DETAILED ACTION
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 – 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, 10, and 18, the claims set forth “a method for determining a leak detection threshold in a battery” but do not appear to set forth any steps where a leak detection threshold is determined. As such, the scope of the claims are unclear thus rendering the claims indefinite.
Regarding Claims 1, 10, and 18, the claims recite “the chip on the cell”. It is unclear as to if this limitation pertains to the previously recited measurement chip or the sensor on the battery cell, thus rendering the claims indefinite.
Regarding Claims 2, 10, and 19, the claims recite CL is detected according to cell testing or creation of artificial leaks yet the claim is dependent upon a limitation where CL is based on a prior calibration of a sensor. It is unclear as to if the cell testing or creation of artificial leaks pertains to the prior calibration or some other event, thus rendering he claims indefinite.
Regarding Claims 3, 11, and 20, the claims recite “the monitoring of the leaks”. It is unclear as to when the leaks are being monitored, thus rendering the claims indefinite.
Regarding Claims 4, 12, and 21, the claims recite “a schedule … based on conditions”. It is unclear as to what conditions the schedule is based on and how specifically the schedule is determined based on those conditions, thus rendering the claims indefinite.
Regarding Claims 5 and 13, the claims recite the limitation "the one or more leak locations". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claims 6, 14, and 22, the claims recite “a selected sensor”. It is unclear as to if this sensor is the same as that of the independent claim or some other sensor, thus rendering the claims indefinite.
Claims 7, 8, 15, 16, 23, and 24 recite 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8, 16, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Regarding Claims 8, 16, and 24, the claims recite limitations which are already present in the claims recited in their respective preambles. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Conclusion
Due to the 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.
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