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 amendments filed 03/10/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-18 remain pending. Claims 1-18 have been amended. Claim 19 has been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection" page 6 lines 5-12, filed 03/10/2026, with respect to Claim Objections regarding claims 1-19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 1-18 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection" page 6 line , filed 03/10/2026, with respect to 112(b) C have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) of claims 1, 9, & 13 have been withdrawn. Note: there remains a 112(b) antecedent basis issue for claim 6 (see below).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see "Amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection" page , filed 03/10/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 8 lines 10-15):
“Further Christensen is dealing with impedance changes as responses to excitation signals. Applicant submits that the present disclosure deals with impedance changes in a sensor caused by volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) created by decomposition of electrolyte in a battery. The two major similarities are battery and impedance measurement. The way impedance changes are effected is totally different in these two systems.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Christiansen uses excitation signals to determine the impedance (the impedance in Christiansen has a frequency dependence) of the battery, the excitation signals are not the cause of the change in impedance. There is no reason why the invention of Christiansen could not be used to determine impedances of electrodes such as those in the instant application. The invention of Christiansen would detect a change in impedance when the electrodes of a battery under test are in the presence of volatile organic compounds. Further, the invention of Christiansen is not limited to changes in impedance “due to dendrite growth that pierces the separator”.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection" page , filed 03/10/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 8 lines 16-18):
“Under Graham v. John Deere, the Office has an obligation to compare the scope of the claims at issue with the content of the prior art. See M.P.E.P. §2141. In assessing a claim for obviousness, all of the claim limitations must be considered.”
& (page 9 lines 1-3):
“Applicant submits that the impedance remeasurement and the measurand of the present invention are not the same as in Christensen. Hence Christensen fails the MPEP criteria listed above to be used as a primary reference in a U.S.C. 103 rejection.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Rule:
See MPEP 2141(III): “Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The prior art reference (or references when combined) need not teach or suggest all the claim limitations. However, Office personnel must explain why the difference(s) between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The "mere existence of differences between the prior art and an invention does not establish the invention’s nonobviousness.”
Analysis:
The instant application claim 1 was rejected under US 10386422 B2 (Christensen) in view of US 11408874 B2 (Potyrailo) in view of US 11892489 B2 (Benevent). The “prior art reference (or references when combined)” teach “all the claim limitations” and reasoning for the combination is provided. It is not the case that the primary reference has to teach all of the limitations. Christensen teaches impedance measurement and the other references teach the remaining limitations, which would be obvious to combine to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the instant application is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 combination of US 10386422 B2 (Christensen) in view of US 11408874 B2 (Potyrailo) in view of US 11892489 B2 (Benevent).
Applicant’s arguments, see "Amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection" page 9 line 4 to page 10 line 9, filed 03/10/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 9 lines 4-9):
“The secondary reference Potyrailo used by the examiner deals with gases in a fluid and not volatile organic compounds generated from a battery. One sees no connection between the impedance changes attributable to excitation signals and impedance changes attributable VOC’s emanating from decomposition of an electrolyte in a battery. Thus the combination of Christensen and Potyrailo as primary and secondary references respectively for U.S.C. 103 rejection is inconsistent with the requirements laid down by MPEF 2141 and 2143.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Neither Christensen nor Potyrailo was relied upon for teachings regarding volatile organic compounds. Benevent was relied upon for teachings regarding volatile organic compounds. The combination of Christensen in view of Potyrailo in view of Benevent teach the limitations of the instant application including volatile organic compounds (applicant acknowledges that Benevent teaches impedance changes caused by VOCs in “Amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non Final Rejection” page 9 lines 10-11: “While Benevent odes [sic, does] use impedance changes caused by VOC’s,…”). MPEP 2141(III) as cited above indicates that it is the combination of the prior art which must teach all the limitations of the instant application, and not the case that each prior art reference must teach all the limitations.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 & 10 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 line 4: "and sulfur containing molecule molecules."; the word “molecules” is repeated.
Claim 10 lines 2-3: “gases is in the range of 1 ppm to 50 ppm ppm in a vicinity”; the word “ppm” is repeated.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 is rejected 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.
Regarding “Lack of antecedent basis in the claims”:
Claim 6 in line 1 recites the limitation "The battery management system (BMS) of claim 4, wherein the refractory oxide is alumina or silica.". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 does not inherit the limitations of claim 5; claim 5 introduced “a refractory oxide”. Examiner recommends amending claim 6 to “the battery management system (BMS) of claim 5, wherein the refractory oxide is alumina or silica.”
Note: the first instance of an element should be in the form “a [unique descriptive terminology]” and successive references to that element should be in the form “the [unique descriptive terminology]” where [unique descriptive terminology] is the same throughout the claims. This is necessary because similarly phrased elements can be patentably distinct.
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) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10386422 B2 (Christensen) in view of US 11408874 B2 (Potyrailo) in view of US 11892489 B2 (Benevent).
Regarding claim 1, Christensen teaches a battery management system (BMS) (Fig. 10, column 9 lines 33-34: “FIG. 10 schematically illustrates a battery management system according to an embodiment of the invention”) to detect conditions favorable to thermal runaway of the battery (column 5 lines 31-35: “the SoH of the rechargeable battery comprises any of the following features in itself or in any combination: … thermal runaways”), … ; An impedance measuring system (IMS) capable of measuring impedance changes caused at the IPE due to exposure to volatile organic compounds and gases resulting from decomposition of electrolyte in the battery (column 9 lines 14-15: “FIG. 1 shows a Nyquist plot showing impedance measurements on a Lithium-ion battery”), …
Christensen does not teach the system comprising: Interdigitated Platinum Electrode (IPE) on a substrate, wherein the Interdigitated Platinum Electrode (IPE) contains a coating comprising PEDOT:PSS … signaling a temperature increase in components of the battery which can cause a thermal runaway.
Potyrailo teaches the system comprising: Interdigitated Platinum Electrode (IPE) on a substrate (column 9 lines 25-28: “Suitable interdigital electrode structures for probing a fluid sample include two- and four-electrode structures. Suitable materials for electrodes include stainless steel, platinum, gold, noble metals, and others.”),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device taught by Christensen with the teachings of Potyrailo. One would have added to the “Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy In Battery Management Systems” of Christensen the interdigitated platinum electrodes of Potyrailo. The motivation would have been that the choice of electrode material would allow customization and sensitivity of the device to particular measurands (see Potyrailo column 9 lines 40-43: “The materials for the interdigital electrode structures, substrate, sensing layer, and electrode formation methods may be selected based at least in part on the application specific parameters.” & column 9 lines 58-62: “The sensing material 308 can include one or more materials deposited onto the substrate 302 to perform a function of predictably and reproducibly affecting the impedance sensor response upon interaction with the environment.”).
Benevent teaches wherein the IPE contains a coating comprising PEDOT:PSS (column 5 lines 15-20: “Alternatively, the second material may comprise: a flexible material loaded with carbon or with metal particles such as rubber, polybutadiene, polydimethylsiloxane, a conductive polymer, for example PEDOT:PSS”) … signaling a temperature increase in components of the battery which can cause a thermal runaway (column 4 lines 53-55: “The second material, whether doped or not doped, makes it possible in particular to detect gases or vapors and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device taught by Christensen in view of Potyrailo with the teachings of Benevent. One would have added to the “Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy In Battery Management Systems” with interdigital electrode structures made of platinum of Christensen in view of Potyrailo the PEDOT:PSS coating of Benevent. The motivation would have been that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that PEDOT:PSS can be used in the determining of a measurand (see Benevent column 5 lines 25-27: “Such second materials may be used in the device in order to determine a measurand which may be a force or a pressure for industrial applications or in the medical field.”).
Regarding claim 2, Christensen in view of Potyrailo in view of Benevent teaches the battery management system (BMS) of claim 1,
Christensen further teaches wherein the Interdigitated Platinum Electrode IPE is located inside or outside the battery and the IMS is located outside the battery ( “IPE is located inside or outside” is not limiting since this is all possibilities, Fig. 10 shows an IMS/(”Battery management system” with Impedance sensor 24) outside of a battery).
Regarding claim 3, Christensen in view of Potyrailo in view of Benevent teaches the battery management system (BMS) of claim 1,
Potyrailo further teaches wherein the Interdigitated Platinum Electrode (IPE) has a surface to volume ratio in the range of 700 (mm-1) to 2100 (mm-1) (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) “it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”, particular ranges are obvious by means of routine optimization).
Regarding claim 4, Christensen in view of Potyrailo in view of Benevent teaches the battery management system (BMS) of claim 1,
Potyrailo further teaches wherein the Interdigitated Platinum Electrode (IPE) has a surface roughness in the range of 0.5 micrometers to 1.5 micrometers (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) “it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”, particular ranges are obvious by means of routine optimization).
Regarding claim 5, Christensen in view of Potyrailo in view of Benevent teaches the battery management system (BMS) of claim 1,
Potyrailo further teaches wherein the substrate is a refractory oxide (column 9 lines 28-30: “Suitable materials of a substrate may include silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, alumina, ceramics, and others.”, alumina is a refractory oxide as evidenced by the instant application para 0039: “Refractory oxides suitable for this purpose include, but not limited to, alumina and silica”).
Regarding claim 6, Christensen in view of Potyrailo in view of Benevent teaches the battery management system (BMS) of claim 4,
Potyrailo further teaches wherein the refractory oxide is alumina or silica (column 9 lines 28-30: “Suitable materials of a substrate may include silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, alumina, ceramics, and others.”).
Regarding claim 7, Christensen in view of Potyrailo in view of Benevent teaches the battery management system BMS of claim 1,
Benevent further teaches wherein the volatile organic compounds comprise one or more of ethanol, ethyl methyl carbonate, methyl formate individually or their mixtures, such as Ethylene, dimethyl carbonate, dimethyl ether, and sulfur containing molecules molecules (column 4 lines 53-58: “The second material, whether doped or not doped, makes it possible in particular to detect gases or vapors and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as ozone, nitrogen oxides, ammonia, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, acetaldehydes, formaldehydes, isobutylene, ethanol, acetone.”).
Regarding claim 8, Christensen in view of Potyrailo in view of Benevent teaches the battery management system (BMS) of claim 1,
Benevent further teaches wherein the gases comprise one or more of hydrofluoride, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sulfides, fluorocarbons or their mixtures (column 4 lines 53-58: “The second material, whether doped or not doped, makes it possible in particular to detect gases or vapors and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as ozone, nitrogen oxides, ammonia, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, acetaldehydes, formaldehydes, isobutylene, ethanol, acetone.”).
Regarding claim 9, Christensen in view of Potyrailo in view of Benevent teaches the battery management system (BMS) of claim 1,
Christensen further teaches wherein the impedances are in the range of 15 KΩ to 20 KΩ (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) “it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”, particular ranges are obvious by means of routine optimization).
Regarding claim 10, Christensen in view of Potyrailo in view of Benevent teaches the battery management system (BMS) of claim 1,
Potyrailo further teaches wherein the concentration of any one of the VOC's and gases is in the range of 1 ppm to 50 ppm ppm in a vicinity (1 cm to 500 meters) of Integrated Platinum Electrode (IPE) (column 12 lines 52-55: “FIG. 5 illustrates a conventional resistance response 500 of the sensor 114 to changes in H2 concentrations ranging from 0 parts per million (ppm) to 1000 ppm in steps of 100 ppm.”).
Regarding claim 11, Christensen in view of Potyrailo in view of Benevent teaches the battery management system (BMS) of claim 1,
Potyrailo further teaches wherein the impedance change is measured within 5-10 seconds of exposure to at least one of the VOC's and gases (column 5 lines 57-59: “Such gases are detected and monitored in real time using multivariable sensors as described in more detail below.”, real time implies less than 5-10 seconds between exposure and measurement).
Regarding claim 12, Christensen in view of Potyrailo in view of Benevent teaches the battery management system (BMS) of claim 1,
Potyrailo further teaches wherein the impedance changes are measured in the frequency range 1Hz to MHz (column 8 lines 15-24: “The data acquisition circuitry is an impedance analyzer that may provide scanning capability to measure sensor impedance across a predetermined frequency range, for example from 0.001 Hz to 10 GHz, from 0.1 Hz to 1 GHz, from 1 Hz to 100 MHZ, from 10 Hz to 10 MHz, or from 1000 Hz to 100 kHz. An impedance analyzer may provide capability to measure sensor impedance at discrete predetermined frequencies, for example at 1 Hz, 10 Hz, 100 Hz, 1 kHz, 10 kHz, 100 kHz, 1 MHz, 10 MHz, or 100 MHz.”)
Regarding claim 13, Christensen in view of Potyrailo in view of Benevent teaches the battery management system (BMS) of claim 1,
Potyrailo further teaches where in the dimensions of the Interdigitated Platinum Electrode (IPE) are 5mm X 5 mm X 2mm (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) “it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”, particular ranges are obvious by means of routine optimization).
Regarding claim 14, Christensen in view of Potyrailo in view of Benevent teaches the battery management system (BMS) of claim 1,
Potyrailo further teaches wherein the spacing between the conductor traces (made from highly conducting and air stable conducting copper, platinum or gold) (column 9 lines 25-28: “Suitable interdigital electrode structures for probing a fluid sample include two- and four-electrode structures. Suitable materials for electrodes include stainless steel, platinum, gold, noble metals, and others”) of the Interdigitated Platinum Electrode (IPE) is in the range of l00 nm to 1mm (column 9 lines 38-40: “The thickness of fabricated electrodes on the substrates may be in the range from about 10 nanometers to about 1000 micrometers.”).
Regarding claim 15, Christensen in view of Potyrailo in view of Benevent teaches the battery management system (BMS) of claim 1,
Christensen further teaches further comprising a microcontroller (column 8 lines 16-19: “The method and modular battery management system according to an embodiment of the invention pertains particularly to larger applications that require microcontroller equipped battery management systems (BMS)”).
Regarding claim 16, Christensen in view of Potyrailo in view of Benevent teaches the battery management system (BMS) of claim 1,
Potyrailo further teaches wherein the IMS records the frequency range between 1MHz to 1Hz (column 8 lines 15-18: “The data acquisition circuitry is an impedance analyzer that may provide scanning capability to measure sensor impedance across a predetermined frequency range, for example from 0.001 Hz to 10 GHz”) for single, binary and ternary mixtures of VOCs (Fig 25B, column 25 lines 52-54: “FIG. 25B illustrates a three-dimensional plot of the PC1 versus the PC2 versus a third principal component (PC3)”, ternary/(“third principal component”)) in the concentration range of 1ppm to 100ppm (column 12 lines 52-55: “FIG. 5 illustrates a conventional resistance response 500 of the sensor 114 to changes in H2 concentrations ranging from 0 parts per million (ppm) to 1000 ppm in steps of 100 ppm.”).
Regarding claim 17, Christensen in view of Potyrailo in view of Benevent teaches the battery management system (BMS) of claim 1,
Potyrailo further teaches wherein the Interdigitated Platinum Electrode (IPE) and the IMS are used in the temperature range of subzero (<0°C) to 110 °C (column 10 lines 31-33: “Optionally, the sensor 114 may operate at a temperature greater than and/or less than 50° above and/or below the ambient temperature.”, ambient +/- 50 is a temperature range larger than 0 to 110 since ambient could vary by a few tens of degrees for example 40 to 60).
Regarding claim 18, Christensen in view of Potyrailo in view of Benevent teaches the battery management system (BMS) of claim 1,
Christensen further teaches wherein the battery is a lithium-ion battery (column 7 lines 44-46: “According to a preferred embodiment of the method according to the invention, the battery is a Lithium-ion battery comprising a plurality of battery cells.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 6300123 B1 "Sensor Employing Impedance Measurements" (Vadgama) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 3 "Interdigitated Electrode" & impedance vs time.
US 20040033165 A1 "Sensor Arrays For Detecting Analytes In Fluids" (Lewis) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1A-1: "Interdigitated Electrode Array" & Fig. 9: benzene, etc.
US 10955378 B2 "Resonant Gas Sensor" (Stowell) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 2 & Fig. 5.
US 20220390401 A1 "Chemical Sensor Utilizing Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy" (Erdmann) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 4 & Fig. 11: Acetone, etc..
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 MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. 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.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights