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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Application No. 18/414,606 to Koga, assigned to Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd., Osaka, Japan, filed on 01/17/2024 and published as U.S. PG Publication 2024/0154196 A1 on 05/09/2024. It is also in response to information disclosure statement, IDS, filed 01/17/2024.
This application is a continuation of PCT/JP2022/022898 filed 06/07/2022, and claims foreign priority to Japanese application JP2021-129388 filed 08/05/2021.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-21 are currently pending in this application and all the pending claims are under full consideration.
Foreign Priority Benefit
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim to foreign priority benefit from Japanese Patent Application JP2021-129388 filed 08/05/2021. A certified copy of the priority document has been filed and is made of record.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/17/2024has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered by the examiner. A duly initialed and signed copy is attached herewith. Accordingly, information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 01/17/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this section can be found in the prior Office Action.
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.
Claim 16-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “…wherein the thermistor is an NTC thermistor.” NTC is not explicitly defined in the claim language, and is not clearly known what N, T and C stand for. In the absence of an explicit identification of what NTC stand for the claim and its dependent claim 17 are indefinite.
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- 6, 8, 10, 12, 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Banerjee et al.(U.S. PG Publication 2013/0004811)
Regarding claim 1 and 21 Banerjee discloses a battery cell that include an anode and a cathode (Banerjee Fig. 1, paragraph 0029) considered equivalent to the first electrode and second electrode, and an electrolyte disposed between the anode and cathode (Banerjee paragraph 0032), the electrolyte can be gel (Banerjee paragraph 0032), considered equivalent of the solid electrolyte; and a method of fabricating a battery that includes an integrated battery temperature sensor with the battery cell (Banerjee Fig. 22, paragraph 0024, 0060), Banerjee discloses a battery temperature sensor layered on a battery cell element (Banerjee paragraph 0031), selected from the group consisting of an anode, a cathode, and a separator between anode and cathode used in a battery cell (Banerjee Abstract, claim 1, paragraph 0032); thus, is in contact with a first electrode of the battery. The temperature sensor includes a thermistor (Banerjee claim 11, paragraph 0007-0012, 0060). The thermistor has output sector (Banerjee paragraph 0033, 0044), considered equivalent to the lead-out terminal in contact with the temperature sensor.
Regarding claim 2 Banerjee discloses a battery temperature senor layered on a battery cell element (Banerjee paragraph 0031), which include anode and cathode (Banerjee paragraph 0032) that include electrical conductor current collector (Banerjee paragraph 0032); thus, the temperature sensor is in contact with the current collector of either the cathode or anode considered equivalent to the first current collector.
Regarding claim 3 when the temperature sensor is in contact with the electrical conductor current collector (Banerjee paragraph 0032) the current collector can act as a terminal of the temperature since it is conductive, and since the temperature sensor that includes the thermistor layered on a battery cell element (Banerjee paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 4 the temperature sensor includes a thermistor (Banerjee claim 11, paragraph 0007-0012, 0060), and a substrate and a thin film resistive temperature device (RTD) that can change resistance with a change in temperature (Banerjee paragraph 0034), considered equivalent to the operator.
Regarding claim 5 the battery temperature sensor includes a thin film resistive temperature device (RTD) (Banerjee paragraph 0034), considered equivalent to the operator; and it is contact with a first electrode since the temperature sensor that includes the operator is in contact with an electrode (Banerjee 0032, 0060).
Regarding claim 6 Banerjee discloses the battery temperature senor is layered on a battery cell element (Banerjee paragraph 0031), which include anode and cathode (Banerjee paragraph 0032), and it includes a thermistor (Banerjee claim 11, paragraph 0007-0012, 0060). Thus, the thermistor is contained in either of the electrodes considered equivalent to a first electrode.
Regarding claim 8 the thermistor is in contact with a first electrode ((Banerjee claim 11, paragraph 0007-0012, 0032, 0060); thus, would also be in contact with the electrolyte layer that is in contact with the electrode.
Regarding claim 10 Banerjee disclose a battery temperature sensor with a thin film thermistor and thin film transistor (TFT) on a flexible substrate in accordance with an example (Banerjee paragraph 0007); thus, the thermistor has a layered structure that is equivalent to a laminate structure.
Regarding claim 12 Banerjee discloses a positive sensor terminal and a negative sensor terminal of the battery temperature sensor (Banerjee paragraph 0013, 0035), including a thermistor (Banerjee claim 11, paragraph 0007-0012, 0060), and first contact of the thin film thermistor can be coupled to the negative sensor tab (Banerjee paragraph 0035), the first contact of the thin film thermistor is considered equivalent to the internal electrode.
Regarding claim 18 and 19 the temperature sensor has tabs 324 and 344 that are out in different directions (Banerjee Fig. 5, paragraph 0033) considered equivalent to the first lead-out terminal and second lead-out terminal connected are in contact with the temperature sensor. The temperature sensor tabs are in with battery cell housing, (Banerjee paragraph 0033), the battery temperature sensor tabs 324, 330, and 344 can couple the battery temperature sensor to the terminals on the battery cell housing (Banerjee paragraph 0033), so they are in contact with the terminals and therefore to the current collector since the terminals are connected to the current collector.
Regarding claim 20 Banerjee discloses a battery cell that include an anode and a cathode (Banerjee Fig. 1, paragraph 0029) considered equivalent to the first electrode and second electrode, and the cathode can be designated as the first electrode.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2013/0004811)
The discussion of Banerjee as applied to claim 1, 4 and 6 is fully incorporated here and is relied upon for the limitation of the claim in this section.
Regarding claim 7 Banerjee discloses the battery temperature senor is layered on a battery cell element (Banerjee paragraph 0031), which include anode and cathode (Banerjee paragraph 0032), and it includes a thermistor (Banerjee claim 11, paragraph 0007-0012, 0060). Thus, the thermistor is contained in either of the electrodes considered equivalent to a first electrode. Banerjee is silent about the thermistor is disposed at center of first electrode. However, disposing the thermistor in the center of the electrode as opposed to other parts of the electrode would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill since such a change would be considered change in position, and according to the MPEP shifting the position of parts (or Rearrangement of Parts) within a device will not render the device patentable if the position change does not alter the device’s operation (see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); MPEP § 2144.04 VI. C.).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2013/0004811) in view of Cramer et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2015/0022826)
The discussion of Banerjee as applied to claim 1 and 4 is fully incorporated here and is relied upon for the limitation of the claim in this section.
Regrading claim 9 Banerjee discloses a battery that includes a battery temperature sensor, and the battery temperature sensor includes a thermistor (Banerjee paragraph 0029, 0031, 0032, 0060). But Banerjee is silent that the thermistor has a shape of a hollow frame. Cramer discloses a target apparatus (Cramer Title) for measuring coordinates of a point on a work piece surface (Cramer paragraph 0031) that includes a temperature sensor that may be a thermistor and may be placed in a protector structure, which might be a hollow cylinder, the purpose of which is to keep the temperature sensor from being damaged (Cramer paragraph 0080). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have made the thermistor of Banerjee is hollow frame as taught by Cramer to protect it from being damaged (Cramer paragraph 0080). According to the MPEP known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 I F).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2013/0004811) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2015/0044511)
The discussion of Banerjee as applied to claim 1 and 4 is fully incorporated here and relied upon for the limitation of the claim in this region.
Regarding claim 11 Banerjee discloses a battery that includes a battery temperature sensor, and the battery temperature sensor includes a thermistor (Banerjee paragraph 0029, 0031, 0032, 0060). But Banerjee is silent that the thermistor has a chip form. Kim discloses a battery pack including at least one battery cell (Kim paragraph 0007), having a temperature sensitive element (equivalent to a temperature sensor) and a connection region between the temperature sensitive element and the battery cell (Kim paragraph 0007), and the temperature sensitive element may be a thermistor (Kim paragraph 0026). The thermistor may measure the temperature of the battery cell using resistive components varying according to temperature, and the thermistor may be provided as a chip thermistor (equivalent to the chip form) so as to provide an electrical connection without a wire (Kim paragraph 0045). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the thermistor of Banerjee by the disclosure of Kim and made it in a chip form so as to have electrical connection without a wire as taught by Kim (Kim paragraph 0045). According to the MPEP this such a modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C).
Claim 13, 14, 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2013/0004811) in view of Miura et al. (U.S. 2015/0211940)
The discussion of Banerjee as applied to claim 1 and4 is fully incorporated here and is relied upon for the limitation in this section.
Regarding claim 13-15 Banerjee is silent about the thermistor include a ceramic material. Miura discloses a thermistor device (Miura Title, Abstract, paragraph 0007, 0008), and the thermistor device 1 includes a first base material sheet 11, a first lead electrode 12, a second lead electrode 13, a flexible thermistor element 14, and a second base material sheet 15. (Miura Fig.1 and 2, paragraph 00029), and the thermistor thin film layer is made of ceramic (Miura paragraph 0032), which provides a thermistor device with further improved tolerance to stress (Miura paragraph 0007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have made the thermistor disclosed by Banerjee to also include a ceramic thermistor element as disclosed by Miura (Miura paragraph 0032) for the benefit of providing a thermistor device with further improved tolerance to stress (Miura paragraph 0007). According to the MPEP such a modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C)
Regarding claim 13 Miura discloses and the thermistor thin film layer is made of ceramic material (Miura paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 14 Miura discloses the ceramic material is preferably made of an oxide (Miura paragraph 0032), thus, is an oxide ceramic.
Regarding claim 15 discloses the thermistor is made of ceramic material and the ceramic material is made of an oxide of at least two transition metal elements selected from Ni, Mn, Co, Fe (Miura paragraph 0032), all four metals recited in claim 15.
Regarding claim 16 Miura also discloses the thermistor element is provided with one of a positive temperature coefficient PTC) or a negative temperature coefficient (NTC) (Miura paragraph 0030). Choosing the NTC from among the two positive temperature coefficient and negative coefficient temperature coefficient would have been obvious to try to a person of ordinary skill since such a choice constitutes choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143 I E) since both measure electrical resistance of the thermistor, whether increasing or decreasing with rise in temperature.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2013/0004811) in view of Miura et al. (U.S. 2015/0211940) as applied to claim 16, and further in view of Rosen et al. (U.S. Patent 5,653,954)
The discussion of Banerjee and Miura as applied to claim 16 above is fully incorporated here and relied upon for the claim in this section.
Regarding claim 17 Miura is silent about the oxide ceramic material of the thermistor contains a crystal phase having a spinel structure. Rosen discloses nickel-manganese oxide single crystals having a cubic spinel geometry (Rosen Title, Abstract), Rosen discloses that monocrystals of nickel-manganese-oxide cubic spinel are particularly desirable, they exhibit all the advantageous properties polycrystals of the same material, and that nickel-manganese-oxide cubic spinel polycrystals exhibit a very variable electric conductivity over a generally small temperature intervals, and the thermistors made of monocrystalline nickel-manganese-oxide cubic spinel crystals, therefore, would be particularly desirable for use in sensors, thermometers and temperature responsive circuits.(Rosen col. 2, line 35-47). Therefore, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill to have used the ceramic material that contains crystal phase having spinet structure in the ceramic material of Miura to modify the thermistor of Banerjee for their benefits of temperature sensitivity over small temperature intervals as taught by Rosen (Rosen col. 2, line 35-47). According to the MPEP such a modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR M KEKIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5918. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00 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, NIKI BAKHTIARI can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/JONATHAN G JELSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/OMAR M KEKIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights