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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed September 2nd, 2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The 112(b) rejection of claims 7-10 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejections based over Gibbs et al. as the primary reference have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
New rejections follow.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto (US 2017/0309975 A1) in view of Porterfield et al. (US 2024/0204271 A1).
In view of Claim 1, Iwamoto discloses a battery system (Fig. 17) comprising:
a battery case (Fig. 17, #100);
a battery housed in the battery case (Fig. 17, #200), the battery being composed of a sulfide based all solid state battery (Paragraph 0069);
a second detection unit located on a ceiling surface of the battery case inside the battery case, the second detection unit being vertically above the bottom surface and configured to detect hydrogen sulfide (Fig. 17, #511 – Paragraph 0204);
and a control device, wherein the control device includes an abnormality processing unit configured to perform an abnormality process based on detection results from three different detection units with three distinct abnormality processes (Paragraph 0195-0196, the first detection signal is detected by the controller, Paragraph 0242-0244, the second detection signal is input into the controller, Paragraph 0286-0287, the third detection signal is input into the controller), thus each abnormality process is distinct for each separate detector, when an electrical signal is detected from the first, second or third detector this can individual trigger the fan).
Iwamoto et al. does not disclose that a first detection unit is located on a bottom surface of the battery case inside the battery case, the first detection unit being disposed around the battery and configured to detect hydrogen sulfide.
Porterfield et al. discloses a battery system comprising multiple detection units (Fig. 7, two detectors are associated with each battery pack – Paragraph 0088) and that a “first detection unit” can be located directly adjacent to batteries, thus being “disposed around the batteries” (Fig. 8, 524 & 552 – Paragraph 0102, & 0107-0108). Porterfield et al. discloses that this “first detection unit” is associated with a controller that can independently (Paragraph 0003) analyze the results of “the first detection unit” and that this configuration is advantageous to sense ruptured battery modules that may be present within intrapack space of a battery housing (Paragraph 0106). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include an additional detection unit in Iwamoto’s battery system, corresponding to “a first detection unit” that is located adjacent to the batteries of Gibbs et al. (Fig. 2, 220) such that they are located on the bottom surface of the battery case for the advantage of being able to detect hydrogen sulfide that ruptures adjacent to the batteries in the intrapack space of Gibbs.
In view of Claim 2, Iwamoto and Porterfield et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. In regard to the limitation that, “the abnormality processing unit is configured to perform the second abnormality process when hydrogen is detected by the first detection unit and the second detection unit”, Iwamoto discloses that the second detection unit resides above the battery while Porterfield et al. discloses why it would be obvious to have the first detection unit located directly adjacent to a battery, thus being disposed “around the batteries”. Iwamoto discloses that any of these sensors may be used in an alone or combination scenario of two or more (Paragraph 0201). In the instant case, both of these detectors are configured to sense hydrogen sulfide and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that there could be scenarios (and often would be if catastrophic failure of the battery were to occur) where hydrogen sulfide is sensed by any of the hydrogen sulfide detectors and that the appropriate response would be “to turn on the fan”, which would correspond to “performing the second abnormality process”.
In view of Claim 3, Iwamoto and Porterfield et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Iwamoto discloses a communication passage configured to allow communication between inside and outside of the battery case, and a third detection unit located inside the communication passage (Fig. 17, #521) and configured to detect hydrogen sulfide (Paragraph 0247-0249). In regard to the limitation that, “the abnormality processing unit is configured to perform the second abnormality process when hydrogen is detected by the third detection unit”, Iwamoto discloses that the second detection unit resides above the battery, the third detection unit in the communication passage while Porterfield et al. discloses why it would be obvious to have the first detection unit located directly adjacent to a battery, thus being disposed “around the batteries”. Iwamoto discloses that any of these sensors may be used in an alone or combination scenario of two or more (Paragraph 0201). In the instant case, any of these detectors are configured to sense hydrogen sulfide and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that there could be scenarios (and often would be if catastrophic failure of the battery were to occur) where hydrogen sulfide is sensed by any of the hydrogen sulfide detectors and that the appropriate response would be “to turn on the fan”, which would correspond to “performing the second abnormality process”.
In view of Claim 4, Iwamoto and Porterfield et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Iwamoto discloses a communication passage configured to allow communication between inside and outside of the battery case (Fig. 17, #110), and a desulfurization agent that is located inside the communication passage and that is configured to adsorb hydrogen sulfide (Fig. 17, #120 & Paragraph 0038-0041).
In view of Claim 5, Iwamoto and Porterfield et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 4. Iwamoto discloses an on-off valve location in the communication passage, wherein the second abnormality process can include opening the on-off valve to allow communication between the inside and the outside of the battery case through the communication passage (Fig. 17, #130 – Paragraph 0149-0153, & 0241-0245).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto (US 2017/0309975 A1) in view of Porterfield et al. (US 2024/0204271 A1) in view of Hirakawa et al. (US 2010/0047673 A1).
In view of Claim 6, Iwamoto and Porterfield et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 5. Modified Iwamoto does not disclose a sub-communication passage configured to always allow communication between the inside and the outside of the battery case.
Hirakawa et al. discloses a sub-communication passage configured to always allow communication between the inside and the outside of the battery case (Figs. 1 & 5A-B, 5 – Paragraph 0031). Hirakawa et al. discloses that this configuration is advantageous in ensuring the battery casing does not exceed a preset pressure and thus suppresses the case from exploding due to an increase in internal pressure (Paragraph 0108 & 0120). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a sub-communication passage configured to always allow communication between the inside and the outside of the battery case in modified Iwamoto for the advantages of ensuring the case does not exceed a preset pressure and suppressing the case from exploding.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto (US 2017/0309975 A1) in view of Porterfield et al. (US 2024/0204271 A1) in view of Gibbs et al. (US 2024/0421370 A1) in view of Ferguson et al. (US 2021/0245627 A1).
In view of Claims 7 & 10, Iwamoto and Porterfield et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Iwamoto discloses that the battery case is mounted on an electrified vehicle and the battery source is a power source for the electrified vehicle (Paragraph 0046 & 0434) but does not explicitly teach that the first abnormality process is a process of limiting an output of a traction drive unit of the electrified vehicle while the electrified vehicle continues to travel and the second abnormality process is a system shutdown process of stopping travel of the electrified vehicle.
Gibbs et al. teaches that the battery case is mounted on an electrified vehicle and the battery is a power source for the electrical vehicle (Paragraph 0037). Gibbs et al. discloses that a second abnormality process may be used to trigger changes to one or more operations (Paragraph 0012) by allowing a user or operator of the battery sufficient time to mitigate or remediate battery thermal runaway (Paragraph 0031, 0035) that is essentially a system shutdown process activated by the user to stop travel of the electrified vehicle (Paragraph 0036) or by automatically stopping operation of the vehicle (Paragraph 0051), thus reading on “the second abnormality process is a system shutdown process of stopping travel of the electrified vehicle”.
Ferguson et al. discloses that one or more gas sensors may be configured to detect levels of specific types of gasses in the vicinity of a battery, such that the sensors can be placed near vents, inside the battery and outside the battery (Paragraph 0036). Ferguson et al. discloses that the sensors can be associated with a first abnormality process that is a process of limiting an output of a traction drive unit of the electrified vehicle while the electrified vehicle continues to travel (Paragraph 0043 & 0045-0046– stop or reduce power drawn from the battery, thus enabling the vehicle to enter a lower power or reduce functionality mode that enables the EV to travel at a low speed). Ferguson et al. discloses that this type of functionality associated with a system analogous to modified Iwamoto can allow an EV to maneuver to an environment that reduces the risks to an EV and its surroundings such as people or catching fire (Paragraph 0047). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a first abnormality process is a process of limiting an output of a traction drive unit of the electrified vehicle while the electrified vehicle continues to travel in modified Iwamoto for the advantage of allowing the EV to continue to travel or allowing an EV to maneuver to an environment that reduces the risks to an EV and its surroundings such as people or catching fire
In view of Claim 8, Iwamoto, Porterfield et al., Gibbs et al., and Ferguson et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 7. Gibbs et al. teaches that the second abnormality process includes a notification process of giving a notification to outside of the electric vehicle (Fig. 3 & Paragraph 0052).
In view of Claim 9, Iwamoto, Porterfield et al., Gibbs et al., and Ferguson et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8. Iwamoto teaches the battery is a laminated all-solid state battery including a laminated film as an exterior member (Fig. 4 & Paragraph 0092).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds for rejection being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm 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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights