a circuit for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2021025539 A1 – refer to US 20220278417 A1 for citations), hereinafter “Lee” as evidenced by the Senkox Battery Case Study, hereinafter “Senkox” as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Xu et al. (CN 210442486 U - Machine Translation), hereinafter “Xu” as evidenced by Hill et al. (Texas Instruments, Application Brief, Integrating the current sensing signal path), hereinafter “Hill”. Lee et al. and Xu et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely energy storage systems.
In regard to Claim 7, Lee et al. as evidenced by Senkox in view of Xu et al. discloses the energy storage system as claimed in claim 6. While Lee discloses a resistor in series with the sensing line (Lee, Paragraph [0062]) it fails to explicitly disclose a shunt resistor. Xu et al. discloses at least one of voltage dividing resistors in series with the sensing line (Xu, Figure 5, Paragraph [23]) which are not explicitly named shunt resistors in Xu but function exactly as shunt resistors, as evidenced by Hill et al. The resistors in Xu function to develop a voltage drop measurement across the resistors as current begins to flow due to the two wire sensing line being shorted together in a high heat condition, which can then be interpreted by the controller (Xu, Abstract) this is by definition a shunt resistor as evidenced by Hill et al. (Hill, Page 1 column 1 and Page 2 column 2). Thus, Xu provides a shunt resistor connected in series with the sensing line.
Further, Xu et al. discloses the shunt resistor being connected between the power line and the ground line (Xu, Figure 5) and a controller (processing module) connected to the shunt resistor (Xu, Paragraph [5]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a sensing line circuit as taught in Xu to the sensing line disclosed in Lee et al. as doing so would achieve a similar function and would amount to nothing more than a variation of a circuit for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to Claim 8, Lee et al. as evidenced by Senkox in view of Xu et al. as evidenced by Hill et al. discloses the energy storage system as claimed in claim 7. While Lee discloses a controller configured to receive a voltage of series resistor, it fails to explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to receive a voltage of both ends of the shunt resistor as an input value. Xu et al. discloses the controller (processing module p3) is configured to receive a voltage of both ends of the resistor (functionally equivalent to shunt resistors as evidenced by Hill et al.) as an input value (Xu, Paragraphs [23, 28]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a sensing line circuit wherein the controller is configured to receive a voltage of both ends of the shunt resistor as an input value as taught in Xu to the sensing line disclosed in Lee et al. as doing so would amount to nothing more than a use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
In regard to Claim 9, Lee et al. as evidenced by Senkox in view of Xu et al. as evidenced by Hill et al. discloses the energy storage system as claimed in claim 8. While Lee discloses a fire extinguishing system in parallel with the controller (Lee, Abstract, Figure 3) it fails to explicitly disclose a fire extinguishing system being configured to receive the voltage of both ends of the shunt resistor as an input value. Xu et al. discloses a controller (processing module) configured to receive the voltage of both ends of the resistor (functionally equivalent to shunt resistors as evidenced by Hill et al.) as an input value (Xu, Paragraph [28]) and send an alarm signal to the vehicle controller (Xu, Paragraph [32]), which could reasonably contain a fire extinguishing system as disclosed in Lee et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a sensing line circuit as taught in Xu to the sensing line and controller connected to the fire extinguishing system as disclosed in Lee et al. as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claim 10, Lee et al. as evidenced by Senkox in view of Xu et al. as evidenced by Hill et al. discloses the energy storage system as claimed in claim 8. While Lee discloses a controller configured to apply a control signal to spray a fire extinguishing agent via a valve opening when a linear temperature sensor is heated, and thereby short circuits (Lee, Paragraphs [0067-0070]) it fails to explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to apply a control signal when a voltage across the shunt resistor is sensed. Xu et al. discloses a controller (processing module) that is configured to apply a signal when a voltage across the resistor (functionally equivalent to a shunt resistor as evidenced by Hill et al.) is sensed (Xu, Paragraph [28]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a sensing line circuit as taught in Xu et al. to the sensing line and controller disclosed in Lee et al. as doing so would amount to nothing more than a use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection has been changed from a 35 U.S.C 102 (a)(1) rejection to a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection and a new evidentiary reference was applied to meet each limitation of amended claim 1 as discussed above.
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 KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725