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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2023-0006357, filed on January 16, 2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 teaches the first sensing part of the temperature sensor as being attached to the body part of the temperature sensor. Claim 1 also teaches the second sensing part is connected to the body part of the temperature sensor. Therefore, claim 1 teaches the first sensing part and the second sensing part are inherently connected to each other through the body part. Claim 2 therefore does not impose any additional limitations on claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (U.S. Patent Application No. 2017/0012268) in view of Shimizu (U.S. Patent Application No. 2014/0308550).
Regarding Claim 1, Watanabe teaches a rechargeable battery module comprising: a plurality of battery cells stacked in a first direction ([0022]-[0023] and Figure 1 plurality of single cells 3); a bus bar holder comprising a bottom part covering the battery cells along a second direction crossing the first direction and exposing electrode terminals of the battery cells in a third direction crossing the first and second directions ([0031]-[0034] and Figure 1 connection unit 1); a bus bar connecting the electrode terminals exposed by an exposure hole of the bus bar holder ([0032 and Figure 3 bus bar unit 20); and a temperature sensor arranged on an electrode terminal of the electrode terminals to detect a temperature of a battery cell of the battery cells, the temperature sensor comprising a first sensing part to transmit a detection signal through a body part connected to the first sensing part ([0067] and Figure 6 temperature sensor T and detection line p are arranged to detect the temperature of one or more cells in contact with voltage detections line P, a part of the electrode terminal), wherein the bus bar holder further comprises a vent pipe part connected to the bottom part in the second direction to define a vent passage toward a vent of the battery cells along the first direction ([0057]-[0061] and Figure 6 outlet portion 60).
Watanabe does not teach the temperature sensor further comprises a second sensing part connected to the body part, extending through the vent pipe part, and exposed to the vent passage.
Shimizu does teach the temperature sensor further comprises a second sensing part connected to the body part, extending through the vent pipe part, and exposed to the vent passage ([0078]-[0079] and Figure 7 temperature sensor 71 is configured in the second exhaust passage 60).
Watanabe and Shimizu are considered analogous to the instant application as they both relate to monitoring the temperature of a battery pack. To solve the same problem of the instant application of rapid response to battery failure, Shimizu teaches configuring a temperature sensor in an exhaust passage allows for quick detection of a battery failure, making a safer battery pack ([0033]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have taken the teachings of Watanabe and extended the temperature sensor to include a second sensing portion that is configured to sense the temperature of discharged gases.
Regarding Claim 2, as discussed previously, Claim 2 does not impart any additional limitations that are not provided in Claim 1. Therefore, all limitations are met through the previous description of modified Watanabe.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Watanabe teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as described above.
Modified Watanabe does not teach the first sensing part is formed of a plate having a first width corresponding to a width of the electrode terminal and a first length, and the second sensing part is formed of a plate having a second width smaller than the first width and a length longer than the first length and exposed in a second length extending to the vent passage in the second direction represents a mere change in size/proportion and is not patentably distinct from the prior art (MPEP).
Shimizu does teach the sensing part is formed of a plate (Figure 7 temperature sensor 71is in a plate shape).
The limitations of the first sensing part is formed of a plate having a first width corresponding to a width of the electrode terminal and a first length, and the second sensing part is formed of a plate having a second width smaller than the first width and a length longer than the first length and exposed in a second length extending to the vent passage in the second direction represents a mere change in size/proportion and is not patentably distinct from the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04 IV A&B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the shapes of the first and second sensing parts to match the instant claims.
Claim(s) 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Shimizu, further in view of Suzuki (U.S. Patent application No. 2018/0106651).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Watanabe teaches all the limitations of Claim 3, as described above.
Modified Watanabe does not teach the second sensing part is in contact with a flow of a vent gas with a thickness in a direction that intersects the second direction and an outer surface area of the second width and the second length.
Suzuki does teach the second sensing part is in contact with a flow of a vent gas with a thickness in a direction that intersects the second direction and an outer surface area of the second width and the second length ([0048]-[0051] and Figures 3b and 5 teach a sensor in contact with a flow of gas with the same structure).
To solve the same problem of effectively measuring the temperature of a flow of gas, Suzuki teaches the use of a plate shaped sensor in contact with a flow of gas. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to take the battery module of modified Watanabe and incorporate the temperature sensor geometry and arrangement of Suzuki to more effectively measure the temperature of the vent gas.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Watanabe teaches all the limitations of Claim 4, as described above.
Modified Watanabe does not teach the second sensing part is in contact with the flow of the vent gas in a horizontally downward state to the vent with a first area defined by the second width and the second length, and is contact with the flow of the vent gas in a vertical state to the vent with a second area defined by the thickness and the second length, the second area being smaller than the first area.
Suzuki does teach the second sensing part is in contact with the flow of the vent gas in a horizontally downward state to the vent with a first area defined by the second width and the second length, and is contact with the flow of the vent gas in a vertical state to the vent with a second area defined by the thickness and the second length, the second area being smaller than the first area ([0048]-[0051] and Figures 3B, 4, and 5 teaches a sensor 40 in contact with a flow of gas via it’s area defined by its width, or thickness, and length).
PNG
media_image1.png
752
330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
To solve the same problem of effectively measuring the temperature of a flowing gas, Suzuki teaches the use of a plate shaped sensor positioned such that the smaller area is in a vertical state with respect to the flow of gas (Figure 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to take modified Watanabe and modify the sensor as taught by Suzuki.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Watanabe teaches all the limitations of Claim 4, as described above.
Modified Watanabe does not teach the second sensing part contacts the flow of the vent gas with a first area defined by the second width and the second length in a first angle downwardly inclined while going in the first direction with respect to the vent, and contacts the flow of the vent gas in a first angle that slopes upward with respect to a vertical direction of the vent with a second area defined by the thickness and the second length, the second area being smaller than the first area.
Suzuki does teach the second sensing part contacts the flow of the vent gas with a first area defined by the second width and the second length in a first angle downwardly inclined while going in the first direction with respect to the vent, and contacts the flow of the vent gas in a first angle that slopes upward with respect to a vertical direction of the vent with a second area defined by the thickness and the second length, the second area being smaller than the first area ([0048]-[0051] and Figures 3B, 4, and 5 teaches a sensor 40 in contact with a flow of gas via it’s area defined by its width, or thickness, and length and that the sensor may be angled to influence the projected areas S1-S4).
PNG
media_image2.png
752
330
media_image2.png
Greyscale
To solve the same problem of increasing the effectiveness of a temperature sensor in contact with a flow of gas, Suzuki teaches angling the sensor plate such that the projected area of the temperature sensor to achieve a higher projected area able to contact the flow of gas. Suzuki also teaches that a change in projected area generally leads to a change in measured temperature (Figure 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to take the battery module of modified Watanabe and incorporate the angled temperature sensor of Suzuki to increase the projected area of the temperature sensor.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Watanabe teaches all the limitations of Claim 4, as described above.
Modified Watanabe does not teach the second sensing part contacts the flow of the vent gas in a second angle that slopes upward while going in the first direction with respect to the vent with a first area defined by the second width and the second length, and contacts the flow of the vent gas in a first angle that slopes downward with respect to a vertical direction of the vent with a second area defined by the thickness and the second length, the second area being smaller than the first area.
Suzuki does teach the second sensing part contacts the flow of the vent gas in a second angle that slopes upward while going in the first direction with respect to the vent with a first area defined by the second width and the second length, and contacts the flow of the vent gas in a first angle that slopes downward with respect to a vertical direction of the vent with a second area defined by the thickness and the second length, the second area being smaller than the first area ([0048]-[0051] and Figures 3B, 4, and 5 teaches a sensor 40 in contact with a flow of gas via it’s area defined by its width, or thickness, and length and that the sensor may be angled to influence the projected areas S1-S4).
To solve the same problem of increasing the effectiveness of a temperature sensor in contact with a flow of gas, Suzuki teaches angling the sensor plate such that the projected area of the temperature sensor to achieve a higher projected area able to contact the flow of gas. Suzuki also teaches that a change in projected area generally leads to a change in measured temperature (Figure 8). Suzuki does not specifically note whether the sensor should be angled upwards or downwards, so one could incorporate either into existing art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to take the battery module of modified Watanabe and incorporate the angled temperature sensor of Suzuki to increase the projected area of the temperature sensor.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Watanabe teaches all the limitations of Claim 4, as described above.
Modified Watanabe does not teach the second sensing part contacts the flow of the vent gas in a vertical state to the vent with a first area defined by the second width and the second length, and contacts the flow of the vent gas in a horizontal state to the vent with a second area defined by the thickness and the second length, the second area being smaller than the first area.
Suzuki does teach the second sensing part contacts the flow of the vent gas in a vertical state to the vent with a first area defined by the second width and the second length, and contacts the flow of the vent gas in a horizontal state to the vent with a second area defined by the thickness and the second length, the second area being smaller than the first area ([0048]-[0051] and Figures 3B, 4, and 5 teaches a sensor 40 in contact with a flow of gas via it’s area defined by its height and length).
PNG
media_image3.png
752
330
media_image3.png
Greyscale
To solve the same problem of increasing the effectiveness of a temperature sensor in contact with a flow of gas, Suzuki teaches angling the sensor plate perpendicular to achieve a higher projected area able to contact the flow of gas. Suzuki also teaches that a change in projected area generally leads to a change in measured temperature (Figure 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to take the battery module of modified Watanabe and incorporate the angled temperature sensor of Suzuki to increase the projected area of the temperature sensor.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Shimizu, further in view of Suzuki, further in view of Chu (CN 201131084).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Watanabe teaches all the limitations of Claim 8, as described above.
Modified Watanabe does not teach the second sensing part comprises flow holes to distribute a vent gas to the vent in a horizontal state.
Chu does teach the second sensing part comprises flow holes to distribute a vent gas to the vent in a horizontal state (Figures 1 and 2 teach a plate with a plurality of Teflon air guide pipes 3 and a temperature sensor 4).
To solve the same problem of managing the flow of gas through a plate, Chu teaches the use of flow holes as a suitable structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to take the battery pack of modified Watanabe and incorporate flow holes, as described in Chu.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Shimizu, further in view of Iwatsuki (U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0136015).
Modified Watanabe teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as described above.
Modified Watanabe does not teach a pair of end plates respectively arranged at opposite ends of the plurality of battery cells in the first direction; and a pair of side plates respectively arranged at opposite sides of the plurality of battery cells in the second direction to connect the pair of end plates to each other, wherein the bottom part of the bus bar holder is fixed to the pair of end plates and the pair of side plates.
Iwatsuki does teach a pair of end plates respectively arranged at opposite ends of the plurality of battery cells in the first direction ([0021] and Figure 1 end plates 11); and a pair of side plates respectively arranged at opposite sides of the plurality of battery cells in the second direction to connect the pair of end plates to each other ([0021] and Figure 1 side plates 12), wherein the bottom part of the bus bar holder is fixed to the pair of end plates and the pair of side plates ([0020]-[0021] and Figures 1 and 2 duct plate 30 and cover plate 40).
To solve the same problem of providing a battery pack with a robust exterior casing, Iwatsuki teaches the arrangement of outer members as a suitable structure for a battery pack. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to take the battery pack of modifies Watanabe and incorporate the end and side plates taught by Iwatsuki.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ik-Jae (EP 2849252 A1) teaches the use of a temperature sensor in contact with an electrode terminal to measure the temperature of a cell.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN G. DIAMOND whose telephone number is (571)270-5888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5 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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at (571) 270-5343. 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.
/B.G.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights