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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/8/2024, 4/30/2024, 2/25/205, 6/18/2025 and 2/3/2026 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and a copy with initials is attached herewith.
Drawings
4. The drawings were received on 8/21/2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
6. Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because computer-readable storage medium is not limited to a non-transitory storage medium. The instant specification discloses that computer-readable storage medium can be a “an electrical carrier signal, a telecommunications signal” (0101). A transitory computer readable storage medium corresponds to a transitory storage medium which is understood to not be a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter and thus is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 1-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takatsuka et al (US 20180040920 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Takatsuka discloses a battery safety evaluation system comprising a plurality of battery (12) comprising a battery housing (18) defining an interior battery compartment; and an internal sensing element (31, 21) attached to the interior battery compartment, wherein the internal sensing element is configured to capture internal data representative of an internal battery condition event; an external sensing element (30, 50, 51, 52, 53) attached to the battery housing, wherein the external sensing element is configured to capture external data representative of an external battery condition event; and a controller (21) communicatively connected to the internal sensing element and the external sensing element, wherein the controller determines a cause of a battery condition based at least in part on a time sequence of events generated from the internal data captured by the internal sensing element and representative of the internal battery condition event and the external data captured by the external sensing element and representative of the external battery condition event [Fig. 1-5; paragraph 0087-0174].
Although, Takatsuka teaches the system for swapping batteries and to determine that the swapped batteries are safe and sound to use. However, the teachings of Takatsuka is read on the instant claim.
Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Takatsuka teaches that the battery condition can be a thermal runaway event [paragraph 0093, 0145].
Regarding claim 3 Takatsuka teaches that the internal sensing element comprises a pressure sensor [paragraph 0135-0138].
Regarding claim 4 Takatsuka teaches that the external sensing element comprises at least a vibration sensor [0108, 0128, 0132, 0170-0171, 0187].
Regarding claim 7, Takatsuka teaches that at least one of the internal sensing element and the external sensing element detects an occurrence of a battery condition event and communicates the occurrence of the battery condition event to the controller [paragraph 0154, 0176, 0212].
11. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takatsuka et al (US 20180040920 A1) as applied in claim 1 and further in view of Grobelny et al (US 20190196575 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Takatsuka teaches that the internal sensing element comprises a pressure sensor and the external sensing element comprises a vibration sensor but remains silent about an aerosol sensor. However, it is known in the art to utilize an aerosol sensor in a battery system to monitor airborne particulate as taught by Grobelny [Abstract; paragraph 0018, 0039]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
12. Claim(s) 8-11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takatsuka et al (US 20180040920 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Takatsuka teaches a method for determining a cause of a battery condition comprising receiving from an internal sensing element (31, 21) attached to an interior battery compartment of a battery, internal data representative of an internal battery condition event; receiving, from an external sensing element (30, 50, 51, 52, 53) attached to a battery housing (18) of the battery, external data representative of an external battery condition event; and determining the cause of the battery condition based at least in part on a time sequence of events generated from the internal data captured by the internal sensing element and representative of the internal battery condition event and the external data captured by the external sensing element and representative of the external battery condition event [Fig. 1-5; paragraph 0087-0176].
Although, Takatsuka teaches the method for swapping batteries and to determine that the swapped batteries are safe and sound to use. However, the teachings of Takatsuka is read on the instant claim.
Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9, Takatsuka teaches that the battery condition can be a thermal runaway event [paragraph 0093, 0145].
Regarding claim 10 Takatsuka teaches that the internal sensing element comprises a pressure sensor [paragraph 0135-0138].
Regarding claim 11 Takatsuka teaches that the external sensing element comprises at least a vibration sensor [0108, 0128, 0132, 0170-0171, 0187].
Regarding claim 14, Takatsuka teaches that at least one of the internal sensing element and the external sensing element detects an occurrence of a battery condition event and communicates the occurrence of the battery condition event to the controller [paragraph 0154, 0176, 0212].
13. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takatsuka et al (US 20180040920 A1) as applied in claim 8 and further in view of Grobelny et al (US 20190196575 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Takatsuka teaches that the internal sensing element comprises a pressure sensor and the external sensing element comprises a vibration sensor but remains silent about an aerosol sensor. However, it is known in the art to utilize an aerosol sensor in a battery system to monitor airborne particulate as taught by Grobelny [Abstract; paragraph 0018, 0039]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claims 6 and 13 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.
15. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 6: the prior art of record does not anticipate or suggest or render obvious the battery safety evaluation system with the combination of structural element as claimed, including wherein a vibration battery condition event is captured at a vibration event time, an aerosol battery condition event is captured at an aerosol event time, and a pressure battery condition event is captured at a pressure event time, such that: in an instance in which the vibration event time is earlier than the aerosol event time, and the aerosol event time is earlier than the pressure event time, the battery safety evaluation system determines the cause of the battery condition is an external condition, and in an instance in which the aerosol event time is earlier than the pressure event time, and the pressure event time is earlier than the vibration event time, the battery safety evaluation system determines the cause of the battery condition is an internal condition.
Claim 13: the prior art of record does not anticipate or suggest or render obvious the method for determining a cause of a battery condition with the combination of the steps as claimed, including receiving vibration data representative of a vibration battery condition event, captured at a vibration event time; receiving aerosol data representative of an aerosol battery condition event, captured at an aerosol event time; and receiving pressure data representative of a pressure battery condition event, captured at a pressure event time, wherein determining the cause of the battery condition further comprises comparing the vibration event time, the aerosol event time, and the pressure event time, such that: in an instance in which the vibration event time is earlier than the aerosol event time, and the aerosol event time is earlier than the pressure event time, the cause of the battery condition is an external condition, and in an instance in which the aerosol event time is earlier than the pressure event time, and the pressure event time is earlier than the vibration event time, the cause of the battery condition is an internal condition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 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, 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.
/MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights