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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 12/23/2025. Claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-18 are pending. Claims 7 and 16 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 8, 10, and 17 have been amended. The drawings have been amended. The objections to the drawings have been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments. This action is made final, as necessitated by amendment.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that frequency and noise are two different things, and therefore Lee does not teach the amended claims 1 and 10. Examiner agrees “frequency” and “noise” are not perfectly synonymous and could have many different definitions. However, the claims are read under broadest reasonable interpretation. Simply because Lee does not explicitly use the word “frequency” or “frequency pattern” does not mean that Lee automatically does not teach using a frequency.
Lee teaches detecting a “noise pattern”, the detecting being done by at least one of “a sound detection sensor, a vibration detection sensor, and an acoustic camera” (par. 25). It is obvious that Lee is referring to detecting sound, rather than “irregular fluctuations that accompany a transmitted electrical signal but are not part of it and tend to obscure it”. This sound is then compared to a noise pattern stored in storage in order to detect a failure. Comparing the noise patterns would obviously include comparing the characteristics of the noise pattern. “Frequency” could mean both “the rate at which something occurs or is repeated over a particular period of time or in a given sample” as well as “the rate per second of a vibration constituting a wave, either in a material (as in sound waves)”. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, both definitions would be considered characteristics of a noise pattern that could be used during the comparison. Therefore, Lee teaches using a noise pattern, which would include a frequency of the noise and/or pattern, in order to diagnose a failure. Although Lee does not explicitly use the term “frequency pattern”, a “noise pattern” would include a frequency pattern of the noise.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-11, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR 102220704 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a battery pack diagnosis apparatus (par. 21 Fig. 1, failure detection unit 300), comprising: a sensor module which detects noise (par. 21 Fig. 1, noise detection unit 100); and a processor (par. 73, "The method may be implemented in an apparatus such as a processor") which extracts noise generated in the battery pack from the noise detected by the sensor module, analyzes the noise generated in the battery pack, and diagnoses a state of a battery pack, wherein the processor diagnoses the state of the battery pack on the basis of a frequency pattern of the noise generated in the battery pack (par. 43, "The failure detection unit 300 may compare the noise pattern detected by the noise detection unit 100 with the noise pattern stored in the storage unit 200, and detect a failure occurring in the vehicle based on the comparison result"; par. 24, one of the noise sensors is by the battery).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches the battery pack diagnosis apparatus as claimed in claim 1. Lee further teaches the sensor module includes: a first sensor installed outside the battery pack to detect noise (par. 24, first, second, or third noise detection sensor placed not by the battery); and a second sensor installed in the battery pack to detect noise (par. 24, "a fourth noise detection sensor that is provided around the battery of the vehicle (for example, inside the battery housing) and detects a noise pattern generated from the battery”).
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches the battery pack diagnosis apparatus as claimed in 1. Lee further teaches the processor diagnoses an abnormal phenomenon of the battery pack by comparing the frequency pattern of the noise generated in the battery pack (par. 43, "The failure detection unit 300 may compare the noise pattern detected by the noise detection unit 100 with the noise pattern stored in the storage unit 200, and detect a failure occurring in the vehicle based on the comparison result") with each set pattern set for abnormal phenomena of the battery pack (par. 52, "In the storage unit 200, the cause of the vehicle failure, the location of the failure, and the noise pattern according to the cause of the failure are stored in the form of a table. It is possible to locate the fault").
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches the battery pack diagnosis apparatus as claimed in 8. Lee further teaches the processor stores set patterns for each travel state of a vehicle and diagnoses the abnormal phenomenon of the battery pack according to the travel state of the vehicle (par. 29, "In addition, the noise detection unit 100 is a noise pattern generated from the battery when the vehicle is started through a sound sensor provided around the battery of the vehicle (for example, inside the battery housing), and the noise generated from the battery when the vehicle is driven. A pattern or a noise pattern generated from a battery when the vehicle is stopped may be detected”).
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches a battery pack diagnosis method, comprising: detecting, by a sensor module (par. 21 Fig. 1, noise detection unit 100), noise; extracting, by a processor (par. 73, "The method may be implemented in an apparatus such as a processor"), noise generated in a battery pack from the noise detected by the sensor module; and analyzing, by the processor, the noise generated in the battery pack to diagnose a state of the battery pack, wherein, in the analyzing of the noise generated in the battery pack to diagnose the state of the battery pack, the processor diagnoses the state of the battery pack on the basis of a frequency pattern of the noise generated in the battery pack (par. 43, "The failure detection unit 300 may compare the noise pattern detected by the noise detection unit 100 with the noise pattern stored in the storage unit 200, and detect a failure occurring in the vehicle based on the comparison result"; par. 24, one of the noise sensors is by the battery).
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches the method as claimed in 10. Lee further teaches the sensor module includes: a first sensor installed outside the battery pack to detect noise (par. 24, first, second, or third noise detection sensor placed not by the battery); and a second sensor installed in the battery pack to detect noise (par. 24, "a fourth noise detection sensor that is provided around the battery of the vehicle (for example, inside the battery housing) and detects a noise pattern generated from the battery”).
Regarding claim 17, Lee teaches the method as claimed in 10. Lee further teaches in the analyzing of the noise generated in the battery pack to diagnose the state of the battery pack, the processor diagnoses an abnormal phenomenon of the battery pack by comparing the frequency pattern of the noise generated in the battery pack (par. 43, "The failure detection unit 300 may compare the noise pattern detected by the noise detection unit 100 with the noise pattern stored in the storage unit 200, and detect a failure occurring in the vehicle based on the comparison result") with each set pattern set for abnormal phenomena of the battery pack (par. 52, "In the storage unit 200, the cause of the vehicle failure, the location of the failure, and the noise pattern according to the cause of the failure are stored in the form of a table. It is possible to locate the fault").
Regarding claim 18, Lee teaches method as claimed in 17. Lee further teaches in the analyzing of the noise generated in the battery pack to diagnose the state of the battery pack, the processor stores set patterns for each travel state of a vehicle and diagnoses the abnormal phenomenon of the battery pack according to the travel state of the vehicle. (par. 29, "In addition, the noise detection unit 100 is a noise pattern generated from the battery when the vehicle is started through a sound sensor provided around the battery of the vehicle (for example, inside the battery housing), and the noise generated from the battery when the vehicle is driven. A pattern or a noise pattern generated from a battery when the vehicle is stopped may be detected”)
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Bakulov (US 20230334919 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches the battery pack diagnosis apparatus as claimed in 2. Lee fails to teach the first sensor includes a microphone assembly designed to be omnidirectional to detect noise in a plurality of directions.
However, Bakulov teaches the first sensor includes a microphone assembly designed to be omnidirectional to detect noise in a plurality of directions (par. 11, “in the preferred embodiment, the microphones are omnidirectional”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Bakulov in order to have the largest coverage area (par. 22) in order to diagnose issues in the vehicle (par. 1). While Lee does not explicitly define what the noise detection unit is, an omnidirectional microphone would have been an obvious possibility.
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches the method as claimed in 11. Lee fails to teach the first sensor includes a microphone assembly designed to be omnidirectional to detect noise in a plurality of directions.
However, Bakulov teaches the first sensor includes a microphone assembly designed to be omnidirectional to detect noise in a plurality of directions (par. 11, “in the preferred embodiment, the microphones are omnidirectional”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Bakulov in order to have the largest coverage area (par. 22) in order to diagnose issues in the vehicle (par. 1). While Lee does not explicitly define what the noise detection unit is, an omnidirectional microphone would have been an obvious possibility.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Cho (KR 20230075275 A).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches the battery pack diagnosis apparatus as claimed in 2. Lee fails to teach the second sensor includes a microphone assembly which is designed to be unidirectional or to have a cardioid pattern to detect noise generated in the battery pack.
However, Cho teaches the second sensor includes a microphone assembly which is designed to be unidirectional or to have a cardioid pattern to detect noise generated in the battery pack (par. 64, "The acoustic sensor is preferably a directional microphone because ambient noise can be mixed in and noise from multiple devices can be input at the same time”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Cho in order to diagnose the state of equipment (par. 1). As Cho states, a directional microphone can help eliminate ambient noise and isolate the noise (par. 64). While Lee does not explicitly define what the noise detection unit is, a unidirectional microphone would have been an obvious possibility.
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches the method as claimed in 11. Lee fails to teach the second sensor includes a microphone assembly which is designed to be unidirectional or to have a cardioid pattern to detect the noise generated in the battery pack.
However, Cho teaches the second sensor includes a microphone assembly which is designed to be unidirectional or to have a cardioid pattern to detect noise generated in the battery pack (par. 64, "The acoustic sensor is preferably a directional microphone because ambient noise can be mixed in and noise from multiple devices can be input at the same time”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Cho in order to diagnose the state of equipment (par. 1). As Cho states, a directional microphone can help eliminate ambient noise and isolate the noise (par. 64). While Lee does not explicitly define what the noise detection unit is, a unidirectional microphone would have been an obvious possibility.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of and Post (US 11847872 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches the battery pack diagnosis apparatus as claimed in 2. Lee fails to teach the processor extracts noise generated in the battery pack by comparing a sound volume of the noise detected by the first sensor with a sound volume of the noise detected by the second sensor according to whether the noise detected by the first sensor and the noise detected by the second sensor are the same.
However, Post teaches the processor extracts noise generated in the battery pack by comparing a sound volume of the noise detected by the first sensor with a sound volume of the noise detected by the second sensor according to whether the noise detected by the first sensor and the noise detected by the second sensor are the same (abstract, "Ambient noise information for the motor vehicle is determined. Current sound information is received, and whether there is a variation in sound between the current sound information and the ambient noise information is determined. The ambient noise information is subtracted from the current sound information if the variation has been identified, to identify a sound anomaly”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Post in order to remove the ambient noise and better detect problems in a vehicle through sound (column 19 line 1).
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches the method as claimed in 11. Lee fails to teach in the extracting of the noise generated in the battery pack from the noise detected by the sensor module, the processor extracts the noise generated in the battery pack by comparing a sound volume of the noise detected by the first sensor with a sound volume of the noise detected by the second sensor according to whether the noise detected by the first sensor and the noise detected by the second sensor are the same.
However, Post teaches in the extracting of the noise generated in the battery pack from the noise detected by the sensor module, the processor extracts the noise generated in the battery pack by comparing a sound volume of the noise detected by the first sensor with a sound volume of the noise detected by the second sensor according to whether the noise detected by the first sensor and the noise detected by the second sensor are the same (abstract, "Ambient noise information for the motor vehicle is determined. Current sound information is received, and whether there is a variation in sound between the current sound information and the ambient noise information is determined. The ambient noise information is subtracted from the current sound information if the variation has been identified, to identify a sound anomaly”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Post in order to remove the ambient noise and better detect problems in a vehicle through sound (column 19 line 1).
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Post as applied above, and further in view of Shuang (US 20120308038 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lee in view of Post teaches the battery pack diagnosis apparatus as claimed in 5. Lee fails to teach when the sound volume of the noise detected by the first sensor is greater than the sound volume of the noise detected by the second sensor, the processor determines that the noise detected by the first sensor and the second sensor is noise generated outside the battery pack and removes the noise.
However, Post teaches when the sound volume of the noise detected by the first sensor is greater than the sound volume of the noise detected by the second sensor, the processor determines that the noise detected by the first sensor and the second sensor is noise generated outside the battery pack and removes the noise (abstract, "Ambient noise information for the motor vehicle is determined. Current sound information is received, and whether there is a variation in sound between the current sound information and the ambient noise information is determined. The ambient noise information is subtracted from the current sound information if the variation has been identified, to identify a sound anomaly”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Post in order to remove the ambient noise and better detect problems in a vehicle through sound (column 19 line 1).
Post does not explicitly teach the processor determines that the noise detected by the first sensor and the second sensor is noise generated outside the battery pack. However, using the volume to determine the location of a sound source is well known in the art, as taught by Shuang (Shuang abstract, "Each of the plurality of reference frame amplitude difference vectors reflects differences between amplitudes captured by microphones of the array during recording sound from one of a plurality of candidate locations. A desired location of sound source is estimated based at least on the candidate locations and associated similarity. The sound source localization can be performed based at least on amplitude difference").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Lee in view of Post to incorporate the teachings of Shuang in order to determine the source of the sound.
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches the method as claimed in 14. Lee fails to teach in the extracting of the noise generated in the battery pack from the noise detected by the sensor module, when the sound volume of the noise detected by the first sensor is greater than the sound volume of the noise detected by the second sensor, the processor determines that the noise detected by the first sensor and the second sensor is noise generated outside the battery pack and removes the noise.
However, Post teaches in the extracting of the noise generated in the battery pack from the noise detected by the sensor module, when the sound volume of the noise detected by the first sensor is greater than the sound volume of the noise detected by the second sensor, the processor determines that the noise detected by the first sensor and the second sensor is noise generated outside the battery pack and removes the noise (abstract, "Ambient noise information for the motor vehicle is determined. Current sound information is received, and whether there is a variation in sound between the current sound information and the ambient noise information is determined. The ambient noise information is subtracted from the current sound information if the variation has been identified, to identify a sound anomaly”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Post in order to remove the ambient noise and better detect problems in a vehicle through sound (column 19 line 1).
Post does not explicitly teach the processor determines that the noise detected by the first sensor and the second sensor is noise generated outside the battery pack. However, using the volume to determine the location of a sound source is well known in the art, as taught by Shuang (Shuang abstract, "Each of the plurality of reference frame amplitude difference vectors reflects differences between amplitudes captured by microphones of the array during recording sound from one of a plurality of candidate locations. A desired location of sound source is estimated based at least on the candidate locations and associated similarity. The sound source localization can be performed based at least on amplitude difference").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Lee in view of Post to incorporate the teachings of Shuang in order to determine the source of the sound.
Conclusion
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 MINATO LEE HORNER whose telephone number is (571)272-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/M.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665