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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species D in the reply filed on 2/5/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 12-13, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumai et al. (JP 2001/332312, see Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Kumai et al. discloses in Figs 1-2, a battery cell gas analysis system (ref 1) comprising: a degas chamber (ref 3); a vacuum pump ([0027]) in fluid communication with (Fig 1) the degas chamber (ref 3) to remove air ([0027]) from the degas chamber (ref 3); a venting port (at ref 28) configured to selectively vent ([0027]) the degas chamber (ref 3); a battery cell (ref 2) enclosed in the degas chamber (ref 3); a gas detector (ref 5) in fluid communication with the degas chamber (ref 3), the gas detector (ref 5) configured to detect ([0040]), with gas species separation ([0040]), at least one parameter of a gas released ([0040} from the battery cell (ref 2) into the degas chamber (ref 3), the at least one parameter of the gas of the battery cell (ref 2) indicative of a manufacturing quality ([0001], [0005], [0050], [0056]) of the battery cell (ref 2); and at least one valve (ref 10, 20) coupled between (Fig 1, [0019], [0020], [0032], [0041]) the degas chamber (ref 3) and the gas detector (ref 5) to selectively control (Fig 1, [0019], [0020], [0032], [0041]) a flow of the gas of the battery cell (ref 2) to the gas detector (ref 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
356
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Kumai et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses a pressure control (at refs 22, 26) coupled between (Fig 1) the degas chamber (ref 3) and the gas detector (ref 5) to reduce a pressure ([0034], [0040]) of the gas of the battery cell (ref 2) flowing to the gas detector (ref 5).
Regarding claim 8, Kumai et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the gas detector (ref 5) is in fluid communication (Fig 1) with a gas sampling tube (ref 6) extending into (Figs 1, 2) the degas chamber (ref 3); and an opening of the gas sampling tube (ref 6) is adjacent to a puncture location (Fig 2) of a pouch (Fig 2) of the battery cell (ref 2).
Regarding claim 12, Kumai et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the gas detector (ref 5) includes a mass spectrometer ([0040]).
Regarding claim 13, Kumai et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the gas detector (ref 5) includes a gas chromatography system ([0040]).
Regarding claim 15, Kumai et al. discloses in Figs 1-2, a battery cell gas analysis system (ref 1) comprising: a degas chamber (ref 3); a vacuum pump ([0027]) in fluid communication with (Fig 1) the degas chamber (ref 3) to remove air ([0027]) from the degas chamber (ref 3); a battery cell (ref 2) enclosed in the degas chamber (ref 3); a gas detector (ref 5) in fluid communication with the degas chamber (ref 3), the gas detector (ref 5) configured to detect ([0040]), with gas species separation ([0040]), at least one parameter of a gas released ([0040} from the battery cell (ref 2) into the degas chamber (ref 3), the at least one parameter of the gas of the battery cell (ref 2) indicative of a manufacturing quality ([0001], [0005], [0050], [0056]) of the battery cell (ref 2); and at least one valve (ref 10, 20) coupled between (Fig 1, [0019], [0020], [0032], [0041]) the degas chamber (ref 3) and the gas detector (ref 5) to selectively control (Fig 1, [0019], [0020], [0032], [0041]) a flow of the gas of the battery cell (ref 2) to the gas detector (ref 5).
Regarding claim 16, Kumai et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the gas detector (ref 5) includes at least one of a mass spectrometer ([0040]) and a gas chromatography system ([0040]).
Regarding claim 17, Kumai et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses a pressure control (at refs 22, 26) coupled between (Fig 1) the degas chamber (ref 3) and the gas detector (ref 5) to reduce a pressure ([0034], [0040]) of the gas of the battery cell (ref 2) flowing to the gas detector (ref 5).
Regarding claim 19, Kumai et al. discloses in Figs 1-2, a battery cell gas analysis system (ref 1) comprising: a degas chamber (ref 3); a venting port configured to selectively vent the degas chamber (ref 3); a gas detector (ref 5) in fluid communication with the degas chamber (ref 3), the gas detector (ref 5) configured to detect ([0040]), with gas species separation ([0040]), at least one parameter of a gas released ([0040} from a battery cell (ref 2) into the degas chamber (ref 3), the at least one parameter of the gas of the battery cell (ref 2) indicative of a manufacturing quality ([0001], [0005], [0050], [0056]) of the battery cell (ref 2); and at least one valve (ref 10, 20) coupled between (Fig 1, [0019], [0020], [0032], [0041]) the degas chamber (ref 3) and the gas detector (ref 5) to selectively control (Fig 1, [0019], [0020], [0032], [0041]) a flow of the gas of the battery cell (ref 2) to the gas detector (ref 5).
Regarding claim 20, Kumai et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the gas detector (ref 5) includes at least one of a mass spectrometer ([0040]) and a gas chromatography system ([0040]).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumai et al. (JP 2001/332312, see Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, Kumai et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the gas detector (ref 5) is a first gas detector (ref 5) configured to detect a first parameter ([0040]) of the gas of the battery cell (ref 2). Further, Kumai et al. discloses a plurality of analyses of gas components may be analyzed ([0053]). These plurality of analyses being different individual analyses ([0053]) based on the different types of analyses utilized ([0040]). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that multiple gas detectors detecting different parameters of the battery gas be incorporated into the device of Kumai et al. to allow different gas analyses to be performed.
Further, addition of a second gas detector in fluid communication with the degas chamber; the second gas detector configured to detect a second parameter of the gas of the battery cell with gas species separation; and the second parameter is different than the first parameter, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumai et al. (JP 2001/332312, see Machine Translation) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Olson (US 2014/0241394).
Regarding claim 14, Kumai et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not disclose the gas detector includes an infrared absorption spectroscopy system.
Olson discloses in Figs 1-6, a battery analysis test vessel ([0015]) including a component detector for measuring infrared spectrographic parameters emitted from batter gases ([0033]). This allows further battery gas analysis to be performed, gathering further data about the battery ([0033]).
Olson and Kumai et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, battery gas analyses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the infrared detector disclosed by Olson into the gas detector of Kumai et al. to allow further battery gas analysis to be performed, gathering further data about the battery.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumai et al. (JP 2001/332312, see Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Raghavan et al. (US 2015/0303723).
Regarding claim 2, Kumai et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the battery cell is a pouch cell (Fig 1), and the battery cell gas analysis system (ref 1) further includes: a puncturing knife (ref 12, [0022], [0044]) configured to puncture a pouch (Fig 2) of the battery cell (ref 2) to release a gas (Fig 1, [0022], [0044]) of the battery cell (ref 2) into the degas chamber (ref 3), but does not disclose and a heat seal bar configured to seal the pouch of the battery cell after release of the gas of the battery cell.
Raghavan et al. discloses in Figs 1-18, a battery gas testing setup (Fig 17, [0101]) including a battery cell (ref 1701) which has sensors inserted therein (Fig 17, [0101]-[0102]) and a content of gases is analyzed, then a pouch hosing of the battery cell (ref 1701) is re-heat-sealed ([0101]). This configuration allows gas analysis followed by re-sealing of the battery to offer commercially to a customer ([0101]).
Raghavan et al. and Kumai et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, battery analyses systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the re-heat-sealing component of Raghavan et al. into the structure of Kumai et al. to allow gas analysis followed by re-sealing of the battery to offer commercially to a customer.
Claims 4-6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumai et al. (JP 2001/332312, see Machine Translation) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Smatko (US 3,703,414).
Regarding claims 4, 6 and 18, Kumai et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose a sample storage chamber coupled between the degas chamber and the gas detector to receive the gas of the battery cell prior to the gas of the battery cell flowing to the gas detector, nor a sample bottle port in fluid communication with the sample storage chamber, the sample bottle port configured to removably couple with a sample bottle to flow the gas of the battery cell into the sample bottle to remove at least a portion of the gas of the battery cell from the battery cell gas analysis system.
Smatko discloses a battery gas exhaust measuring device including a battery (ref 10) fitted with a port (ref 26) and connected to a tube (ref 28) which is connected to a removable gas collection container before analyzing contents of the gas (C8/L35-41). This configuration allows the batter gas to b collected into a container prior to it being tested, facilitating the gas analysis itself (C8/L35-41).
Smatko and Kumai et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, battery gas analysis devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the removable gas collection container with port disclosed by Smatko into the device of Kumai et al. between the degas chamber and gas detector to allow for collection and holding of the gas from the battery to facilitate the gas analysis itself.
Regarding claim 5, modified Kumai et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the gas detector (ref 5) is a first gas detector (ref 5) configured to detect a first parameter ([0040]) of the gas of the battery cell (ref 2). Further, Kumai et al. discloses a plurality of analyses of gas components may be analyzed ([0053]). These plurality of analyses being different individual analyses ([0053]) based on the different types of analyses utilized ([0040]). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that multiple gas detectors detecting different parameters of the battery gas be incorporated into the device of Kumai et al. to allow different gas analyses to be performed.
Further, addition of a second gas detector in fluid communication with the degas chamber; the second gas detector configured to detect a second parameter of the gas of the battery cell with gas species separation; and the second parameter is different than the first parameter, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumai et al. (JP 2001/332312, see Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wiegman (US 2023/0155195).
Regarding claim 10, Kumai et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the gas detector (ref 5) is a first gas detector (ref 5), and the battery cell gas analysis system (ref 1) and a gas handing module configured to analyze the gas of the battery cell with gas species resolution (Fig 1 depicts a gas analysis system, and it is operated via automated procedures as disclosed throughout the reference), but does not explicitly disclose a sensor suite including one or more additional gas detectors configured to analyze the gas of the battery cell with gas species resolution.
Wiegman discloses in Figs 1-6, battery packs (refs 216) including a sensor suite ([0043]) including a battery management system (ref 220, [0041]) for measuring a plurality of sensed parameters from the battery packs (refs 216). This configuration allows enhanced battery monitoring and performance ([0043]).
Wiegman and Kumai et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, battery measurement devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the sensor suite disclosed by Wiegman into the system of Kumai et al. to enhance battery monitoring and performance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights