DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means for suppressing a fire in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10 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.
5. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the measured" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as "the determined" as there is antecedent basis.
6. Claims 5, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected as depending from claim 4.
7. Claims 11 and 12 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. Claims 11 and 12 recite the limitation “saturation threshold value”. It is not clearly defined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
9. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) determining a rate of increase of a concentration of a gas, providing an indication that the determined rate of increase of the concentration of the gas has exceeded a first preset rate of increase threshold value. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is directed to an abstract idea, a mental process, the claims are directed to determining a rate and providing an indication but do not do anything with the indication. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because determining a rate and providing an indication is already known within the art as seen by Pokora (US 2020/0266405) below.
10. Claim 14 recites the limitation “determine a rate of increase of the concentration of the gas with respect to time; and provide an indication that the determined rate of increase of the concentration of the gas exceeded a first preset rate of increase threshold value “ which is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is directed to an abstract idea, mental process, the claim is directed to determining a rate of increase, providing an indication but do not do anything with providing the indication. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the battery pack, gas sensor and controller are well understood, routine and conventional as seen by Pokora (US 2020/0266405) below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pokora (US 2020/0266405) as cited in IDS dated 3/27/24.
Regarding claim 1, Pokora discloses a method of detecting a cell venting event in a battery pack([0012], [0014]), comprising: determining a rate of increase of a concentration of a gas in the battery pack with respect to time([0039], Fig. 4); and providing an indication that the determined rate of increase of the concentration of the gas has exceeded a first preset rate of increase threshold value([0039], [0047]).
Regarding claim 3, Pokora discloses further comprising: calculating the rate of increase of the concentration of the gas using a first measured value of the concentration of the gas at a first point in time, and a second measured value of the concentration of gas at a second point in time, said second point in time being a first preset length of time after the first point in time([0039], Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Pokora discloses further comprising: generating an alarm signal in response to providing the indication that the determined rate of increase of the concentration of the gas has exceeded the first preset rate of increase threshold value([0039], [0047]).
Regarding claim 5, Pokora discloses further comprising: in response to generating the alarm signal, taking one or more fire prevention measures selected from the group consisting of: depowering the battery pack ([0047]).
Regarding claim 7, Pokora discloses further comprising: providing an indication that the concentration of the gas exceeds a preset critical concentration threshold value([0034]-[0038], Fig. 3); and generating a critical alarm signal in response to said indication of the concentration of gas exceeding the preset critical concentration threshold value([0047]).
Regarding claim 13, Pokora discloses the battery pack is a lithium-ion battery pack([0002]).
Regarding claim 14, Pokora discloses a system (500, Fig. 5, [0041]) comprising: a battery pack comprising one or more cells(battery modules 502, Fig. 5, [0041]); a gas sensor([0042]); and a controller(battery management system 512, Fig. 5, [0041]); wherein the gas sensor is configured to measure a concentration of a gas in the battery pack([0042], [0046]); and wherein the controller is configured to: determine a rate of increase of the concentration of the gas with respect to time([0039], Fig. 4); and provide an indication that the determined rate of increase of the concentration of the gas has exceeded a first preset rate of increase threshold value([0039], [0047]).
Regarding claim 15, Pokora discloses a fire suppression system for a battery pack([0028], [0047]), comprising: the system of claim 14([0041]-[0043]); and means for suppressing a fire event in the battery pack([0047]); wherein the means for suppressing a fire event is configured to be deployed in response to the providing, by the controller, of the indication that the determined rate of increase of the concentration of the gas has exceeded the first preset rate of increase threshold value([0039]-[0042]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pokora (US 2020/0266405) as cited in IDS dated 3/27/24 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LG (EP3910349A1).
Regarding claim 2, Pokora discloses further comprising: measuring the concentration of the gas using a gas sensor([0033]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the gas sensor outputs a voltage signal indicative of the concentration of the gas.
LG teaches an apparatus and a method that detect an abnormal behavior of a battery, and a battery management system providing the same(abstract). LG teaches a method for predicting an abnormal behavior of a battery includes: receiving information that indicates voltages respectively corresponding to a temperature value, a pressure value, and a gas concentration value respectively from a temperature sensor that measures a temperature inside a battery module, a pressure sensor that measures a pressure inside the battery module, and a gas sensor that measures a gas concentration inside the battery module([0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the gas sensor of Pokora with the gas sensor outputs a voltage signal indicative of the concentration of the gas as taught by LG as applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143.
17. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pokora (US 2020/0266405) as cited in IDS dated 3/27/24 as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN107469257A) as cited in IDS dated 3/27/24 with citations from machine translation provided with this Office Action.
Regarding claim 6, Pokora does not explicitly disclose said the step of determining a rate of increase of the concentration of the gas in the battery pack with respect to time is only performed after the concentration of the gas exceeds a first preset gas concentration value.
Wang teaches a method of detecting a cell venting event in a battery pack, comprising: determining a rate of increase of the concentration of a gas in the battery pack with respect to time; providing an indication that the predetermined rate of increase of the concentration of the gas has exceeded a first preset rate of increase threshold value([0019]-[0025], [0033]-[0039], [0041]-[0042], [0048]-[0049], [0052]-[0054]). Wang teaches said the step of determining a rate of increase of the concentration of the gas in the battery pack with respect to time is only performed after the concentration of the gas exceeds a first preset gas concentration value([0022]-[0025], [0037]-[0039], [0053]-[0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Pokora with said the step of determining a rate of increase of the concentration of the gas in the battery pack with respect to time is only performed after the concentration of the gas exceeds a first preset gas concentration value as taught by Wang as obvious to try choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
Allowable Subject Matter
18. Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. And the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this office action on claim 8 is overcome.
In particular, the allowable limitation is said step of generating the alarm signal only occurs in the event that the rate of increase of the concentration of the gas is sustained above the first preset rate of increase threshold for a second preset length of time.
Pokora does not disclose, teach or render obvious said step of generating the alarm signal only occurs in the event that the rate of increase of the concentration of the gas is sustained above the first preset rate of increase threshold for a second preset length of time.
19. Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. And the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this office action on claim 9 is overcome.
In particular, the allowable limitation is said step of generating the alarm signal only occurs in the event that the concentration of the gas is sustained above a second preset gas concentration value for a third preset length of time.
Pokora does not disclose, teach or render obvious said step of generating the alarm signal only occurs in the event that the concentration of the gas is sustained above a second preset gas concentration value for a third preset length of time.
20. Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. And the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this office action on claim 10 is overcome.
In particular, the allowable limitation is if the determined rate of increase of the concentration of the gas exceeds a second preset rate of increase threshold value, no alarm signal is generated in response to said determined rate of increase.
Pokora does not disclose, teach or render obvious if the determined rate of increase of the concentration of the gas exceeds a second preset rate of increase threshold value, no alarm signal is generated in response to said determined rate of increase.
21. Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. And the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this office action on claim 11 is overcome.
In particular, the allowable limitation is further comprising: in response to the concentration of the gas exceeding a first preset saturation threshold value, raising or lowering the first preset length of time, and/or raising or lowering the first preset rate of increase threshold value.
Pokora does not disclose, teach or render obvious further comprising: in response to the concentration of the gas exceeding a first preset saturation threshold value, raising or lowering the first preset length of time, and/or raising or lowering the first preset rate of increase threshold value.
22. Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. And the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this office action on claim 12 is overcome.
In particular, the allowable limitation is in response to the concentration of the gas exceeding a second preset saturation threshold value, raising or lowering the first preset gas concentration value.
Pokora does not disclose, teach or render obvious in response to the concentration of the gas exceeding a second preset saturation threshold value, raising or lowering the first preset gas concentration value.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA HOM LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-0489. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/VICTORIA H LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights