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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed May 20, 2024 and April 17, 2025 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
With respect to foreign language references with no translation of the document: “If no translation is submitted, the examiner will consider the information in view of the concise explanation and insofar as it is understood on its face, e.g., drawings, chemical formulas, English language abstracts, in the same manner that non-English language information in Office search files is considered by examiner in conducting searches.” See MPEP §609.04(a)(II) (D) and 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(ii).
Drawings
The drawings received May 20, 2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
The specification received May 20, 2024 has been reviewed for examination purposes.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 9-14 recite a group “at least one of a temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of the accommodation space, a gas sensor configured to measure a concentration of gas in the accommodation space, or a pressure sensor configured to measure pressure of the accommodation space, and wherein the environmental value includes at least one of a measured value of the temperature sensor, a measured value of the gas sensor, or a measured value of the pressure sensor.”
When a phrase is written as “at least one of A, B or C” the claim is interpreted as being disjunctive, inclusive of individual elements in the group and their combinations with narrower interpretation of such group further defined by the subsequent claims 10-14, dependent upon claim 14.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “senser” in claim 12 appears to be a typographical error and should be “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, 2, 6, 9-10, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paiss (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0094013).
As to claim 1, Paiss discloses an energy storage system, comprising:
a housing 2 including an opening and an accommodation space disposed therein;
a plurality of battery modules 18 accommodated in the accommodation space;
a door 20 rotatably coupled to the housing via hinge 40 and configured to open and close the opening;
a measurement unit configured to derive an environmental value by measuring at least one of temperature, gas concentration, or pressure of the accommodation space in real time (smoke, heat or gas detection for example, para. [0029]); and
a control unit (command device 30) configured to compare the environmental value derived from the measurement unit with a predetermined limit value,
wherein the control unit 30 is configured to open the door when the environmental value is determined to exceed the limit value (paras. [0010], [0028]-[0030]).
As to claim 2, the system does not instantly respond and inherently includes a degree of lag or wait time before the signal is sent from the control unit 30 to open the door 20.
As to claim 6, the system includes a door lock unit (latch mechanism 28) on at least one of the door 20 and the housing configured to maintain a closed state of opening the door and when the control unit 30 is trigged in response to a threshold signal based on a condition such as smoke, heat or gas detection, the latch mechanism 28 is triggered to an unlock state to release the door 20 (paras. [0027]-[0030]).
As to claims 9-10, as Paiss teaches of measuring at least one of temperature, gas concentration, or pressure of the accommodation space in real time (smoke, heat or gas detection for example, para. [0029]). In order to monitor these conditions in the automated electronic control system of Paiss, monitoring temperature would inherently include a temperature sensor, monitoring gas concentration or pressure would inherently require a sensor to measure concentration and/or pressure. The system is designed to measure these conditions, determine the value measured, compare that value to a threshold level so as to effectively then signal the latch mechanism to remain locked (closed state) or to unlock (open state).
As to claim 16, Paiss discloses a control method of an energy storage system comprising a housing 2 with an opening and a door 20 configured to open and close the opening, the housing 2 includes a plurality of battery modules 18 accommodated in an accommodation space thereof, the control method comprising:
a measurement operation of deriving an environmental value by measuring at least one of a temperature, a gas concentration, or pressure of the accommodation space in real time via control unit 30 and corresponding control methodology (paras. [0010], [0028]-[0030]);
Paiss teaches of measuring at least one of temperature, gas concentration, or pressure of the accommodation space in real time (smoke, heat or gas detection for example, para. [0029]). In order to monitor these conditions in the automated electronic control system of Paiss, monitoring temperature would inherently include a temperature sensor, monitoring gas concentration or pressure would inherently require a sensor to measure concentration and/or pressure. The system is designed to measure these conditions, determine the value measured, compare that value to a threshold level so as to effectively then signal the latch mechanism to remain locked (closed state) or to unlock (open state).
Therefore Paiss sufficiently teaches of an operation of comparing the environmental value with a predetermined limit value and determining whether the environmental value exceeds the limit value; and
an operation of opening the door when it is determined that the environmental value exceeds the limit value.
As to claim 17, Paiss teaches of measuring at least one of temperature, gas concentration, or pressure of the accommodation space in real time (smoke, heat or gas detection for example, para. [0029]). In order to monitor these conditions in the automated electronic control system of Paiss, monitoring temperature would inherently include a temperature sensor, monitoring gas concentration or pressure would inherently require a sensor to measure concentration and/or pressure. The system is designed to measure these conditions, determine the value measured, compare that value to a threshold level so as to effectively then signal the latch mechanism to remain locked (closed state) or to unlock (open state).
As to claim 19, the system does not instantly respond and inherently includes a degree of lag or wait time before the signal is sent from the control unit 30 to open the door 20.
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 2-5 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paiss (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0094013) as applied to claims 1 and 16, respectively above, and further in view of Cordani et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0319234).
Claims 2 and 19 are alternatively rejected here in accordance with a positive standby requirement.
Paiss does not teach of the control unit of claims 2-5 configured to wait a predetermined standby time as defined in claims 2-5 and does not teach of a control method including implementing the standby state.
Paiss has a similar apparatus and method whereby the battery housing includes a control unit and sensors to monitor the system and when an abnormal condition such as abnormal temperature, gas or pressure is detected send a signal to unlatch the door 20 to permit access into the housing.
In general it would have been of routine skill in the art to pause or delay opening the door in response to adverse conditions for safety to permit a brief time for the adverse conditions to dissipate. For example, in the case when a battery module catches fire and temperature elevates, triggering the temperature sensor in Paiss, it would have been preferably and well within the skill of the ordinary worker in the art to modify the control unit to include a delay prior to opening the door to give the system time for the fire to dissipate or of sufficient time to permit cooling of the system before fire or thermal runaway.
Cordani, drawn to energy storage systems with improved safety response to abnormal conditions, teaches of rapid response to an energy storage system having plural battery modules by supplying a fire suppressant to the module in the event that an abnormal temperature is detected (abstract, examples). Cordani teaches of an instantaneous release of fire suppressant (para. [007]) to rapidly extinguish any potential fire and/or to rapidly lower the rising battery temperature to improve safety of the system and prevent thermal runaway (claims 2 and 19). The period of time prior to opening the door would be based on the time between a minimum and maximum time for thermal runaway (burndown) to occur (claims 3-4). In order to effectively implement such a benefit, it would have further been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a standby time prior to opening the door of Paiss of sufficient duration to achieve the desired battery cooling and safety benefits noted by Cordani (claims 5 and 20). Selection of a particular time range, based on a temperature above a minimum condition for burndown to occur and a maximum time for burndown to occur would have been of routine skill in the art of routine optimization to provide for a sufficient time for the abnormal temperature condition to be addressed using the instantaneous and rapid fire suppression system of Cordani. Furthermore, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the energy storage system of Paiss to include a thermal runaway suppression system as taught by Cordani whereby, in response to abnormal conditions, such as elevated temperature, an instantaneous release of a fire suppressant is first supplied to the battery module to effectively neutralize any potential or present fire conditions associated with the abnormal temperature that is detected. In order to effectively implement such a benefit, it would have further been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a standby time prior to opening the door of Paiss of sufficient duration to achieve the desired battery cooling and safety benefits noted by Cordani. Selection of a particular time range would have been of routine skill in the art of routine optimization to provide for a sufficient time for the abnormal temperature condition to be addressed using the instantaneous and rapid fire suppression system of Cordani or even for the predictable benefit of opening the housing to permit cooling of the modules prior to thermal runaway. Furthermore, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paiss (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0094013) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Jourdren (TW201806213).
Paiss does not teach of the system including the door actuator to apply a force in a direction in which the door opens (claim 7), the actuator including one of a gas spring of which one end and the other are rotatably disposed on the door and housing respectively (claim 8).
Paiss teaches of a door lock and release mechanism where the latch is a magnetic latch. Paiss generally provides for a similar technical solution to the instant invention by providing a control design for opening/closing a battery housing door in response to an adverse environmental condition (temperature, gas concentration, pressure, etc.).
Modifying the door and actuator of Paiss to include a gas spring or similar pneumatic actuator would have provided the predictable benefit of providing a mechanism of sufficient forced to open the access door of the system of Paiss this would have been beneficial in instances where the actuator provides assistance to open a door of sufficient weight and/or to provide a mechanical actuator, triggered by a control unit to open the door automatically and without user interaction.
Jourdren, drawn to the same field of endeavor, battery system and housing designs and control, discloses an energy storage system including an automatically controlled access door 3 that is locked and unlocked using a magnetic latch and where the door 3 includes hinge springs 31 to permit door rotation in response to the signal supplied to the magnetic latch hinges 31 are springs including pneumatic or electrical springs. The retaining members 5 here composed of an electromagnetic lock can be replaced by any type of member for retaining the door in the closed position. It may be, for example, one or more remotely controlled pneumatic kits customary for triggering a fire safety hatch. It can also be an electromagnetic or electric pneumatic bolt, or even an electromagnetic or electric pneumatic latch. The storage according to claim 6, characterized in that the return parts are selected from the group consisting of: a reversing spring hinge, in particular one or more actuators pneumatic or electrical, an elastomer A material, such as at least one spring of a torsion spring or a compression spring, or a combination of at least two of them.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door actuator of Paiss to be a gas (pneumatic) spring as taught by Jourdren since it would have provided a sufficient equivalent design for automatic opening and closing of door 3 in response to a signal or command from the control unit.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paiss (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0094013) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Berdichevsky et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,433,794).
As discussed above, Paiss teaches of the system including monitoring various conditions in the housing 2 including smoke, heat or gas detection for example, para. [0029]). In order to monitor these conditions in the automated electronic control system of Paiss, monitoring temperature would inherently include a temperature sensor (to measure heat), gas and pressure sensors (to measure smoke and gas concentration). The system is designed to measure these conditions, determine the value measured, compare that value to a threshold level so as to effectively then signal the latch mechanism to remain locked (closed state) or to unlock (open state).
As to claim 13, Paiss includes a vent 54 communicating with the interior space to an outside of the housing 2 to discharge gas from the space (Fig. 3). Paiss further teaches that the smoke detector 48 is closest to the vent 54 compared to other detectors 46 and 60 (Figs. 1 and 3).
Paiss does not teach of the particular placement of the measurement unit (disposed on one surface of the door facing the space (claim 11), where the sensors are disposed in a particular position relative to one another (claim 12).
As discussed above, Paiss noted the need for various sensors to measure heat (temperature), smoke and gas concentration (gas concentration sensor and gas pressure sensor) to measure and determine these conditions within the housing 2 of the energy storge system. As to the placement of the sensors, alone or in combination, it would have been routine optimization to locate the sensors within the housing to achieve sufficient monitoring of conditions within the housing. A person of ordinary skill in the art would view the specific sensor placement in Paiss to be a reasonably straightforward, expected application of known sensing techniques and principles rather than an inventive leap. Placement of sensors at strategic points (temperature sensor on the door - claim 11; gas sensor above the other sensors with respect to the direction of gravity – claim 12; gas sensor shortest distance to the venting unit – claim 13) based on where a hazard is expected to exist or where a hazard is desired to be measured at is a simple design principle in the art.
Berdichevsky, drawn to the same field of endeavor, battery system and housing designs and control, discloses that the potential for thermal runaway and propagation of a cell 18 within the battery pack 12 of the present invention is a function that increases with the temperature of any of the individual cells 18. The design of the present system 10 for mitigation of such propagation of thermal runaway events will monitor many specific and general sources of heat that may raise the temperature of the cells 18. Hence, the energy storage system 12 may have a variety of sensors for directly measuring components states, such as but not limited to temperature, voltage, and ambient conditions within the enclosure 20 and that these measurements are then used by hardware and software to make intelligent decisions to control the temperature of the energy storage system 12 so that it stays within an acceptable operating range. The energy storage system 12 may also function to take action in the event that one of the cells 18 or one portion of the energy storage system 12 is forced out of this desired operating temperature range to ensure that the ESS 12 stays within the desired operating range and that the cells 18 stay within their maximized operating range. Therefore, the energy storage system 12 includes the present invention of a system 10 of mitigating propagation of a thermal runaway event such that the system 10 of the present invention will control the temperature of the ESS 12 in both small scale and at the system level (col. 5, ll. 24-47). The placement of the smoke sensors within the ESS 12 may allow for the sensors to be sensitive enough to detect the runaway of a single cell 18 anywhere within the pack 12 in a matter of seconds or milliseconds (col. 10, ll. 40-67).
The general concept of using various sensors in a battery system to monitor conditions has long since been recognized in the art. Particular placement or arrangement of sensors if further held to be a routine design choice and/or predictable optimization to monitor/measure conditions that accumulate in specific zones as would have also been with in the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a finite predictable set of options, sensors near vent, gas sensor higher than other sensors and nearer to venting structure, temperature sensor on the door all of which require routine skill in the art for determining good placement of sensors within a battery system rather than inventive experimentation.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor placement of Paiss to provide for any number of placements including a temperature sensor on the door (claim 11) and/or gas sensor disposed above the other sensors with respect to a direction of gravity (claim 12) in view of Berdichevsky as the particular arrangement of sensors within a battery system would have been a matter of routine and predictable design choice for the known benefits providing desired monitoring based on where a hazard is expected to exist or where a hazard is desired to be measured (again as a simple design principle in the art).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paiss (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0094013) in view of Berdichevsky et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,433,794) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Jagota et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,936,372).
As to claim 14, a first venting unit 54 is provided on an upper portion 6 of the housing 2 (Fig. 3).
Regarding providing a second venting unit on the door (claims 14-15) and placing the measurement unit between the two venting units:
As noted above, Paiss already employed a venting unit on the upper portion of the housing. Adding further venting units to other parts of the system including the system door would have been readily within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art for at least the following reasons. Paiss further recognized that the smoke detector (gas sensor) 48 is near the vent structure 54 (Figs. 1 and 3).
Jagota, drawn to the same field of endeavor, battery system and housing designs and control, discloses a battery system wherein the housing includes vents 122 provided both at the upper portion of the door and vents 128 at the top of the housing. Jagota teaches that outlet louvers 122 and 128 can be provided in both areas to provide for sufficient cooling and venting of the housing.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing of Paiss to have vents at both the top of the enclosure and on the upper portion of the door of the housing as taught by Jagota since it would have provided a good vent design for good cooling and venting of the battery housing.
As to the placement of the measurement unit between the venting units:
As noted above Paiss recognized placing the gas sensor 48 near the vent structure 54, upon adding additional vent features to the door as taught by Jagota, it would have been of predictable and routine skill in the art to place the measurement unit in desired proximity to certain sensors as need to minimize the path for sending signals to the measurement unit.
Placement of the measurement unit at a strategic point, such as between two venting units based on where a hazard is expected to exist or where a hazard is desired to be measured at is a simple design principle in the art.
Berdichevsky, drawn to the same field of endeavor, battery system and housing designs and control, discloses that the potential for thermal runaway and propagation of a cell 18 within the battery pack 12 of the present invention is a function that increases with the temperature of any of the individual cells 18. The design of the present system 10 for mitigation of such propagation of thermal runaway events will monitor many specific and general sources of heat that may raise the temperature of the cells 18. Hence, the energy storage system 12 may have a variety of sensors for directly measuring components states, such as but not limited to temperature, voltage, and ambient conditions within the enclosure 20 and that these measurements are then used by hardware and software to make intelligent decisions to control the temperature of the energy storage system 12 so that it stays within an acceptable operating range. The energy storage system 12 may also function to take action in the event that one of the cells 18 or one portion of the energy storage system 12 is forced out of this desired operating temperature range to ensure that the ESS 12 stays within the desired operating range and that the cells 18 stay within their maximized operating range. Therefore, the energy storage system 12 includes the present invention of a system 10 of mitigating propagation of a thermal runaway event such that the system 10 of the present invention will control the temperature of the ESS 12 in both small scale and at the system level (col. 5, ll. 24-47). The placement of the smoke sensors within the ESS 12 may allow for the sensors to be sensitive enough to detect the runaway of a single cell 18 anywhere within the pack 12 in a matter of seconds or milliseconds (col. 10, ll. 40-67).
The general concept of using and placing a measurement unit in a battery system to monitor conditions has long since been recognized in the art. Particular placement or arrangement of the measurement unit if further held to be a routine design choice and/or predictable optimization to monitor/measure conditions that accumulate in specific zones as would have also been with in the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a finite predictable set of options, units near/between vents which requires routine skill in the art for determining sufficient placement of a measurement unit within a battery system rather than inventive experimentation.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measurement unit of Paiss to provide for any number of placements including and measurement unit between plural venting units in view of Berdichevsky as the particular arrangement of measurement units within a battery system would have been a matter of routine and predictable design choice for the known benefits providing desired monitoring based on where a hazard is expected to exist or where a hazard is desired to be measured (again as a simple design principle in the art).
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paiss (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0094013) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN113571820A) and Schriever et al. (CN113725501A).
Paiss discloses providing temperature, smoke and pressure sensors in a battery system for measuring the various parameters and controlling the system and method in response to measured conditions.
Paiss does not teach of measuring gas concentration when a temperature exceeds a predetermined temperature.
Wang, drawn to the same field of endeavor of energy storage systems, monitoring and managing them, teaches of a thermal runaway detection device and method wherein the system is designed to detect a threshold temperature and measure the amount of combustible gas via a smoke sensor 42 and using the combination to determined whether or not a main control unit 60 can unlock and open a door to the enclosure to avoid thermal runaway from the system (para. [0133]). Schriever, drawn to the same field of endeavor of energy storage systems, monitoring and managing them, teaches of a thermal runaway detection device and method wherein the system is designed to use the gas sensing as a secondary sensing after the first temperature detection to ensure that the temperature detection is indicative of a risk or start of a thermal runaway event (paras. [0003], [0005]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Paiss by measuring gas concentration after a measured temperature exceeds a predetermined temperature as taught by Wang and Schriever since it would have provide an improved safety design for preventing thermal runaway in an battery system.
Claims 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paiss (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0094013) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of either Yu et al. (CN203013875U) or Bates “Defining Diagnostic Parameters for Early Detection of Thermal Runaway”).
Paiss does not teach of the limit value being a condition corresponding to the environmental value and includes at least one of 100oC in the space or a lower flammable limit of 10%.
Paiss recognized the use of various sensors including heat/temperature sensors for monitoring the battery system and controlling the open/close state of the system door in response to control logic based on the values received by the sensors.
Paiss further recognizes triggering a door opening from the control unit when the temperature is above a threshold level. As to such, selecting the temperature to be at least 100oC in the housing would have been a suitable threshold since it was recognized in the art that temperature at 100oC is an early indicator of a thermal runaway event or potential risk nearing such (see Yu, para [0031] or Bates page 27). Each of Yu and Bates drawn to the same field of endeavor, battery system and housing designs and control with improved safety in response to the risk of thermal runaway. By selecting the temperature to be 100oC, a safe temperature threshold would have been established for triggering the requisite door opening of Paiss in response to an abnormal or elevated temperature level in the system of Paiss.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by modifying the control method of Paiss by selecting the limit value to be a temperature of 100oC as taught by either Yu or Bates since such a temperature would have predictably provided a temperature limit known to be associated with an early indicator of a thermal runaway event or potential risk nearing such, e.g. a warning range. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0140235 discloses an energy storage system and managing thermal runaway gases in the system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGG CANTELMO whose telephone number is (571)272-1283. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am to 5pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at (571) 272-1453. 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.
/GREGG CANTELMO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights