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 .
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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikami (WO2019/048985; English equivalent US Pub. No. 2020/0388888 relied upon) in view of Tajima (WO2019/207399; English equivalent US Pub. No. 2021/0116511 relied upon) and Tajitsu (WO2016/175321; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 2, Mikami teaches a storage battery system comprising a storage battery 135 or 500 (claimed secondary battery) (paragraph [0157] and [0171]), the storage battery comprising an exterior body 509 holding an electrolyte solution 508, a positive electrode 503 and a negative electrode 506 (paragraph [0171]), a sensor element 174 (claimed sensor member) provided to be in contact with part of the exterior body, where the sensor element can be a piezoelectric element (paragraphs [0082]-[0083]), and a circuit 182 (taken to be the claimed detection circuit) electrically connected to the sensor (paragraph [0144]), wherein the battery comprises a memory 132 (paragraph [0084]), the sensor can detect abnormal expansion, such being caused by gas expansion (paragraph [0144]), a learning model is constructed on the basis of the sensor data, an estimated value is obtained using the learning model, and a unit provides information based on the estimated value (paragraphs [0067]-[0086] and [0137]-[0146]). Mikami does not specifically disclose a first secondary battery storing data based on an expansion amount of a second secondary battery. Tajima teaches in a state-of-charge estimation system for an electricity storage device, a neural network unit 23 is created using data of a secondary cell 10 (claimed second secondary battery) for learning, and data of a secondary cell 20 (claimed first secondary battery) is inputted to the trained neural network 23 that was created. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a learning model based on data from a second secondary battery to a first secondary battery as taught by Tajima in the battery system of Mikami in order to have a system that determines state of charge with high accuracy (see Tajima tat paragraph [0022]). Mikami does not specifically disclose that the piezoelectric sensor element is a string-like piezoelectric element. Tajitsu teaches a piezoelectric element (title) where the piezoelectric element is in the form of a string-like piezoelectric element (machine translation at page 10, third to last paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a string-like piezoelectric element as taught by Tajitsu in the storage battery system of Mikami (combined) in order to have the advantage of not having electrodes on the surface of the piezoelectric element (see Tajitsu machine translation at page 10, second to last paragraph).
Regarding claim 11, Mikami teaches that the electrolyte solution preferably comprises an organic solvent (paragraph [0172]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tajitsu.
Applicant argues that Tajima belongs to an entirely different technical field and shares no hardware overlap with the claimed invention. However, Tajima does not belong to an entirely different technical field – both Tajima and the instant invention share the classification in G01R31/367 – Software for testing measuring or monitoring the electrical condition of accumulators or electric batteries. Applicant further argues that there is no motivation to combine Mikami and Tajima to arrive at the claimed system. However, Applicant did not respond to the asserted motivation set forth previously and again above - it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a learning model based on data from a second secondary battery to a first secondary battery as taught by Tajima in the battery system of Mikami in order to have a system that determines state of charge with high accuracy (see Tajima tat paragraph [0022]). One of ordinary skill in the art would not have to use voltage/current data as taught by Tajima, because Mikami teaches other types of data such as abnormal expansion caused by gas expansion, and a learning model can equally be applied to such. Regarding the arguments with respect to the newly claimed string-like structure, Tajitsu has been cited teaching that arrangement.
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 PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 October 9, 2026
/KATELYN W SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights