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 12/5/24 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6/1/23. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-13, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0071706 A1 (“US’706”) in view of NPL, “On-chip eddy current sensor for proximity sensing and crack detection”, Sadler et al. (“Sadler”).
As to Claim 1:US’706 discloses:
a system including a battery cell having a rigid enclosure, as shown by a battery case enclosing an electrode assembly ([0044]);
first and second terminals, as shown by cathode terminal 11 and anode terminal 12 provided on the cap plate ([0044]);
a vent cap, as shown by vent 13 formed in the cap plate and configured to rupture when internal pressure exceeds a predetermined value ([0047]–[0049]);
a first sensor arranged adjacent to the vent, as shown by a gas measuring sensor S1 mounted in the surroundings of the vent or degassing cover ([0039]);
a controller configured to compare a sensed parameter to a predetermined parameter, as shown by controller 140 comparing sensed gas concentration and/or temperature to predetermined thresholds ([0041], [0043]); and
the controller performs a control action in response to the comparison when abnormal conditions associated with venting occur ([0041], [0047]).
However, US’706 does not expressly disclose that the first sensor senses a parameter affected by bulging or rupturing of the vent cap itself, nor does US’706 expressly disclose detecting bulging or rupturing of the vent cap based on a parameter that directly reflects structural deformation or rupture of the vent cap.
Sadler discloses an eddy current sensor arranged adjacent to a metal structure and configured to sense changes in electromagnetic response caused by deformation, cracking, or rupture of the metal structure (Sadler, pp. 340–342; Fig. 1). Sadler further teaches that such sensors directly detect structural changes by monitoring variations in a sensed parameter relative to reference values indicative of an intact structure (Sadler, pp. 341–343). Thus, Sadler teaches sensing a parameter that is directly affected by bulging or rupture of a metal component.
US’706 and Sadler are analogous art because both references relate to safety monitoring of engineered structures using sensors to detect abnormal conditions, and Sadler’s deformation-seeing sensor technology is reasonably pertinent to improving detection of vent cap failure in battery safety systems such as those of US’706.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of US’706 to employ a sensor as taught by Sadler arranged adjacent to the vent cap in order to sense a parameter affected by bulging or rupturing of the vent cap and to detect such bulging or rupturing via comparison to a predetermined parameter, thereby improving the accuracy and reliability of vent failure detection in the battery safety system.
As to Claim 2: US’706 discloses a system including a battery cell having a vent that discharges gas during abnormal operation ([0033], [0047]) and a gas measuring sensor configured to sense whether gas is generated and/or to measure a concentration of gas generated from the battery cell ([0012]–[0014]). US’706 further discloses that the gas measuring sensor S1 may be mounted in a degassing cover arranged above the battery cells or in the surroundings of the vent ([0039]), such that the gas measuring sensor senses gas released from the vent region. US’706 also discloses a controller configured to compare the sensed gas concentration to a predetermined gas concentration threshold ([0041], [0043]).
However, US’706 does not expressly disclose that the gas sensor is configured to sense a concentration of one or more gases exiting a vent cap specifically for the purpose of detecting bulging or rupturing of the vent cap, as recited.
Sadler discloses sensor placement adjacent to a structural component and teaches sensing parameters directly affected by structural deformation or rupture (Sadler, pp. 340–343). Sadler’s teaching supports correlating sensed parameters with rupture of a component. Applying Sadler’s teaching to the system of US’706 would have suggested configuring the gas sensor to sense the concentration of gas exiting the vent cap as a parameter affected by vent cap rupture.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to configure the gas measuring sensor of US’706 to sense a concentration of one or more gases exiting the vent cap, as claimed, in view of Sadler, in order to improve detection of vent cap bulging or rupture.
As to Claim 4: US’706 discloses a temperature measuring sensor configured to sense temperature within the battery pack and in the vicinity of the battery cells ([0008]–[0011], [0040], [0046]). US’706 further discloses that the temperature measuring sensor provides a temperature signal to a controller, and that the controller compares the sensed temperature to a predetermined temperature threshold to identify abnormal conditions associated with battery operation or venting ([0010], [0041], [0043]). The temperature measuring sensor may be mounted on the battery cell or near the vent and degassing cover region ([0040], [0046]).
However, US’706 does not expressly disclose that the temperature sensor is configured to sense the temperature of vent gases exiting the vent cap, as specifically recited.
Sadler teaches placing sensors adjacent to a component of interest to sense parameters directly associated with structural failure or rupture (Sadler, pp. 340–342). Applying Sadler’s teaching to the temperature sensing arrangement of US’706 would have suggested positioning and configuring the temperature sensor to sense the temperature of vent gases exiting the vent cap as a parameter affected by vent cap rupture.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to configure the temperature measuring sensor of US’706 to sense the temperature of vent gases exiting the vent cap, as claimed, in view of Sadler, to enhance detection of vent cap bulging or rupturing.
As to Claim 6: US’706 discloses a system including a battery cell having a rigid enclosure, first and second terminals, and a vent formed in a cap plate, wherein the vent is configured to rupture when internal pressure exceeds a predetermined value ([0044], [0047]). US’706 further discloses a sensor arrangement for detecting abnormal conditions associated with venting, including a gas measuring sensor positioned in the surroundings of the vent or a degassing cover arranged above the battery cells ([0039]), and a controller configured to receive sensor signals and determine abnormal conditions based on comparison with predetermined thresholds ([0041], [0043]).
However, US’706 does not disclose that the first sensor comprises a wire sensor including a wire traversing a portion of the vent cap, such that the wire is physically disrupted when the vent cap bulges or ruptures.
Sadler discloses sensing structural integrity and rupture by monitoring changes in an electrically conductive element or sensing region arranged adjacent to a metal structure, wherein deformation or cracking of the structure results in a detectable change in an electrical parameter (Sadler, pp. 340–342). Sadler’s teachings would have suggested providing a conductive element, such as a wire, traversing or arranged across a portion of a metal component so that rupture or deformation of the component produces a detectable change in the conductive element.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of US’706 to include a wire sensor having a wire traversing a portion of the vent cap, in view of Sadler, so that rupture of the vent cap directly causes a detectable change in the wire, thereby improving the reliability and responsiveness of vent cap rupture detection.
As to Claim 7:US’706 discloses a controller and associated sensor circuitry configured to receive electrical signals from sensors and compare those signals with predetermined thresholds to identify abnormal conditions in the battery system ([0041], [0043]). US’706 therefore teaches the use of electrical sensing and signal processing circuitry in connection with detecting vent-related abnormalities.
However, US’706 does not disclose that the wire sensor includes a resistor connected to the wire and a voltage source connected to the resistor, as recited.
Sadler discloses sensor systems that require electrical excitation and measurement circuitry to detect changes in a sensed parameter associated with deformation or rupture of a structure, including applying a voltage or current and monitoring changes in an electrical response (Sadler, pp. 341–343). Such circuitry inherently includes elements such as a voltage source and resistive components to enable detection of changes in conductivity or impedance of a sensing element.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide the wire sensor of Claim 6 with a resistor connected to the wire and a voltage source connected to the resistor, as taught by Sadler, when implementing the sensor system of US’706, in order to enable reliable electrical detection of wire breakage resulting from vent cap rupture.
As to Claim 8:US’706 discloses a battery safety system including a battery cell having a rigid enclosure, first and second terminals, and a vent cap that ruptures when internal pressure exceeds a predetermined value ([0044], [0047]–[0049]). US’706 further discloses a sensor arranged in the surroundings of the vent or a degassing cover to sense abnormal conditions associated with venting ([0039]), and a controller configured to compare sensed parameters with predetermined thresholds and determine abnormal conditions ([0041], [0043]).
However, US’706 does not disclose that the first sensor comprises an eddy current sensor.
Sadler discloses an eddy current sensor arranged adjacent to a metal structure and configured to sense deformation, cracking, or rupture of the structure by monitoring changes in electromagnetic response relative to reference values (Sadler, pp. 340–342; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of US’706 to employ an eddy current sensor as taught by Sadler as the first sensor arranged adjacent to the vent cap, in order to directly sense bulging or rupture of the vent cap and improve reliability of vent failure detection.
As to Claim 9:US’706 discloses a battery system with sensors arranged near the battery cells and vents to detect abnormal operating conditions and venting events, and a controller configured to process sensor outputs and determine abnormal conditions based on comparisons with predetermined thresholds ([0039], [0041], [0043]).
However, US’706 does not disclose that the first sensor comprises a strain gauge sensor configured to sense deformation.
Sadler teaches detecting deformation or cracking of a structure by sensing changes in a physical parameter caused by strain or displacement of the structure (Sadler, pp. 340–343). A strain gauge sensor is a well-known alternative sensor for detecting deformation of a structural component such as a vent cap and is directly suggested by Sadler’s teaching of deformation-based sensing.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to employ a strain gauge sensor as the first sensor in the system of US’706, in view of Sadler, to sense deformation of the vent cap indicative of bulging or rupture.
As to Claim 10:US’706 discloses sensor arrangements mounted on or near battery cells and vents to detect abnormal conditions ([0039], [0046]).
However, US’706 does not disclose that the strain gauge sensor includes a flexible substrate and a conductive layer arranged on the flexible substrate in a predetermined pattern.
Sadler discloses micro-fabricated sensor structures having conductive elements arranged in defined patterns on a substrate for sensing deformation and cracking (Sadler, pp. 340–341). Such structures are representative of strain gauge configurations employing a flexible substrate and patterned conductive layer.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to implement the strain gauge sensor of Claim 9 using a flexible substrate and a patterned conductive layer as taught by Sadler, when modifying the system of US’706, to detect deformation of the vent cap.
As to Claim 11:US’706 discloses a temperature sensor configured to sense temperature within the battery pack and near the battery cells ([0040], [0046]) and a controller configured to compare sensed temperature to a predetermined temperature threshold to identify abnormal operating conditions and initiate safety responses ([0010], [0041], [0043]). US’706 further discloses detecting abnormal conditions associated with venting and thermal events in battery cells ([0047], [0049]).
However, US’706 does not expressly disclose selectively detecting a thermal runaway event in response to vent cap rupture detected by a first sensor selected from a group including a wire sensor, pressure sensor, temperature sensor, eddy current sensor, or strain gauge sensor.
Sadler teaches detecting structural rupture or deformation using sensors such as eddy current or strain-based sensors and correlating sensed changes with failure of a component (Sadler, pp. 340–343). Combining Sadler’s rupture detection teaching with the temperature-based monitoring of US’706 yields a system in which vent cap rupture is detected by the first sensor and thermal runaway is selectively identified based on comparison of sensed temperature with a predetermined temperature.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to configure the controller of US’706 to selectively detect a thermal runaway event in response to vent cap rupture detected by one of the claimed sensors and a comparison between the sensed temperature and a predetermined temperature, in view of Sadler.
As to Claim 12: US’706 discloses a battery system including a plurality of battery cells, as shown by a battery module or pack having multiple secondary battery cells arranged therein ([0033], [0048]). US’706 further discloses that each battery cell includes a rigid enclosure, as shown by a battery case enclosing an electrode assembly ([0044]), first and second terminals, as shown by a cathode terminal and an anode terminal provided on a cap plate ([0044]), and a vent formed in the cap plate, which is configured to rupture when internal pressure exceeds a predetermined value ([0047]–[0049]). US’706 further discloses a sensor arranged in the surroundings of the vent or a degassing cover, such as a gas measuring sensor, to sense abnormal conditions associated with venting ([0039]). US’706 also discloses a controller configured to receive signals from sensors, compare sensed parameters to predetermined thresholds, and determine abnormal or unsafe conditions for the battery cells ([0041], [0043]). The controller operates on signals associated with individual battery cells in the battery system ([0039], [0048]).
However, US’706 does not expressly disclose that the sensor arranged adjacent to the vent cap is configured to sense a parameter affected by bulging or rupturing of the vent cap itself, nor does US’706 expressly disclose detecting bulging or rupturing of the vent cap for a respective one of the plurality of battery cells based on such a parameter.
Sadler discloses sensor systems arranged adjacent to a metal structure and configured to sense parameters directly affected by deformation, cracking, or rupture of the structure, including sensing changes in an electromagnetic parameter relative to reference values (Sadler, pp. 340–343; Fig. 1). Sadler thus teaches detecting structural rupture or deformation of a component by sensing a parameter affected by such rupture. Applying Sadler’s teaching to the battery system of US’706 would have suggested configuring the sensor adjacent to each vent cap to sense a parameter affected by bulging or rupturing of the vent cap and using the controller to identify rupture on a per-cell basis by comparison with predetermined thresholds.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery system of US’706 to configure a sensor adjacent to each vent cap to sense a parameter affected by bulging or rupturing of the vent cap and to detect rupture for a respective battery cell based on comparison with predetermined thresholds, in view of Sadler, in order to improve accuracy and reliability of vent cap failure detection in a multi-cell battery system.
As to Claim 13:US’706 discloses, in the battery system of Claim 12, a gas measuring sensor configured to sense whether gas is generated and/or to measure a concentration of gas generated from battery cells ([0012]–[0014]). US’706 further discloses that the gas measuring sensor may be mounted in a degassing cover or in the surroundings of the vent of the battery cells ([0039]), such that the sensor senses gas released from the vent region during abnormal operation. US’706 also discloses that signals from the gas sensor are provided to a controller and compared with predetermined thresholds to determine abnormal conditions ([0041], [0043]).
However, US’706 does not expressly disclose that the gas sensor is configured to sense a concentration of one or more gases exiting the vent cap specifically as a parameter affected by bulging or rupturing of the vent cap.
Sadler teaches correlating sensed parameters with structural rupture by placing sensors adjacent to the structure of interest and monitoring changes associated with rupture or deformation (Sadler, pp. 340–343). Applying this teaching to the gas sensing arrangement of US’706 would have suggested configuring the gas sensor to sense the concentration of gas exiting the vent cap as an indicator of vent cap rupture.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to configure the gas measuring sensor of US’706 to sense a concentration of one or more gases exiting the vent cap for each battery cell, as claimed, in view of Sadler, in order to enhance detection of vent cap bulging or rupturing in a multi-cell battery system.
As to Claim 15:US’706 discloses a battery system including a plurality of battery cells arranged in a module or pack ([0033], [0048]), wherein each battery cell includes a rigid enclosure, terminals, and a vent formed in a cap plate that ruptures when internal pressure exceeds a predetermined value ([0044], [0047]–[0049]). US’706 further discloses a temperature measuring sensor configured to sense temperature in the vicinity of the battery cells and venting region ([0008]–[0011], [0040], [0046]). US’706 also discloses a controller configured to receive temperature signals from the temperature sensor and compare the sensed temperature to a predetermined temperature threshold to determine abnormal conditions associated with venting or thermal events ([0010], [0041], [0043]).
However, US’706 does not expressly disclose that the temperature sensor is configured to sense the temperature of vent gases exiting the vent cap of a respective one of the plurality of battery cells, as specifically recited.
Sadler teaches arranging sensors adjacent to a structural component of interest in order to sense parameters directly affected by deformation or rupture of that component (Sadler, pp. 340–342). Applying Sadler’s teaching to the temperature sensing arrangement of US’706 would have suggested positioning and configuring the temperature sensor adjacent to the vent cap so as to sense the temperature of vent gases exiting the vent cap during a rupture event.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to configure the temperature sensor of US’706 to sense the temperature of vent gases exiting the vent cap of a respective battery cell, as claimed, in view of Sadler, in order to improve detection and characterization of vent cap rupture events in a multi-cell battery system.
As to Claim 17:US’706 discloses a battery system including multiple battery cells, each having a vent cap configured to rupture when internal pressure exceeds a threshold ([0047]–[0049]), and a sensor system for detecting abnormal conditions associated with venting, including sensors arranged near the vent region ([0039]). US’706 further discloses a controller configured to receive sensor signals and determine abnormal conditions based on comparison with predetermined thresholds ([0041], [0043]).
However, US’706 does not disclose that the first sensor comprises a wire sensor including a wire traversing the vent cap of a respective battery cell, nor that the wire is broken in response to rupturing of the vent cap.
Sadler discloses sensing structural integrity and rupture by monitoring changes in a conductive sensing element arranged adjacent to or across a metal structure, wherein deformation or cracking of the structure results in a detectable electrical change (Sadler, pp. 340–343). Sadler’s teachings would have suggested providing a conductive element, such as a wire, traversing a vent cap so that rupture of the vent cap physically breaks the wire, thereby providing a clear and direct indication of vent cap rupture.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery system of US’706 to include a wire sensor having a wire traversing the vent cap of each battery cell, such that the wire is broken upon vent cap rupture, in view of Sadler, in order to provide a direct and reliable indication of vent cap rupture on a per-cell basis.
As to Claim 18:US’706 discloses a battery system including a plurality of battery cells, each battery cell including a rigid enclosure, first and second terminals, and a vent formed in a cap plate that ruptures when internal pressure exceeds a predetermined value ([0033], [0044], [0047]–[0049]). US’706 further discloses that sensors may be arranged in the surroundings of the vent or in a degassing cover to sense abnormal conditions associated with venting of individual battery cells ([0039]). US’706 also discloses a controller configured to receive sensor signals, compare sensed parameters to predetermined thresholds, and determine abnormal conditions for respective battery cells ([0041], [0043]).
However, US’706 does not disclose that the first sensor comprises an eddy current sensor configured to sense deformation of the vent cap of a respective battery cell.
Sadler discloses an eddy current sensor arranged adjacent to a metal structure and configured to sense deformation, cracking, or rupture of the structure by detecting changes in an electromagnetic parameter relative to a reference state (Sadler, pp. 340–342; Fig. 1). Sadler thus teaches directly sensing deformation of a metal component, which corresponds to deformation of a vent cap during bulging or rupture.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery system of US’706 to include an eddy current sensor arranged adjacent to the vent cap of each battery cell, as taught by Sadler, to sense deformation of the vent cap and thereby detect bulging or rupturing of the vent cap on a per-cell basis.
As to Claim 19:US’706 discloses a battery system including multiple battery cells, each having a vent cap configured to rupture under abnormal internal pressure, and a sensor system for detecting abnormal conditions associated with venting ([0039], [0047]–[0049]). US’706 further discloses a controller configured to process sensor outputs and determine abnormal conditions for respective battery cells based on comparison with predetermined thresholds ([0041], [0043]).
However, US’706 does not disclose that the first sensor comprises a strain gauge configured to sense deformation of a respective battery cell.
Sadler teaches detecting deformation or cracking of a structure by sensing changes in physical parameters associated with strain or displacement of the structure (Sadler, pp. 340–343). A strain gauge is a well-known sensor for detecting deformation of a structural component, including metal components subject to bulging or rupture, such as a battery vent cap or adjacent cell structure.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to employ a strain gauge sensor as the first sensor in the battery system of US’706, in view of Sadler, to sense deformation of a respective battery cell indicative of vent cap bulging or rupture.
As to Claim 20:US’706 discloses, in the battery system of Claim 12, a temperature sensor configured to sense temperature within the battery pack and near the battery cells and vent region ([0040], [0046]). US’706 further discloses a controller configured to receive temperature signals and compare the sensed temperature to a predetermined temperature threshold to determine abnormal conditions and initiate safety responses ([0010], [0041], [0043]). US’706 also discloses detecting abnormal conditions associated with venting and thermal events in battery cells ([0047]–[0049]).
However, US’706 does not expressly disclose selectively detecting a thermal runaway event in response to vent cap rupture detected by a first sensor selected from a group including a wire sensor, pressure sensor, temperature sensor, eddy current sensor, and strain gauge sensor.
Sadler teaches detecting structural rupture or deformation using sensors such as eddy current or strain-based sensors and correlating sensed changes with failure of a component (Sadler, pp. 340–343). Combining Sadler’s rupture detection teaching with the temperature-based monitoring of US’706 yields a system in which vent cap rupture is detected by the first sensor and thermal runaway is selectively identified based on a comparison between the sensed temperature of vent gases and a predetermined temperature threshold.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to configure the battery system of US’706 such that vent cap rupture is detected based on a parameter output by one of the claimed sensors and a thermal runaway event is selectively detected based on comparison of sensed vent-gas temperature to a predetermined temperature, in view of Sadler, in order to improve safety monitoring and response in a multi-cell battery system.
Claims 3, 5, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0071706 A1 in view of Sadler, as applied to Claim 1, 2, 12, and 13 above, and further in view of US 2020/0266405 A1.
As to Claim 3:US’706 discloses a system including a battery cell having a vent that releases gas during abnormal operation or venting events ([0012]–[0014], [0039], [0047]). US’706 further discloses a gas measuring sensor configured to sense whether gas is generated and/or to measure a concentration of gas generated from the battery cell, and a controller configured to compare the sensed gas concentration to predetermined thresholds to identify abnormal conditions ([0039], [0041], [0043]). Thus, US’706 teaches sensing gas exiting a battery vent during abnormal conditions.
However, US’706 does not expressly disclose that the one or more gases sensed by the gas sensor are selected from a group consisting of molecular hydrogen (H₂), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO₂), and ethylene, as specifically recited.
US’405 discloses battery systems in which specific gases generated during battery venting and thermal runaway events are detected, including hydrogen (H₂), carbon monoxide (CO), and carbon dioxide (CO₂), and explains that detection of such gases is useful for identifying abnormal or unsafe battery conditions ([0027]–[0030], [0061]–[0064]). US’405 thus teaches selecting particular gas species for detection in battery safety systems. Sadler further teaches correlating sensed parameters with structural failure or rupture events by appropriate sensor selection and placement (Sadler, pp. 340–343), supporting the use of gas species selection as part of rupture detection.
US’706, Sadler, and US’405 are analogous art because all three references relate to detecting abnormal or failure conditions in battery systems using sensors to monitor parameters associated with venting, rupture, or thermal events.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to configure the gas sensor of US’706 to detect specific vent gases such as H₂, CO, CO₂, and ethylene, as recited, in view of US’405’s teaching that these gases are indicative of battery venting and abnormal conditions and Sadler’s teaching of correlating sensed parameters with rupture events, in order to improve identification and characterization of vent cap rupture conditions.
As to Claim 5:US’706 discloses a system including a battery cell having a rigid enclosure, first and second terminals, and a vent formed in a cap plate that is configured to rupture when internal pressure exceeds a predetermined value ([0044], [0047]–[0049]). US’706 further discloses a sensor arrangement for detecting abnormal conditions associated with venting, including sensors positioned in the surroundings of the vent or in a degassing cover above the battery cells ([0039]), and a controller configured to compare sensed parameters to predetermined thresholds to identify abnormal conditions ([0041], [0043]). Thus, US’706 teaches monitoring vent-related abnormal conditions using sensors and threshold comparison.
However, US’706 does not expressly disclose that the first sensor comprises a pressure sensor configured to sense pressure of vent gases exiting the vent cap, as specifically recited.
US’405 discloses battery monitoring systems that include pressure sensing to detect abnormal battery events, including conditions occurring after battery ventilation, and explains that a pressure signal may increase following cell venting and thermal events, and may be used by a controller to identify abnormal conditions ([0066]–[0069]). Sadler further teaches detecting rupture or deformation of a structure by sensing a physical parameter that changes in response to structural failure (Sadler, pp. 340–343). Taken together, US’405 teaches the use of pressure sensing in battery safety monitoring, and Sadler teaches correlating sensed physical parameters with rupture events, thereby suggesting sensing pressure of vent gases exiting a vent cap as an indicator of vent cap rupture.
US’706, Sadler, and US’405 are analogous art because all three references relate to detecting abnormal or failure conditions in battery systems using sensor-based monitoring of physical parameters associated with venting, rupture, or thermal events.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of US’706 to include a pressure sensor configured to sense pressure of vent gases exiting the vent cap, in view of US’405’s teaching of pressure sensing in battery safety systems and Sadler’s teaching of correlating sensed physical parameters with rupture, in order to improve detection of vent cap bulging or rupturing.
As to Claim 14:US’706 discloses a battery system including a plurality of battery cells ([0033], [0048]), each battery cell having a vent configured to release gas during abnormal conditions ([0047]–[0049]). US’706 further discloses a gas measuring sensor arranged in the surroundings of the vent or a degassing cover to sense gas generated from the battery cells, and a controller configured to compare sensed gas concentrations to predetermined thresholds for each battery cell ([0012]–[0014], [0039], [0041], [0043]). Thus, US’706 teaches gas sensing in a multi-cell battery system.
However, US’706 does not expressly disclose that the one or more gases sensed by the gas sensor in the battery system are selected from a group consisting of molecular hydrogen (H₂), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO₂), and ethylene, as recited.
US’405 discloses that specific gases emitted during battery venting and thermal runaway, including H₂, CO, and CO₂, may be monitored to detect abnormal conditions in battery systems, including multi-cell systems ([0027]–[0030], [0061]–[0064]). Sadler teaches selecting and arranging sensors to detect parameters directly associated with structural failure or rupture (Sadler, pp. 340–343). Together, these teachings support selecting specific vent gases for detection as indicators of vent cap rupture in a battery system.
US’706, Sadler, and US’405 are analogous art because they all address battery safety monitoring and detection of abnormal or failure conditions using sensor-based techniques, including monitoring of venting-related parameters.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to configure the gas sensor in the battery system of US’706 to detect specific gases selected from H₂, CO, CO₂, and ethylene, as recited, in view of US’405’s teaching that these gases are indicative of battery venting and abnormal conditions and Sadler’s teaching of correlating sensed parameters with rupture events, in order to enhance detection of vent cap bulging or rupturing in a multi-cell battery system.
As to Claim 16: US’706 discloses a battery system including a plurality of battery cells arranged in a module or pack ([0033], [0048]), wherein each battery cell includes a rigid enclosure, terminals, and a vent formed in a cap plate that ruptures when internal pressure exceeds a predetermined value ([0044], [0047]–[0049]). US’706 further discloses sensors arranged in the surroundings of vents or in a degassing cover to sense abnormal conditions associated with venting of individual battery cells ([0039]), and a controller configured to compare sensed parameters to predetermined thresholds to determine abnormal conditions on a per-cell basis ([0041], [0043]).
However, US’706 does not expressly disclose that the first sensor in the battery system comprises a pressure sensor configured to sense pressure of vent gases exiting the vent cap of a respective one of the plurality of battery cells.
US’405 discloses pressure sensing in battery monitoring systems and explains that pressure signals may be used to identify abnormal battery conditions following ventilation events, including in multi-cell battery systems ([0066]–[0069]). Sadler teaches detecting rupture or deformation by sensing parameters that change as a direct result of structural failure (Sadler, pp. 340–343). Applying these teachings to the multi-cell battery system of US’706 would have suggested providing a pressure sensor associated with each vent cap to sense pressure of vent gases exiting the vent cap of a respective battery cell as an indicator of vent cap rupture.
US’706, Sadler, and US’405 are analogous art because they all address sensor-based detection of abnormal or failure conditions in battery systems, including multi-cell systems, by monitoring physical parameters associated with venting and rupture.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery system of US’706 to include a pressure sensor configured to sense pressure of vent gases exiting the vent cap of a respective one of the battery cells, in view of US’405 and Sadler, in order to enhance per-cell detection of vent cap bulging or rupturing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2012137289 discloses a power storage module, and more particularly, to a power storage module having a battery cell temperature detector.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY K VO whose telephone number is (571)272-3242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am to 6 pm 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/JIMMY VO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/JIMMY VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723