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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20, as filed 7 January 2026, are examined herein. No new matter is included.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. In FIG. 1, it seems that the white line that protrudes from the first lead out piece 311 continues to form a serpentine structure and ends at the second lead out piece 312 (i.e., the first and second lead-out pieces are actually one integral piece according to FIG. 1, and thus, do not represent the detection mesh as described in the specification or in claim 1. For this reason, FIG. 1 must be amended to show the claimed features or those features must be canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Claim 1 is to “a detection mesh” comprising a first conductive piece and a second conductive piece, each having a lead-out piece and respective plurality of protrusions. First, it's unclear from the claim whether the detection mesh is one integral body comprising the first and second conductive pieces, or two separative first and second conductive pieces. Second, it's unclear whether the first and second pieces are electrically connected to one another or not. Although the respective protrusions of each first and second conductive are claimed to be spaced apart from one another, this doesn't necessarily imply the respective protrusions are electrically insulated from one another, and thus, it's not clear whether the first and second conductive pieces are electrically insulated from one another. In this case, 112b is justified because, typically, a mesh is defined as an interlaced structure. While the comb like arrangement derived from the claim language meets the definition of the first and second protrusions forming a mesh, the claim does not clearly define the electrical relationship between the conductive pieces either directly or via the respective protrusions. Referring to the specification at [0044-0046] , the detection mesh appears to be metal traces (silver, copper, gold, etc) having protrusions 3121 which ([0043]) are densely alternate with each other. At [0030] “the multiple first protrusions 3111 and the multiple second protrusions 3121 alternate with each other.” At [0046] the detection mesh may be bonded to a plastic or rubber insulating layer.
In light of the claim language and the specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant claim limitation is determined to include two conductive pieces which are comprised of comb-like, interdigitated sets of protrusions, the protrusions of one comb inserted between the protrusions of the other comb. Examiner notes that a support is not required by the limitations of claim 1, however the support may be required to place the conductive pieces while maintaining spacing. Because a support is not required, the conductive pieces could be each be attached to the same insulating support or could be attached to separate insulating supports. The first and second conductive pieces are electrically insulated from each other except when the electrolyte leaks from the core assembly and creates an electrical path between the first and second protrusions.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein the battery is electrically connected to the BMS through the connecting port”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “the connecting port” includes any opening in the housing that contains wires electrically connecting any part of the battery or sensor to the BMS.
Claims 2--20 stand rejected due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ueda (US 20070275296 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, Ueda teaches a detection mesh (FIGs. 5-6 and [0079] liquid leakage sensor 50, comb-shaped electrode 52, 53), comprising:
a first conductive piece and a second conductive piece (FIG. 6 comb-shaped electrode 52 and 53), wherein the first conductive piece comprises a first lead-out piece and a plurality of first protrusions arranged slide by side on the first lead-out piece: (FIG. 5-6 and [0079]-[0083] common electrode member 52a having fine electrode members 52b)
the second conductive piece comprises a second lead-out piece and a plurality of second protrusions arranged side by side on the second lead-out piece; and FIG. 5-6 and [0079]-[0083] common electrode member 53a having fine electrode members 53b)
the plurality of first protrusions and the plurality of second protrusions are alternate with each other successively and spaced apart from each other. (as shown FIG. 5-6)
This also meets the limitation of claim 2, wherein the first conductive piece and the second conductive piece have the same structure.
Regarding claim 14, Ueda teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and further teaches a battery module (abstract) comprising at least one battery (abstract), a battery management system (BMS) ([0034] notification device 30), a tray (FIG. 11 case 11), and the detection mesh according to claim 1, wherein the battery is arranged in the tray (as shown FIG.11 cell 10 housing 11); the detection mesh is insulatively arranged between the battery and the tray ([0079] liquid leakage sensor includes a covering layer 54 which is made from an insulating material, and base member 51. At [0036] the base member is made from polyester or polyimide, which are each examples of electrically insulating materials. At [0108], the liquid leakage senor may be wound around the battery); and the first lead-out piece and the second lead-out piece are both electrically connected to the BMS. (As shown FIG. 8, connection of the sensor to notification device 30).
Regarding claim 16, Ueda teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and further teaches a second insulating layer, wherein the second insulating layer surrounds the battery. (see: [0079], [0036], [0106] the liquid leakage sensor has insulating layers on both sides.)
Regarding claim 15, Ueda teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Referring to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of wherein the battery is electrically connected to the BMS through the connecting port, includes any opening in the housing that contains wires electrically connecting any part of the battery or sensor to the BMS. Ueda discloses FIG. 8, connection of the sensor to notification device 30 and discloses (FIG. 11) that the battery in the case 11 is electrically connected to 1, 2, 3, and 4 (power supply, rectification circuit, switching circuit, load), which are outside of the case, and shows (FIG. 8) that the liquid leakage sensor 70 is connected to notification device 30 via terminals T1 and T2 (e.g. first and second lead out pieces). Therefore, the case necessarily contains a connecting port.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3-6, 10-13, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Ueda (US 20070275296 A1) as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Ueda teaches all of the limitations as set forth above including the detection mesh according to claim 1, and further teaches:
a battery cell (FIG. 11 batteries 10), comprising an enclosure (FIG. 11 case 11), a cell core (battery 10) and the detection mesh (FIG. 8 liquid leakage sensor 70),
wherein the cell core assembly is arranged in the enclosure: the cell core assembly comprises at least one cell core; (as shown FIG. 11)
Regarding the limitation wherein the detection mesh is insulatively arranged between the enclosure and the cell core assembly, Ueda discloses [0079] that the electrolyte sensor (e.g. detection mesh) has a covering layer 54 which is made from an insulating material, and a base member 51. At [0036] the base member is made from polyester or polyimide. Examiner notes that polyester and polyimide are each electrically insulating materials. At [0060] and [0074], the liquid leakage sensor (e.g. detection mesh) may be disposed on the outer surface of the battery. Because the liquid leakage sensor has an electrically insulating layer on each surface, and is wound around the battery, it is therefore insulatively arranged between the battery and the housing.
Ueda further discloses the first lead-out piece and the second lead-out piece are both electrically connected to the BMS. (As shown FIG. 8, connection of the sensor to notification device 30).
While Ueda does not explicitly teach a connecting port is arranged on the enclosure, Ueda discloses (FIG. 11) that the battery in the case is electrically connected to 1, 2, 3, and 4 (power supply, rectification circuit, switching circuit, load), which are outside of the case, and shows (FIG. 8) that the liquid leakage sensor 70 is connected to notification device 30 via T1 and T2 (e.g. first and second lead out pieces). A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore expect that the first and second lead out pieces would be electrically connected through a connection port arranged on the enclosure.
Examiner notes that a person of ordinary skill aware of the teachings of Ueda FIG. 11 would understand that the liquid leakage sensor of Ueda could function in multiple locations where battery leakage might occur. In addition to being wrapped around a battery as disclosed at [0060], it could be placed under the entire battery powered object, placed on the outside of the battery pack housing, placed between a module housing and the tray, or placed inside a module housing and around a cell core. The person of ordinary skill would further understand that even if Ueda only explicitly teaches the liquid leakage sensor placed around the battery, that the liquid leakage sensor located between the cell core assembly and enclosure represents one of a finite number of identifiable, predictable solutions, and therefore selection of this location is rendered obvious.
This also renders obvious the limitation of claim 4, wherein the detection mesh surrounds the cell core assembly.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Ueda teaches all of the limitations as set forth above and further teaches [0011] wherein the enclosure is a metal enclosure.
Regarding the limitation a first insulating layer is arranged between the enclosure and the detection mesh, Ueda discloses [0079] that the electrolyte sensor (e.g. detection mesh) has a covering layer 54 which is made from an insulating material, and further has a base member 51. At [0036] the base member is made from polyester or polyimide. Examiner notes that polyester and polyimide are each electrically insulating materials. At [0108], the liquid leakage sensor (e.g. detection mesh) may be wound around the battery. Because the liquid leakage sensor has an electrically insulating layer on each surface, and is wound around the battery, it is therefore insulatively arranged between the enclosure and the detection mesh.
Regarding claims 10-13, Ueda teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Regarding the limitation wherein a density of the alternating first protrusions and second protrusions is positively correlated with a detection precision of the detection mesh, Ueda at [0084] teaches that “It is desirable for these widths W1 [electrode width] and W2 [electrode gap] to be small, since then it is possible to detect a small leakage of liquid”. Examiner notes that a person of ordinary skill would assume that if the electrode gap is too large, it would not be possible to detect a small leakage of liquid. A smaller electrode gap creates a higher density. Arguendo, a person of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected positive correlation between the density of alternating protrusions and the detection precision of the detection mesh. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would expect the instant limitation to be met.
Regarding claim 18, Ueda teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Ueda discloses at [0006] that a case 10 may be made of metal, however, Ueda does not clearly disclose that the battery case of Ueda is made of metal. (Examiner notes that a battery case 10 can be referred to as a tray.) Ueda discloses [0079] that the electrolyte sensor (e.g. detection mesh) has a covering layer 54 which is made from an insulating material, and further has a base member 51. At [0036] the base member is made from polyester or polyimide. Examiner notes that polyester and polyimide are each electrically insulating materials. At [0108], the liquid leakage sensor (e.g. detection mesh) may be wound around the battery. Because the liquid leakage sensor has an electrically insulating layer on each surface, and is wound around the battery, a person of ordinary skill would understand that the battery case maybe made of metal. A person of ordinary skill would therefore expect that the battery assembly tray (holding multiple modules) could be metal, as it represents one of two possible predictable solutions to a battery tray, as has the electrolyte leakage sensor (detection mesh) having an insulation layer on each side, therefore rendering obvious the selection of a metal tray and a third insulation layer arranged between the tray and the detection mesh.
Regarding claim 19, Ueda teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, including the battery according to claim 3. Ueda teaches the battery module, (FIG. 11 case 10) comprising at least a battery management system (BMS) (FIG. 8 notification device 30). Regarding the tray, Examiner notes that FIG. 11 case 10 can be considered a type of battery tray.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Ueda (US 20070275296 A1) as set forth in claim 1, and in further view of Zahnert (DE 4220494 A1, with paragraph references to the provided English translation.)
Regarding claims 7-9, Ueda in view of Zahnert teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, Ueda at FIG. 11 shows a battery housing (case 11) with wires exiting the opening provided on at least one side of the housing 11, but does not explicitly teach an end cover (lid) for the opening, and therefore does not explicitly teach wherein the end cover covers the opening; and the connecting port is arranged on the end cover. Ueda discloses (FIG. 11) that the battery in the case is electrically connected to 1, 2, 3, and 4 (power supply, rectification circuit, switching circuit, load), which are outside of the case, through the case opening, and shows (FIG. 8) that the liquid leakage sensor 70 is connected to notification device 30 via T1 and T2 (e.g. first and second lead out pieces). A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore expect that the first and second lead out pieces are therefore electrically connected through the case opening.
Ueda does not explicitly teach an end cover and therefore does not teach wherein the end cover covers the opening.
Zahnert, in the field of (abstract) leakage detection for batteries, discloses [0011] the need for mechanical protection of the battery and [0013] the need to permanently install the sensor in the battery housing. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an end cover can be used to retain the battery and sensor in the housing and would further understand that the sensor connection to external circuits can be through the end cover or through the housing body. The person of ordinary skill would therefore be motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to add an end cover to the battery case of modified Ueda for the purpose of protection, and to select a connecting port in the end cover, as it represents one of two possible locations for the connecting port, with a reasonable expectation of successfully protecting the battery and retaining the battery and leakage sensor in the housing.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Ueda (US 20070275296 A1) as set forth in claim 14, above, and in further view of Goto (US 20120148890 A1).
Regarding claims 20, Ueda teaches the battery module as set forth in claim 14, above. However
Ueda does not explicitly teach the battery module used in an electric vehicle.
Goto, in the field of ([0004]) battery abnormality detection systems for electric vehicles, discloses FIG. 24 and [0083], 0086] a liquid leakage detection device 82 for leak detection in a secondary battery. At [0048], the detection system can be used in an electric vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood, based on Ueda’s teaching of the liquid leakage device connected to a warning device, that electrolyte leakage from a battery is can be hazardous, and would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to use the liquid leakage detector of Ueda in an electric vehicle as contemplated by Goto, with a reasonable expectation of improving safety.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.
CLAIRE A. RUTISER
Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/C.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751