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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on December 4, 2023 and January 5, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 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 2 and 11-12 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).
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, 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]).
Regarding claim 11, Mikami teaches that the electrolyte solution preferably comprises an organic solvent (paragraph [0172]).
Regarding claim 12, Mikami teaches that the sensor can be formed of a polymer film (paragraphs [0076] and [0083]).
Conclusion
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 May 4, 2026
/KATELYN W SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights