DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination, wherein claims 2 and 12-15 are withdrawn.
The instant application is a continuation of application 17/403726, issued as US patent 11,811,099, which is a continuation of application 16/826850, issued as US patent 11,094,973, which is a divisional of 15/707120, now abandoned.
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 of Species A.2, B.2, and C.1 in the reply filed on January 20, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out any supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). For example, the specification does not provide for “…to emit light therefrom with one or more shifts in wavelength caused by reflection of the transmitted light by the at least one FBG sensor” (e.g. independent claims 1 and 16).
Claim Objections
Claims 3-11 and 17-20 are objected to because the article “A” in the preambles should read “The battery cell monitoring system in accordance with claim…,” or equivalent, since said claims are dependent claims, and therefore should indicate said “battery cell monitoring system” has an antecedent basis in the independent claim from which claims depend. Appropriate correction is respectfully required.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 16-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 16, from which the other claims depend, the limitation “the battery cell” in “an optical fiber printed on a component within the battery cell” (emphasis added) does not have sufficient antecedent basis.
Still regarding independent claims 1 and 16, the limitation “the refractive index” in “at least one fiber Bragg grating (FBG) sensor 3D printed along the optical fiber by creating a periodic variation in the refractive index of the optical fiber” (emphasis added) does not have sufficient antecedent basis.
Still regarding independent claims 1 and 16, the limitations “light,” “a light source,” and “light therefrom with one or more shifts in wavelength” in “the optical fiber is configured to receive therethrough light transmitted from a light source and to emit light therefrom with one or more shifts in wavelength caused by refraction of the transmitted light by the at least one FBG sensor” (emphasis added) are severably unclear whether each is intended to be (1) within or (2) without the scope of the instant invention.
For purposes of examination, said limitations are interpreted according to (2), outside of the scope of the instantly claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, from which claim 5 depends, it is not clear whether the claimed “light source” in “the light source comprises battery cell monitoring equipment coupled to the optical fiber and configured to transmit light therethrough and to receive the light emitted therefrom to measure parameters of the battery cell based on the one or more shifts in wavelength caused by refraction of the transmitted light by the at least one FBG sensors” is (1) required as being a further component of the claimed invention or (2) outside the scope of the instant invention.
For purposes of examination, said limitations are interpreted according to (2), outside of the scope of the instantly claimed invention. See also supra.
Still regarding claim 4, it is not clear whether the claimed “battery cell monitoring equipment” in “A battery cell monitoring system in accordance with claim 1, wherein the light source comprises battery cell monitoring equipment coupled to the optical fiber and configured to transmit light therethrough and to receive the light emitted therefrom to measure parameters of the battery cell based on the one or more shifts in wavelength caused by refraction of the transmitted light by the at least one FBG sensors” is (1) the same as the “battery cell monitoring system” of the preamble or (2) different from the “battery cell monitoring system” of the preamble.
For purposes of examination, said limitations is interpreted as provided infra.
Still regarding claim 4, it is not clear whether the claimed “battery cell monitoring equipment” in “the light source comprises battery cell monitoring equipment coupled to the optical fiber and configured to transmit light therethrough and to receive the light emitted therefrom to measure parameters of the battery cell based on the one or more shifts in wavelength caused by refraction of the transmitted light by the at least one FBG sensors” is (1) required as being a further component of the claimed invention or (2) outside the scope of the instant invention.
For purposes of examination, said limitations are interpreted according to (2), outside of the scope of the instantly claimed invention. See also supra.
Regarding claim 5, it is not clear whether the claimed “battery cell monitoring equipment” in “one or more of battery cell temperature, strain, pressure, and displacement are measured by the battery cell monitoring equipment based on said one or more shifts in wavelength” is (1) the same as the “battery cell monitoring system” of the preamble or (2) different from the “battery cell monitoring system” of the preamble.
For purposes of examination, said limitations is interpreted as provided infra.
Claim 7 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.
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 6, the limitation “the at least two metal sleeves are 3D printed onto the optical fiber” does not further patentably distinguish itself from claim 6, which claims “further comprising at least two metal sleeves 3D printed on the optical fiber proximate ones of the FBG sensors” (emphasis added).
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lachenmeier et al (US 2010/0124250).
Regarding independent claim 1, Lachenmeier teaches a battery management system including a lithium-ion battery, said battery incorporating a temperature sensor used for monitoring and controlling said battery (e.g. ¶¶ 0001, 03-04, 06, 13, and 16), reading on “battery cell monitoring system,” said battery management system comprising:
(1) at least one glass fiber in optical communication with said temperature measurement apparatus, for acquisition of information on the temperature of a temperature-sensitive portion of the glass fiber, arranged in situ in said battery on a surface or embedded within (1a) one or both electrodes, (1b) an electrode and said separator, or (1c) both electrodes and said separator, thereby monitoring at the same time at multiple positions or, respectively, multiple elements of said battery (e.g. ¶¶ 0012-22, 25-27, and 34-35 plus e.g. Figures 1-2),
wherein the process limitation “3D printed” does not patentably distinguish the claimed product from the art, see also e.g. MPEP § 2113,
reading on “an optical fiber 3D printed on a component within the battery cell;” and,
(2) a Fiber-Bragg-grate (hereinafter “FBG”) in one portion of each of said at least one glass fiber, in optical communication with a light guiding core region of said glass fiber, configured in a longitudinal direction of said glass fiber, wherein periodical variation of refractive indices acts as a wavelength selective mirror in reflection mode, and, respectively, as a wavelength selective optical filter in transmission mode, which does not transmit a reflected part of an irradiated wavelength distribution; a wavelength of the reflected light or, respectively, light that is blocked in transmission, is proportional to a geometrical distance of periodical variations of refractive indices, determines period length, which depends on a temperature by a temperature dependent extension or, respectively, contraction of said glass fiber (e.g. ¶¶ 0025-27, 32, 60-61, and 64-68 plus e.g. Figure 4), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I),
wherein the process limitation “3D printed” does not patentably distinguish the claimed product from the art, see also e.g. MPEP § 2113,
reading on “at least one fiber Bragg grating (FBG) sensor 3D printed along the optical fiber by creating a variation in the refractive index of the optical fiber,”
wherein the process limitation “the optical fiber is ultraviolet light-cured after 3D printing” does not patentably distinguish the claimed product from the art, see also e.g. MPEP § 2113; and,
wherein said glass fiber is capable of receiving light from a measurement apparatus, wherein light, which is blocked in transmission, is proportional to said geometrical distance of said periodical variations of said refractive indices, determines said period length, which depends on said temperature by said temperature dependent extension or, respectively, contraction of said glass fiber, and further guide light refracted from said FBG to optically transfer by light modulation or intensity data of measurement to another measurement or control devices (e.g. ¶¶ 0010, 12, 14-15, 42, and 56-57 plus e.g. supra), reading on the limitation “the optical fiber is configured to receive therethrough light transmitted from a light source, and to emit light therefrom with one or more shifts in wavelength caused by refraction of the transmitted light by the at least one FBG sensors;” alternatively, Lachenmeier teaches a substantially identical glass fiber and FBG (e.g. supra, compared with instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0038-47), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed limitation, see also e.g. MPEP § 2112.01(I).
Regarding claim 3, Lachenmeier teaches the battery management system of claim 1, wherein said at least one glass fiber is arranged in situ in said battery on said surface or embedded within (1a) one or both electrodes, (1b) an electrode and said separator, or (1c) both electrodes and said separator (e.g. supra), wherein the process limitation “3D printed” does not patentably distinguish the claimed product from the art, see also e.g. MPEP § 2113, reading on “the optical fiber is 3D printed directly on an electrode of the battery cell,”
Regarding claims 4-5, Lachenmeier teaches the battery management system of claim 1, wherein said “light source” and its “battery cell monitoring equipment” are severably interpreted to be outside the scope of the claimed invention, as claimed, so the limitations “the light source comprises battery cell monitoring equipment coupled to the optical fiber and configured to transmit light therethrough and to receive the light emitted therefrom to measure parameters of the battery cell based on the one or more shifts in wavelength caused by refraction of the transmitted light by the at least one FBG sensors” (claim 4) and “one or more of battery cell temperature, strain, pressure, and displacement are measured by the battery cell monitoring equipment based on said one or more shifts in wavelength” (claim 5) do not patentably distinguish the instant invention; alternatively, said glass fiber is capable of receiving light from said measurement apparatus, wherein light, which is blocked in transmission, is proportional to said geometrical distance of said periodical variations of said refractive indices, determines said period length, which depends on said temperature by said temperature dependent extension or, respectively, contraction of said glass fiber, and further guide light refracted from said FBG to optically transfer by light modulation or intensity data of measurement to another measurement or control devices (e.g. supra), reading on said limitations.
Claims 6-10 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lachenmeier et al (US 2010/0124250), as provided supra, in view of Imaoka et al (US 2015/0023389).
Regarding claims 6-10, Lachenmeier teaches the battery management system of claim 1, including at least one glass fiber, as provide supra, and said battery including multiple cells (¶0007), but does not expressly teach it “further comprising at least two metal sleeves 3D printed on the optical fiber proximate ones of the FBG sensors, the at least two metal sleeves configured to detect an internal voltage of the battery cell” (claim 6 ); “the at least two metal sleeves are 3D printed onto the optical fiber” (claim 7); “each of the at least two metal sleeves are in direct contact with a corresponding one of the at least one FBG sensor” (claim 8); “further comprising corresponding conductive leads formed in contact with the at least two sleeves, the conductive leads configured to permit voltage measuring across the FBG sensors via the corresponding metal sleeves” (claim 9); or “the at least two sleeves and corresponding conductive leads are formed via 3D printing” (claim 10).
However, Imaoka teaches a battery cell monitoring system used to measure temperature, voltage, and current (e.g. ¶¶ 0005, 16, 26, 45-48, 58, 60-67, 83, and 85), said system comprising (1) an optical fiber portion (e.g. item 11) for a sensor (e.g. item 10) for measuring temperature, voltage, and current; and, (2) a plurality of Fiber Bragg Grating (hereinafter “FBG”) for said sensor including a temperature assurance FBG (e.g. item 20), temperature measurement FBG (e.g. item 30), a voltage FBG (e.g. item 40), and a current FBG (e.g. item 50), said FBGs provided on an identical light path in a single optical fiber for said sensor, wherein a refractive index of a core in each FBG changes periodically with a predetermined period length (i.e. a grating period) along a direction in which the incident light propagates, accordingly, so that each FBG has a characteristic that it reflects light of a specific wavelength determined in response to the grating period (i.e. a Bragg wavelength) with respect to the incident light and transmits other light (e.g. ¶¶ 0006 and 48-50), wherein a light source (e.g. item 60) is a broad wavelength light source that emits light having a continuous spectrum in a predetermined band emits a light into said optical fiber, plus, a light measurement means (e.g. item 70) that receives and measures said light that has been transmitted through said optical fiber and said FBGs (¶¶ 0010-12, 116-30, 46, 49-50, 52-53, 62, 68, 73-79, and 93).
Further, Imaoka teaches each of said battery cells includes in said single optical fiber, three types of said FBG—temperature, voltage, and current—wherein each of said voltage FBG and current FBG further has a metal layer (e.g. items 41 and 51) sheathing that may directly contact at least portion of each of said optical fiber and said FBG, two electrodes (e.g. items 42-43 and 52-53), and respective wires (e.g. items 44-45 and 54-55) attached therebetween, wherein said metal layer, two electrodes, and said respective wires of each of said voltage FBG and current FBG provide capability to respectively measure voltage and current of said battery, so that each battery includes on a single optical fiber a temperature FBG, a voltage FBG, and a current FBG; a plurality of metal layer sheathings; a plurality electrodes attached to said metal sheathings; and, a plurality of respective wires (e.g. ¶¶ 0010-12 and 59-66 plus e.g. Figures 5-6).
As a result it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further incorporate the voltage FBG and current FBG of Imaoka in the same glass fiber of Lachenmeier with said temperature sensing FBG of Lachenmeier—in each of the cells of the Lachenmeier—since Imaoka teaches all three FBG types—temperature, voltage, and current be incorporated on a single glass fiber, which results in being able to monitor more properties within each of said battery cells, while minimizing the number of glass fibers incorporated within each of said battery cells.
Further, it would have been severably obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further incorporate on each voltage FBG and current FBG—each of its respective said metal layer sheathing, electrodes, and wires that are arranged as taught by Imaoka, in each of the cells of the Lachenmeier as modified, since said respective metal layer sheathing, electrodes, and wires that are arranged as taught, are required to make use of each of said voltage FBG and current FBG.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a plurality of each type of said temperature FBG, voltage FBG, and current FBG—including their associated metal layer sheathing, electrodes, and wires arranged as taught—within said single glass fiber to severably measure the temperature, voltage, and current in a plurality of locations within said battery cell; alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a plurality of each type of said temperature FBG, voltage FBG, and current FBG—including their associated metal layer sheathing, electrodes, and wires arranged as taught—within said single glass fiber to ensure redundance of measurement, thereby ensuring that even if one of a type of FBG fails within a battery cell, a second of said type of FBG continues to work,
wherein the process limitations “3D printed” (e.g. claims 6-7) and “formed via 3D printing” (e.g. claim 10) severably do not patentably distinguish the claimed product from the art, see also e.g. MPEP § 2113,
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “further comprising at least two metal sleeves 3D printed on the optical fiber proximate ones of the FBG sensors, the at least two metal sleeves configured to detect an internal voltage of the battery cell” (claim 6 ); “the at least two metal sleeves are 3D printed onto the optical fiber” (claim 7); each of the at least two metal sleeves are in direct contact with a corresponding one of the at least one FBG sensor” (claim 8); “further comprising corresponding conductive leads formed in contact with the at least two sleeves, the conductive leads configured to permit voltage measuring across the FBG sensors via the corresponding metal sleeves” (claim 9); and, “the at least two sleeves and corresponding conductive leads are formed via 3D printing” (claim 10).
Regarding claims 16-20, Lachenmeier and Imaoka are applied as provided supra, with the following modifications.
Still regarding independent claim 16, Lachenmeier teaches said battery management system including said lithium-ion battery, said battery incorporating said temperature sensor used for monitoring and controlling said battery (e.g. supra), reading on “battery cell monitoring system,” said battery management system comprising:
(1) at least one glass fiber in optical communication with said temperature measurement apparatus, for acquisition of information on said temperature of said temperature-sensitive portion of the glass fiber, arranged in situ in said battery on said surface or embedded within (1a) one or both electrodes, (1b) said one electrode and said separator, or (1c) both electrodes and said separator, thereby monitoring at the same time at multiple positions or, respectively, multiple elements of said battery (e.g. ¶¶ 0012-22, 25-27, and 34-35 plus e.g. Figures 1-2),
wherein the process limitation “3D printed” does not patentably distinguish the claimed product from the art, see also e.g. MPEP § 2113,
reading on “an optical fiber 3D printed directly on an electrode of the battery cell;” and,
(2) said Fiber-Bragg-grate (hereinafter “FBG”) in one portion of each of said at least one glass fiber, in optical communication with said light guiding core region of said glass fiber, configured in said longitudinal direction of said glass fiber, wherein periodical variation of refractive indices acts as said wavelength selective mirror in reflection mode, and, respectively, as said wavelength selective optical filter in transmission mode, which does not transmit said reflected part of said irradiated wavelength distribution; said wavelength of said reflected light or, respectively, light that is blocked in transmission, is proportional to said geometrical distance of periodical variations of refractive indices, determines period length, which depends on said temperature by said temperature dependent extension or, respectively, contraction of said glass fiber (e.g. supra),
wherein said separator may be composed of a glass-fiber mesh (e.g. ¶¶ 0018, 37-39, and 41), wherein glass is a known dielectric; alternatively, Lachenmeier teaches said glass-fiber mesh composed of a substantially identical composition (glass, compared with the instant specification, at e.g. ¶0041), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed limitation “dielectric,” see also e.g. MPEP § 2112.01,
wherein the process limitation “3D printed” does not patentably distinguish the claimed product from the art, see also e.g. MPEP § 2113,
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “at least one fiber Bragg grating (FBG) sensor 3D printed directly on a dielectric separator of the battery cell and along the optical fiber by creating a periodic variation in the refractive index of the optical fiber.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lachenmeier et al (US 2010/0124250), as provided supra, in view of Andre et al (US 2004/0228594).
Regarding claim 11, Lachenmeier teaches the system of claim 1, including at least one glass fiber, as provide supra, but does not expressly teach said glass fiber “comprises a cured mixture comprising photopolymer and silica.”
However, Andre teaches an optical fiber having at least one Bragg grating obtained by writing directly through the coating covering the cladding (e.g. ¶0001), wherein said optical fiber may comprise a silica core coated by a photocuring polymer, resulting in a fiber with improved mechanical properties and manufacturability at an industrial scale (¶¶ 0001, 11-12, 21, 26, 34-36, 42, 47-49, 53, 55-56, and 67).
As a result, it would have been obvious to use the optical fiber of Andre, which includes a composite material of silica and a photocuring polymer, in the system of Lachenmeier, since Andre teaches its optical fiber has improved mechanical properties and/or improved manufacturability at an industrial scale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI whose telephone number is (571)270-5828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-4.
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-THOMPSON can be reached at (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.
/YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723