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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 7, line 6 states “commercial off the shelf gas sensor” when it should state “commercial-off-the-shelf gas sensor” as “commercial-off-the-shelf” is an adjective directly before the noun of “gas sensor”.
Page 8, line 6 states “commercial off the shelf gas monitors” when it should state “commercial-off-the-shelf gas monitors” as “commercial-off-the-shelf” is an adjective directly before the noun of “gas monitors”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 7, 9-10, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 4, there should be a comma after “resins”.
In Claim 7, there should be an “a” before “volatile organic compound”.
Claim 9 states “commercial-off-the shelf gas sensor” when it should state “commercial-off-the-shelf gas sensor” as “commercial-off-the-shelf” is an adjective directly before the noun of “gas sensor”.
Claim 10 appears to have an erroneous space between “photo” and “ionising”.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the battery is cylindrical, prismatic or pouch configuration” when it should recite “wherein the battery is of a cylindrical, prismatic or pouch configuration”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Analysis
The Courts have held the following:
A statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962).
The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
Apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
“Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
Claim 1 recites “An early warning detection system for detecting battery thermal runaway in a battery pack or module…”. The limitation “for detecting battery thermal runaway in a battery pack or module” is an intended-use limitation.
The Examiner notes that claim 1 does not positively recite a battery pack or module, only an early warning detection system for detecting battery thermal runaway in a battery pack or module.
Claim 5 recites “…gas sensors located in the headspace or close vicinity of the battery pack for emitted chemical detection.” The limitation “for emitted chemical detection” is an intended-use limitation.
Claim 6 recites “…one or more gas sensors located at the ventilation inlet or away from the headspace (not close vicinity of the battery pack) to monitor ambient concentration of emitted chemical to avoid false positives.” The limitation “to monitor ambient concentration of emitted chemical to avoid false positives” is an intended-use limitation.
Claim 16 recites “wherein said coatings can be applied to newly manufactured (pristine) cells from original equipment supplier or engineering re-seller or used (retrofit) battery cells.” The limitation “can be applied to newly manufactured (pristine) cells from original equipment supplier or engineering re-seller or used (retrofit) battery cells” is an intended-use limitation.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 14, 16-20, and 22, thus any of their dependents, 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “An early warning detection system for detecting battery thermal runaway in a battery pack or module, said system comprising: a coating applied to the outside of one or more battery pack cells, said coating selected such that it decomposes at a temperature range useful for said detection and so as to emit a detectable volatile compound.”
The recitation of “said coating selected such that it decomposes at a temperature range useful for said detection and so as to emit a detectable volatile compound” is ambiguous functional language as there is not a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim, the boundaries are not well-defined as the claim language only states a problem solved or result obtained, and one or ordinary skill in the art would not know from the claim terms what structure(s) is/are encompassed by the claim.
As detailed in MPEP 2173.05(g), Examiners should consider three factors when examining claims that contain functional language to determine whether the language is ambiguous: (1) whether there is a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim, (2) whether the language sets forth well-defined boundaries of the invention or only states a problem solved or a result obtained, and (3) whether one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the claim terms what structure or steps are encompassed by the claim.
One of ordinary skill in the art would not know from the claim terms what structure(s) and/or structural requirements of the coating are encompassed by the claim such that there is not a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim. For example, what type of materials of the coating, what ratio of materials in the coating, or what thickness of the coating provide the required result of decomposition at a temperature range for detection and emission of a volatile compound? The answer is not clear because it is not clear if the quoted language above does or does not provide any further structure. Thus, the claim is rendered indefinite as reciting ambiguous functional language that does not set forth the clear structure of the apparatus/product claim.
Appropriate correction is required. See the Prior Art Evaluation section below.
Regarding claim 1, the term “early” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “early” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the inventions.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “wherein the early warning is at least an order of magnitude quicker detection of battery thermal runaway due to battery cell level detection rather than the module level detection.”
The recitation of “wherein the early warning is at least an order of magnitude quicker detection of battery thermal runaway due to battery cell level detection rather than the module level detection” is ambiguous functional language as there is not a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim, the boundaries are not well-defined as the claim language only states a problem solved or result obtained, and one or ordinary skill in the art would not know from the claim terms what structure(s) is/are encompassed by the claim.
As detailed in MPEP 2173.05(g), Examiners should consider three factors when examining claims that contain functional language to determine whether the language is ambiguous: (1) whether there is a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim, (2) whether the language sets forth well-defined boundaries of the invention or only states a problem solved or a result obtained, and (3) whether one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the claim terms what structure or steps are encompassed by the claim.
One of ordinary skill in the art would not know from the claim terms what structure(s) and/or structural requirements of the coating are encompassed by the claim such that there is not a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim. For example, what type of materials of the coating, what ratio of materials in the coating, or what thickness of the coating provide the required result of the early warning being a magnitude quicker? The answer is not clear because it is not clear if the quoted language above does or does not provide any further structure. Thus, the claim is rendered indefinite as reciting ambiguous functional language that does not set forth the clear structure of the apparatus/product claim.
Appropriate correction is required. See the Prior Art Evaluation section below.
Claims 2-14, 16-20, and 22 depend upon claim 1, therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 3, the terms “early” and “quicker” in claim 3 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “early” and “quicker” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the inventions.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites the limitations "the early warning" and “the module level detection”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites the limitation “said battery cells”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the limitations “the head space”, “the…close vicinity”, and “the battery pack”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites the limitations “the ventilation inlet”, “the headspace”, and “the battery pack”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “wherein the coating comprises a polymer coating, wherein the polymer coating emits a volatile compound such as volatile organic compound (VOC) or a volatile inorganic compound.”
The recitation of “the polymer coating emits a volatile compound such as volatile organic compound (VOC) or a volatile inorganic compound” is ambiguous functional language as there is not a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim, the boundaries are not well-defined as the claim language only states a problem solved or result obtained, and one or ordinary skill in the art would not know from the claim terms what structure(s) is/are encompassed by the claim.
As detailed in MPEP 2173.05(g), Examiners should consider three factors when examining claims that contain functional language to determine whether the language is ambiguous: (1) whether there is a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim, (2) whether the language sets forth well-defined boundaries of the invention or only states a problem solved or a result obtained, and (3) whether one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the claim terms what structure or steps are encompassed by the claim.
One of ordinary skill in the art would not know from the claim terms what structure(s) and/or structural requirements of the polymer coating are encompassed by the claim such that there is not a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim. For example, what type of materials of the polymer coating, what ratio of materials in the polymer coating, what thickness of the polymer coating provides, or what temperature the polymer coating is at meets the require result of emission of a volatile compound? The answer is not clear because it is not clear if the quoted language above does or does not provide any further structure. Thus, the claim is rendered indefinite as reciting ambiguous functional language that does not set forth the clear structure of the apparatus/product claim.
Appropriate correction is required. See the Prior Art Evaluation section below.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the limitation “the minimum cell temperature”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, the term “early” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “early” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites the limitation “said coatings”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the limitation “the battery”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites the limitation “the battery”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites the limitation “the battery”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites the limitation “the battery”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites the limitation “the VOC or volatile inorganic compound…detected”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Prior Art Evaluation
Per MPEP § 2143.03:
“"All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). (The Board erred because it ignored claim language that it considered to be indefinite, and reached a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious based only on the rest of the claim.). However, an examiner should not simply speculate about the meaning of the claim language and then enter an obviousness rejection in view of that speculative interpretation. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962) (The "considerable speculation" by the examiner and the Board as to the scope of the claims did not provide a proper basis for an obviousness rejection.)
MPEP § 2173.06 further notes that when there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Accordingly, regarding to claim 3, a prior art rejection is not made given the great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitation of “wherein the early warning is at least an order of magnitude quicker detection of battery thermal runaway due to battery cell level detection rather than the module level detection”.
For compact prosecution purposes, the claims 1-14, 16-20, and 22 will be examined as best as possible.
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 1-2 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grenier et al (US 20210218094 A1, as given in the 01/18/2024 IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Grenier discloses an early warning detection system for detecting battery thermal runaway in a battery pack or module, said system comprising: a coating applied to the outside of one or more battery pack cells, said coating selected such that it decomposes at a temperature range useful for said detection and so as to emit a detectable volatile compound (an intumescent coating composition can be applied to external side or walls of a battery; intumescent coating composition comprises a compound providing an expansion gas upon thermal decomposition; see entire disclosure and especially the Abstract and P106-108, 125-126).
Regarding claim 2, Grenier discloses wherein battery thermal runaway comprises the self-heating and combustion propagation of Lithium-ion battery components within a battery pack or module (see entire disclosure and especially P3, 128).
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “wherein said coatings can be applied to newly manufactured (pristine) cells from original equipment supplier or engineering re-seller or used (retrofit) battery cells” is an intended-use limitation. Given Grenier teaches their coating can be applied to external sides or walls of a battery, the coating is capable of being applied to newly manufactured (pristine) cells from original equipment supplier or engineering re-seller or used (retrofit) battery cells. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 17, Grenier discloses wherein the battery is a primary or secondary lithium battery (see entire disclosure and especially P1-3, 11, 13, 16-18, 125-126).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Grenier et al (US 20210218094 A1, as given in the 01/18/2024 IDS) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Wang et al (Development of Biodegradable Flame-Retardant Bamboo Charcoal Composites, Part I: Thermal and Elemental Analyses).
Regarding claim 4, Grenier discloses the coating can include a polymeric compound bearing a plurality of functional groups (see entire disclosure and especially P35-88). However, Grenier does not disclose the coating includes non-polymer functional materials, wherein the non-polymer functional materials comprise at least one of:: charcoals, ion exchange resins or metal organic frameworks.
Wang teaches a composite made from polylactic acid (PLA), bamboo charcoal (BC), and aluminum hypophosphite (AHP) (Abstract). Wang teaches During the UL-94 Vertical Flame Test, the surface material of the PLA with BC+AHP degraded early to form a carbonized protective crust typical of an intumescent flame-retardant system (Conclusion). Wang teaches their study utilized BC up to 40%, higher than that the 8% reported in previous works, which helped boost the flame retardancy of the PLA composites (Conclusion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Wang and selected to include at least polylactic acid (PLA), bamboo charcoal (BC), and aluminum hypophosphite (AHP) in the coating of Grenier, given Wang teaches a composite including those materials can form a carbonized protective crust typical of an intumescent flame-retardant system, the use of bamboo charcoal aids in boosting flame retardancy of the composite, and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Claims 7-8, 14, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Grenier et al (US 20210218094 A1, as given in the 01/18/2024 IDS) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Nakazawa (US 20130224596 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Grenier discloses the coating comprises a polymer coating (see entire disclosure and especially P35-88). However, Grenier does not explicitly disclose wherein the polymer coating emits a volatile compound such as volatile organic compound (VOC) or a volatile inorganic compound.
In a similar field of endeavor, Nakazawa teaches polystyrene is a known material for an insulating coating (P47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Nakazawa and chosen the polymer coating to comprise polystyrene, given Nakazawa teaches polystyrene as a known polymer coating material, Nakazawa teaches polystyrene can provide insulation, and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
The Examiner notes that Applicant’s disclosure states polystyrene emits numerous volatile organic chemicals (VOC) on Page 12. Therefore, given modified Grenier’s polymer coating includes polystyrene, the polymer coating of modified Grenier would be capable of emitting a volatile compound such as volatile organic compound (VOC) or a volatile inorganic compound. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 8, Grenier discloses the coating comprises a polymer coating (see entire disclosure and especially P35-88). However, Grenier does not explicitly disclose wherein the polymer or composite polymer coating comprises poly(amide), poly(carbonate), poly(etheretherketone), poly(etherimide), low density poly(ethylene), high density poly(ethylene), ultra-high molecular weight poly(ethylene) & poly(ethylene terephthalate), poly(methyl methacrylate), poly(styrene), or poly(lactic acid) and the like (see entire disclosure and especially P35-88).
In a similar field of endeavor, Nakazawa teaches polystyrene, polyamide, and polycarbonate as known materials for an insulating coating (P47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Nakazawa and chosen the polymer coating to comprise polystyrene, polyamide, and polycarbonate, given Nakazawa teaches polystyrene, polyamide, and polycarbonate as known polymer coating materials, Nakazawa teaches these materials can provide insulation, and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 14, Grenier discloses the coating comprises a polymer coating (see entire disclosure and especially P35-88). However, Grenier does not explicitly disclose wherein the minimum cell temperature required to allow early detection is greater than 100 °C.
In a similar field of endeavor, Nakazawa teaches polystyrene is a known material for an insulating coating (P47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Nakazawa and chosen the polymer coating to comprise polystyrene, given Nakazawa teaches polystyrene as a known polymer coating material, Nakazawa teaches polystyrene can provide insulation, and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
The Examiner notes that Applicant’s disclosure states polystyrene has a decomposition temperature between 100 °C and 150 °C applicable to monitor battery thermal runaway (Page 8). Therefore, given modified Grenier’s polymer coating includes polystyrene, the polymer coating of modified Grenier would be capable of meeting the limitation “wherein the minimum cell temperature required to allow early detection is greater than 100 °C”. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 22, modified Grenier meets the limitation wherein the VOC or volatile inorganic compound emitted and detected is selected from one or more of the following: acetic acid, acetone, acetophenone, acetylene, acrolein (2-propen-1-one), benzaldehyde, benzene, benzoic Acid, buta-1,3-diene, butan-1-ol, butan-2-ol, butan-2-one, 2- butoxyethanol, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, chlorine, decamethylcyclopentasiloxane, decane, 1,2-dibromoethane, 2,6-ditertbutylphenol, 2,6-ditertbutyl-4-methylphenol, dichloroacetylene, 4-dichlorobenzene,dichloromethane,difluoromethane, dodecane, ethanol 2- ethoxyethanol, ethylacetate, ethylbenzene, ethyltoluenes (o-, m-), hexamethylcyclotrisiloxane, n- hexane, 2-hexanone, hydrogen, hydrogen bromide, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen cyanide, hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen sulphide, limonene, methane, methanol, 2- methoxyethanol, 1-methoxy-2-propanol, 2-methyl-1,3-butadiene, methyl butane, methyl cyclohexane, methyl methacrylate, 1-methylnaphthalene, 4-methyl-2-pentanone, 2-methyl propanol, naphthalene, nitrogen dioxide, nitrogen monoxide, nonane, ocatamethylcyclotetrasiloxane, pentafluoroethane, phenol, 2-propanol, propylbenzene, styrene, sulphur dioxide, tetrachloroethylene, tetrachloromethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, toluene, triarylphosphates, trichloroethane (1,1,1-, 1,1,2-), trichlororethylene, trichloromethane, trichlorofluoromethane, trimethylbenzenes (1,2,3-,1,2,4-, 1,3,5-), trimethylsilanol, undecane, vinylidene chloride, or xylenes (o-, a- p-) (see the rejection of claim 7; modified Grenier’s polymer coating includes polystyrene, which Applicant’s disclosure states polystyrene emits numerous volatile organic chemicals (VOC) on Page 12 and lists phenol).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Grenier et al (US 20210218094 A1, as given in the 01/18/2024 IDS) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Fifield (US 20190319316 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Grenier does not disclose one or more gas sensors located in the headspace or close vicinity of the battery pack for emitted chemical detection.
In a similar field of endeavor, Fifield teaches a battery system package layout (100 in Fig. 1) including one or more batteries (300, 310, 320 in Figs. 1 and 3) and battery control circuitry (200 in Fig. 1) provided within a battery package (101 in Figs. 1 and 3; P17-19, 27-30). Fifield teaches the battery package further includes volatile organic compound (VOC) sensors (210 in Figs. 1 and 3) to measure elevated levels of VOCs in the environment within the battery package (P22). Fifield teaches the VOC sensor can produce a digital signal and send it to a control circuit to decouple the battery from a connector, preventing any energy from being supplied to the failed battery cell, thereby reducing a thermal runaway event (P23). Fifield teaches the VOC sensor can further indicate a hazard associated with a failure of a battery to an external processor which can turn off the input power to the battery package (P25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Fifield and provided the one or more battery pack cells of Grenier to be utilized as batteries within a battery system package layout as taught by Fifield, given Fifield teaches their layout includes VOC sensors that can prevent energy from being supplied to a battery cell when elevated levels of VOCs are detected, thereby reducing a thermal runaway event.
In Figs. 1 and 3 of Fifield, it is not clear if the VOC sensors are located in a headspace/close vicinity of the batteries.
However, this is merely a rearrangement of the parts of modified Grenier, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the VOC sensors of modified Grenier to be located in a headspace/close vicinity of the batteries in order to, for example, detect the VOCs emitted from the batteries as soon as possible by keeping the sensors in close vicinity to the batteries, because the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
The limitation “for emitted chemical detection” is an intended-use limitation. The VOC sensors of modified Grenier are capable of detecting elevated levels of VOCs, therefore, they are capable of “chemical detection” of emitted compounds. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 6, Grenier does not disclose one or more gas sensors located at the ventilation inlet or away from the headspace (not close vicinity of the battery pack) to monitor ambient concentration of emitted chemical to avoid false positives.
In a similar field of endeavor, Fifield teaches a battery system package layout (100 in Fig. 1) including one or more batteries (300, 310, 320 in Figs. 1 and 3) and battery control circuitry (200 in Fig. 1) provided within a battery package (101 in Figs. 1 and 3; P17-19, 27-30). Fifield teaches the battery package further includes volatile organic compound (VOC) sensors (210 in Figs. 1 and 3) to measure elevated levels of VOCs in the environment within the battery package (P22). Fifield teaches the VOC sensor can produce a digital signal and send it to a control circuit to decouple the battery from a connector, preventing any energy from being supplied to the failed battery cell, thereby reducing a thermal runaway event (P23). Fifield teaches the VOC sensor can further indicate a hazard associated with a failure of a battery to an external processor which can turn off the input power to the battery package (P25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Fifield and provided the one or more battery pack cells of Grenier to be utilized as batteries within a battery system package layout as taught by Fifield, given Fifield teaches their layout includes VOC sensors that can prevent energy from being supplied to a battery cell when elevated levels of VOCs are detected, thereby reducing a thermal runaway event.
In Figs. 1 and 3 of Fifield, it is not clear if the VOC sensors are located away from a headspace (not close vicinity of the battery pack cells).
However, this is merely a rearrangement of the parts of modified Grenier, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the VOC sensors of modified Grenier to be located away from a headspace (not close vicinity of the battery pack cells) in order to, for example, ensure the survivability of the sensor from extreme heat during a thermal runaway scenario that does occur, because the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
The limitation “to monitor ambient concentration of emitted chemical to avoid false positives” is an intended-use limitation. The VOC sensors of modified Grenier are capable of detecting elevated levels of VOCs, therefore, they are capable of monitoring concentrations of emitted chemicals to avoid false positives. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Grenier et al (US 20210218094 A1, as given in the 01/18/2024 IDS) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Fifield (US 20190319316 A1) and International Gas Detectors (Understanding PID Detectors, hereinafter referred to as “IGD”).
Regarding claims 9-13, Grenier does not disclose the system further comprising a sensor, wherein the sensor is a commercial-off-the shelf gas sensor (claim 9), photoionising sensor (PID) (claim 10), a semiconductor gas sensor (claim 11), an infrared gas sensor (claim 12), or an electrochemical gas sensor (claim 13).
In a similar field of endeavor, Fifield teaches a battery system package layout (100 in Fig. 1) including one or more batteries (300, 310, 320 in Figs. 1 and 3) and battery control circuitry (200 in Fig. 1) provided within a battery package (101 in Figs. 1 and 3; P17-19, 27-30). Fifield teaches the battery package further includes volatile organic compound (VOC) sensors (210 in Figs. 1 and 3) to measure elevated levels of VOCs in the environment within the battery package (P22). Fifield teaches the VOC sensor can produce a digital signal and send it to a control circuit to decouple the battery from a connector, preventing any energy from being supplied to the failed battery cell, thereby reducing a thermal runaway event (P23). Fifield teaches the VOC sensor can further indicate a hazard associated with a failure of a battery to an external processor which can turn off the input power to the battery package (P25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Fifield and provided the one or more battery pack cells of Grenier to be utilized as batteries within a battery system package layout as taught by Fifield, given Fifield teaches their layout includes VOC sensors that can prevent energy from being supplied to a battery cell when elevated levels of VOCs are detected, thereby reducing a thermal runaway event.
However, modified Grenier does not meet the limitation wherein the VOC sensors are commercial-off-the shelf gas sensors (claim 9), photoionising sensors (PID) (claim 10), semiconductor gas sensors (claim 11), infrared gas sensors (claim 12), or electrochemical gas sensors (claim 13).
IGD teaches PID detectors are commonly used to monitor Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs, Page 2). IGD teaches PID detectors are an ideal first responder for VOC leaks (Page 2). IGD further teaches an Infra-Red, Electrochemical, or Semiconductor based detector may offer a better solution for VOC detection and IGD also manufactures these types of sensors (Page 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of IGD and selected the VOC sensors of modified Grenier to be a commercial-off-the shelf gas sensor (such as any of the detectors listed as manufactured by IGD), PID (photoionising) detector, Infra-Red detector, Electrochemical detector, or Semiconductor detector, given IGD teaches their PID detectors, Infra-Red detectors, Electrochemical detectors, or Semiconductor detectors are known detectors to monitor Volatile Organic Compounds.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Grenier et al (US 20210218094 A1, as given in the 01/18/2024 IDS) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Oh et al (US 20180175443 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Grenier does not disclose wherein the battery is cylindrical, prismatic or pouch configuration.
In a similar field of endeavor, Oh teaches a cell for a conventional lithium ion secondary battery has any one of various shapes, such as a cylindrical shape, a prismatic shape, or a pouch shape (P6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Oh and selected the one or more battery pack cells to have a cylindrical, prismatic, or pouch configuration, given Oh teaches a cell for a conventional lithium ion secondary battery has any one of various shapes, such as a cylindrical shape, a prismatic shape, or a pouch shape.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Grenier et al (US 20210218094 A1, as given in the 01/18/2024 IDS) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Yasui et al (US 20110195284 A1).
Regarding claims 19-20, Grenier does not disclose wherein the battery is located either in a ventilated or non-ventilated configuration (claim 19), and wherein the battery is located in a battery module or battery pack (claim 20).
In a similar field of endeavor, Yasui teaches a battery pack can be made by using a plurality of battery units each including one or more battery cells in order to obtain a desired voltage or capacity (P3). Yasui teaches a battery module includes a housing, lid, and a plurality of battery cells (P56). Yasui teaches the housing can have a vent mechanism at a side of each battery unit to eject gas released from the battery cells (P51, 59, 636).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Yasui and provided the one or more battery pack cells in a battery module/pack wherein the housing of the battery module/pack includes a vent mechansism, such as the battery module taught by Yasui, given Yasui teaches a plurality of battery cells can be utilized within a battery pack to obtain a desired voltage/capacity and a battery module’s housing can include a vent mechanism to eject gas released from the battery cells.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Harris whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/MARY GRACE HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights