DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to an application filed August 16th, 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 statement (IDS) submitted on October 21st, 2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on August 16th, 2024. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites:
“a system comprising:
an apparatus configured to detect a first venting event of a battery, the apparatus comprising:
interface circuitry configured to receive a measurement signal indicative of a thermal conductivity of a gas atmosphere in the battery;… and
the battery”.
Due to the formatting which has the battery be recited after the apparatus but the indentation being on the same level as the battery it is unclear if the battery is part of the system or part of the apparatus. For the sake of the prior art rejection below, the examiner will interpret that the battery is part of the system.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 112(b) for depending upon claim 13 which is rejected under claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 1:
The claim 17 is directed to a statutory category of method.
Step 2a Prong 1:
The method of claim 17 is a mental process. The method of claim 17 merely consists of determining an occurrence of the first venting event based on the measurement signal which under its BRI consists of determining that a battery has vented based on the condition of the atmosphere of the battery. For example, a mechanic responsible for maintaining batteries would be able to look at the condition of a battery and the atmosphere of the battery and determine if it has vented due to overheating.
Step 2a Prong 2:
Claim 17 recites the additional element of receiving a measurement signal indicative of a thermal conductivity of a gas atmosphere in the battery which is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional element is merely insignificant extra-solution activity. This additional element is insufficient to find a practical application because it is merely a step of data gathering.
Step 2b:
The additional element of receiving a measurement signal indicative of a thermal conductivity of a gas atmosphere in the battery, which was considered insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2a, is similarly insufficient for a finding of significantly more because it is an insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, the MPEP provides that mere data gathering is an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(iv) “Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)”.
Claims 18-20 fall under the same judicial exceptions of claim 17 and are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites the same mental process of claim 17 but further defines the mental process to include the step of determining a variation over time of the thermal conductivity of the gas atmosphere based on the measurement signal; and determining the occurrence of the first venting event based on the variation over time of the thermal conductivity of the gas atmosphere satisfying a criterion which under its BRI consists of using math as part of the determination. For example, a mechanic responsible for maintaining batteries would be able to analyze the sensor readings in the battery’s atmosphere and calculate the change overtime in the atmosphere as part of the process of diagnosing the battery’s condition.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites the same mental process of claim 18 but further defines the mental process to include the step of [t]he method of claim 18, wherein determining the occurrence of the first venting event further comprises: determining the occurrence of the first venting event based on the variation over time of the thermal conductivity of the gas atmosphere changes by more than a threshold value which under its BRI consists of using math as part of the determination. For example, a mechanic responsible for maintaining batteries would be able to analyze the sensor readings in the battery’s atmosphere and calculate the change overtime in the atmosphere as part of the process of diagnosing the battery’s condition.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites the same mental process of claim 18 but further defines the mental process to include the step of [t]he method of claim 18, wherein determining the variation over time comprises: determining a standard deviation of a number of measurement values represented by the measurement signal which under its BRI consists of using math as part of the determination. For example, a mechanic responsible for maintaining batteries would be able to analyze the sensor readings in the battery’s atmosphere and calculate the change overtime in the atmosphere as part of the process of diagnosing the battery’s condition.
Given the above analysis, examiner has determined that claims 17-20 are not eligible subject matter under 101 and are thus rejected.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-3 and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Engle et al. (US Pub. No. 20220085436 A1), herein after Engle.
Regarding claim 1, Engle teaches [a]n apparatus for detecting a first venting event of a battery, comprising (Engle: Para. 0066, teaching a system for detecting venting events): interface circuitry configured to receive a measurement signal indicative of a thermal conductivity of a gas atmosphere in the battery (Engle: Para. 0077, teaching integrated circuitry configured to perform the processes of the invention; and Para. 0052, teaching that the detecting system uses a thermal conductivity sensor); and processing circuitry configured to determine an occurrence of the first venting event based on the measurement (Engle: Para. 0077, teaching integrated circuitry configured to perform the processes of the invention; and Para. 0065, teaching detecting that a venting of the battery has occurred based on the readings of the sensors).
Regarding claim 2, Engle remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he apparatus of claim 1, wherein, to determine the occurrence of the first venting event, the processing circuitry is configured to: determine a variation over time of the thermal conductivity of the gas atmosphere based on the measurement signal (Engle: Para. 0013, teaching determining the variation over time of a battery's thermal properties during a thermal runaway event); and determine that the first venting event occurred if the variation over time of the thermal conductivity of the gas atmosphere satisfies a criterion (Engle: Para. 0013, teaching determining if threshold levels for the thermal runaway event have been exceeded).
Regarding claim 3, Engle remains as applied as in claim 2 and goes on to further teach [t]he apparatus of claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: determine that the first venting event occurred if the variation over time of the thermal conductivity of the gas atmosphere changes by more than a threshold value (Engle: Para. 0013, teaching determining if threshold levels for the thermal runaway event caused by cell venting have been exceeded).
Regarding claim 9, Engle remains as applied as in claim 2 and goes on to further teach [t]he apparatus of claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: perform signal conditioning processing on the measurement signal prior to determining the variation over time of the thermal conductivity of the gas atmosphere (Engle: Para. 0013, teaching determining the variation over time of a battery's thermal properties during a thermal runaway event).
Regarding claim 10, Engle remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a thermal conductivity sensor configured to: measure the thermal conductivity of the gas atmosphere in the battery (Engle: Para. 0052, teaching that the detecting system uses a thermal conductivity sensor); and generate the measurement signal (Engle: Para. 0064, teaching that the sensors output a sensed signal).
Regarding claim 11, Engle remains as applied as in claim 10 and goes on to further teach [t]he apparatus of claim 10, wherein the apparatus is integrated into the thermal conductivity sensor (Engle: Para. 0032, teaching that microcontroller that performs the detection processes is integrated into the same system that includes the sensors; also see FIG. 9).
Regarding claim 12, Engle remains as applied as in claim 11 and goes on to further teach [t]he apparatus of claim 11, wherein the apparatus and the thermal conductivity sensor are separate elements (Engle: Para. 0032, teaching that microcontroller that performs the detection processes is integrated into the same system that includes the sensors; also see FIG. 9).
Regarding claim 13, Engle teaches [a] vehicle, comprising: a system comprising (Engle: Para. 0002, teaching that the invention can be applied to batteries of electric vehicles): an apparatus configured to detect a first venting event of a battery, the apparatus comprising (Engle: Para. 0066, teaching a system for detecting venting events): interface circuitry configured to receive a measurement signal indicative of a thermal conductivity of a gas atmosphere in the battery (Engle: Para. 0077, teaching integrated circuitry configured to perform the processes of the invention; and Para. 0052, teaching that the detecting system uses a thermal conductivity sensor); processing circuitry configured to determine an occurrence of the first venting event based on the measurement (Engle: Para. 0077, teaching integrated circuitry configured to perform the processes of the invention; and Para. 0065, teaching detecting that a venting of the battery has occurred based on the readings of the sensors); a thermal conductivity sensor configured to: measure the thermal conductivity of the gas atmosphere in the battery (Engle: Para. 0052, teaching that the detecting system uses a thermal conductivity sensor); and generate the measurement signal (Engle: Para. 0064, teaching that the sensors output a sensed signal); and the battery (Engle: Para. 0030, teaching battery cells).
Regarding claim 14, Engle remains as applied as in claim 13 and goes on to further teach [t]he vehicle of claim 13, further comprising: vehicle control circuitry configured to execute a vehicle safety routine based on determining an occurrence of the first venting event (Engle: Para. 0084, teaching that the system warns the driver of the detected venting event).
Regarding claim 15, Engle remains as applied as in claim 14 and goes on to further teach [t]he vehicle of claim 14, wherein the vehicle control circuitry, to execute the vehicle safety routine, is configured to: cause a warning to be output by the vehicle (Engle: Para. 0084, teaching that the system warns the driver of the detected venting event).
Regarding claim 16, Engle remains as applied as in claim 13 and goes on to further teach [t]he vehicle of claim 13, wherein the thermal conductivity sensor is arranged within a housing of the battery (Engle: Para. 0065, teaching that the sensor is located in the battery's enclosure).
Regarding claim 17, Engle teaches [a] method for detecting a first venting event of a battery, comprising (Engle: Para. 0066, teaching a system for detecting venting events): receiving a measurement signal indicative of a thermal conductivity of a gas atmosphere in the battery (Engle: Para. 0052, teaching that the detecting system uses a thermal conductivity sensor); and determining an occurrence of the first venting event based on the measurement signal (Engle: Para. 0065, teaching detecting that a venting of the battery has occurred based on the readings of the sensors).
Regarding claim 18, Engle remains as applied as in claim 17 and goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim17, wherein determining the occurrence of the first venting event comprises: determining a variation over time of the thermal conductivity of the gas atmosphere based on the measurement signal (Engle: Para. 0013, teaching determining the variation over time of a battery's thermal properties during a thermal runaway event); and determining the occurrence of the first venting event based on the variation over time of the thermal conductivity of the gas atmosphere satisfying a criterion (Engle: Para. 0013, teaching determining if threshold levels for the thermal runaway event have been exceeded).
Regarding claim 19, Engle remains as applied as in claim 18 and goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 18, wherein determining the occurrence of the first venting event further comprises: determining the occurrence of the first venting event based on the variation over time of the thermal conductivity of the gas atmosphere changes by more than a threshold value (Engle: Para. 0013, teaching determining if threshold levels for the thermal runaway event caused by cell venting have been exceeded).
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.
Claims 4, 7, 8, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engle as applied to claims 2 and 17 above, and further in view of Cummings et al. (US Pub. No. 20180003685 A1), herein after Cummings.
Regarding claim 4, Engle remains as applied as in claim 2, however Engle is silent to [t]he apparatus of claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: determine a standard deviation of a number of measurement values represented by the measurement signal as the variation over time of the thermal conductivity of the gas atmosphere.
In a similar field, Cummings teaches [t]he apparatus of claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: determine a standard deviation of a number of measurement values represented by the measurement signal as the variation over time of the thermal conductivity of the gas atmosphere (Cummings: Para. 0027, teaching that the invention can be applied to thermal conductivity sensors; Para. 0032, teaching receiving sensor signals characterizing a gas's properties over time according to threshold levels based on a baseline that may lead to a thermal runaway event; and Para. 0033, teaching that the determination of the threshold levels is done by using a standard deviation equation) for the benefit of improving the analysis of the condition of the battery.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the determination of the change over time of the atmosphere of the battery from Engle to calculate a standard deviation of the values, as taught by Cummings, for the benefit of improving the analysis of the condition of the battery.
Regarding claim 8, Engle teaches [t]he apparatus of claim 2, wherein, to determine the variation over time of the thermal conductivity of the gas atmosphere, the processing circuitry is configured to: filter the measurement signal to obtain an auxiliary conductivity value representing a long-term thermal conductivity of the gas atmosphere (Engle: Para. 0013, teaching determining the variation over time of a battery's thermal properties during a thermal runaway event).
Engle is silent to determine a difference value indicating a difference between a measurement value represented by the measurement signal and the auxiliary conductivity value; and determine a quotient of the difference value and the auxiliary conductivity value as the variation over time of the thermal conductivity of the gas atmosphere.
In a similar field, Cummings teaches determine a difference value indicating a difference between a measurement value represented by the measurement signal and the auxiliary conductivity value; and determine a quotient of the difference value and the auxiliary conductivity value as the variation over time of the thermal conductivity of the gas atmosphere (Cummings: Para. 0057, teaching that a difference between a value representing the current detected gas atmosphere and a value representing an expected gas atmosphere is calculated; and Para. 0061, teaching that the difference is divided by the value representing the expected gas atmosphere) for the benefit of improving the analysis of the condition of the battery.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the determination of the change over time of the atmosphere of the battery from Engle to calculate a difference between the expected and actual values of the atmosphere and then make a ratio using the two values, as taught by Cummings, for the benefit of improving the analysis of the condition of the battery.
Regarding claim 8, Engle and Cummings remain as applied as in claim 7, and Cummings goes on to further teach [t]he apparatus of claim 7, wherein, to obtain the auxiliary conductivity value, the processing circuitry is configured to: average measurement values represented by the measurement signal (Cummings: Para. 0062, teaching that the value representing the expected gas atmosphere is calculated using the average value over time ).
Regarding claim 20, Engle remains as applied as in claim 18, however Engle is silent to [t]he method of claim 18, wherein determining the variation over time comprises: determining a standard deviation of a number of measurement values represented by the measurement signal.
In a similar field, Cummings teaches [t]he method of claim 18, wherein determining the variation over time comprises: determining a standard deviation of a number of measurement values represented by the measurement signal (Cummings: Para. 0027, teaching that the invention can be applied to thermal conductivity sensors; Para. 0032, teaching receiving sensor signals characterizing a gas's properties over time according to threshold levels based on a baseline that may lead to a thermal runaway event; and Para. 0033, teaching that the determination of the threshold levels is done by using a standard deviation equation) for the benefit of improving the analysis of the condition of the battery.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the determination of the change over time of the atmosphere of the battery from Engle to calculate a standard deviation of the values, as taught by Cummings, for the benefit of improving the analysis of the condition of the battery.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engle in view of Cummings as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US Pub. No. 20220149449 A1), herein after Kim.
Regarding claim 5, Engle and Cummings remain as applied as in claim 4, however they are silent to [t]he apparatus of claim 4, wherein the number of measurement values cover a measurement period of at least 100 milliseconds.
In a similar field, Kim teaches [t]he apparatus of claim 4, wherein the number of measurement values cover a measurement period of at least 100 milliseconds (Kim: Para. 0010, teaching determining the temperature and temperature change of a battery cell after venting; Para. 0011, teaching that the temperature change is measured over a period of time; and Para. 0012, teaching a period of time for measurement of 5 seconds) for the benefit of ensuring a large enough sample size to accurately analyze the condition of the battery.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the battery monitoring duration from Engle in view of Cummings to last at least 5 seconds, as taught by Kim, for the benefit of ensuring a large enough sample size to accurately analyze the condition of the battery.
Regarding claim 6, Engle, Cummings, and Kim remain as applied as in claim 5, and Kim goes on to further teach [t]he apparatus of claim 5, wherein the number of measurement values cover a measurement period of not more than 10 seconds (Kim: Para. 0010, teaching determining the temperature and temperature change of a battery cell after venting; Para. 0011, teaching that the temperature change is measured over a period of time; and Para. 0012, teaching a period of time for measurement of 5 seconds).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Straubel et al. (US Pub. No. 20070218353 A1) discloses a system that monitors and vents a battery when it is detecting an exothermic event in the battery.
Benden; Justin D. (US Pub. No. 20240063465 A1) discloses a system that monitors and vents a battery when it is detecting a thermal runaway event in the battery.
DeKeuster et al. (US Pub. No. 20160197324 A1) discloses a vent shield for a vehicle battery that monitors and vents the battery when it is detecting a thermal runaway event in the battery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron K McCullers whose telephone number is (571)272-3523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, Roughly 9 AM - 6 PM ET.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663