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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the amendment filed 11/13/2025: Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-22 are pending. Claims 2 and 8 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Rejection Under 35 USC 103
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1, 3-4, 6, 15-17, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wouters (US 2017/0010231 A1, heretofore referred to as Wouters) in view of Hashizume (US 2021/0302347 A1, heretofore referred to as Hashizume) have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, a new rejection has been formed in view of Aytug et al (US 2023/0288362 A1, heretofore referred to as Aytug).
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claims 5 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wouters in view of Hashizume in view of Cummings et al (US 2018/0003685 A1, heretofore referred to as Cummings) have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, a new rejection has been formed in view of Aytug.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claims 7, 9-14, and 21-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummings in view of Wouters in view of Hashizume have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, a new rejection has been formed in view of in view of Aytug.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wouters (US 2017/0010231 A1) in view of Hashizume (US 2021/0302347 A1) in further view of Aytug et al (US 2023/0288362 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wouters teaches a sensor (Wouters; Fig 1, Element 100) for detecting a vapor (Wouters; Par 0069), the sensor comprising:
a substrate (Wouters; Fig 1, Element 103 and Par 0069; Wouters teaches an insulation carrier, i.e. a substrate to form the sensor on);
a pair of electrodes disposed on the substrate (Wouters; Fig 1, Elements 101 and 102 and Par 0069); and
a polymer support (Wouters; Fig 1, Element 104) disposed on the substrate such that the polymer support is in contact with the pair of electrodes (Wouters; Par 0069; Wouters teaches the sensing element is a polymer-ionic liquid gel in contact with both electrodes), wherein the polymer support comprises an ionic salt (Wouters; Par 0004 and 0069; Wouters teaches the polymer contains an ionic liquid which is formed by salts in a liquid state), wherein the polymer support is configured to absorb at least some of the vapor causing the ionic salt to solvate (Wouters; Par 0039, Par 0069, and 0080; Wouters teaches the polymer absorbs the vapor analyte of interest and the gas dissolves in the ionic liquid polymer), wherein, when the polymer support absorbs at least some of the vapor causing the ionic salt to solvate (Wouters; Par 0039; Wouters teaches the gas dissolves in the ionic liquid polymer), a conductivity of the polymer support increases (Wouters; Figs 2-4 and Par 0070-0071; Wouters teaches the impedance of the polymer drops, i.e. the conductivity increases), wherein an impedance of the polymer support is measurable to detect the vapor (Wouters; Figs 2-4 and Par 0070-0071; Wouters teaches the impedance of the polymer drops, i.e. the conductivity increases), and wherein measuring the impedance of the polymer support uses a power amount when the impedance is measured approximately once per second (Wouters; Par 0054; Wouters teaches the power supply is providing power in the 50-100 mV range).
Wouters is silent on wherein the polymer support is configured to absorb at least some of the vapor causing the ionic salt to solvate into the polymer support, wherein, when the polymer support absorbs at least some of the vapor causing the ionic salt to solvate into the polymer support.
Hashizume teaches wherein the polymer support is configured to absorb at least some of the vapor causing the ionic salt to solvate into the polymer support (Hashizume; Fig 1, Element 103, Par 0028, Par 0089, and Par 0096; Hashizume teaches wherein the vapor is absorbed into the sensing membrane), when the polymer support absorbs at least some of the vapor causing the ionic salt to solvate into the polymer support (Hashizume; Par 0028, Par 0089, and Par 0096; Hashizume teaches using a polymer skeleton to support an adsorbing salt membrane where the two parts act as a co-ion system to measure a vapor).
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the apparatus of Wouters with the ion adsorbtion of Hashizume in order to have a wider range of sensing membranes (Hashizume; Par 0028).
The combination of Wouters and Hashizume is silent on wherein measuring the impedance of the polymer support consumes less than 50 microwatts of average power.
Aytug teaches wherein measuring the impedance of the polymer support consumes less than 50 microwatts of average power (Aytug; Par 0026; Aytug teaches using 10 microwatts or less).
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the apparatus of Wouters and Hashizume as both use interdigitated micro electrodes so the power requirements would be similar (Wouters; Par 0009 and Aytug; Par 0005).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Wouters, Hashizume, and Aytug teaches the sensor of claim 1, wherein the ionic salt comprises one or more of tetrabutylammonium tetrafluoroborate, tetraethylammonium tetrafluoroborate, tetramethylammonium tetrafluoroborate, lithium tetrafluoroborate, silver tetrafluoroborate, tetramethylammonium hexafluorophosphate, tetraethylammonium hexafluorophosphate, tetrabutylammonium hexafluorophosphate, tetrabutylammonium chloride, tetraethylammonium chloride, tetramethylammonium chloride, tetramethylammonium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide, tetrabutylammonium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide, tributylmethylammonium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide, tetraethylammonium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide, tetrabutylammonium triflate, tributylmethylammonium triflate, 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl) imide, or tri ethyl sulfonium bis(trifluoromethyl sulfonyl) imide (Wouters; Par 0063; Wouters teaches using at least 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium trifluoromethanesulfonate as well as other triflates as the ionic liquid).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wouters, Hashizume, and Aytug teaches the sensor of claim 1, wherein the polymer support comprises one or more of poly(ethyl methacrylate), poly(butyl methacrylate-co-methyl methacrylate), poly(methyl methacrylate-co-ethyl acrylate), poly(ethylene oxide), poly(vinyl pyrrolidone), poly(acrylonitrile), poly(vinyl acetate), poly(vinyl butyral-co-vinyl alcohol-co-vinyl acetate), poly(ethylene-co-vinyl acetate), poly(1-vinylpyrrolidone-co-vinyl acetate), poly(methyl methacrylate), poly(vinylidene fluoride), poly(vinylidene fluoride-co- trifluoroethylene), poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene), poly(dimethyldiallylammonium) bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, or poly(dimethylpyrrolidinium) bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide (Wouters; Par 0065 Wouters teaches using at least poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene) and other fluoropolymers).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wouters, Hashizume, and Aytug teaches the sensor of claim 1 further comprising: a pair of contact pads disposed on the substrate, each of the pair of contact pads in communication with one of the pair of electrodes (Wouters; Par 0050; Wouters teaches the sensing element is in contact with each electrode).
Regarding claim 15, Wouters teaches a method of detecting a vapor (Wouters; Par 0069) comprising: measuring an impedance (Wouters; Figs 2-4 and Par 0070-0071; Wouters teaches the impedance of the polymer drops, i.e. the conductivity increases) of a polymer support (Wouters; Fig 1, Element 104), wherein the polymer support is disposed on a substrate (Wouters; Fig 1, Element 103 and Par 0069; Wouters teaches an insulation carrier, i.e. a substrate to form the sensor on) such that the polymer support is in contact with a pair of electrodes disposed on the substrate (Wouters; Fig 1, Elements 101 and 102 and Par 0069; Wouters teaches the sensing element is a polymer-ionic liquid gel in contact with both electrodes), wherein the polymer support comprises an ionic salt (Wouters; Par 0004 and 0069; Wouters teaches the polymer contains an ionic liquid which is formed by salts in a liquid state), wherein the polymer support is configured to absorb at least some of the vapor causing the ionic salt to solvate (Wouters; Par 0039, Par 0069, and 0080; Wouters teaches the polymer absorbs the vapor analyte of interest and the gas dissolves in the ionic liquid polymer), wherein, when the polymer support absorbs at least some of the vapor causing the ionic salt to solvate (Wouters; Par 0039; Wouters teaches the gas dissolves in the ionic liquid polymer), a conductivity of the polymer support increases (Wouters; Figs 2-4 and Par 0070-0071; Wouters teaches the impedance of the polymer drops, i.e. the conductivity increases), wherein measuring the impedance of the polymer support uses a power amount when the impedance is measured approximately once per second (Wouters; Par 0054; Wouters teaches the power supply is providing power in the 50-100 mV range); and detecting the vapor based on the measured impedance of the polymer support (Wouters; Par 0080; Wouters teaches the impedance determines the concentration of the analyte of interest).
Wouters is silent on wherein the polymer support is configured to absorb at least some of the vapor causing the ionic salt to solvate into the polymer support, wherein, when the polymer support absorbs at least some of the vapor causing the ionic salt to solvate into the polymer support.
Hashizume teaches wherein the polymer support is configured to absorb at least some of the vapor causing the ionic salt to solvate into the polymer support (Hashizume; Fig 1, Element 103, Par 0028, Par 0089, and Par 0096; Hashizume teaches wherein the vapor is absorbed into the sensing membrane), when the polymer support absorbs at least some of the vapor causing the ionic salt to solvate into the polymer support (Hashizume; Par 0028, Par 0089, and Par 0096; Hashizume teaches using a polymer skeleton to support an adsorbing salt membrane where the two parts act as a co-ion system to measure a vapor).
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the apparatus of Wouters with the ion adsorbtion of Hashizume in order to have a wider range of sensing membranes (Hashizume; Par 0028).
The combination of Wouters and Hashizume is silent on wherein measuring the impedance of the polymer support consumes less than 50 microwatts of average power.
Aytug teaches wherein measuring the impedance of the polymer support consumes less than 50 microwatts of average power (Aytug; Par 0026; Aytug teaches using 10 microwatts or less).
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the apparatus of Wouters and Hashizume as both use interdigitated micro electrodes so the power requirements would be similar (Wouters; Par 0009 and Aytug; Par 0005).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Wouters, Hashizume, and Aytug teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the ionic salt comprises one or more of tetrabutylammonium tetrafluoroborate, tetraethylammonium tetrafluoroborate, tetramethylammonium tetrafluoroborate, lithium tetrafluoroborate, silver tetrafluoroborate, tetramethylammonium hexafluorophosphate, tetraethylammonium hexafluorophosphate, tetrabutylammonium hexafluorophosphate, tetrabutylammonium chloride, tetraethylammonium chloride, tetramethylammonium chloride, tetramethylammonium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide, tetrabutylammonium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide, tributylmethylammonium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide, tetraethylammonium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide, tetrabutylammonium triflate, tributylmethylammonium triflate, 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl) imide, or tri ethyl sulfonium bis(trifluoromethyl sulfonyl) imide (Wouters; Par 0063; Wouters teaches using at least 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium trifluoromethanesulfonate as well as other triflates as the ionic liquid).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Wouters, Hashizume, and Aytug teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the polymer support comprises one or more of poly(ethyl methacrylate), poly(butyl methacrylate-co-methyl methacrylate), poly(methyl methacrylate-co-ethyl acrylate), poly(ethylene oxide), poly(vinyl pyrrolidone), poly(acrylonitrile), poly(vinyl acetate), poly(vinyl butyral-co-vinyl alcohol-co-vinyl acetate), poly(ethylene-co-vinyl acetate), poly(1-vinylpyrrolidone-co-vinyl acetate), poly(methyl methacrylate), poly(vinylidene fluoride), poly(vinylidene fluoride-co- trifluoroethylene), poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene), poly(dimethyldiallylammonium) bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, or poly(dimethylpyrrolidinium) bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide (Wouters; Par 0065 Wouters teaches using at least poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene) and other fluoropolymers).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Wouters, Hashizume, and Aytug teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the vapor is detected when the impedance of the polymer support is below an impedance threshold (Wouters; Par 0080; Wouters teaches a lookup table of the impedence values or calibration values may be used to determine when the analyte is detected).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Wouters, Hashizume, and Aytug teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising: measuring a phase angle associated with the polymer support (Wouters; Fig 2 and Par 0070; Wouters teaches the phase may be used to detect the vapor).
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wouters (US 2017/0010231 A1) in view of Hashizume (US 2021/0302347 A1) in view of Aytug et al (US 2023/0288362 A1) in view of Cummings (US 2018/0003685 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Wouters, as modified by Hashizume and Aytug, teaches the sensor of claim 1.
Wouters as modified is silent on wherein the vapor comprises one or more of propylene carbonate (PC), ethylene carbonate (EC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), dimethoxyethane (DME), or gamma-butyrolactone (GBL).
Cummings teaches wherein the vapor comprises one or more of propylene carbonate (PC), ethylene carbonate (EC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), dimethoxyethane (DME), or gamma-butyrolactone (GBL) (Cummings; Par 0022; Cummings teaches at least propylene carbonate and other carbonate species).
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the apparatus of Wouters as modified with the gas analyte species of Cummings in order to detect off-gassing in any environment that has off-gassing from a battery (Cummings; Par 0021 and 0023).
Regarding claim 18, Wouters, as modified by Hashizume and Aytug, teaches the method of claim 15.
Wouters as modified are silent on wherein the vapor comprises one or more of propylene carbonate (PC), ethylene carbonate (EC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), dimethoxyethane (DME), or gamma- butyrolactone (GBL).
Cummings teaches wherein the vapor comprises one or more of propylene carbonate (PC), ethylene carbonate (EC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), dimethoxyethane (DME), or gamma-butyrolactone (GBL) (Cummings; Par 0022; Cummings teaches at least propylene carbonate and other carbonate species).
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the apparatus of Wouters as modified with the gas analyte species of Cummings in order to detect off-gassing in any environment that has off-gassing from a battery (Cummings; Par 0021 and 0023).
Claims 7, 9-14, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummings (US 2018/0003685 A1) in view of Wouters (US 2017/0010231 A1) in view of Hashizume (US 2021/0302347 A1) in further view of Aytug et al (US 2023/0288362 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Cummings teaches a system for detecting a vapor (Cummings; Fig 1, Element 100 and Par 0030), the system comprising:
a battery (Cummings; Fig 1, Element 102 and Par 0029; Cummings teaches the vapor may be from off-gassing of a battery); and
a sensor (Cummings; Fig 1, Element 104) disposed proximate the battery (Cummings; Par 0029; Cummings teaches the sensor is next to the battery), when the sensor absorbs at least some of the vapor, a conductivity of the sensor increases (Cummings; Par 0030; Cummings teaches as the sensor absorbs the off-gassing analyte from the battery the resistance decreases and the conductivity increases).
Cummings is silent on wherein the sensor comprises: a substrate; a pair of electrodes disposed on the substrate; and a polymer support disposed on the substrate such that the polymer support is in contact with the pair of electrodes, wherein the polymer support comprises an ionic salt, wherein the polymer support is configured to absorb at least some of the vapor, wherein, when the polymer support absorbs at least some of the vapor, a conductivity of the polymer support increases, wherein an impedance of the polymer support is measurable to detect the vapor, and wherein measuring the impedance of the polymer support uses a power amount when the impedance is measured approximately once per second.
Wouters teaches wherein the sensor (Wouters; Fig 1, Element 100 and Par 0069), comprises: a substrate (Wouters; Fig 1, Element 103 and Par 0069; Wouters teaches an insulation carrier, i.e. a substrate to form the sensor on);
a pair of electrodes disposed on the substrate (Wouters; Fig 1, Elements 101 and 102 and Par 0069); and
a polymer support (Wouters; Fig 1, Element 104) disposed on the substrate such that the polymer support is in contact with the pair of electrodes (Wouters; Par 0069; Wouters teaches the sensing element is a polymer-ionic liquid gel in contact with both electrodes), wherein the polymer support comprises an ionic salt (Wouters; Par 0004 and 0069; Wouters teaches the polymer contains an ionic liquid which is formed by salts in a liquid state), wherein the polymer support is configured to absorb at least some of the vapor causing the ionic salt to solvate (Wouters; Par 0039, Par 0069, and 0080; Wouters teaches the polymer absorbs the vapor analyte of interest and the gas dissolves in the ionic liquid polymer), wherein, when the polymer support absorbs at least some of the vapor causing the ionic salt to solvate (Wouters; Par 0039; Wouters teaches the gas dissolves in the ionic liquid polymer), a conductivity of the polymer support increases (Wouters; Figs 2-4 and Par 0070-0071; Wouters teaches the impedance of the polymer drops, i.e. the conductivity increases), wherein an impedance of the polymer support is measurable to detect the vapor (Wouters; Figs 2-4 and Par 0070-0071; Wouters teaches the impedance of the polymer drops, i.e. the conductivity increases), and wherein measuring the impedance of the polymer support uses a power amount when the impedance is measured approximately once per second (Wouters; Par 0054; Wouters teaches the power supply is providing power in the 50-100 mV range).
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the apparatus of Cummings with the polymer sensor of Wouters in order provide a better resistance to humidity in the environment (Wouters; Par 0004 and 0071).
Cumming as modified by Wouters are silent on wherein the polymer support is configured to absorb at least some of the vapor causing the ionic salt to solvate into the polymer support, wherein, when the polymer support absorbs at least some of the vapor causing the ionic salt to solvate into the polymer support.
Hashizume teaches wherein the polymer support is configured to absorb at least some of the vapor causing the ionic salt to solvate into the polymer support (Hashizume; Fig 1, Element 103, Par 0028, Par 0089, and Par 0096; Hashizume teaches wherein the vapor is absorbed into the sensing membrane), when the polymer support absorbs at least some of the vapor causing the ionic salt to solvate into the polymer support (Hashizume; Par 0028, Par 0089, and Par 0096; Hashizume teaches using a polymer skeleton to support an adsorbing salt membrane where the two parts act as a co-ion system to measure a vapor).
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the apparatus of Cumming as modified with the ion adsorbtion of Hashizume in order to have a wider range of sensing membranes (Hashizume; Par 0028).
The combination of Cummings, Wouters, and Hashizume is silent on wherein measuring the impedance of the polymer support consumes less than 50 microwatts of average power.
Aytug teaches wherein measuring the impedance of the polymer support consumes less than 50 microwatts of average power (Aytug; Par 0026; Aytug teaches using 10 microwatts or less).
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the apparatus of Cummings, Wouters, and Hashizume as both use interdigitated micro electrodes so the power requirements would be similar (Wouters; Par 0009 and Aytug; Par 0005).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Cummings, Wouters, Hashizume, and Aytug teaches the system of claim 7. Wouters further teaches wherein the ionic salt comprises one or more of tetrabutylammonium tetrafluoroborate, tetraethylammonium tetrafluoroborate, tetramethylammonium tetrafluoroborate, lithium tetrafluoroborate, silver tetrafluoroborate, tetramethylammonium hexafluorophosphate, tetraethylammonium hexafluorophosphate, tetrabutylammonium hexafluorophosphate, tetrabutylammonium chloride, tetraethylammonium chloride, tetramethylammonium chloride, tetramethylammonium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide, tetrabutylammonium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide, tributylmethylammonium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide, tetraethylammonium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide, tetrabutylammonium triflate, tributylmethylammonium triflate, 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl) imide, or tri ethyl sulfonium bis(trifluoromethyl sulfonyl) imide (Wouters; Par 0063; Wouters teaches using at least 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium trifluoromethanesulfonate as well as other triflates as the ionic liquid).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Cummings, Wouters, Hashizume, and Aytug teaches the system of claim 7. Wouters further teaches wherein the polymer support comprises one or more of poly(ethyl methacrylate), poly(butyl methacrylate-co-methyl methacrylate), poly(methyl methacrylate-co-ethyl acrylate), poly(ethylene oxide), poly(vinyl pyrrolidone), poly(acrylonitrile), poly(vinyl acetate), poly(vinyl butyral-co-vinyl alcohol-co-vinyl acetate), poly(ethylene-co-vinyl acetate), poly(1-vinylpyrrolidone-co-vinyl acetate), poly(methyl methacrylate), poly(vinylidene fluoride), poly(vinylidene fluoride-co- trifluoroethylene), poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene), poly(dimethyldiallylammonium) bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, or poly(dimethylpyrrolidinium) bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide (Wouters; Par 0065 Wouters teaches using at least poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene) and other fluoropolymers).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Cummings, Wouters, Hashizume, and Aytug teaches the system of claim 7. Wouters further teaches wherein the vapor comprises one or more of propylene carbonate (PC), ethylene carbonate (EC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), dimethoxyethane (DME), or gamma-butyrolactone (GBL) (Cummings; Par 0022; Cummings teaches at least propylene carbonate and other carbonate species).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Cummings, Wouters, Hashizume, and Aytug teaches the system of claim 7. Cummings further teaches wherein the battery releases the vapor when a temperature of the battery is greater than a temperature threshold (Cummings; Par 0023; Cummings teaches extreme temperatures cause the battery to off-gas).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Cummings, Wouters, Hashizume, and Aytug teaches the system of claim 7. Cummings further teaches wherein the battery releases the vapor due to a fault associated with the battery (Cummings; Par 0023; Cummings teaches the battery may off-gas to do damage or defects).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Cummings, Wouters, Hashizume, and Aytug teaches the system of claim 7. Wouters further teaches further comprising: a computing device (Wouters; Fig 1, Element 106 and Par 0069) in communication with the sensor and configured to measure an impedance of the polymer support or a phase angle associated with the polymer support (Wouters; Par 0069 and Par 0070; Wouters teaches the impedance response is measured and the phase may be used to detect the vapor).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Cummings, Wouters, Hashizume, and Aytug teaches the system of claim 14. Wouters further teaches wherein the computing device is configured to indicate detection of vapor when the impedance of the polymer support is below an impedance threshold and/or the phase angle associated with the polymer support has shifted such that the phase angle exceeds a phase angle threshold (Wouters; Fig 2, Fig 4, Par 0069, Par 0070, and Par 0071; Wouters teaches the impedance response and phase angle responses are measured and used to determine the concentration is above the desired level).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Cummings, Wouters, Hashizume, and Aytug teaches the system of claim 21. Cummings further teaches wherein the computing device is configured to take corrective action to prevent a catastrophic failure of the battery (Cummings; Par 0067; Cummings teaches an alert signal is sent to allow preventative measures to be taken), the corrective action includes automatically stopping a charging of the battery or causing the battery to stop supplying power (Cummings; Par 0067 and Par 0077; Cummings teaches preemptive measures are taken when the alert is signaled to prevent thermal runaway, i.e. shutting off the battery).
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 ADAM S CLARKE whose telephone number is (571)270-3792. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached on (571)272-2258. 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.
/ADAM S CLARKE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JUDY NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858