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 . If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-15 are presently examined.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, in the reply filed on 3/23/2026, is acknowledged. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor(s) regard as the invention.
Claim 1 states:
“determining a test load to be applied to a plurality of battery cells included as part of the battery pack;
“determining a voltage response of the battery cells while subjected to the test load; and
“generating a thermal assessment based on the voltage response”
These claim limitations are indefinite for the following reasons:
In an electric circuit, a load consumes electric power1. In this claim, it seems that the “test load” must be a direct current pulse instead of a load (paragraph 45).
The claim states “determining a test load”, but never states “applying” the test load. The thermal assessment can’t be generated by determining the test load without applying it.
The claim states “determining a voltage response”. The voltage response is a measurement – not a decision, so “determining” should be replaced by “measuring” (paragraph 44).
The thermal assessment is based on both the direct current pulse and the voltage response (paragraphs 44-45), but the claim language states only the voltage response.
Examiner suggests the following amendment to claim 1:
“ applying a direct current pulse to a plurality of battery cells included as part of the battery pack;
“ measuring a voltage response of the battery cells while subjected to the direct current pulse; and
“generating a thermal assessment based on the direct current pulse and the voltage response”
Examiner will examine claim 1 according to this amendment, which is Examiner’ understanding of the claim. See paragraphs 23 & 44-47 for support for the above amendments.
Claims 2-15 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 7 states “a predefined range”. The claim and specification fail to provide sufficient guidance for the meaning of this phrase.
Claims 7 & 10 state “applying the test load”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims. Examiner’s suggested amendment above, replacing “determining” with “applying”, will overcome this rejection.
Claims 8-10 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 states:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, & 12-15 do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process. “determining” and “generating” can be solely mental processes. Furthermore, this is not integrated into a practical application because the entire claim can be a mental process.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 1, 3-6, & 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN107703363A machine translation (Xiang).
With regard to claim 1, Xiang teaches the following claim limitations:
A method for assessing performance of a thermal management system configured for thermally managing a battery pack of an electric vehicle (Xiang doesn’t mention a vehicle, but Xiang’s method could be used for a vehicle battery), comprising:
determining a test load (page 3, lines 13-19: direct current pulse) to be applied to a plurality of battery cells included as part of the battery pack (see discussion below);
determining a voltage response (page 3, line 20: measuring battery voltage) of the battery cells while subjected to the test load; and
generating a thermal assessment based on the voltage response, the thermal assessment representing capabilities of the thermal management system to thermally manage the battery pack (page 3, line 27: calculate the internal resistance; page 2, lines 12-15: detect thermal runaway by increased battery internal resistance)
Xiang teaches applying the direct current pulse to a battery (page 3, lines 13-19: direct current pulse). Xiang fails to teach applying the direct current pulse to a plurality of battery cells. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) provides guidance for this issue: “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”. Applying similar reasoning to the present method claim, merely duplicating the method on multiple parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
With regard to claim 3, modified Xiang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. The following limitations of claim 3 are obvious over Xiang, or taught by Xiang:
the voltage response including a voltage measurement for each of the battery cells (see discussion under claim 1 & MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B), regarding applying this method to multiple batteries),
the voltage measurement representing voltage sensed across the corresponding battery cell while subjected to the test load (page 3, lines 19-20)
With regard to claims 4-6, modified Xiang teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 3 as described above. Xiang also teaches The following limitations of claims 4-6 are taught by Xiang (page 2, lines 12-15: detect thermal runaway by increased battery internal resistance), or taught by Xiang:
Claim 4
the thermal assessment indicating performance of the thermal management system to be desirable when each of the voltage measurements are within the voltage response range and to be undesirable when at least one of the voltage measurements are outside of the voltage response range
Claim 5
the thermal assessment indicating performance of the thermal management system to be outside of a desired range in response to a voltage delta between one or more of the voltage measurements exceeding a threshold
Claim 6
the thermal assessment indicating performance of the thermal management system to be desirable when each of the voltage measurements are within a voltage response range and undesirable when one or more of the voltage measurements are outside of the voltage response range
Xiang teaches that battery thermal runaway can be indicated by internal resistance increase. Xiang doesn’t refer to desirable and undesirable ranges or a threshold. It would have been obvious, however, to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the teachings of Xiang, to experiment and determine safe battery resistivity ranges and threshold, and unsafe battery resistivity ranges which lead to thermal runaway.
With regard to claim 11, modified Xiang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. The following limitations of claim 11 are obvious over Xiang, or taught by Xiang:
applying the test load and measuring the voltage response with a cell monitoring unit (CMU) of the battery pack
Xiang teaches a battery internal resistance measuring device with a computing unit [claimed CMU] (claim 2). Xiang doesn’t explicitly state that the computing unit applies the direct current pulse or measures the battery voltage. It would have been obvious, however, to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the teachings of Xiang, to use a computing unit for these functions, due to the efficiency and precision of computers, and due to their widespread use.
With regard to claim 12, modified Xiang teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 11 as described above. Claim 12 states:
applying the test load and measuring the voltage response as part of an end-of-line test performed before the battery pack is installed within the electric vehicle
Xiang doesn’t teach applying the direct current pulse or measuring the battery voltage as an end-of-line test before the battery is installed in a vehicle. Testing of vehicle components before installation is commonly done to ensure that they will function before making the effort of installation. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have thus tested the battery before installation as claimed, to ensure that it is functional.
With regard to claim 13, modified Xiang teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 11 as described above. Claim 13 states:
applying the test load and measuring the voltage response as part of an in-vehicle test performed after the battery pack is installed within the electric vehicle
Xiang doesn’t teach applying the direct current pulse or measuring the battery voltage after the battery is installed in a vehicle. Testing of vehicle components after installation is commonly done to ensure that they weren’t damaged during installation and to ensure their functionality isn’t degraded by nearby components. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have thus tested the battery after installation as claimed, to ensure that it wasn’t damaged during installation.
With regard to claim 14, modified Xiang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Xiang also teaches the following limitation of claim 14:
generating the test load as a direct current (DC) pulse (page 3, lines 13-19: direct current pulse)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 7-10, & 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if (a) rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; (b) the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are overcome; and (c) for claims 2 & 15, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are overcome. The following is a statement of reasons for allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 2, CN107703363A machine translation (Xiang) in view of US20100302051A1 (Hermann) are the closest prior art of record. Claim 2 states:
generating a resistivity profile for the battery cells according to the voltage response; and
generating the thermal assessment to indicate a wet-out for the battery pack to be desirable when the resistivity profile is within a resistivity response range and undesirable when outside of the resistivity response range, the wet-out characterizing thermal coupling via a thermal interface
Xiang teaches detecting thermal runaway by increased battery internal resistance (page 2, lines 12-15 & page 3, line 27). Hermann teaches measuring resistivity of a conductive member mounted near a battery to detect a battery thermal event (abstract; paragraph 10).
Neither Xiang nor Hermann teach measuring battery resistivity to indicate wet-out; i.e. to indicate thermal coupling to the battery. Xiang’s thermal runaway could include an indication of wet-out; however, Xiang’s thermal runaway concept is broader, and is not directed to the narrower concept of indicating wet-out.
With regard to claim 7, CN107703363A machine translation (Xiang) in view of US6379837B1 (Takahashi) are the closest prior art of record. Claim 7 states:
thermally cycling the battery pack prior to applying the test load, the thermal cycling heating or cooling the battery pack from a first temperature to a second temperature; and
applying the test load while a temperature of the battery pack is within a predefined range of the second temperature
Xiang fails to teach thermal cycling the battery. Takahashi teaches thermal cycling the battery to determine whether a battery can perform in adverse conditions (column 27, line 55 through column 28, line 5). Thus, thermal cycling a battery is not a novel concept.
Takahashi, however, fails to teach thermal cycling the battery prior to determining resistivity. It would not have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to thermal cycle the battery, as discussed by Takahashi, prior to performing Xiang’s procedure to determine resistivity.
The present specification teaches the following benefit of first thermal cycling the battery prior to determining resistivity:
“The test load may be configured to test the battery cells 28 without overly heating the battery pack 12 such that it may be desirable to thermally cycle the battery pack 12 prior to application of the test load.” [0047]
Claims 8-10 are allowable due to their dependence on claim 7.
With regard to claim 15, CN107703363A machine translation (Xiang) is the closest prior art of record. Claim 15 states:
generating the DC pulse with an amplitude of approximately 300-500 amperes and a duration of approximately 15-45 seconds
Although Xiang teaches the direct current pulse (page 3, lines 13-19), Xiang fails to teach this pulse amplitude and duration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
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.
/R.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_load#:~:text=An%20electrical%20load%20is%20an,power%20consumed%20by%20a%20circuit.
Prosecution Insights