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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 11 Aug 2026 is acknowledged.
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 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(s) 1-2, 7-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusama et al. (JP 2010205471A, as read via machine translation) in view of Umetani et al. (JP 2020140832A, as read via machine translation).
As to claim 1, Kusama et al. discloses an apparatus comprising:
a membrane (see e.g. safety valve 52, Kusama et al.: [0021] and Fig. 2) disposed between a battery compartment comprising a battery cell and an external environment (see e.g. Kusama et al.: [0021] and Fig. 2, safety valve 52 separates battery cell 51 from the external environment);
a light source (see e.g. light-emission unit 53, Kusama et al.: [0022] and Fig. 2); and
a light sensor (see e.g. light-receiving unit 54, Kusama et al.: [0022] and Fig. 2).
Kusama et al. does not specify that this light sensor is a light sensing diode.
Umetani et al., also working on the problem of optically detecting a burst valve, teaches a similar apparatus in which a light sensing diode (see e.g. photodiode optical sensor 120, Umetani et al.: [0028] and Fig. 5) is used as a light sensor to receive light arising from the opening of a valve (see e.g. Umetani et al.: [0030]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kusama et al. by using the light sensing diode taught by Umetani et al. as the light sensor. Said artisan would have found such a modification to be obvious because Umetani et al. teaches the use of a light sensing diode as a light sensor in an analogous system, and the use of a light sensing diode would fail to produce any new or unexpected benefit that would not have been obvious to said artisan.
Further regarding claim 1, in Kusama et al. in view of Umetani et al.’s design, the light source and light sensing diode are on the same side of the membrane (see e.g. Kusama et al.: Figs. 4-5) such that, wherein in an instance in which a pressure within the battery compartment exceeds a maximum internal pressure such that the membrane is ruptured, the light sensing diode blocks light from the light source indicating an onset of thermal runaway (see e.g. Kusama et al.: [0022]-[0023], [0027], and Figs. 4-5, when light-receiving unit 54 does not receive light from light-emitting unit 53, this is taken as an indication that valve 52 has opened due to an abnormal temperature). This differs from the instantly-claimed invention, which requires that the light source and the light sensing diode are on opposite sides of the membrane, and the rupture of the membrane causes the diode to receive light.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have appreciated that the components of Kusama et al. in view of Umetani et al.’s apparatus could be rearranged such that the light source and light-sensing diode are on opposite sides of the membrane to allow for the optical detection of the opening of the valve, because such an arrangement would be a functionally equivalent design for optically detecting the opening of the valve that uses the same design principles already taught by Kusama et al. in view of Umetani et al.. It would therefore have been obvious to said artisan to modify Kusama et al. in view of Umetani et al. such that the light source and the light sensing diode are on opposite sides of the membrane and the rupture of the membrane causes the diode to receive light, as such a modification would be a simple rearrangement of parts that uses the same design principles of Kusama et al. in view of Umetani et al. in order to achieve the same functional result.
As to claim 2, Kusama et al. discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, further comprising a battery enclosure (see e.g. Fig. 2 and Illustration 1 below, the indicated component reads on a battery enclosure),
wherein the battery enclosure comprises one or more battery enclosure walls enclosing the battery cell and defining the battery compartment (see e.g. Illustration 1 below, the indicated enclosure walls can reasonably be said to enclose battery cells 51 and define a battery compartment).
PNG
media_image1.png
448
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Illustration 1: reproduction with modification of Fig. 2 of Kusama et al..
As to claim 7, Kusama et al. in view of Umetani et al. teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, including a membrane (see e.g. safety valve 52, Kusama et al.: [0021] and Fig. 2) that is designed such that when a pressure within the battery compartment exceeds a maximum internal pressure, the membrane is ruptured (see e.g. Kusama et al.: [0027]). Kusama et al. in view of Umetani et al. is silent as to the value of this maximum internal pressure, and does not explicitly teach an apparatus wherein the maximum internal pressure is between 20 and 25 pounds per square inch.
However, the selection of a maximum internal pressure between 20 and 25 pounds per square inch would fail to modify the operation of the apparatus in a patentably distinct manner from the prior art and would fail to produce any new or unexpected benefit. Further, absent any evidence of the criticality of the instantly-claimed range, the selection of a membrane that ruptures at a maximum internal pressure of 20-25 pounds per square inch would have been an obvious engineering decision to one of ordinary skill in the art, and said artisan could have been motivated to select such a maximum internal pressure in order to satisfy the maximum pressure tolerances of the battery compartment and the components within the battery compartment.
As to claim 8, Kusama et al. in view of Umetani et al. teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, including a membrane (see e.g. safety valve 52, Kusama et al.: [0021] and Fig. 2) that is designed such that when a pressure within the battery compartment exceeds a maximum internal pressure, the membrane is ruptured (see e.g. Kusama et al.: [0027]). Kusama et al. in view of Umetani et al. is oval-shaped rather than circular, and Kusama et al. in view of Umetani et al. is silent as to the dimensions of this membrane, and does not explicitly teach that the membrane is circular, wherein a diameter of the membrane is between 30 millimeters and 60 millimeters, and wherein a thickness of the membrane is between 5 and 20 millimeters.
However, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP § 2144.04). In the instant case, changing the size and shape of Kusama et al. in view of Umetani et al.’s membrane to the instantly-claimed dimensions would fail to alter the operation of the membrane in a patentably distinct manner or produce any new or unexpected benefit. It would therefore have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape and size of the membrane of Kusama et al. in view of Umetani et al. such that the membrane is circular, a diameter of the membrane is between 30 millimeters and 60 millimeters, and wherein a thickness of the membrane is between 5 and 20 millimeters. Said artisan could have found motivation to modify the prior art apparatus in this manner in order accommodate the shape of the battery and/or to accommodate a desired gas throughput when the membrane is ruptured.
As to claim 9, Kusama et al. in view of Umetani et al. teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the light source and the light sensing diode are separated by a certain distance (see e.g. see e.g. light-emission unit 53 and light-receiving unit 54, Kusama et al.: [0022] and Fig. 2). Kusama et al. in view of Umetani et al. does not disclose the distance between the light source and the light sensing diode, and does not explicitly teach this distance to be less than 3 centimeters.
However, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP § 2144.04). In the instant case, changing the spacing between the light source and the light sensing diode to be less than 3 centimeters would not alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct manner or produce any new or unexpected benefit over the prior art device. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to set the distance between the light source and the light sensing diode to be less than 3 centimeters, and said artisan could have been motivated to make such a modification in order to accommodate battery cells of a particular size or to minimize the footprint of the sensing apparatus.
As to claim 10, Kusama et al. in view of Umetani et al. teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, further comprising a controller (see e.g. battery control unit 150, Kusama et al.: [0024]), wherein the controller is electrically connected to the light source and the light sensing diode (i.e., to 53 and 54, see e.g. Kusama et al.: Fig. 3).
As to claim 12, Kusama et al. discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the light source is configured to emit infrared light (see e.g. Kusama et al.: [0017], light-emitting unit 53 outputs infrared light).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusama et al. (JP 2010205471A, as read via machine translation) in view of Umetani et al. (JP 2020140832A, as read via machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zbrial et al. (US 2024/0213615).
As to claim 5, Kusama et al. in view of Umetani et al. teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the membrane is designed to open when the pressure exceeds a given value (see e.g. Kusama et al.: [0021]), but the prior art does not disclose the specific details of this membrane and does not explicitly state that the membrane comprises a porous material enabling one or more gases to pass through the membrane between the battery compartment and the external environment.
Zbrial et al. teaches an analogous membrane that is designed as a pressure relief valve, which performs the same function as Kusama et al.’s membrane (see e.g. membrane 60, Zbrial et al.: [0097] and Fig. 1). Zbrial et al.’s membrane comprises a porous material enabling one or more gases to pass through the membrane between the battery compartment and the external environment (see e.g. Zbrial et al.: [0054]-[0055]). Zbrial et al. teaches that this porosity allows for the passage of gaseous media to and from the battery housing during normal operation while preventing liquid media and solids from entering the housing (see. e.g. Zbrial et al.: [0054]-[0055]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kusama et al. in view of Umetani et al. by forming the membrane out of a porous material that enables one or more gases to pass through the membrane between the battery compartment and the external environment in the manner taught by Zbrial et al.. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification because Zbrial et al. teaches that such a porous material allows the membrane to block liquid media and solids from entering the housing during normal operation while also allowing for the exchange of gasses to and from the battery housing.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusama et al. (JP 2010205471A, as read via machine translation) in view of Umetani et al. (JP 2020140832A, as read via machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shao et al. (CN 114188655, as read via machine translation).
As to claim 6, Kusama et al. in view of Umetani et al. and Zbrial et al. teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the membrane is designed to open when the pressure exceeds a given value (see e.g. Kusama et al.: [0021]), but the prior art does not disclose the specific details of this membrane and does not explicitly state that the membrane comprises expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE).
Shao et al. teaches an analogous membrane (see e.g. membrane 2, Shao et al.: [0003], [0024], and Fig. 1) that is designed as a pressure relief valve, which performs the same function as Kusama et al.’s membrane. Additionally, Shao et al. teaches that this membrane is made of ePTFE (see e.g. Shao et al.: [0009], [0024]) and teaches that this material is breathable, which allows for pressure to be balanced within the membrane during normal operation (see e.g. Shao et al.: [0003]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kusama et al. in view of Umetani et al. by forming the membrane out of ePTFE, as is taught by Shao et al.. This is because Shao et al. teaches that ePTFE is a breathable material, and thereby allows for pressure balance to be achieved within the battery.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusama et al. (JP 2010205471A, as read via machine translation) in view of Umetani et al. (JP 2020140832A, as read via machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (KR 20190008638A, as read via machine translation).
As to claim 11, Kusama et al. in view of Umetani et al. teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, including a light source (see e.g. light-emitting unit 53, Kusama et al.: [0017]). However, Kusama et al. in view of Umetani et al. does not specify that this light source comprises one or more light emitting diodes (LEDs).
Lee et al., also working on the problem of monitoring the status of battery devices, teaches an apparatus in which an LED is used as a light source (see e.g. LED lamp 31, Lee et al.: [0050] and Fig. 3) such that the state of a battery can be monitored via a light detector that detects whether or not light from the light source reaches the detector (see e.g. detection sensor 51, Lee et al.: [0053]-[0054]) in a manner that is analogous to the light source/detector of Kusama et al..
It would therefore have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kusama et al. in view of Lee et al. by using the LED light taught by Lee et al. as the light source. This is because Lee et al. demonstrates the use of an LED light as a light source in an analogous battery monitoring apparatus and thereby teaches that an LED light source is a functional equivalent to Kusama et al. in view of Umetani et al.’s light source. Further, the use of Lee et al.’s LED light source would fail to provide any new benefit or effect that would not have been obvious to said artisan.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 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.
Regarding claim 3, the closest prior art of record is Kusama et al. (JP 2010205471A, as read via machine translation), which teaches an apparatus comprising a membrane, a the light source, and a light sensor (see e.g. safety valve 52, light-emission unit 53, and light-receiving unit 54, Kusama et al.: [0022] and Fig. 2). However, the light source and light sensor of Kusama et al. are disposed external to the battery housing, and Kusama et al. does not teach or suggest an arrangement comprising a vent housing, wherein the membrane, the light source, and the light sensing diode are disposed within the vent housing. It is unclear from the depiction shown in Fig. 2 of Kusama et al. how light-emission unit 53 and light-receiving unit 54 could be arranged within a vent housing.
Claim 4 requires all of the limitations of claim 3, and is thereby also objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Song et al. (US 20230046162) teaches an apparatus in which the swelling of a battery is monitored via detection of an optical signal from a light source.
Liu et al. (CN 114039113A, as read via machine translation) also teaches an analogous apparatus in which the state of a battery valve is monitored via detection of an optical signal from a light source.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT HILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)-272-3066. 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.
/A.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights