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 1-10 in the reply filed on 8/24/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-14 are withdrawn without traverse from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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(s) 1-10 is/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 1, the limitation “at least one of the battery cells” is lacking antecedent basis. One possible amendment is “at least one of the plurality of battery cells”.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “a first set of the piezoelectric sensors” and “a second set of the piezoelectric sensors” is similarly lacking antecedent basis. One possible amendment is “a first set of the plurality of piezoelectric sensors” and “a second set of the plurality of piezoelectric sensors”.
Regarding claims 3-10, the same antecedent-basis issue is present where subsequent references to the battery cells and/or piezoelectric sensors should be amended to properly refer to previously recited plurality thereof. Applicant is requested to amend claims 1-10 accordingly.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakawa et al. (US 20210328278 A1) in view of Genies et al. (US 20160072158 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Asakawa, drawn to detecting of expansion of batteries, discloses a battery system comprising: a battery pack comprising (fig.1, “battery pack 1”): a housing 2; and a plurality of battery cells accommodated within the housing (fig.1, "multiple batteries 3"); and a plurality of sensors attached to the housing (fig.1; para 35, “strain gauges 6”). Asakawa teaches that expansion of batteries in a battery pack is associated with increased internal pressure and can lead to battery leakage (para 2-3). Asakawa further discloses expansion of the battery produces a pressure that is detected by the strain gauge (para 121). Specifically, Asakawa states that “when the resistive portion[s]… are pressed due to expansion of the battery 3, a resistance value… continuously changes in accordance with the magnitude of the pressing pressure” (para 121). Accordingly, Asakawa discloses a battery pack having a housing mounted strain sensor capable of being configured to detect a dimensional change of the housing caused by increased pressure inside at least one of the battery cells (MPEP 2114).
Asakawa does not explicitly disclose the sensors are piezoelectric sensors.
Genies, drawn to monitoring accumulators, discloses battery pack monitoring arrangement comprising a plurality of strain gauges 14 attached to cover 12 (housing) of battery pack 20 (fig.3; para 97). Genies also discloses the “strain gauges can be made of, or include one, piezoelectric material which creates an electric voltage measurable when it is deformed (para 102). Genies additionally discloses the strain gauges measure “the mechanical stresses exerted on the cover” (para 134) and that gas generated within the accumulator can increase the internal pressure of the pack cover (para 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to substitute the piezoelectric strain gauge taught by Genies for the strain gauge of Asakawa as doing such constitutes a simple substitution of one known sensing element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 2, Asakawa discloses “multiple strain gauges 6” including multiple strain gauges assigned to the respective batteries (para 87-88). Asakawa teaches “the strain gauge 6 may be embedded in the lower member 2A or the upper member 2B” (para 35). Asakawa further discloses “the strain gauge 6 may be placed at any position suitable for detecting the degree of expansion of the battery 3” (para 35).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, would have known to arrange the multiple sensors as a first set on a first side of the housing and a second set on a second, opposing side of the housing as doing such would have been obvious design choice facilitating “information of stress applied on an entire of the battery pack” such that “the expansion of the battery 3 can be accurately detected” (para 124). MPEP 2144.04
Regarding claim 3, Asakawa exemplifies a strain gauge applied to the outside of the housing of the battery pack (para 147). Asakawa discloses stress information obtained over the entire battery pack allows the position and degree of battery expansion and portions where stress in concentrated to be identified (para 124). A person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, would have known to arrange first set of the multiple sensors an outside of the housing, and the second set on the inside of the housing as doing such would have been an obvious arrangement of the known strain gauges to obtain stress information from different portions of the battery pack and facilitate accurate detection of battery expansion.
Regarding claims 4, Asakawa discloses sensors on lower member 2A or the upper member 2B” (para 35). Asakawa also discloses multiple sensors arranged on the outside of the housing (para 147). As stated in claims 2 and 3, arranging the first set of the multiple sensors on a first outside surface of the housing, and the second set of the multiple sensors on a second outside surface of the housing facing away from the first outside surface of the housing would have been an obvious matter of design choice. MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 5, similar to claims 2-4, Asakawa discloses sensors arranged on the “inner surface of the upper member 2B” and states “strain gauge 6 may be embedded in the lower member 2A or the upper member 2B” (para 35). The inner surface of upper member 2B faces toward the inner surface of the lower member 2A (fig.6). Accordingly, arranging the first set of the multiple sensors on a first inside surface of the housing and the second set on a second inside surface of the housing facing towards the first inside surface of the housing would have been an obvious matter of design choice. MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 6, Asakawa discloses when the battery 3 expands in the battery pack, “the lower member 2A and the upper member 2B are deformed” and the “strain gauge 6 can detect expansion of the battery 3… as a change in the resistance value” (para 54). Asakawa teaches “strain gauge 6 are connected to the bridge circuit” and “a voltage… corresponding to a resistance value of the resistor 30 can be obtained as an output of the bridge circuit” (para 76). Asakawa further discloses “a voltage monitoring circuit, a protection circuit, a current detection circuit” maybe mounted to the circuit board 4 (para 73; fig 6). Accordingly, the bridge circuit and associated circuitry taught by Asakawa function as a detector connected to the strain gauge and capable of detecting a change in voltage, resistance, or current in the sensors caused by deformation of the housing. MPEP 2114
Regarding claim 7, Asakawa does not explicitly disclose the battery system further comprises a time detector, wherein the detector and the time detector are capable of communicating with each other to detect a temporal change in the housing to detect a thermal runaway.
Genies discloses “each gauge is connected to a measuring device 40 for measuring in real time (t) the strain ɛx(t)” (para 67) and the “strain measurements are communicated to a calculating device 50” (para 67) which “can implement an algorithm identifying the calculation result of the evolution of the stresses” (para 31). Genies also teaches “calculating the evolution of the stresses… at a time t” (para 32). Additionally, Genies recognizes that electrical overcharge and aging of accumulator “can cause an explosion of the pack or a thermal runaway of the accumulator”(para 8). A person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, would have been motivated to incorporate the time-dependent strain detecting taught by Genies into the battery pack of Asakawa as to identify deformation of the housing and thermal runaway with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, Asakawa discloses “simulation result of the strain generated in the transverse direction of the battery pack when the battery expands” (para 159). Asakawa also discloses strain generated in “longitudinal direction” and “oblique direction of 45 degrees (para 159, figs.19-21). Accordingly, the strain gauge of Asakawa is capable of detecting elongation of the housing (MPEP 2114).
Regarding claim 9, Asakawa discloses simulation result of the strain generated in the transverse direction of the battery pack when the battery expands” (para 159). Asakawa also discloses strain generated in “longitudinal direction” and “oblique direction of 45 degrees (para 159, figs.19-21).
Regarding claim 10, Asakawa does not explicitly disclose sensors are capable of detecting shearing of the housing.
Genies discloses “the strain gauges 14 are attached on a bulging part of the pack 20” and “three strain gauges are not aligned and arranged so as to be able to measure the stresses of the cover 12 along three distinct directions or stress axes” (para 66). Genies also teaches “calculating the evolution of the stresses can comprise calculating... the radius (r(t)) of the Mohr circle at a time t” (para 33). Accordingly, the multi-directional strain measurements and the resulting stress analysis taught by Genies discloses that the sensors are capable of detecting shearing of the housing (MPEP 2114).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARTI KHANAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8608. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-5pm.
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, Michael N Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
