DETAILED ACTION
Examiner has received and accepted the amended claims and remarks filed on 1 July 2026. These amended claims and remarks are the claims and remarks being referred to in the instant Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1 - 25 have been fully considered and are persuasive-in-part. The previous 112(b) Rejection of Claims 1 - 25 has been withdrawn-in-part.
Regarding Claims 14, 22, and 23, the previous 112(b) Rejections have been maintained as no amendment has been made to clarify the claim, nor has any specific argument been provided.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 8, 16, and 24 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(d) Rejection of Claims 8, 16, and 24 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 1 and 18, the claims recite “by using the updated test schedule and/or frequency schedule, waking, or changing a state of, the chip from a "sleep mode" to an "awaken mode" to perform measurements on the battery cell, thereby determining the leak detection threshold in the battery” or similar. First, the specification does not describe how any of the “updated test schedule and/or frequency schedule, waking, or changing a state of, the chip from a "sleep mode" to an "awaken mode"” are used to perform measurements. The specification also does not describe how the leak detection threshold is determined (or what it is), and how that determination is dependent upon the “updated test schedule and/or frequency schedule, waking, or changing a state of, the chip from a "sleep mode" to an "awaken mode" or measurements taken therefrom. Second, the specification did not describe the claim language in the original filing, thus amounting to NEW MATTER.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites “detecting, by the measurement chip or BMU, a cell capacitance value in excess of the capacitance detection limit by monitoring leaks during cell testing or through creation of artificial leaks in the tested battery cell, thereby determining the leak detection threshold in the battery” First, the specification does not describe how detecting a cell capacitance value in excess of the capacitance detection limit results in determining a leak detection threshold of the battery. The specification also does not describe what the leak detection threshold is. Second, the specification did not describe the claim language in the original filing, thus amounting to NEW MATTER.
As such, the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims dependent upon rejected claims are therefore rejected as well.
Claims 1 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding Claims 1 and 18, the claims recite “by using the updated test schedule and/or frequency schedule, waking, or changing a state of, the chip from a "sleep mode" to an "awaken mode" to perform measurements on the battery cell, thereby determining the leak detection threshold in the battery” or similar.
The specification does not disclose how any of the “updated test schedule and/or frequency schedule, waking, or changing a state of, the chip from a "sleep mode" to an "awaken mode"” are used to perform measurements. The specification also does not disclose how the leak detection threshold is determined and how that determination is dependent upon the “updated test schedule and/or frequency schedule, waking, or changing a state of, the chip from a "sleep mode" to an "awaken mode" or measurements taken therefrom.
Turning to the Wand’s factors little guidance is provided by the applicant. [0015] of the published specification discloses Figure 5 illustrates a method for determination of the leak detection threshold. Reviewing Figures 5 and 6 however does not clarify any determination of a leak threshold nor how it is determined from the “updated test schedule and/or frequency schedule, waking, or changing a state of, the chip from a "sleep mode" to an "awaken mode" or measurements taken therefrom. [0031] of the published specification discloses the leak detection threshold is actually determined through the capacitance detection limit but this is not recited in the claim. No guidance is provided as to how the leak detection threshold is determined “through the capacitance detection limit”. Furthermore, no working examples are provided by the applicant nor are any located in the prior art.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites “detecting, by the measurement chip or BMU, a cell capacitance value in excess of the capacitance detection limit by monitoring leaks during cell testing or through creation of artificial leaks in the tested battery cell, thereby determining the leak detection threshold in the battery” The specification does not disclose how detecting a cell capacitance value in excess of the capacitance detection limit results in determining a leak detection threshold of the battery.
Turning to the Wand’s factors little guidance is provided by the applicant. [0015] of the published specification discloses Figure 5 illustrates a method for determination of the leak detection threshold. Reviewing Figures 5 and 6 however does not clarify any determination of a leak threshold nor how it is determined from the detected “cell capacitance value in excess of the capacitance detection limit ". [0031] of the published specification discloses the leak detection threshold is actually determined through the capacitance detection limit but this is not recited in the claim. No guidance is provided as to how the leak detection threshold is determined “through the capacitance detection limit”. Furthermore, no working examples are provided by the applicant nor are any located in the prior art.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims dependent upon rejected claims are therefore rejected as well.
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 – 25 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 Claims 1 and 18, the claims recite “using … [a]… schedule, waking, or changing a state … to perform measurements …, thereby determining the leak detection threshold in the battery”. It is unclear as to how using a schedule, waking, or changing of a state to perform measurements can result in a determination of a threshold of a battery, thus rendering the claims indefinite. How are the schedule, waking, or changing state used to perform a measurement? How is the measurement a determination of a leak threshold?
Regarding Claims 8, 16, and 24, the claims recite “initialization of the sensor”. It is unclear as to when an “initialization” occurs and what criteria must be met so that a situation can be considered an “initialization”, thus rendering the claims indefinite.
Regarding Claims 8, 16, and 24, the first clause does not appear to make grammatical sense, thus rendering the claims indefinite.
Regarding Claims 8, 16, and 24, the claims recite “accounting for ageing of the sensor for changes to a local environment affecting the measure or changes in what may be considered a leak for the application”. It is unclear as to what constitutes ageing and how an update to the baseline condition accounts for it, what the local environment is and what changes, and what the application is and how that changes what may be considered a leak, thus rendering the claims indefinite.
Regarding Claims 8, 16, and 24, the phrase "may be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites “detecting … a cell capacitance value in excess of the detection limit … thereby determining the leak detection threshold in the battery”. It is unclear as to how detecting a cell capacitance value results in determination of a threshold of a battery, thus rendering the claim indefinite. How is the detection a determination of a leak threshold?
Regarding Claims 14, and 22, the claims recite “a selected sensor”. It is unclear as to whether this sensor is the same as that of the independent claim or some other sensor, thus rendering the claims indefinite.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the capacitance measurement". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims dependent upon a rejected claim are therefore rejected as well.
Conclusion
Due to the 112(a) and 112(b) Rejections as discussed above, a complete search and examination was not possible. Upon applicant’s clarification of the claims, a comparison with the prior art will again be made.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-7094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am - 4pm 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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
ALEXANDER A. MERCADO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/ALEXANDER A MERCADO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights