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
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-22, drawn to a method or system using a correlation between gas analyte level and electrolyte leak, classified in H01M 10/4228.
II. Claims 23-32, drawn to a system using a data matrix of sensor signals modulated according to profiles, classified in H01M 10/48.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination I has separate utility such as determining electrolyte leakage without needing to differentiate gas species of the analyte. Furthermore, subcombination II has separate utility such as differentiating gas species without the need to determine a leakage has occurred based on a correlation between the level of a gas analyte and a monitored variable.
See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions require a different field of search, including at least different search strategies and search queries.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Anna Nelson on 11/14/25 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-22. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 23-32 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It has no period at the end.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 10 and 18 recite the limitation "[modulate/modulating] a sensor-operational-variable profile...". In light of Applicant's specification (see paragraph 53), Examiner has interpreted this to mean actively varying an operational variable applied to the sensor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-9 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas as indicated by in-line comments below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for reasons also indicated by in-line comments below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons also indicated by in-line comments below.
1. A computer implemented method comprising:
monitoring a gas analyte level associated with a battery system using a first gas sensor (does not integrate into a practical application because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; not significantly more because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use);
monitoring at least one variable of the battery system (does not integrate into a practical application because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; not significantly more because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use);
determining whether there exists (abstract; mental processes; observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) a correlation between the monitored gas analyte level and the monitored at least one variable of the battery system (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical relationships); and
determining whether there is an electrolyte leak from the battery system based on the determination of the correlation (abstract; mental processes; observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion).
2. The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the correlation comprises an increasing trend of the monitored gas analyte level as the monitored at least one variable of the battery system increases (merely further details of abstract limitations).
3. The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the battery system is a lithium-ion battery system (does not integrate into a practical application because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; not significantly more because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use).
4. The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the monitored gas analyte comprises electrolyte gases and non-off-gas-event (non-OGE) interfering gases (merely further details of ineligible subject matter).
5. The computer implemented method of claim 4, wherein the non-OGE interfering gases comprise hydrogen and/or a coolant (merely further details of ineligible subject matter).
6. The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the monitored at least one variable of the battery system comprise a temperature of the battery system (merely further details of ineligible subject matter).
7. The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the monitored at least one variable of the battery system comprise an electrical current of the battery system (merely further details of ineligible subject matter)
8. The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the monitored at least one variable of the battery system comprise a relative humidity surrounding the battery system (merely further details of ineligible subject matter).
9. The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the monitored at least one variable of the battery system comprise an airflow surrounding the battery system (merely further details of ineligible subject matter).
15. A monitoring system, comprising:
at least one gas sensor configured to monitor for a gas analyte associated with a battery system (does not integrate into a practical application because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; not significantly more because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use);
at least one sensor configured to monitor one or more variables of the battery system (does not integrate into a practical application because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; not significantly more because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use); and
a controller (does not integrate into a practical application because generic computer performing generic computer functions; not significantly more because generic computer performing generic computer functions), comprising:
a memory to store machine readable instructions (does not integrate into a practical application because insignificant extra-solution activity; not significantly more because insignificant extra-solution activity); and
a processor (does not integrate into a practical application because generic computer performing generic computer functions; not significantly more because generic computer performing generic computer functions) to access the memory and execute the machine-readable instructions, the machine-readable instructions causing the processor to:
monitor the gas analyte using the at least one gas sensor (does not integrate into a practical application because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; not significantly more because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use);
monitor the one or more variables of the battery system using the at least one sensor (does not integrate into a practical application because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; not significantly more because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use);
determine a correlation between monitored gas analyte level and the one or more variables (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations); and
determine whether there is an electrolyte leak from the battery system (abstract; mental processes; observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) based on the correlation (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical relationships).
16. The monitoring system of claim 15, wherein the battery system is a lithium-ion battery system (does not integrate into a practical application because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; not significantly more because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use).
17. The monitoring system of claim 15, wherein the at least one sensor comprises one or more of a temperature sensor, a relative humidity sensor, an electrical current sensor, and an airflow sensor (merely further details of ineligible subject matter).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Glenn et al. (2022/0099610).
Regarding claim 1, Glenn et al. disclose a computer implemented method comprising:
monitoring a gas analyte level (of 102a; see paragraph 33) associated with a battery system (102; see paragraph 33) using a first gas sensor (104; see paragraph 33);
monitoring at least one variable (whether there is an off-gas event; see paragraph 34) of the battery system;
determining whether there exists a correlation between the monitored gas analyte level and the monitored at least one variable of the battery system (see paragraphs 33-34 and 50; the model may be trained with detected linear correlations); and
determining whether there is an electrolyte leak from the battery system based on the determination of the correlation (see paragraphs 29-30, 33-34, and 50).
Regarding claim 3, Glenn et al. disclose the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the battery system is a lithium-ion battery system (see paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 4, Glenn et al. disclose the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the monitored gas analyte comprises electrolyte gases and non-off-gas-event (non-OGE) interfering gases (see paragraph 34).
Regarding claim 5, Glenn et al. disclose the computer implemented method of claim 4, wherein the non-OGE interfering gases comprise hydrogen and/or a coolant (see paragraphs 30 and 38).
Regarding claim 6, Glenn et al. disclose the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the monitored at least one variable of the battery system comprise a temperature of the battery system (see paragraph 43).
Regarding claim 8, Glenn et al. disclose the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the monitored at least one variable of the battery system comprise a relative humidity surrounding the battery system (see paragraph 43).
Regarding claim 15, Glenn et al. disclose a monitoring system, comprising:
at least one gas sensor (104; see paragraph 33) configured to monitor for a gas analyte (102a; see paragraph 33) associated with a battery system (102; see paragraph 33);
at least one sensor (a sensor including electrodes 104b; see paragraph 34) configured to monitor one or more variables of the battery system (whether there is an off-gas event; see paragraph 34); and
a controller (combination of items 106 and 108; see paragraph 34), comprising:
a memory (108; see paragraph 34) to store machine readable instructions (algorithm 108a; see paragraph 34); and
a processor (106; see paragraph 34) to access the memory and execute the machine-readable instructions, the machine-readable instructions causing the processor to:
monitor the gas analyte using the at least one gas sensor (see paragraphs 33-34);
monitor the one or more variables of the battery system using the at least one sensor (see paragraph 34);
determine a correlation between monitored gas analyte level and the one or more variables (see paragraphs 33-34 and 50; linear correlations may be used in training the model); and
determine whether there is an electrolyte leak from the battery system based on the correlation (see paragraphs 29-30, 33-34, and 50).
Regarding claim 16, Glenn et al. disclose the monitoring system of claim 15, wherein the battery system is a lithium-ion battery system (see paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 17, Glenn et al. disclose the monitoring system of claim 15, wherein the at least one sensor comprises one or more of a temperature sensor, a relative humidity sensor, an electrical current sensor, and an airflow sensor (see paragraph 43).
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.
Note that, in the following rejections, the highlighting indicates differences from the exact claim language, or items involved in an obviousness argument.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glenn et al. (2022/0099610) in view of Pokera (2020/0266405).
Regarding claim 2, see the foregoing rejection of claim 1, for limitations recited therein.
Regarding claim 2, Glenn et al. do not disclose the highlighted limitations:
wherein the correlation comprises an increasing trend of the monitored gas analyte level as the monitored at least one variable of the battery system increases.
Pokera et al. teach the correlation comprises an increasing trend of the monitored gas analyte level as the monitored at least one variable of the battery system increases (see paragraphs 28-29).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Glenn et al. such that the correlation comprises an increasing trend of the monitored gas analyte level as the monitored at least one variable of the battery system increases, because such a modification would have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glenn et al. (2022/0099610) in view of Drees (2020/0088804).
Regarding claims 7 and 9, see the foregoing rejection of claim 1, for limitations recited therein.
Regarding claim 7, Glenn et al. do not disclose the highlighted limitations:
wherein the monitored at least one variable of the battery system comprise an electrical current of the battery system
Drees suggests the monitored at least one variable of the battery system comprise an electrical current of the battery system (see paragraph 21).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Glenn et al., such that the monitored at least one variable of the battery system comprise an electrical current of the battery system, because such a modification would have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Regarding claim 9, Regarding claim 7, Glenn et al. do not disclose the highlighted limitations:
wherein the monitored at least one variable of the battery system comprise an airflow surrounding the battery system.
Drees suggests the monitored at least one variable of the battery system comprise an airflow surrounding the battery system (see paragraph 77).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Glenn et al. such that the monitored at least one variable of the battery system comprise an airflow surrounding the battery system, because such a modification would have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 and 18-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose or suggest, "developing a data matrix comprising sensor signals generated by the second gas sensors as a function of the modulated sensor-operational-variable profiles; differentiating gas species of the gas analyte based on a comparison of various features in the data matrix; and determining a condition of the battery system based on the differentiation ...", in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 10, and claims 11-14 depending therefrom.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest, "develop a data matrix comprising sensor signals generated by the at least one gas sensor as a function of the modulated sensor-operational-variable profile; differentiate gas species of the gas analyte based on a comparison of various features in the data matrix; and determine a condition of the battery system based on the differentiation ...", in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 18, and claims 19-22 depending therefrom.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Onuma et al. (11,329,303) is cited for disclosing gas detection in a fuel cell and determining whether a correlation exists with an operating variable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY T EVANS whose telephone number is (571)272-2369. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/GEOFFREY T EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 2852