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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 32 recites the limitation “wherein the functionality comprises activating the aerosol delivery device if the characteristic of the deformation exceeds a threshold amount.”
However, the original specification of the instant application fails to disclose an operation including activating the aerosol delivery device if a measured deformation exceeds a threshold amount. The instant application operates with a directly opposite functionality. When a deformation exceeds a threshold amount, indicating an issue with a battery cell, the aerosol delivery device is deactivated/disabled. See figures 10-11 and the associated description of the instant application. Accordingly, this
For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as--wherein the functionality comprises deactivating the aerosol delivery device if the characteristic of the deformation exceeds a threshold amount --.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 20-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schneider et al. (DE 102012209397; “Schneider”; reference of record).
Regarding claim 20, Schneider teaches a power source (figure 1) comprising:
a housing (12, 14); and contained within the housing (12, 14),
an electrochemical cell (10);
a piezo sensor (30) embedded within the electrochemical cell (10), the piezo sensor (30) configured to generate an electrical response to a deformation of the electrochemical cell, wherein the electrical response is indicative of a characteristic of the deformation (Paragraphs five and six under the heading Disclosure of the Invention: “A piezoresistive pressure sensor contains a membrane with applied electrical resistances and is predominantly produced as a silicon pressure sensor. About a pressure-dependent deformation of the membrane and diffused thereon deformation-dependent resistors there is the formation of an electrical voltage.” “In a piezoelectric sensor, an electric voltage is generated in a crystal by means of pressure by charge separation.”); and
a communication interface configured to communicate with a control component of a device, the control component of the device configured to control a functionality of the device based on the characteristic of the deformation (The battery management system of Schneider detects a battery condition based on a pressure-sensitive film sensor. The battery condition is then used to control energy flow within a motor vehicle. Paragraph ten under the heading Disclosure of the Invention: “The battery management system includes a battery condition detection. The battery state detection in turn is designed to read in a measured value provided by the pressure-sensitive film sensor or a variable derived from this measured value and to use it as an evaluation parameter for determining the battery state. In particular, the battery state detection is designed to determine a state of charge (SOC) or state of health (SOH) of the battery with the aid of the measured value or the derived variable. On the basis of these parameters, for example, a prediction of the battery voltage can take place with predefinable load profiles (SOF), which in turn can serve as input into an electrical energy management for controlling the energy flows within the motor vehicle.”).
As for claim 21, Schneider teaches wherein the piezo sensor includes a piezoelectric material on a core material, the piezoelectric material configured to generate an electrical voltage response to the deformation of the power source (Paragraph six under the heading Disclosure of the Invention: “In a piezoelectric sensor, an electric voltage is generated in a crystal by means of pressure by charge separation.”).
As for claim 22, Schneider teaches wherein the core material comprises a piezoresistive material configured to generate an electrical resistance response to the deformation of the power source (Paragraph five under the heading Disclosure of the Invention: “A piezoresistive pressure sensor contains a membrane with applied electrical resistances and is predominantly produced as a silicon pressure sensor. About a pressure-dependent deformation of the membrane and diffused thereon deformation-dependent resistors there is the formation of an electrical voltage.”).
Regarding claim 23, Schneider teaches wherein the piezo sensor includes a piezoresistive material on a core material, the piezoresistive material configured to generate an electrical resistance response to the deformation of the power source (Paragraph five under the heading Disclosure of the Invention: “A piezoresistive pressure sensor contains a membrane with applied electrical resistances and is predominantly produced as a silicon pressure sensor. About a pressure-dependent deformation of the membrane and diffused thereon deformation-dependent resistors there is the formation of an electrical voltage.”).
Regarding claim 24, Schneider teaches wherein the core material comprises a piezoelectric material configured to generate an electrical voltage response to the deformation of the power source (Paragraph six under the heading Disclosure of the Invention: “In a piezoelectric sensor, an electric voltage is generated in a crystal by means of pressure by charge separation.”).
As for claim 25, Schneider teaches wherein the electrochemical cell and the piezo sensor are formed in a multilayer arrangement (see layers in figure 1) including a cathode layer (24), an anode layer (22), and a separator layer (26) of the electrochemical cell, and including a layer of composite material (30) including at least one of piezoelectric material or piezoresistive material for the piezo sensor (Paragraph four under the heading Embodiments of the Invention).
Regarding claim 26, Schneider teaches wherein the layer of composite material includes the piezoelectric material on a core of piezoresistive material (Paragraphs five and six under the heading Disclosure of the Invention).
Regarding claim 27, Schneider teaches wherein the layer of composite material includes the piezoresistive material on a core of piezoelectric material (Paragraphs five and six under the heading Disclosure of the Invention).
As for claim 28, Schneider teaches wherein the multilayer arrangement includes the layer of composite material (30) deposited on a substrate (Paragraph three under the heading State of the Art: “The electrode coil comprises two metallic substrates which are coated with the active cathode or anode material. Between the two substrates is a separator.”), and the cathode layer (24) deposited on the layer of composite material (30) so that the layer of composite material is between the cathode layer (24) and the substrate.
As for claim 29, Schneider teaches wherein the multilayer arrangement includes the layer of composite material (30) deposited on a substrate (Paragraph three under the heading State of the Art: “The electrode coil comprises two metallic substrates which are coated with the active cathode or anode material. Between the two substrates is a separator.”), and the anode layer (22) deposited on the layer of composite material (30) so that the layer of composite material is between the anode layer (22) and the substrate.
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.
Claims 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider in view of Leadley (US 2017/0207499).
Regarding claim 30, Schneider teaches the electrochemical cell (10) being a rechargeable lithium ion device (See Paragraphs one and ten under the heading Disclosure of the Invention), but fails to teach wherein the device is an aerosol delivery device.
However, it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a monitored rechargeable lithium ion battery in an aerosol delivery device. For example, see figures 7-8 and para. [0085] of Leadley.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the battery cell deformation protocol of Schneider to the aerosol delivery device of Leadley because such a modification would have been exercising a well-known application of a monitored rechargeable lithium ion battery.
As for claims 31 and 32, Schneider modified by Leadley teaches wherein the functionality comprises disabling/deactivating the aerosol delivery device if the characteristic of the deformation exceeds a threshold amount (Leadley teaches disabling/deactivating a charge process of the aerosol delivery device when a battery fault is detected. Para. [0068] of Leadley.).
As for claim 33, Schneider modified by Leadley teaches wherein the functionality comprises at least one of locking the aerosol delivery device, disabling charging of the power source (para. [0068] of Leadley), disabling discharging of the power source, disconnecting the power source from a load, or providing user-perceptible feedback regarding a state of the power source.
Claims 20-27 and 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gansemer et al. (US 2017/0162845; “Gansemer”; reference of record) in view of Leadley.
Regarding claim 20, Gansemer teaches a power source (2; figures 1 and 5) comprising:
a housing (3); and contained within the housing (3),
an electrochemical cell (10); and
a piezo sensor (38) embedded within the electrochemical cell (10), the piezo sensor (38) configured to generate an electrical response (voltage) to a deformation (from pressure or force) of the electrochemical cell (10) and thereby the power source (2), the electrical response indicative of a characteristic of the deformation (para. [0047]. “When the piezoelectric sensor 38 detects a pressure or force, the piezoelectric sensor 38 generates a voltage that the evaluation unit 40 receives as a measurement value.”).
Gansemer fails to teach a communication interface configured to communicate with a control component of a device, the control component of the device configured to control a functionality of the device based on the characteristic of the deformation.
Leadley teaches utilizing a monitored rechargeable lithium ion battery in an aerosol delivery device. Leadley also teaches disabling/deactivating a charge process of the aerosol delivery device when a battery fault is detected. For example, see figures 7-8 and para. [0068] and [0085] of Leadley.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the battery cell deformation protocol of Gansemer to the aerosol delivery device of Leadley because such a modification would have been exercising a well-known application of a monitored rechargeable lithium ion battery.
As for claim 21, Gansemer teaches wherein the piezo sensor includes a piezoelectric material (38) on a core material, the piezoelectric material configured to generate an electrical voltage response to the deformation of the power source (para. [0047]).
Regarding claim 22, Gansemer teaches the power source of claim 21, as detailed above, but fails to teach wherein the core material comprises a piezoresistive material configured to generate an electrical resistance response to the deformation of the power source.
However, it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art to embody an internal pressure sensor of a battery with piezoresistive and piezoelectric materials. For example, see para. [0010] in the background of Gansemer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a piezoresistive material in the pressure sensor of Gansemer because such a modification would have been implementing a well-known battery pressure sensor material.
Regarding claim 23, Gansemer teaches the power source of claim 20, as detailed above, but fails to teach wherein the piezo sensor includes a piezoresistive material on a core material, the piezoresistive material configured to generate an electrical resistance response to the deformation of the power source.
However, it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art to embody an internal pressure sensor of a battery with piezoresistive and piezoelectric materials. For example, see para. [0010] in the background of Gansemer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a piezoresistive material in the pressure sensor of Gansemer because such a modification would have been implementing a well-known battery pressure sensor material.
As for claim 24, Gansemer teaches wherein the core material comprises a piezoelectric material (38) configured to generate an electrical voltage response to the deformation of the power source (para. [0047]).
As for claim 25, Gansemer teaches wherein the electrochemical cell and the piezo sensor are formed in a multilayer arrangement (see layers in figures 1 and 5) including a cathode layer (12), an anode layer (11), and a separator layer (18) of the electrochemical cell, and including a layer of composite material (30) including at least one of piezoelectric material (38) or piezoresistive material for the piezo sensor.
As for claim 26, Gansemer teaches wherein the layer of composite material includes the piezoelectric material (38), but fails to teach the piezoelectric material on a core of piezoresistive material.
However, it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art to embody an internal pressure sensor of a battery with piezoresistive and piezoelectric materials. For example, see para. [0010] in the background of Gansemer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a piezoresistive material in the pressure sensor of Gansemer because such a modification would have been implementing a well-known battery pressure sensor material.
Regarding claim 27, Gansemer teaches the power source of claim 25, as detailed above, but fails to teach wherein the layer of composite material includes the piezoresistive material on a core of piezoelectric material.
However, it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art to embody an internal pressure sensor of a battery with piezoresistive and piezoelectric materials. For example, see para. [0010] in the background of Gansemer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a piezoresistive material in the pressure sensor of Gansemer because such a modification would have been implementing a well-known battery pressure sensor material.
Regarding claim 30, Gansemer modified by Leadley teaches wherein the device is an aerosol delivery device (see figures 7-8 and para. [0085] of Leadley.)
As for claims 31 and 32, Gansemer modified by Leadley teaches wherein the functionality comprises disabling/deactivating the aerosol delivery device if the characteristic of the deformation exceeds a threshold amount (Leadley teaches disabling/deactivating a charge process of the aerosol delivery device when a battery fault is detected. Para. [0068] of Leadley.).
As for claim 33, Gansemer modified by Leadley teaches wherein the functionality comprises at least one of locking the aerosol delivery device, disabling charging of the power source (para. [0068] of Leadley), disabling discharging of the power source, disconnecting the power source from a load, or providing user-perceptible feedback regarding a state of the power source.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEVI GANNON whose telephone number is (571)272-7971. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached at 571-270-3684. 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.
/LEVI GANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836 October 14, 2026
