CTNF 18/405,334 CTNF 92337 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding Claim 7, Applicant recites, “the first abnormality process is a retreat travel process”. Its unclear what corresponds to a “retreat” travel process or how the detection of hydrogen sulfide would cause the vehicle to travel in a “retreating” fashion. Appropriate action is required. Regarding Claim 10, Applicant recites, “the first abnormality process is a retreat travel process”. Its unclear what corresponds to a “retreat” travel process or how the detection of hydrogen sulfide would cause the vehicle to travel in a “retreating” fashion. Appropriate action is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibbs et al. (US 2024/0421370 A1) in view of Porterfield et al. (US 2024/0204271 A1) . In view of Claim 1, Gibbs et al. discloses a battery system (Fig. 2) comprising: a battery case (Fig. 2, Housing 212 ); a battery housing in the battery case (Fig. 2, 220 ) the battery composed of a sulfide-based all-solid-state battery (Paragraph 0045); a first detection unit configured to detect hydrogen sulfide (Paragraph 0011 & 0049); one or more sensors can be present in the system a second detection unit (Fig. 2, 120 & Paragraph 0038) located vertically above the bottom surface inside the battery case and configured to detect hydrogen sulfide (Fig. 2, 120 – Paragraph 0011); a control device that includes an abnormality processing unit (Fig. 4, 440 – Paragraph 0053) configured to perform an abnormality process based on detection results from the first detection unit and the second detection unit (Paragraph 0035, 0055-0056); the abnormality processing unit can be configured to perform a first abnormality process when hydrogen sulfide is detected only by the first detection unit and to perform a second abnormality process when hydrogen sulfide is detected by the second unit (Paragraph 0049 – the sensors can be configured to detect the same presence of the same analytes); Thus, if one sensor indicates analytes while the other sensor does not, then the abnormality process would only be detected by said respective sensor. Gibbs et al. does not disclose a first detection unit located on a bottom surface of the battery case inside the battery case 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 (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 Gibbs et al. 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, Gibbs et al. and Porterfield et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Gibbs et al. discloses that the abnormality processing unit can be configured to perform the second abnormality process when hydrogen sulfide is detected by the first detection unit and the second detection unit (Paragraph 0049). In view of Claim 3, Gibbs et al. and Porterfield et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Gibbs et al. teaches a communication passage configured to allow communication between inside and outside of the battery case wherein the second detection unit is located inside the communication passage (Fig. 2, second detection unit 120 is located inside the cavity 208 – Paragraph 0043). In view of Claim 4, Gibbs et al. and Porterfield et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Gibbs et al. teaches a communication passage configured to allow communication between inside and outside of the battery case (Fig. 2, second detection unit 120 is located inside the cavity 208 – Paragraph 0043) and a desulfurization agent that is located inside the communication passage that is configured to adsorb hydrogen sulfide (Paragraph 0058 – the hydrogen sulfide is adsorbed onto the sensing material; thus, it acts as a “desulfurization agent”). In view of Claim 7, Gibbs et al. and Porterfield et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. 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 the 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). Applicant discloses that “retreat travel” may refer to limiting the driving force and/or the vehicle speed or may allow the electrified vehicle to travel to a repair shop and/or a predetermined safe place or to allow the electrified vehicle to travel within a predetermined distance or within a predetermined time (Instant Specification - Paragraph 0022). Porterfield et al. discloses that this battery module is capable of use in an aircraft (Paragraph 0026), while the Examiner acknowledges that Gibbs et al. is directed towards an electric vehicle (such as a car or aircraft), the configuration of Porterfield et al. inherently does not involve “shutting down” the battery, as if it did, propulsion would not be able to continue and would result in catastrophic failure. Thus, the first abnormality process would “allow” the electric vehicle of Gibbs et al. to still operate and allow the electrified vehicle to travel to a repair shop and/or a predetermined safe place or to allow the electrified vehicle to travel within a predetermined distance or within a predetermined time. In view of Claim 8, Gibbs et al. and Porterfield 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, Gibbs et al. and Porterfield et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8. Gibbs et al. teaches that the battery is a laminated all-solid-state battery including a laminated film as an exterior member (Paragraph 0045). In view of Claim 10, Gibbs et al. and Porterfield et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. 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 the 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). Applicant discloses that “retreat travel” may refer to limiting the driving force and/or the vehicle speed or may allow the electrified vehicle to travel to a repair shop and/or a predetermined safe place or to allow the electrified vehicle to travel within a predetermined distance or within a predetermined time (Instant Specification - Paragraph 0022). Porterfield et al. discloses that this battery module is capable of use in an aircraft (Paragraph 0026), while the Examiner acknowledges that Gibbs et al. is directed towards an electric vehicle (such as a car or aircraft), the configuration of Porterfield et al. inherently does not involve “shutting down” the battery, as if it did, propulsion would not be able to continue and would result in catastrophic failure. Thus, the first abnormality process would “allow” the electric vehicle of Gibbs et al. to still operate and allow the electrified vehicle to travel to a repair shop and/or a predetermined safe place or to allow the electrified vehicle to travel within a predetermined distance or within a predetermined time . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibbs et al. (US 2024/0421370 A1) in view of Porterfield et al. (US 2024/0204271 A1) in view of Iwamoto (US 2017/0309975 A1) . In view of Claim 5, Gibbs et al. and Porterfield et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 4. Gibbs et al. teaches a valve located in the communication passage (Fig. 1, 110 & Paragraph 0038) but does not disclose that the second abnormality process includes opening an on-off valve to allow communication between the inside and the outside of the battery case through the communication passage. Iwamoto et al. discloses a battery system that comprises an on-off valve located in a communication passage (Fig. 13, 130 – Paragraph 0150) that is associated with a second abnormality process (compare the first detection unit in Fig. 12 to the second detection unit in Fig. 13)that includes opening the on-off valve to allow communication between the inside and the outside of the battery case through the communication passage (Fig. 13 – Paragraph 0237-0249). Iwamoto et al. teaches that this configuration allows the hydrogen sulfide to be detoxified before being disposed outside the battery packaging (Paragraph 0101). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to ensure that the second abnormality process of modified Gibbs et al. includes opening an on-off valve to allow communication between the inside and the outside of the battery case through the communication passage to advantageously detoxify hydrogen sulfide before its egressed to the outside environment . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibbs et al. (US 2024/0421370 A1) in view of Porterfield et al. (US 2024/0204271 A1) in view of Iwamoto (US 2017/0309975 A1) in view of Hirakawa et al. (US 2010/0047673 A1) . In view of Claim 6, Gibbs et al., Porterfield et al., and Iwamoto et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 5. Modified Gibbs et al. 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 Gibbs et al. for the advantages of ensuring the case does not exceed a preset pressure and suppressing the case from exploding. Conclusion 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 Application/Control Number: 18/405,334 Page 2 Art Unit: 1726
Prosecution Insights