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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 09/04/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-6, 11-12, 15-17 and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 states “wherein the pouch cell is connected to a battery cycler for cycling the pouch cell while gas from the pouch cell to the intake of a differential electrochemical mass spectrometer”. This should be written as “wherein the pouch cell is connected to a battery cycler for cycling the pouch cell while gas from the pouch cell is directed to the intake of a differential electrochemical mass spectrometer”.
Claim 6 states “wherein the pouch cell is heated while gas from the pouch cell to the intake of a differential electrochemical mass spectrometer”. This should be written as “wherein the pouch cell is heated while gas from the pouch cell is directed to the intake of a differential electrochemical mass spectrometer”.
Claim 11 states “wherein the pouch cell is connected to a battery cycler for cycling the pouch cell while gas from the pouch cell to the intake of a differential electrochemical mass spectrometer”. This should be written as “wherein the pouch cell is connected to a battery cycler for cycling the pouch cell while gas from the pouch cell is directed to the intake of a differential electrochemical mass spectrometer”.
Claim 12 states “wherein the pouch cell is heated while gas from the pouch cell to the intake of a differential electrochemical mass spectrometer”. This should be written as “wherein the pouch cell is heated while gas from the pouch cell is directed to the intake of a differential electrochemical mass spectrometer”
Claim 17 depends on claim 16 and claim 16 depends on claim 15. However, claims 15 and 17 both have the same subject matter.
Claims 19 and 20 are duplicates. They both depend on independent claim 13 and have the same subject matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5-6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kong et al. (CN 113687231; hereinafter “Kong”; English translation provided by the Examiner; cited in the IDS filed on 09/04/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Kong teaches a method for differential electrochemical mass spectrometry ([0007, 0021, 0032, 0042]) for online gas evolution of a pouch cell (12; [0005, 0016, 0027]; Figure 1), comprising: supplying an inert carrier gas ([0021]) to a pouch cell (12; [0021]); and supplying gas from the pouch cell (12) to an intake of a differential electrochemical mass spectrometer ([0002, 0004, 0018-0021, 0037, 0042]).
Regarding claim 5, Kong teaches wherein the pouch cell (12) is connected to a battery cycler ([0003-0004, 0018-0019, 0037, 0042]) for cycling the pouch cell (12) while gas from the pouch cell (12) is directed to the intake of a differential electrochemical mass spectrometer ([0003-0004, 0018-0019, 0037, 0042]).
Regarding claim 6, Kong teaches wherein the pouch cell is heated while gas from the pouch cell is directed to the intake of a differential electrochemical mass spectrometer (the pouch cell is charged during sampling of the gas, it is known in the art that lithium ion pouch cells increase in temperature, i.e. heated, during a charging cycle; therefore, the lithium ion pouch cell is heated during the intake of gas to the electrochemical mass spectrometer; [0003-0004, 0018-0019, 0037, 0042]).
Regarding claim 13, Kong teaches a system (Figure 1) for continuous quantitative gas evolution monitoring ([0007, 0021, 0032, 0042]) in a pouch cell (12) comprising: a differential mass spectrometer ([0007-0008, 0032-0033, 0042]); a supply of inert carrier gas ([0007, 0032, 0042]); a conduit (4; Figure 1; [0032, 0042]) connected to the pouch cell (12) for conducting inert carrier gas to the pouch cell ([0032, 0042]); and a conduit (7; Figure 1; [0032, 0042]) connected to the pouch cell (12) for conducting gas from the pouch cell to an inlet of the differential mass spectrometer ([0032, 0042]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong in view of Cohen et al. (US 20230253633; hereinafter “Cohen”).
Regarding claim 2, Kong teaches the inert carrier gas but does not expressly teach the carrier gas being Argon.
However, Cohen teaches that it is known in the art to use argon gas as the inert gas used to testing gas leaks from battery cells ([0063, 0082]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use argon gas as inert gas used within Kong’s system as it is a gas that eases the flow of the aeriform elements which may have leaked from the cell towards the mass spectrometer, where argon is a gas that provides adequate performance at a reasonable cost (See Cohen [0063, 0082]).
Regarding claim 19, Kong teaches the supply of inert carrier gas but does not expressly teach wherein the supply of inert carrier case is a pressurized tank, and a regulator for regulating the outlet pressure from the pressurized tank.
However, Cohen teaches the supply of inert carrier case is a pressurized tank (10; Figure 1; [0063-0064]), and a regulator (9; Figure 1; [0063-0064]) for regulating the outlet pressure from the pressurized tank ([0063-0064]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Cohen’s pressurized tank and regulator implemented in Kong’s system in order to ease the flow of the aeriform elements which may have leaked from the cell towards the mass spectrometer while controlling the pushing pressure of the argon gas ensuring that the test always takes place in the same conditions and thus improving its repeatability (See Cohen [0063-0064]).
Regarding claim 20, Kong teaches the supply of inert carrier gas but does not expressly teach wherein the supply of inert carrier case is a pressurized tank, and a regulator for regulating the outlet pressure from the pressurized tank.
However, Cohen teaches the supply of inert carrier case is a pressurized tank (10; Figure 1; [0063-0064]), and a regulator (9; Figure 1; [0063-0064]) for regulating the outlet pressure from the pressurized tank ([0063-0064]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Cohen’s pressurized tank and regulator implemented in Kong’s system in order to ease the flow of the aeriform elements which may have leaked from the cell towards the mass spectrometer while controlling the pushing pressure of the argon gas ensuring that the test always takes place in the same conditions and thus improving its repeatability (See Cohen [0063-0064]).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kong and Cohen in view of Deng et al. (CN 116243180; hereinafter “Deng”; English translation provided by the Examiner; cited in the IDS filed on 09/04/2024).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kong and Cohen teaches the inert gas but does not expressly teach wherein the inert carrier gas is supplied through a mass flow controller.
However, Deng teaches wherein the inert carrier gas is supplied through a mass flow controller ([0016-0017, 0045, 0049, 0053]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Deng’s mass flow controller implemented in Kong and Cohen’s system in order to provide continuous flow of gas to the pouch battery cell during the charging and discharging cycles, thus ensuring the that the gas analysis is properly done (See Deng [0049]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kong, Cohen and Deng teaches wherein gas is supplied to the mass flow controller but does not expressly teach that the gas comes from a gas tank.
However, Cohen teaches that the gas comes from a gas tank (10; Figure 1; [0063-0064]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Cohen’s tank implemented in Kong, Cohen and Deng’s system in order to provide pressurized argon which eases the flow of the aeriform elements which may have leaked from the cell towards the mass spectrometer (See Cohen [0063-0064]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong in view of Deng.
Regarding claim 14, Kong teaches the conduit connecting the supply of inert carrier gas to the pouch cell but does not expressly teaching a mass flow controller supplying the inert carrier gas.
However, Deng teaches a mass flow controller supplying the inert carrier gas ([0016-0017, 0045, 0049, 0053]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Deng’s mass flow controller implemented in Kong’s conduit in the system in order to provide continuous flow of gas to the pouch battery cell during the charging and discharging cycles, thus ensuring the that the gas analysis is properly done (See Deng [0049]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kong and Deng in further view of Cohen.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Kong and Deng teaches the supply of inert carrier gas but does not expressly teach wherein the supply of inert carrier case is a pressurized tank, and a regulator for regulating the outlet pressure from the pressurized tank.
However, Cohen teaches the supply of inert carrier case is a pressurized tank (10; Figure 1; [0063-0064]), and a regulator (9; Figure 1; [0063-0064]) for regulating the outlet pressure from the pressurized tank ([0063-0064]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Cohen’s pressurized tank and regulator implemented in Kong and Deng’s system in order to ease the flow of the aeriform elements which may have leaked from the cell towards the mass spectrometer while controlling the pushing pressure of the argon gas ensuring that the test always takes place in the same conditions and thus improving its repeatability (See Cohen [0063-0064]).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kong, Deng and Cohen in further view of Faif et al. (US 20140236074; hereinafter “Faif”).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kong, Deng and Cohen teaches the regulator and the mass flow controller but does not expressly teach a relief outlet between the regulator and the mass flow controller.
However, Faif teaches that it is known in the art to have a relief outlet (outlet that relief valve 42; Figure 1) between the regulator (30; Figure 1; [0020-0021]) and the mass flow controller (44; Figure 1; [0024-0025]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Faif’s regulator implemented between Kong, Deng and Cohen’s regulator and mass flow controller in order to provide a safety regulation in the system in the event that the pressure output from the regulator exceeds the predetermined maximum and the automated shutdown and release systems fail to function for some reason (See Faif [0023]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kong, Deng, Cohen and Faif teaches the supply of inert carrier case is a pressurized tank (10; Figure 1; [0063-0064]” Cohen), and a regulator (9; Figure 1; [0063-0064]: Cohen) for regulating the outlet pressure from the pressurized tank ([0063-0064]: Cohen).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kong, Deng, Cohen and Faif in further view of Chen et al. (CN 113340967; English translation provided by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Kong, Deng, Cohen and Faif teaches the conduit having the pouch cell and the differential mass spectrometer but does not expressly teach an excess flow bypass in the conduit between the pouch cell and the mass spectrometer.
However, Chen teaches an excess flow bypass (41; Figure 1; [0045]) in the conduit (conduit that has valve 36; Figure 1) between the pouch cell (box 32 that holds the battery cells; Figures 1-2; [0043]) and the mass spectrometer (71/72; Figure 1; [0012, 0048]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Chen’s excess flow bypass implemented in the conduit between Kong, Deng, Cohen and Faif’s pouch cell and mass spectrometer in order to discharge excess gas which is not to be analyzed.
Claims 7 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong in view of Hu et al. (CN 202661451; hereinafter “Hu”’ English translation provided by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 7, Kong teaches a method for differential electrochemical mass spectrometry ([0007, 0021, 0032, 0042]) for online gas evolution of a pouch cell (12; [0005, 0016, 0027]; Figure 1), comprising:
an inlet port (4; Figure 1; [0030, 0032]);
an outlet port (7; Figure 1; [0031-0032]);
creating an opening on the pouch cell ([0038]);
introducing a flow of an inert carrier gas to the pouch ([0032, 0042]); receiving gas from an outlet port ([0032, 0042]);
purging the pouch with the inert carrier gas until N2, O2, CO2, ethylene carbonate and ethyl methyl carbonate baselines are stable (purging the system with the inert gas, i.e. argon, until there no impurity gas means that there are no other gas in the system; therefore, the presence of N2, O2, CO2, ethylene carbonate and ethyl methyl carbonate will become stable at 0 after the purging; [0042]); and
thereafter supplying gas from the outlet port to an inlet of a mass spectrometer ([0002, 0004, 0018-0021, 0037, 0042]).
Kong teaches the inlet port, the outlet port, creating an opening on the pouch cell and receiving gas through the outlet port but does not expressly teach establishing an inlet port in the pouch; establishing an outlet port in the pouch; introducing a flow of an inert carrier gas into the inlet port in the pouch; receiving gas from the outlet port.
However, Hu teaches establishing an outlet port in the pouch (4 and 9; Figure 1) in pouch cells for the purpose of analyzing gas emanating from the pouch cell ([0021, 0023, 0028]) and receiving gas from the outlet port ([0021, 0023, 0028]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Hu’s outlet port and associated function implemented on Kong’s pouch cell in order to provide a direct gas connection between the pouch cell and the spectrometer; thus, increasing the reliability of sampling the emanating gas from the pouch cell.
The combination of Kong ang Hu teaches creating ports on the pouch cell for purposes of sampling the gas emanating from the pouch cell but does not expressly teach establishing an inlet port in the pouch and introducing a flow of an inert carrier gas into the inlet port in the pouch.
However, the Examiner takes the position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have the requisite skill to modify openings in the pouch cell per the teachings of Hu, including establishing an inlet port in the pouch, in order to have a direct gas connection between the feeding of the inert gas and the pouch cell thus increasing the reliability of adequate purging of the pouch cell before testing of the system.
**Note**: the structural combination of Kong and Hu will result in introducing the flow of an inert carrier gas into the inlet port in the pouch.
Regarding claim 11, Kong teaches wherein the pouch cell (12) is connected to a battery cycler ([0003-0004, 0018-0019, 0037, 0042]) for cycling the pouch cell (12) while gas from the pouch cell (12) is directed to the intake of a differential electrochemical mass spectrometer ([0003-0004, 0018-0019, 0037, 0042]).
Regarding claim 12, Kong teaches wherein the pouch cell is heated while gas from the pouch cell is directed to the intake of a differential electrochemical mass spectrometer (the pouch cell is charged during sampling of the gas, it is known in the art that lithium ion pouch cells increase in temperature, i.e. heated, during a charging cycle; therefore, the lithium ion pouch cell is heated during the intake of gas to the electrochemical mass spectrometer; [0003-0004, 0018-0019, 0037, 0042]).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kong and Hu in further view of Deng.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kong and Hu teaches the inert carrier gas but does not expressly teach the inert gas being argon.
Deng teaches using argon as the carrier gas ([0023, 0045, 0049]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Deng’s argon gas as Kong and Hu’s inert carrier gas since it is known that argon is non-flammable and inert, thus it reduces operational hazards in hazardous environments and increases overall safety of the system.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kong and Hu teaches the inert gas but does not expressly teach wherein the inert carrier gas is supplied through a mass flow controller.
However, Deng teaches wherein the inert carrier gas is supplied through a mass flow controller ([0016-0017, 0045, 0049, 0053]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Deng’s mass flow controller implemented in Kong and Hu’s system in order to provide continuous flow of gas to the pouch battery cell during the charging and discharging cycles, thus ensuring the that the gas analysis is properly done (See Deng [0049]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kong, Hu and Deng in further view of Cohen.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kong, Hu and Deng teaches the gas being supplied to the mass flow controller but does not expressly teach wherein gas is supplied from a gas tank.
However, Cohen teaches wherein gas is supplied from a gas tank (10; Figure 1; [0063-0064]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Cohen’s gas tank implemented in Kong, Hu and Deng’s system in order to ease the flow of the aeriform elements which may have leaked from the cell towards the mass spectrometer (See Cohen [0063-0064]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY W MEGNA FUENTES whose telephone number is (571)272-6456. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-4PM.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/ANTHONY W MEGNA FUENTES/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN SWEENEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights