DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 2026-06-02, the following has occurred: Claims 1-5, 9, and 14-17 have been amended; Claims 18-20 have been added.
Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined herein. This is a Final Rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The phrase “the first time” does not appear anywhere in the specification as filed. It is not clear what significance to attribute to this phrase, since it does not appear. It has been interpreted as basically any time when the change in the volume is determined to present a gas venting risk.
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.
Claims 1-4, 11, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda (US 2021/0167607 to Masuda et al.) in view of Willenberg (Willenberg et al. “High-Precision Monitoring of Volume Change of Commercial Lithium-Ion Batteries by Using Strain Gauges.” Sustainability 2020, 12, 557).
Regarding Claim 1, Masuda teaches:
a battery module comprising a battery cell, that can be arranged with a plurality of other battery cell stacks in what a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to be a “stack” within the broadest reasonable interpretation of that phrase (¶ 0016)
a measuring circuit including a volume measurer 43 configured to determine a volume change of a battery cell among the plurality of battery cells and to transmit the determined volume change as a signal (¶ 0019-0022, Fig. 1)
a controller 4 configured to receive the signal from the measuring circuit to create a time-volume profile representing a volume change over time based on the received signal and configured to determine degradation based on the time-volume profile, including excessive gas build up, which presents a risk of gas venting (Fig. 2, ¶ 0018, 0055)
PNG
media_image1.png
774
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the controller is further configured to determine a time when the volume change in the time-volume profile converts from a stagnant state to an increasing state as a gas venting risk point (see Fig. 2 showing stagnant period between t1 and t2, and a rise after t2—¶ 0027; see also ¶ 0055 referring to gas venting risk as a known consequence of degradation associated with abnormal volume change)
Masuda does not explicitly teach:
measuring the state of charge of the cell, and creating a time-volume profile of the battery cell representing change in the cell volume at a set SOC value to determine a risk of gas venting based on the time-volume profile of the battery cell
Willenberg, however, from the same field of invention, teaches volume change as a function of specific SOC values, including volume change at fixed SOC values tracked across aging (Figs. 7 and 8).
PNG
media_image2.png
302
694
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
262
634
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Willenberg identifies two different volume change mechanisms—change due to lithiation and delithiation, and an irreversible change due to ageing/cycling—showing that volume change as a function of SOC is important for identifying volume change due to degradation. It would have been obvious to implement Willenberg’s renormalization of volume change at fixed SOC values in the battery stack of Masuda, with the motivation to separate out irreversible volume changes as a signal for degradation.
Regarding Claim 2, Masuda teaches:
wherein the time-volume profile is divided into a first section in which a volume increases (t1), a second stagnation of volume, within the broadest reasonable interpretation of that phrase (between t1 and t2), and a third section in which the volume change increases following the second section (after t2), wherein the controller is configured to determine a starting point of the third section as the degradation/venting risk point (¶ 0027-0031)
Regarding Claim 3, Willenberg render obvious:
wherein the time-volume profile and monitoring is performed at a given state of charge, and are created only with the volume of the battery cell at a set SOC value (Fig. 8)
Regarding Claim 4, Masuda teaches:
monitoring temperature and incorporating it into measurements and inferences from sense data (¶ 0034)
Masuda does not explicitly teach:
correcting a measured volume at a given temperature with a standardized volume at a standard volume to create a time-volume profile based on a corrected volume
Willenberg, however, from the same field of invention, regarding monitoring of volume changes of battery cells, teaches measuring volume change as a function of temperature separately (see Fig. 3 and associated discussion), in order to determine the volume change according to temperature, rather than, e.g., gas produced during cycling. Renormalizing data to a standardized reference frame is common in the electrochemical arts. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to correct for temperature-induced changes to more accurately assess volume change due to other factors, and renormalizing along a standard reference curve was a common technique in the art suitable for such purposes.
Regarding Claim 11, Masuda teaches:
sensors for measuring temperature, voltage, and the like (¶ 0019, 0029, 0034, etc.)
Regarding Claim 13, Masuda teaches:
a battery pack comprising the assembled plurality of cells (¶ 0016)
Regarding Claim 14, Masuda teaches:
a method of detecting volume change, or pressure increase, associated with gas production, and which therefore presents a “gas venting risk” objectively speaking, gas venting risk being a well-known problem associated with volume changes (¶ 0016, 0055)
a data collection process comprising measuring a volume change of a battery cell among the plurality of battery cells including state of charge (¶ 0019, 0028-0029, 0039-0046)
creating a time-volume profile representing a volume change over time (Fig. 2, ¶ 0018, 0055)
determining a time when the volume change in the time-volume profile converts from a stagnant state to an increasing state as a gas venting risk point (see Fig. 2 showing stagnant period between t1 and t2, and a rise after t2—¶ 0027)
Masuda does not explicitly teach:
measuring the state of charge of the cell, and creating a time-volume profile of the battery cell representing change in the cell volume at a set SOC value to determine a risk of gas venting based on the time-volume profile of the battery cell
Willenberg, however, from the same field of invention, teaches volume change as a function of specific SOC values, including volume change at fixed SOC values tracked across aging (Figs. 7 and 8). Willenberg identifies two different volume change mechanisms—change due to lithiation and delithiation, and an irreversible change due to ageing/cycling—showing that volume change as a function of SOC is important for identifying volume change due to degradation. It would have been obvious to implement Willenberg’s renormalization of volume change at fixed SOC values in the battery stack of Masuda, with the motivation to separate out irreversible volume changes as a signal for degradation.
Regarding Claim 15, Willenberg renders obvious:
wherein the time-volume profile and monitoring is performed at a given state of charge, and are created only with the volume of the battery cell at a set SOC value (Fig. 8)
Regarding Claim 16, Masuda teaches:
data collection including temperature, and the creation of the time-volume profile at a given temperature
Masuda does not teach:
correcting a measured volume at a given temperature with a standardized volume at a standard volume to create a time-volume profile based on a corrected volume
Willenberg, however, from the same field of invention, regarding monitoring of volume changes of battery cells, teaches measuring volume change as a function of temperature separately (see Fig. 3 and associated discussion), in order to determine the volume change according to temperature, rather than, e.g., gas produced during cycling. Renormalizing data to a standardized reference frame is common in the electrochemical arts. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to correct for temperature-induced changes to more accurately assess volume change due to other factors, and renormalizing along a standard reference curve was a common technique in the art suitable for such purposes.
Regarding Claims 18-19, Willenberg renders obvious:
wherein the set SOC value is 0% (Fig. 8), but can be selected from any point in the range 0-100% (Fig. 7)
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]).
Regarding Claim 20, Masuda teaches:
determining an abnormality in the time-volume profile, and therefore necessarily determining an abnormality for the first time (¶ 0037-0040)
Since gas production was a known problem, associated with volume change, and gas venting was a risk, with conventional cells in the art being provided with vents and the like to safely vent, it would have been obvious to select an appropriate predetermined threshold for an SOC-adjusted volume change in order to determine when a cell presents a risk. That is a natural and obvious conclusion flowing from the prior art of record, which is concerned with monitoring and tracking degradation in cells.
Claims 5, 7, 8, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda (US 2021/0167607 to Masuda et al.) in view of Willenberg (Willenberg et al. “High-Precision Monitoring of Volume Change of Commercial Lithium-Ion Batteries by Using Strain Gauges.” Sustainability 2020, 12, 557), in further view of Riemer (US 2020/0076016 to Riemer et al.).
Regarding Claim 5, Masuda teaches:
a battery cell, known to have a cathode, anode, and separator, inside a battery case (Fig. 1, etc.)
Masuda does not explicitly teach:
a pouch cell with a pouch case sealed by heat fusion
Pouch cells were a well-known cell housing architecture. Riemer, for example, teaches a pouch-type cell with predisposed sensors, wherein the cell is heat sealed (¶ 0023, 0030). Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). It would have been obvious to use a conventional, heat-sealed pouch cell housing since they were conventional substitutes in the art for the housing shown in Masuda.
Regarding Claim 7, Masuda teaches:
a hexahedral cell, provided in a housing
Cell housings were conventional and routine in the art. Hexahedral housings were perhaps the simplest housing shapes in the art. Where a prior art component has the same function as the instantly claimed component, motivation to alter the shape of the component to any other equally useful shape is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. In the instant case, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to alter the shape of the module case to any equally useful shape, such as the instantly claimed shape, as any shape would serve the same purpose.
Regarding Claim 8, Masuda teaches:
a strain gauge (¶ 0028)
Regarding Claim 10, Masuda does not explicitly teach:
a strain gauge being attached to a sealing part of the heat-fused portion of the battery case
Riemer, however, teaches providing the strain gauge sensors in the battery pouch cell laminate, and such a laminate is attached to the sealing part that is heat-fused, leading to the strain gauge being attached to the sealing part(s) (¶ 0041-0043, etc.). It would have been obvious to position a strain gauge sensor in a pouch cell like that Riemer, with the motivation to measure volume change across the surface, and such positioning is going to inherently result in the strain gauge being attached to a sealing part of the pouch cell, which is just a sub-portion of the laminate film.
Regarding Claim 17, Masuda teaches:
a cell with typical features, including cathode, anode, separator, and battery casing (Fig. 1)
a strain gauge (¶ 0028)
Masuda does not explicitly teach:
a pouch-type battery cell sealed by heat fusion
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda (US 2021/0167607 to Masuda et al.) in view of Willenberg (Willenberg et al. “High-Precision Monitoring of Volume Change of Commercial Lithium-Ion Batteries by Using Strain Gauges.” Sustainability 2020, 12, 557), in further view of Riemer (US 2020/0076016 to Riemer et al.) and Robinson (Robinson et al. “Detection of Internal Defects in Lithium-Ion Batteries Using Lock-in Thermography.” ECS Electrochemistry Letters, 4 (9) A106-A109 (2015)).
Regarding Claim 6, Masuda does not explicitly teach:
wherein the volume measurer comprises a thermal imaging camera configured to perform a vision inspection on a sealing part in which the battery case is heat-fused
Robinson, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a monitoring system for a battery cell, teaches use of thermal imaging to spot volume changes, including gas pockets formed in the cell (A109). For further evidence of ordinary skill in the art, see also Vergori et al. “Monitoring of Li-ion cells with distributed fibre optic sensors.” Procedia Structural Integrity 24 (2019) 233-239, which teaches use of 3D imaging to measure temperature and strain gradients in a Li-ion pouch cell (abstract). See also US 2019/0267677 to Kahn, which teaches high precision optical measurements for sensing strain/volume changes. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to use imaging sensors, including thermal imaging sensors to monitor the cell(s) for volume changes, such as the formation of gas pockets, since imaging was a known sensing method in the art with known engineering tradeoffs in comparison to more conventional sensors like strain gauges.
Regarding Claim 9, Masuda teaches:
a calculator for estimating the signal received (¶ 0033-0037)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda (US 2021/0167607 to Masuda et al.) in view of Willenberg (Willenberg et al. “High-Precision Monitoring of Volume Change of Commercial Lithium-Ion Batteries by Using Strain Gauges.” Sustainability 2020, 12, 557), in further view of Stefanopoulou (US Patent No. 11,623,526 to Stefanopoulou et al.).
Regarding Claim 12, Masuda does not teach:
a warning signal from the controller based on a risk of gas venting, such as stopping operation, or a recognition signal
Such signals are obvious and conventional in the art. Stefanopoulou, for example, from the same field of invention, regarding a monitoring system, including a monitoring system that senses changes in volume and/or pressure, teaches providing a warning to the user that can also stop operation of the battery pack (columns 5-6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks (2026-06-02) have been considered but do not place the application in condition for allowance. Applicant argues Masuda does not teach constructing a time-volume profile at a set SOC. The rejections now rely on Willenberg, which teaches normalizing the volume change for a set SOC. It would have been obvious to construct an SOC-normalized time-volume profile in the cell of Masuda with the motivation to better separate the reversible and irreversible volume changes upon cycling, to better track degradation, and the associated risk of venting.
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 Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights