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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 5/19/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 appears to have a typographical error in line 2. The examiner respectfully suggests replacing “the VOC” with -- the VOC sensor --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/000106 by Youn et al. (“Youn”).
As for claim 1, Youn discloses a thermostat (100, 130) comprising:
a housing (110);
a battery (120) disposed within the housing (110) and exposed to an internal environment of the thermostat; and
a Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) sensor (140; paragraph [0059]) disposed within the housing (110) exposed to the internal environment of the thermostat and the battery.
As for claim 2, Youn discloses that the VOC sensor is disposed within 3 cm of the battery (paragraph [0119]).
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.
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 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/000106 by Youn et al. (“Youn”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0387883 by Gonin (“Gonin”).
As for claim 5, Youn discloses the thermostat of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Youn does not disclose that the VOC sensor is configured to detect an electrolyte that is emitted from the battery when the battery is damaged. Instead, Yun discloses that a gas is detected when the battery comprising an undisclosed electrolyte is damaged (Youn: Abstract).
However, Gonin discloses a VOC sensor (3) that is configured to detect an electrolyte that is emitted from a battery when the battery is damaged (paragraphs [0045] and [0046]). Gonin discloses that the battery is a lithium battery comprising particular electrolytes (paragraphs [0045] and [0046]).
Because Youn and Gonin both disclose batteries and VOC sensors that detect when a battery is damaged, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the battery and sensor of Gonin for the battery and sensor of Youn to achieve the predictable result of providing a battery and a sensor that detects damage of the battery.
As for claim 6, Youn as modified by Gonin discloses that the battery comprises a lithium-ion battery (Gonin: paragraph [0046]), and the electrolyte comprises (Gonin: paragraph [0046]) one or more of EC(C3H4O3), PC(C4H6O3), DEC(C5H1003), DMC(C3H6O3), and/or EMC(C4H8O3).
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 11,158,885 issued to Lee et al. (“Lee”) in view of U.S. Patent 11,402,115 issued to Rigg et al. (“Rigg”).
As for claim 1, Lee discloses a smartphone comprising:
a housing (210);
a battery (189) disposed within the housing and exposed to an internal environment of the smartphone; and
a Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) sensor (311; col. 11, lines 18-22) disposed within the housing exposed to the internal environment of the smartphone and the battery (see Fig. 3).
Lee does not disclose that the smartphone is a thermostat.
However, Rigg discloses a smartphone that is a thermostat (col. 4, line 51 - col. 3, line 2).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the smartphone of Lee to be a thermostat as disclosed by Rigg in order to allow a user to control the temperature of a building from anywhere within the building (Rigg: col. 15, lines 21-40).
As for claim 4, Lee as modified by Rigg discloses that the VOC sensor (Lee: 311) is also exposed to an environment that is external to the housing of the thermostat (Lee: see Fig. 3) such that the VOC sensor is exposed to VOCs originating outside of the housing of the thermostat (Lee: see Fig. 3).
Claims 1, 3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 12,469,893 issued to Wang et al. (“Wang”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0387883 by Gonin (“Gonin”) and U.S. Patent 11,450,918 issued to Pokora (“Pokora”).
As for claim 1, Wang discloses a device comprising:
a housing (“a case”; Abstract);
a battery (“battery cell”; Abstract) disposed within the housing and exposed to an internal environment of the device; and
a sensor (gas sensor; Abstract) disposed within the housing exposed (Abstract) to the internal environment of the device and the battery.
Although Wang discloses that the battery is a lithium battery with suitable electrolytes (col. 15, lines 30-41), Wang does not disclose that sensor is a Volatile Organic Compound sensor. Instead, Wang discloses that the sensor detects a compound that is released when the lithium battery is damaged (Wang: col. 5, lines 5-15).
However, Gonin discloses a sensor (3) that is a VOC sensor (paragraphs [0045] and [0046]). Gonin discloses that the VOC sensor detects a compound that is released when the lithium battery is damaged (paragraphs [0045] and [0046]).
Because Wang and Gonin both disclose sensors that detect when a battery is damaged, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the VOC sensor of Gonin for the sensor of Wang to achieve the predictable result of providing a sensor that detects damage of the battery.
Wang as modified by Gonin does not disclose that the device is a thermostat.
However, Pokora discloses a device (512) that is a thermostat (col. 8, lines 55-61).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the device of Wand and Gonin to be a thermostat as disclosed by Pokora in order to maintain the battery in a normal temperature range (Pokora: col. 8, lines 55-61).
As for claim 3, Wang as modified by Gonin and Pokora discloses that the VOC sensor is sealed from an environment that is external to the housing of the thermostat such that the VOC sensor is not exposed to the environment that is external to the housing of the thermostat or to VOCs originating outside of the housing of the thermostat (Wang: col. 12, lines 45-58).
As for claim 5, Wang as modified by Gonin and Pokora discloses that the VOC sensor is configured to detect an electrolyte that is emitted from the battery when the battery is damaged (Gonin: paragraphs [0045] and [0046]).
As for claim 6, Wang as presently modified by Gonin and Pokora discloses the thermostat of claim 5 (see the rejection of claim 5 above) and that the battery comprises a lithium-ion battery (Wang: col. 15, lines 30-41).
Wand as presently modified by Gonin and Pokora does not disclose that the electrolyte comprises one or more of EC(C3H4O3), PC(C4H6O3), DEC(C5H1003), DMC(C3H6O3), and/or EMC(C4H8O3).
However, Gonin discloses a battery that is a lithium battery that includes an electrolyte comprising one or more of EC(C3H4O3), PC(C4H6O3), DEC(C5H1003), DMC(C3H6O3), and/or EMC(C4H8O3) (paragraphs [0045] and [0046]).
Because Wang and Gonin both disclose lithium-ion batteries, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the battery of Gonin for the battery of Wang to achieve the predictable result of providing a battery with a suitable electrolyte.
As for claim 7, Wang as modified by Gonin and Pokora discloses a processor (Wang: 12), wherein the VOC sensor generates measurements from a chemical resistance circuit (Wang: col. 16, lines 28-30), and the VOC comprises a serial interface to transmit the chemical resistance circuit to the processor (Wang: col. 13, lines 55-63).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent 12,225,672 issued to Arora et al. (“Arora”) is cited for all that it discloses including a housing that includes a battery and a sensor that senses emissions from the battery to determine whether or not the battery is damaged.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN N OLAMIT whose telephone number is (571)270-1969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am - 5 pm (Pacific).
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JUSTIN N OLAMIT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights