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 .
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 1-16 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.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “a rotation holding unit which rotatably holds the battery cell in a state where a relative position of the battery cell with respect to the sensor cells is retained” on lines 4-5 is indefinite.
Claim 1 is directed towards the measurement device that has an intended use of measuring a magnetic flux density from a battery cell. The measurement device itself therefore does not include, and is not disclosed to include, the object being tested (the battery cell). The above phrase, as currently worded, makes it unclear whether the battery cell should or should not be given patentable weight. Even to the extent that the intent is to give it weight, such a feature is still indefinite because the battery cell itself is not disclosed to be part of the measurement device. Instead, it is the object being measured by the measurement device. However, Claim 1 is expressly directed towards what the measurement device itself comprises. This phrase is therefore indefinite, because it is unclear whether the battery cell and any claimed positional relationship it has with the measurement device should or should not be given patentable weight. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the battery cell is not given patentable weight, and instead the rotation holding unit has the intended use of being able to rotatably hold a battery cell in the claimed state, but is not required to actually hold such a battery cell in this state.
As to Claim 2,
The phrase “the rotation holding unit holds the battery cell such that the relative position between the battery cell and the sensor is changeable” on lines 1-2 is indefinite.
Similar to that noted above, the battery cell is not part of the measurement device, but the claim is worded such that a part of the measurement “holds” the battery cell, making it unclear whether the battery cells is or is not requirement. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the above phrase to mean that the rotation holding unit is intended to hold the battery cell in the claimed manner, but that the battery cell itself and any associated relative position is not required in the claim.
As to Claim 3,
The phrase “the rotation holding unit includes a rotating portion which rotates the battery cell” on lines 1-2 is indefinite.
Similar to that noted above, the battery cell is not part of the measurement device, but the claim is worded such that a part of the measurement “rotates” the battery cell, making it unclear whether the battery cells is or is not requirement. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the above phrase to mean that the rotation holding unit is intended to rotate the battery cell in the claimed manner, but that the battery cell itself and any associated relative position is not required in the claim.
As to Claim 4,
The phrase “the rotation holding unit moves the sensor cells with respect to the battery cell” on lines 1-2 is indefinite.
Similar to that noted above, the battery cell is not part of the measurement device, but the claim is worded such that a part of the measurement “moves” the sensor cells with respect to the battery, making it unclear whether the battery cells is or is not requirement. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the above phrase to mean that the rotation holding unit is intended to move the sensor cells with respect to the battery cell in the claimed manner, but that the battery cell itself and any associated relative position is not required in the claim.
As to Claim 6,
The phrase “the control unit controls the relative position between the sensor and the battery cell and, in each of at least two relative positions, each relative position being identical to the relative position, takes in the measurement results at the at least two rotation angles” on lines 1-4 is indefinite.
1) Similar to that noted above, it is unclear whether the battery cell is or not required because applicant is now expressly claiming that the control unit “controls” the relative position between the sensor and the battery cell, and that such a feature can reasonably include the battery cell. However, the battery cell is not part of the measurement device, and the claims are expressly directed towards the measurement device, rendering the above claim feature indefinite and unclear. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the above phrase to be an intended use such that the battery cell is not required, and the control unit has the intended use of controlling the relative position as recited, but does not actively perform such control in the claim.
2) Reciting that the control unit “controls” is reasonably an active use, and thus a method step of using the control unit. As explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” Reciting a control unit is configured to or intended to control is proper, but an active use of controlling with the control unit is indefinite.
3) The phrase “each relative position being identical to the relative position” is indefinite. More than one relative position was previously recited, and thus reciting “the relative position” is indefinite because it is unclear what position this phrase is referencing.
4) The phrase “at least two relative positions” is indefinite, because it is unclear how these relate to the previously recited relative position. The phrase “at least two relative positions” would require at least two and reasonably include all relative positions, thus making it unclear how the previously recited relative position relates to these positions.
As to Claim 11,
The phrase “rotation holding unit includes: a cell holding portion which has the battery cell inserted thereinto” on lines 1-2 is indefinite.
As explained above, Claim 1, and thus Claim 11, are directed towards the measurement device itself and not the object under test. As such, reciting that the cell holding portion “has the battery cell inserted thereinto” is indefinite, because the battery cell is not part of the measurement device. This phrase is therefore indefinite, because it is unclear what features are and are not required in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting this phrase to mean that the intended use of the cell holding portion is to have the battery cell inserted thereinto, but that no actual battery cell is required in the claim.
As to Claim 13,
The phrase “the control unit takes in a plurality of measurement results of the magnetic flux density at the sensor at each of the at least two rotation angles and records an average value of the plurality of measurement results at each rotation angle in a database” on lines 1-4 is indefinite.
1) Reciting that the control unit “takes in a plurality of measurement results” and “records an average value” are both recitations of a positive use, and thus method steps, of using the control unit. As explained above and in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), recitations of an actual use of an apparatus in an apparatus claim are indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, these features are being interpreted as an intended use of the control unit.
2) Applicant claims that the control unit “records an average value of the plurality of measurement results at each rotation angle in a database,” but applicant does not claim that the control unit is configured to or otherwise intended to obtain the average value in the first place. Being able to record an average value is not the same thing as being configured to first obtain an average value, and then be configured to store or record such a value. As such, it is unclear if the control unit or any component is required to obtain the average value. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the control unit must be able to record an average value, but is not required to actually obtain such a value itself.
As to Claim 14,
The phrase “the control unit takes in a measurement result of the magnetic flux density at the sensor when passing a current having a current value higher than a registered current value through the battery cell and records in a database the measurement result of the magnetic flux density in association with the registered current value” on lines 1 to the end is indefinite.
Reciting that the control unit “takes in a measurement result” and “records in a database the measurement result” are both recitations of a positive use, and thus method steps, of using the control unit. As explained above and in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), recitations of an actual use of an apparatus in an apparatus claim are indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, these features are being interpreted as an intended use of the control unit.
As to Claim 15,
The phrase “a database which, for at least one type of a battery cell used for a battery unit, records a measurement result obtained by actually measuring a magnetic flux density for each angle state when passing a current while changing the angle state of the battery cell; a state input unit to which, for the battery unit including a plurality of battery cells, each battery cell being identical to the battery cell, state data indicating an arrangement and an angle state of each of the battery cells within the battery unit is input; and an estimation unit which, based on the angle state and the measurement result recorded in the database, determines a magnetic flux density generated by each of the battery cells, and, based on the magnetic flux density generated by each of the battery cells and the arrangement of each of the battery cells, estimates a magnetic flux density generated by the battery unit” on lines 1 to the end is indefinite.
1) The phrase “a database which, for at least one type of a battery cell used for a battery unit, records a measurement result obtained by actually measuring a magnetic flux density for each angle state when passing a current while changing the angle state of the battery cell” is indefinite.
First, a database itself is not reasonably capable of “recording” any value. A database is at most a location where data is stored, but it itself does not reasonably have the capability to actively obtain and record values. As such, it is unclear what applicant means by claiming that the database itself “records” as recited.
Second, similar to that noted above, it is unclear how any database can record a value that was not recited to be obtained by some component in the claim. No component of the claim is configured to or otherwise claimed to obtain the claimed measurement result. As such, this density cannot reasonably be present in the claim to allow it to be stored, making it unclear whether this feature is required in the claim. It is especially noted that applicant claims this measurement result to have already been “obtained,” making it further unclear whether this result or the manner in which it was obtained are required in the claim.
Lastly, applicant claims that the measurement result is obtained by actually measuring a magnetic flux density for each angle state when passing a current while changing the angle state of the battery cell, but where “actually measuring” is a method step of measuring. Reciting or requiring a method step of using an apparatus inside an apparatus claim is indefinite as explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). It is unclear which this feature is required in the claim, as it is a method step but one that is linked to a past tense “obtained” term. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the above claim phrase requires a database, but one that need only be capable of storing such a measurement result, and where the measurement result is not positively recited, especially when the claimed “when” condition is not invoked.
2) Applicant then recites “a state input unit to which, for the battery unit including a plurality of battery cells, each battery cell being identical to the battery cell, state data indicating an arrangement and an angle state of each of the battery cells within the battery unit is input,” but similar to that noted above, no device is claimed to obtain any state data. A state input unit cannot have state data input into it unless some other device is present obtain the data and then provide it to the state input unit. The above phrase is therefore indefinite, because it is unclear whether applicant is merely claiming a state input unit that can have any data, including the above state data, input into it, or if applicant is requiring some device to be configured to or have an intended use to obtain the state data and to then be configured to provide this state data to the state input unit. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the state input unit is a device that can have the above data input into it, but that this data is not required in the claim. This phrase is further indefinite, because applicant is reciting “an angle state” for each of the battery cells, but where an angle state was already recited on line 3 of the claim. As best understood, these angle states are not distinct, but are being distinctly recited, making their relationship unclear.
3) Applicant then claims “an estimation unit which, based on the angle state and the measurement result recorded in the database, determines a magnetic flux density generated by each of the battery cells, and, based on the magnetic flux density generated by each of the battery cells and the arrangement of each of the battery cells, estimates a magnetic flux density generated by the battery unit,” but where such a phrase is indefinite.
First, claiming that the estimation unit “determines a magnetic flux density” and “estimates a magnetic flux density” are positive method step recitations of using the estimation unit, which are indefinite as explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). It is indefinite to recite the positive use of an apparatus device inside an apparatus claim, and it is unclear how such a feature should be interpreted. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting this feature to mean that the estimation unit has an intended use of determining and estimating, but does not have to actually perform these features.
Second, the estimation unit is claimed to determine a magnetic flux density “based on the angle state and the measurement result recorded in the database,” but where the measurement result is not positively, thus making it unclear whether any actual determination is or is not required in the claim.
Third, applicant claims that the estimation unit “estimates” a magnetic flux density based on the magnetic flux density generated by each battery cell and the arrangement of each of the battery cells, but where no magnetic flux was claimed to have been measured or obtained. While lines 2-4 of the claim explain where any record data in the database is intended to come from, no actual measurement of any magnetic flux density is obtained in the claim, as best understood, and thus it is unclear how the above estimation can occur based upon data not required in the claim, and whether such a feature is positively recited or required in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the control unit has the intended use of performing the above estimation, but where these features are not positively required in the claim.
Lastly, the entirety of the above claim is indefinite as it pertains to whether the battery cell or cells are or are not required in the claim. Claim 15 is directed towards the estimation system, and where, as best understood, this system does not include the object being tested. As such, it is unclear whether the battery cell or cells are or are not required in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the battery and any constituent parts are not required in the claim, and instead the claimed components need only be usable with the claimed battery and associated components.
As to Claim 16,
The phrase “an acquisition unit which acquires the measurement result actually measured using a measurement device to record it in the database, wherein the measurement device measures a magnetic flux density emitted from a battery cell and comprises: a sensor including sensor cells which measure the magnetic flux density; and a rotation holding unit which rotatably holds the battery cell in a state where a relative position of the battery cell with respect to the sensor cells is retained” on lines 1 to the end is indefinite.
1) Applicant claims that the acquisition unit “acquires” the measurement result, but where, as explained above, such a feature amounts to a method step of acquiring which is indefinite as explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). It is indefinite to positively recite the use of an apparatus device inside an apparatus claim.
2) Applicant claims “an acquisition unit which acquires the measurement result actually measured using a measurement device to record it in the database,” but where the database has already recorded such a result. It is unclear how the above feature relates to the database of Claim 15 and the value it has already recorded. It is unclear how the database of Claim 15 can record any value that has not yet been obtained until a later dependent claim, such as in the above Claim 16 feature. Lastly, applicant refers to the measurement result actually measured using a measurement device, but no measurement result was previously recited to be actually measured using a measurement device. It is unclear what measurement result this phrase is referencing, and it is unclear if applicant is referring to the measurement result of Claim 15 which was not claimed to be obtained using a measurement device.
3) Applicant claims “the measurement device measures a magnetic flux density emitted from a battery cell,” but where such a feature is a method step of actually using the measurement device such that it measures a magnetic flux density from a battery cell. This raises two issues, the first being that, as explained above, it is indefinite to positively recite the use of an apparatus in an apparatus claim, as such a use is a method step of using that apparatus. Here, applicant is claiming the actual measuring use the measurement device which is indefinite (see MPEP 2173.05(p)(II)). The second issue is that it is unclear whether the battery cell is or is not required in the claim. As explained above, the estimation system is not disclosed to include the object being tested, and thus does not reasonably include the battery cell. As such, it is unclear how such a battery cell should be treated. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the measurement device has the intended use of measuring a battery cell, but where no actual measurement or battery cell is required in the claim.
4) The phrase “a battery cell” line lines 3-4 is indefinite, because Claim 15 already recites a plurality of battery cells which would reasonably include all battery cells. As such, it is unclear what the above battery cell feature would be in the disclosure, and it is unclear how it relates the already recited plurality of battery cells from Claim 15.
5) The phrase “the magnetic flux density” is indefinite, because more than one magnetic flux density per battery cell was recited in Claim 15, making it unclear which magnetic flux density recitation this phrase is intended to reference.
6) The phrase “the battery cell” recited twice on the last two lines is indefinite, because more than one battery cell was previously recited, and it is unclear which battery cell this phrase is referencing.
As to Claims 2-14 and 16,
These claims stand as best rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s), and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-7 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Okano et al. (Okano) (US 2024/0353371 A1).
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Furthermore, should applicant intend to make a statement invoking 102(b)(2)(c) upon perfecting priority, the Examiner notes for applicant’s reference that MPEP 2154.02(c) explains “The statement under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) will generally be treated by Office personnel analogously to statements made under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c). See MPEP § 2146.02,” and where MPEP 2146.02 explains “If the person(s) or organization(s) owned less than 100 percent of the subject matter which would otherwise pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f), or (g) prior art to the claimed invention, or less than 100 percent of the claimed invention, then common ownership would not exist. Common ownership requires that the person(s) or organization(s)/business entity(ies) own 100 percent of the subject matter and 100 percent of the claimed invention” (emphasis added).
As to Claim 1,
Okano discloses A measurement device which measures a magnetic flux density emitted from a battery cell, comprising: a sensor (P2) including sensor cells (magnetic elements) which measure the magnetic flux density (Paragraph [0040]); and a rotation holding unit (FX,MT) which rotatably holds the battery cell (10) in a state where a relative position of the battery cell with respect to the sensor cells is retained (Figure 5), (Paragraph [0048]).
As to Claim 2,
Okano discloses wherein the rotation holding unit holds the battery cell such that the relative position between the battery cell and the sensor is changeable (Figure 5), (Paragraph [0048]).
As to Claim 3,
Okano discloses the rotation holding unit includes a rotating portion which rotates the battery cell (Figure 5), (Paragraph [0048] / note the portion that actually rotates the battery cell is the rotating portion).
As to Claim 4,
Okano discloses the rotation holding unit moves the sensor cells with respect to the battery cell (Paragraphs [0048],[0049] / note the driving mechanism MT can rotate the probe and thus the sensor).
As to Claim 5,
Okano discloses a control unit (450) which takes in measurement results of the magnetic flux density at the sensor at at least two rotation angles of the battery cell (Paragraphs [0040],[0048] / note that because the battery cell rotates, plural magnetic field measurements must be made at different angles), (Figure 3).
As to Claim 6,
Okano discloses the control unit controls the relative position between the sensor and the battery cell and, in each of at least two relative positions, each relative position being identical to the relative position, takes in the measurement results at the at least two rotation angles (Paragraphs [0040],[0048] / note the measuring position, and thus amount of rotation of the battery cell, is controlled by the controller/control unit, which also recites the measurements from the sensor).
As to Claim 7,
Okano discloses the rotation holding unit further includes: a cell substrate to which the rotating portion is fixed; and a sensor substrate to which the sensor is fixed, wherein the cell substrate is movable relative to the sensor substrate (Figure 5 / note the cell substrate is portion FX that rotates the battery cell, and the sensor substrate is the portion of MT that rotates the sensor P2, and where they are moveable relative to each other), (Paragraphs [0048],[0049]).
As to Claim 10,
Okano discloses the rotation holding unit includes a moving portion which moves the relative position between the sensor and the battery cell (Figure 5), (Paragraph [0048] / note the portion that actually rotates the battery cell is the rotating portion).
As to Claim 11,
Okano discloses rotation holding unit includes: a cell holding portion which has the battery cell inserted thereinto and includes a recessed portion or a protruding portion for defining a rotation angle (Figure 5); and a support portion which is fixed to the cell substrate and contacts with and supports the recessed portion or the protruding portion of the cell holding portion (Figure 5 / note that the battery cell is inserted into the fixing mechanism FX which has two portions that hold the cell as seen in the figure, that the negative side of FX protrudes beyond the positive side as seen and thus has a protruding portion, and that either the positive section or some segment (portion) of the negative section of FX can be the support portion that contacts with another segment of the negative segment which also has a protruding portion).
As to Claim 12,
Okano discloses the support portion is rotatable about a rotational axis that is the same as a rotational axis of the battery cell (Figure 5), (Paragraph [0048] / note the entire mechanism FX rotates about the same axis as the battery cell).
As to Claim 13,
Okano discloses the control unit takes in a plurality of measurement results of the magnetic flux density at the sensor at each of the at least two rotation angles and records an average value of the plurality of measurement results at each rotation angle in a database (Figure 9 / note 0 to 360 degree measurements), (Paragraphs [0057],[0059],[0061],[0067] / note the control unit obtains multiple measurements, combines these measurements, and stores these measurements in what is reasonably a database, and thus is able to store any average).
As to Claim 14,
Okano discloses the control unit takes in a measurement result of the magnetic flux density at the sensor when passing a current having a current value higher than a registered current value through the battery cell and records in a database the measurement result of the magnetic flux density in association with the registered current value (Figure 9 / note 0 to 360 degree measurements), (Paragraphs [0056],[0057],[0059],[0061],[0067] / note a current is applied to the battery cell, and any value below what is actually used can be considered a registered current value, and the stored values are reasonably a database).
As to Claim 15,
Okano discloses An estimation system comprising: a database which, for at least one type of a battery cell used for a battery unit, records a measurement result obtained by actually measuring a magnetic flux density for each angle state when passing a current while changing the angle state of the battery cell (Paragraphs [0041],[0056] / note that the stored measurement characteristics are reasonably a database); a state input unit (portion of 450 that receives correlation / predetermined data from the storage 440) to which, for the battery unit including a plurality of battery cells, each battery cell being identical to the battery cell, state data indicating an arrangement and an angle state of each of the battery cells within the battery unit is input (Figure 3), (Paragraph [0041] / note this must include an indication of the arrangement and angle stage because this data is used to compare against actual measurements at different rotational angles of the batter) ; and an estimation unit (450) which, based on the angle state and the measurement result recorded in the database, determines a magnetic flux density generated by each of the battery cells, and, based on the magnetic flux density generated by each of the battery cells and the arrangement of each of the battery cells, estimates a magnetic flux density generated by the battery unit (Paragraphs [0040],[0042],[0044] / note the whole battery unit may be measured, and the magnetic flux/field is therefore reasonably obtained for the entire battery unit).
As to Claim 16,
Okano discloses an acquisition unit (430) which acquires the measurement result actually measured using a measurement device (P2) to record it in the database (Figure 3), wherein the measurement device measures a magnetic flux density emitted from a battery cell, comprising: a sensor (P2) including sensor cells (magnetic elements) which measure the magnetic flux density (Paragraph [0040]); and a rotation holding unit (FX,MT) which rotatably holds the battery cell (10) in a state where a relative position of the battery cell with respect to the sensor cells is retained (Figure 5), (Paragraph [0048]).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okano et al. (Okano) (US 2024/0353371 A1) in view of MA et al. (MA) (CN 117269793 A).
Note: the cited paragraphs for the above MA reference come from the provided English machine translation.
As to Claims 8 and 9,
Okano does not disclose the sensor substrate includes a plurality of positioning holes for determining the relative position between the sensor and the battery cell, and the cell substrate includes a positioning pin to be inserted into the plurality of positioning holes, the sensor substrate includes a rail for moving the relative position between the sensor and the battery cell.
MA discloses the sensor substrate (31) includes a plurality of positioning holes (311) for determining the relative position between the sensor and the battery cell (Figure 3) , and the cell substrate (32) includes a positioning pin (322) to be inserted into the plurality of positioning holes (Figure 3), (Paragraphs [n0027],[n0043]), the sensor substrate includes a rail for moving the relative position between the sensor and the battery cell (Figure 3 / note the portion indicated as 31 is a rail).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Okano to include the sensor substrate includes a plurality of positioning holes for determining the relative position between the sensor and the battery cell, and the cell substrate includes a positioning pin to be inserted into the plurality of positioning holes, the sensor substrate includes a rail for moving the relative position between the sensor and the battery cell as taught by MA in order to advantageously utilize an easy to manufacture way of being able to position the battery in the desired position (Paragraph [n0031]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1) US 2025/0100419 to Noguchi et al. which discloses a battery state determination device and method using a magnetic measurement device (magnetometer) to make magnetic field measurements of the battery to determine a state of the battery, and 2) WO 2015/136930 A1 to Kimura et al. which discloses a battery inspection device and method that inspects the battery during charging/discharging using a measurement unit that measures a magnetic field outside the battery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights