CTNF 18/480,229 CTNF 89295 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 02/09/2024 and 09/12/2024. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2004/0038133 to Yamaguchi et al. in view of US Patent Application Publication 2022/0123559 to Stefanopoulou et al . With respect to claim 1, Yamaguchi et al. teach a battery cell comprising: a battery cell package defining an interior compartment of the battery cell; an anode 4 disposed in the interior compartment of the battery cell; a cathode 3 disposed in the interior compartment of the battery cell; a separator 2 positioned between the anode 4 and the cathode 3; and an electrolyte or a fluorine-substituted ether compound (a chemical coating) disposed on the surface of the separator, wherein in an instance in which an interior temperature within the interior compartment of the battery cell exceeds a boiling point of the fluorine-substituted ether compound (a pre-determined maximum operating temperature), the fluorine-substituted ether compound (the chemical coating) evaporates, forming a fluorine-substituted ether compound vapor (a chemical coating vapor) (Yamaguchi et al.: Sections [0024]-[0028]). Yamaguchi et al. do not specifically teach the chemical coating vapor indicating to a sensing device a condition of the battery cell. However, Stefanopoulou et al. teach a system for detecting, assessing, and displaying battery faults comprising a temperature and expansion sensor 43 for detecting a condition of the battery cell (Stefanopoulou et al.: Section [0044]). It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Yamaguchi et al. with the teaching above from Stefanopoulou et al. with the motivation of having a means such the sensor would indicate the status of the battery fault condition. With respect to claim 2, Yamaguchi et al. teach the battery cell, wherein the fluorine-substituted ether compound (the chemical coating) is a chemical having a boiling point above 88 degrees Celsius (between 80 degrees Celsius and 120 degrees Celsius) (Yamaguchi et al.: Section [0028]). With respect to claim 3, Yamaguchi et al. teach the battery cell, wherein the fluorine-substituted ether compound (the chemical coating) is a class C2 combustible liquid with a flash point above 80 degrees C (below 120° C) (Yamaguchi et al.: Section [0026]). With respect to claim 4, Yamaguchi et al. teach the battery cell, wherein the fluorine-substituted ether compound (the chemical coating) is applied using submersion (Yamaguchi et al.: Sections [0024]-[0028]). With respect to claim 5, Yamaguchi et al. do not specifically teach, but Stefanopoulou et al. teach a system, wherein the sensing device is external to the battery cell (Stefanopoulou et al.: Section [0044]). It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Yamaguchi et al. with the teaching above from Stefanopoulou et al. with the motivation of having a means such the sensor would indicate the status of the battery fault condition. With respect to claim 6, Yamaguchi et al. do not specifically teach, but Stefanopoulou et al. teach a system, wherein the battery cell package further comprises a safety device (a vent), such that gases (the chemical coating vapor) vents (exits) the interior compartment of the battery cell through the safety device (the vent) (Stefanopoulou et al.: Section [0044]). It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Yamaguchi et al. with the teaching above from Stefanopoulou et al. with the motivation of having a means such the safety device improve the safety of the battery. With respect to claim 7, Yamaguchi et al. do not specifically teach, but Stefanopoulou et al. teach a system, wherein the sensing device identifies the gases (the chemical coating vapor) at least by temperature (Stefanopoulou et al.: Section [0066]). Yamaguchi et al. in view of Stefanopoulou et al. teach the same sensor device for a battery, therefor, lacking of any clear distinction between the claimed sensor device and those disclosed by Stefanopoulou et al., it would have expected for the sensor device of Stefanopoulou et al. to identifies the gases (the chemical coating vapor) using photoionization techniques as claimed lacking unexpected result showing otherwise. With respect to claim 8, Yamaguchi et al. do not specifically teach, but Stefanopoulou et al. teach a system, wherein the sensing device identifies the gases (the chemical coating vapor) at least by temperature (Stefanopoulou et al.: Section [0066]). Yamaguchi et al. in view of Stefanopoulou et al. teach the same sensor device for a battery, therefor, lacking of any clear distinction between the claimed sensor device and those disclosed by Stefanopoulou et al., it would have expected for the sensor device of Stefanopoulou et al. to identifies the gases (the chemical coating vapor) using optical sensing techniques as claimed lacking unexpected result showing otherwise. With respect to claim 9, Yamaguchi et al. in view of Stefanopoulou et al. teach the battery cell, wherein the condition indicated is an onset of a thermal runaway event (Stefanopoulou et al.: Section [0066]). With respect to claim 10, Yamaguchi et al. do not specifically teach the battery cell, wherein the pre-determined maximum operating temperature is between 80 degrees Celsius and 120 degrees Celsius. However, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to operate the battery cell below the boiling point or flash point of the liquid inside the battery, which is 88 degrees Celsius. With respect to claim 11, Yamaguchi et al. teach a battery cell comprising: a battery cell package defining an interior compartment of the battery cell; an anode 4 disposed in the interior compartment of the battery cell; a cathode 3 disposed in the interior compartment of the battery cell; a separator 2 positioned between the anode 4 and the cathode 3; and an electrolyte or a fluorine-substituted ether compound (a chemical coating) disposed on the surface of the separator, wherein in an instance in which an interior temperature within the interior compartment of the battery cell exceeds a boiling point of the fluorine-substituted ether compound (a pre-determined maximum operating temperature), the fluorine-substituted ether compound (the chemical coating) evaporates, forming a fluorine-substituted ether compound vapor (a chemical coating vapor) (Yamaguchi et al.: Sections [0024]-[0028]). Yamaguchi et al. do not specifically teach the chemical coating vapor indicating to a sensing device a condition of the battery cell, the chemical coting evaporates forming a chemical coating vapor that exits the interior compartment of the battery cell through the vent; and a sensing device disposed proximate the exterior of the battery cell, wherein the sensing device is configured to detect the chemical coating vapor indicating a condition of the battery cell. However, Stefanopoulou et al. teach a system for detecting, assessing, and displaying battery faults comprising a temperature and expansion sensor 43 for detecting a condition of the battery cell, the battery cell package further comprises a safety device (a vent), such that gases (the chemical coating vapor) vents (exits) the interior compartment of the battery cell through the safety device (the vent), a sensing device disposed proximate the exterior of the battery cell, wherein the sensing device is configured to detect the chemical coating vapor indicating a condition of the battery cell (Stefanopoulou et al.: Sections [0044] and [0066]). It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Yamaguchi et al. with the teaching above from Stefanopoulou et al. with the motivation of having a means such the sensor would indicate the status of the battery fault condition. With respect to claim 12, Yamaguchi et al. teach the battery cell, wherein the fluorine-substituted ether compound (the chemical coating) is a chemical having a boiling point above 88 degrees Celsius (between 80 degrees Celsius and 120 degrees Celsius) (Yamaguchi et al.: Section [0028]). With respect to claim 13, Yamaguchi et al. teach the battery cell, wherein the fluorine-substituted ether compound (the chemical coating) is a class C2 combustible liquid with a flash point above 80 degrees C (below 120° C) (Yamaguchi et al.: Section [0026]). With respect to claim 14, Yamaguchi et al. teach the battery cell, wherein the fluorine-substituted ether compound (the chemical coating) is applied using submersion (Yamaguchi et al.: Sections [0024]-[0028]). With respect to claim 15, Yamaguchi et al. do not specifically teach, but Stefanopoulou et al. teach a system, wherein the sensing device identifies the gases (the chemical coating vapor) at least by temperature (Stefanopoulou et al.: Section [0066]). Yamaguchi et al. in view of Stefanopoulou et al. teach the same sensor device for a battery, therefor, lacking of any clear distinction between the claimed sensor device and those disclosed by Stefanopoulou et al., it would have expected for the sensor device of Stefanopoulou et al. to identifies the gases (the chemical coating vapor) using photoionization techniques as claimed lacking unexpected result showing otherwise. With respect to claim 16, Yamaguchi et al. do not specifically teach, but Stefanopoulou et al. teach a system, wherein the sensing device identifies the gases (the chemical coating vapor) at least by temperature (Stefanopoulou et al.: Section [0066]). Yamaguchi et al. in view of Stefanopoulou et al. teach the same sensor device for a battery, therefor, lacking of any clear distinction between the claimed sensor device and those disclosed by Stefanopoulou et al., it would have expected for the sensor device of Stefanopoulou et al. to identifies the gases (the chemical coating vapor) using optical sensing techniques as claimed lacking unexpected result showing otherwise. With respect to claim 17, Yamaguchi et al. in view of Stefanopoulou et al. teach the battery cell, wherein the condition indicated is an onset of a thermal runaway event (Stefanopoulou et al.: Section [0066]). With respect to claim 18, Yamaguchi et al. do not specifically teach the battery cell, wherein the pre-determined maximum operating temperature is between 80 degrees Celsius and 120 degrees Celsius. However, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to operate the battery cell below the boiling point or flash point of the liquid inside the battery, which is 88 degrees Celsius. With respect to claim 19, Yamaguchi et al. teach a method for detecting an event indicative of a battery condition, the method comprising: the fluorine-substituted ether compound (the chemical coating) is disposed on a surface of a separator 2 positioned between an anode 4 and a cathode 5 of a battery cell, and wherein in an instance in which an interior temperature within the battery cell exceeds a boiling point of the fluorine-substituted ether compound (a pre-determined maximum operating temperature) (Yamaguchi et al.: Sections [0024]-[0028]). Yamaguchi et al. do not specifically teach the method, wherein receiving at a sensing device a portion of a vapor of a chemical coating; the chemical coating evaporates creating the vapor that exits the battery cell through a vent; detecting, via a sensing device, the vapor of the chemical coating, and transmitting an alert indicating the vapor of the chemical coating is detected. However, Stefanopoulou et al. teach a system for detecting, assessing, and displaying battery faults comprising a temperature and expansion sensor 43 for detecting a condition of the battery cell, the battery cell package further comprises a safety device (a vent), such that gases (the chemical coating vapor) vents (exits) the interior compartment of the battery cell through the safety device (the vent), a sensing device disposed proximate the exterior of the battery cell, wherein the sensing device is configured to detect the chemical coating vapor indicating a condition of the battery cell (Stefanopoulou et al.: Sections [0044] and [0066]). It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Yamaguchi et al. with the teaching above from Stefanopoulou et al. with the motivation of having a means such the sensor would indicate the status of the battery fault condition. With respect to claim 20, Yamaguchi et al. teach the method, wherein the fluorine-substituted ether compound (the chemical coating) is a chemical having a boiling point above 88 degrees Celsius (between 80 degrees Celsius and 120 degrees Celsius) (Yamaguchi et al.: Section [0028]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINGWEN R ZENG whose telephone number is (571)272-6649. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-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, Tiffany Legette can be reached on (571) 270-7078. 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. /LINGWEN R ZENG/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 6/13/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/480,229 Page 2 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/480,229 Page 3 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/480,229 Page 4 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/480,229 Page 5 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/480,229 Page 6 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/480,229 Page 7 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/480,229 Page 8 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/480,229 Page 9 Art Unit: 1723
Prosecution Insights