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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection as the previous prior art does not teach or render obvious a through portion penetrating through the foam pad from an upper end to a lower end. However, please note that limitations specifying a device’s orientation in space, upper and lower ends, is the intended use of the device and a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963).
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 5, 6 and 11 (and any claims that depend therefrom) 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.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, it is unclear how the device would function if there is a plate located in the vent hole? There are no materials listed for the plate in the specification and the term plate has a commensurate meaning in scope with a solid structure.
Also, figure 6 appears to show a solid component obscuring the vent hole. Thus, how will the vent hole function if there is a plate in the venting path? Is the plate a breakaway type device, if so, where is this noted in the specification. Additionally, if the plate breaks then would the temperature sensor still be attached to it?
If a vent hole has something in the way of it performing its purpose, then would the battery not explode? Thus, claims 5 and 6 appear indefinite as to the structure they imply.
Claim 11 recites “of a film type” which renders the claim indefinite. What is “of a film type”? Is this a thin temperature sensor, is it structural, what does “film type” imply, just that it is thin? Is the claim language “of a type” optional?
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Jung (US20220304158, different inventors are listed compared to the present application).
Regarding claims 1-4, 9 and 10, Pulliam teaches a battery having:
a plurality of cells #10 (see fig. 1);
a circuit board #50 located over the cells [0057];
a temperature sensor #544 [0061] having a portion located between the circuit board and the cells and attached to the circuit board and battery cells;
a foam pad #542 [0061] formed around (temperature sensor is formed through it) having a top and bottom opening;
wherein tape is used to hold the sensor to the cell [0061];
Note that soldering in claim 3 is product-by-process limitation.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Jung teaches the sensor can a film type and be s-shaped [0013].
Regarding claim 13, Jung teaches the foam pad 542 has a hexahedron shape [0061].
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pulliam (US20100136392) in view of either Hammerschmied (US20190237817) or Ward (US20130327370).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 4, Pulliam teaches a battery having:
a plurality of cells #12 (see fig. 1, abstract);
a circuit board #14 located over the cells [0008-10];
a temperature sensor #16/18 [0011] having a portion located between the circuit board and the cells and attached to the circuit board and battery cells;
a silicone rubber #54/36 [0012] having a through portion #36a, i.e. upper end and lower end, through which the temperature sensor leads #38, i.e. portion of the temperature sensor, pass through, so that a portion of the temperature sensor is exposed on the outside of both sides of the rubber.
While Pulliam teaches the use of a compressible silicone rubber, it does not specifically recite a foam. It is noted that applicant’s specification appears silent as to what applicant utilizes as its foam.
Therefore, one skilled in the art would look to all areas that utilize a compressible rubber as an insulative means and similar products thereof. For example, Hammerschmeid also teaches a battery with a temperature sensor having a foam portion #160 for support [0041-42]. The foam member may be formed of an electrically insulating material, preferably formed of a polymer material such as an elastomer so as to attenuate the relative movement between the battery cell and the protection circuit module. Materials useful as the foam member include polyurethane and the like.
Additionally, Ward also teaches an electrical device that utilizes a compliant thermally-insulative layer #66 which may be formed of material having a relatively high thermal insulative capability. For example, the compliant thermally-insulative layer may be formed of a thermally insulative silicone-based material such as silicone rubber or silicone foam having a relatively high insulative capability. The foam may comprise a resiliently compressible silicone-based foam rubber. In this regard, the compliant thermally-insulative layer may be formed of a resiliently compressible foam material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the present invention to have utilized a silicone foam pad for the silicone rubber in the device of Pulliam as taught by either Ward or Hammerschmeid as both teach silicon rubber is interchangeable with silicone foam and both function and have compressible and insulative properties. The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is not patentable. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007); MPEP 2143 B.
Regarding claim 3, note that soldering is a product-by-process limitation. Note that Pulliam teaches soldering is known to connect the temperature sensor and the circuit board or cell [0015]; however, Pulliam teaches that there are problems associated with soldering and its use of a simple insert-and-twist motion provides for a better outcomes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date that soldering can be utilized to attach the temperature sensor as taught by Pulliam even though this is a less desirable method of attachment.
Regarding claim 11, Pulliam teaches the use of a thermistor which is a thin temperature sensor.
Regarding claim 13, Pulliam teaches a temperature sensor having multiple sides. It should also be known that limitations relating to size and dimensions are held not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984); MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pulliam (US20100136392) and either Hammerschmied (US20190237817) or Ward (US20130327370) in view of Sundaraaman (KR2019-0032883).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Pulliam teaches the use of a temperature sensor that contacts the plate #30 and teaches a vent hole in each case, but does not teach a plate inside the vent hole where the temperature sensor is connected.
However, Sundaraaman teaches a battery cell (110, Fig. 2), comprising a vent plate (125, Fig. 4) in the vent hole (124/220, Fig. 4), with a temperature sensor (271 may replace 211 in Fig. 4, see [0047] of Machine Translation) attached to the plate (125).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vent holes of Pulliam and place a vent plate in the vent hole and rearrange the temperature sensor to attach to the plate inside the hole which would be right next to plate #30 where it is already attached (as both locations would measure the temperature of the cell), to release pressure build-up in the battery ([0025]). Note that the mere rearrangement of parts that does not modify the operation of a device and which are an obvious design choice are not patentable. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Claim(s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pulliam (US20100136392) and either Hammerschmied (US20190237817) or Ward (US20130327370) in view of Cha (US20230238588).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Pulliam does not specifically teach the use of adhesive tape to connect the temperature sensor to the circuit board.
However, Cha, also in the battery art, teaches that a temperature sensor #400 to monitor the temperature of a battery cell stack #100 and the temperature sensor can be attached to one surface of the flexible printed circuit board #500 through an adhesive member. The adhesive member may be a double-sided tape [0042].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date to use tape to secure the temperature sensor to the circuit board in Pulliam as taught by Cha as adhesive tape is a known attachment means in the battery art for temperature sensors.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pulliam (US20100136392) and either Hammerschmied (US20190237817) or Ward (US20130327370) in view of Mansfield (US20230268570).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Pulliam does not specifically teach the use of adhesive tape to connect the temperature sensor to the cell.
However, Mansfield, also in the battery art, teaches that a temperature sensor #87 to monitor the temperature of a battery cell stack #100 and the temperature sensor can be attached to one surface of the cell via tape [0051].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date to use tape to secure the temperature sensor to the cell in Pulliam as taught by Mansfield as adhesive tape is a known attachment means in the battery art for temperature sensors.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pulliam (US20100136392) and either Hammerschmied (US20190237817) or Ward (US20130327370) in view of Kou et al. (JPH 03-90829).
Regarding claim 12, Pulliam teaches the temperature sensor inserted in the through portion but does not teach wherein the temperature sensor is bent in an "S" shape although the ends/leads from the sensor are in a bent shape on either side of the silicone rubber.
Kou, teaches the temperature sensor (s-shaped temperature sensor, Annotated Fig. 4, below) is inserted in the through portion (27, Fig. 4, Page1:L21-22) and bent in an "S" shape (see explanation below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the temperature sensor of Pulliam in view of Kou, such that it was bent in an "S" shape, as taught by Kou, since it would reduce stress on the assembly (see Page1:L30-34). It should also be known that limitations relating to size and dimensions are held not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984); MPEP 2144.04 IV.
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 JENNIFER M DIETERLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7872. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:30-5:30 EST.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at 571-272-4729. 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.
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
