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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 06/09/2026. Claims 1, 3-4, 8-10, 12-13, and 17-18 are pending. Claims 2, 5-7, 11, and 14-16 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3-4, 10, and 12-13 have been amended.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed solely to the amended subject matter which have been considered and addressed as detailed below under Claim Rejections.
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) 1, 8-10, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 102220704 B1) in view of Post (US 11847872 B1) and Linn (US 20140100714 A1).
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), wherein 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”);
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),
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, and wherein, 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 vehicle and removes the noise.
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”), and wherein, 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 (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 fails to explicitly teach that the second sensor is noise generated outside the vehicle, and only identifies the noise as “ambient noise”.
However, Linn teaches determining a noise is generated outside the vehicle and removing it (par. 45, “The external microphone records the plant environment simultaneously in correlation to recording of the interior noise within the vehicle by the internal microphone. As a result, the two recordings can be compared at the same time instances. If two peaks coincide at the same time within both recordings, then an assumption is made that the noise identified was generated by noise exterior of the vehicle, as the external microphone would not capture any of the BSR noise generated from within the vehicle”)
Linn teaches a method for detecting noises in a vehicle to identify defective parts (par. 7, “Recorded audible sounds are recorded without the component to determine if a predetermined threshold is exceeded. A vehicle repair indication is generated in response to a determination that the sound exceeds the predetermined threshold”). Linn removes noise generated outside of the vehicle that may interfere with the diagnosis (par. 44, “In step 75, a high pass filter is applied to remove any ongoing or continuous background noise from the plant. After the background noise is removed, only the BSR noise remains with the exception of intermittent noise. Intermittent noise may be external noise generated from outside of the vehicle that only lasts for a short duration of time (e.g., less than half a second). An example of intermittent noise may include another vehicle in the plant honking the horn. Typically, an operator may honk the horn to make sure the horn is operational and to make other operators aware that a vehicle is being driven off the line”). 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 Linn to add determining noise is generated outside of the vehicle and removing the noise. While Post only teaches removing ambient noise, it would have been obvious that noise generated outside of the vehicle should be considered ambient noise that needs to be removed in order to increase the accuracy in diagnosing the battery. As Linn teaches, noise generated outside of the vehicle could interfere with the diagnosis.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lee, Post, and Linn 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, the combination of Lee, Post, and Linn 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 (par. 21 Fig. 1, failure detection unit 300) method, comprising:
detecting, by a sensor module (par. 21 Fig. 1, noise detection unit 100), noise, wherein 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”);
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 (par. 37, “it is possible to identify the cause of the failure occurring in the vehicle by analyzing the noise pattern generated in the vehicle”);
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),
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, and wherein, 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 vehicle and removes the noise.
However, Post teaches 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”), and wherein, 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 (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 fails to explicitly teach that the second sensor is noise generated outside the vehicle, and only identifies the noise as “ambient noise”.
However, Linn teaches determining a noise is generated outside the vehicle and removing it (par. 45, “The external microphone records the plant environment simultaneously in correlation to recording of the interior noise within the vehicle by the internal microphone. As a result, the two recordings can be compared at the same time instances. If two peaks coincide at the same time within both recordings, then an assumption is made that the noise identified was generated by noise exterior of the vehicle, as the external microphone would not capture any of the BSR noise generated from within the vehicle”)
Linn teaches a method for detecting noises in a vehicle to identify defective parts (par. 7, “Recorded audible sounds are recorded without the component to determine if a predetermined threshold is exceeded. A vehicle repair indication is generated in response to a determination that the sound exceeds the predetermined threshold”). Linn removes noise generated outside of the vehicle that may interfere with the diagnosis (par. 44, “In step 75, a high pass filter is applied to remove any ongoing or continuous background noise from the plant. After the background noise is removed, only the BSR noise remains with the exception of intermittent noise. Intermittent noise may be external noise generated from outside of the vehicle that only lasts for a short duration of time (e.g., less than half a second). An example of intermittent noise may include another vehicle in the plant honking the horn. Typically, an operator may honk the horn to make sure the horn is operational and to make other operators aware that a vehicle is being driven off the line”). 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 Linn to add determining noise is generated outside of the vehicle and removing the noise. While Post only teaches removing ambient noise, it would have been obvious that noise generated outside of the vehicle should be considered ambient noise that needs to be removed in order to increase the accuracy in diagnosing the battery. As Linn teaches, noise generated outside of the vehicle could interfere with the diagnosis.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Lee, Post, and Linn 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, the combination of Lee, Post, and Linn 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(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Post and Linn, and further in view of Bakulov (US 20230334919 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lee, Post, and Linn teaches the battery pack diagnosis apparatus as claimed in 1. 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 the combination of Lee, Post, and Linn 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, the combination of Lee, Post, and Linn teaches the method as claimed in 10. 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 the combination of Lee, Post, and Linn 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 Post and Linn, and further in view of Cho (KR 20230075275 A).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lee, Post, and Linn teaches the battery pack diagnosis apparatus as claimed in 1. 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 the combination of Lee, Post, and Linn 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, the combination of Lee, Post, and Linn teaches the method as claimed in 10. 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 the combination of Lee, Post, and Linn 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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights