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 § 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 1 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (CN 213632548 U) (hereinafter Sun) in view of Chrin (US 2020/0150002 A1) (hereinafter Chrin).
Regarding claim 1, Sun teaches a battery status detection system for an electric vehicle battery pack [battery leakage detector; lithium battery of electric automobile] (Pg. 1, see Abstract) comprising:
a tube comprising a first end and a second end, the first end coupled to a valve [first valve 164] and the second end coupled to the battery pack [air inlet pipe 160 can pass through the breath port of the battery pack into the inside of the battery pack] (Pgs. 5-6, see Fig. 2);
a gas analysis chamber comprising a gas analysis sensor [detection chamber 110 with detection member 130], wherein the valve is coupled to the gas analysis chamber (Pgs. 5-6, see Fig. 2);
a pump coupled to the gas analysis chamber and configured to move gas through the tube, the valve, and the gas analysis chamber [air pump 162] and a controller [controller 140] (Pgs. 5-6, see Fig. 2).
Sun fails to teach the controller comprising a processor and a memory; wherein the processor executes instructions stored in the memory, the instructions causing the processor to start the pump, open the valve, and analyze the gas moved by the pump using the gas analysis sensor. Chrin teaches a gas sampling and detection system comprising a controller comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the processor executes instructions stored in the memory, the instructions causing the processor to control a pump and a sampling inlet valve to cause gas to flow through the gas sampling chamber housing one or more gas sensors (Para [0039-0042], see Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Sun with Chrin such that the controller comprises a processor and a memory; wherein the processor executes instructions stored in the memory, the instructions causing the processor to start the pump, open the valve, and analyze the gas moved by the pump using the gas analysis sensor, in order to automatically control the gas flow through the system.
Regarding claims 9-10, Sun in view of Chrin as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the tube is closable by a one-way check valve disposed within the tube, wherein the one-way check valve is passively operated by pressure [air inlet pipe capable of being closed by a one-way pressure-operated check valve] (see Sun Fig. 2). Alternatively, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is known in the art to utilize passive one-way pressure check valves for controlling gas flow to and from a gas sensor. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Sun in view of Chrin such that tube further comprises a one-way passive pressure-operated check valve disposed within the tube in order to prevent unwanted backflow.
Regarding claims 11, Sun in view of Chrin as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein opening the valve comprises the instructions causing the valve to activate a solenoid. Chrin additionally teaches wherein the sampling valve is a solenoid valve (Para [0057]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Sun in view of Chrin such that opening the valve comprises the instructions causing the valve to activate a solenoid, in order to automatically control the gas flow through the system.
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Chrin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2013/0071706 A1) (hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claims 2-3, Sun in view of Chrin as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the battery pack comprises a plurality of battery modules, wherein the battery pack defines a communication chamber and each of the plurality of battery modules define a communication port, wherein the communication chamber is in fluid communication with all of the communication ports of the plurality of battery modules. Lee teaches a battery pack for a vehicle, the battery pack comprises a plurality of battery modules and defining a communication chamber, wherein the plurality of battery modules define a communication port which are each in fluid communication with the communication chamber [battery module 100 with plurality of battery cells 10, each having a vent portion 13 discharging gas] (Para [0033], see Figs. 1-6). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Sun in view of Chrin with lee such that the battery pack comprises a plurality of battery modules, wherein the battery pack defines a communication chamber and each of the plurality of battery modules define a communication port, wherein the communication chamber is in fluid communication with all of the communication ports of the plurality of battery modules, in order to monitor the gas discharged from the battery cells of the battery pack.
Regarding claims 4-5, Sun in view of Chrin and Lee as applied to claim 3 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the second end of the tube is coupled to the communication chamber and the pump is further configured to move gas through the communication chamber [air inlet pipe 160 can pass through the breath port of the battery pack into the inside of the battery pack; air pump 162 connected to air inlet pipe 160] (Sun Pgs. 5-6, see Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 6-7, Sun in view of Chrin and Lee as applied to claim 3 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the battery pack further comprises an environmental sensor disposed within the communication chamber. Lee additionally teaches a temperature sensor disposed within the communication chamber (see Claims 4-6). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Sun in view of Chrin and Lee such that the battery pack further comprises an environmental sensor disposed within the communication chamber, in order to provide a battery pack with temperature safety controls.
Regarding claim 8, Sun in view of Chrin and Lee as applied to claim 6 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the environmental sensor comprises a plurality of environmental sensors, wherein each of the plurality of environmental sensors is disposed on or within each of the plurality of battery modules. Lee additionally teaches a temperature measuring sensor for measuring an interior temperature of the battery pack (see Claims 3-6). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Sun in view of Chrin and Lee such that the environmental sensor comprises a plurality of environmental sensors, wherein each of the plurality of environmental sensors is disposed on or within each of the plurality of battery modules, in order to individually monitor temperatures of each battery cell in the battery pack and provide a more robust sensor package.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-27 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 12 and 18, the closest prior art references, Sun, Chrin, and Lee, teach certain limitations found in the claims, as described in the rejections of claims 1-11 above. The prior art fails to teach or provide motivation for a battery status detection system for an electric vehicle battery pack comprising a plurality of tubes comprising a first end and second end, each of the first ends coupled to a valve and each of the second ends coupled to each of a plurality of battery modules of the battery pack, wherein the valve is coupled to a gas analysis chamber, wherein the processor opens the valve with respect to one of the plurality of tubes and closes the valve with respect to each of the remaining tubes, in combination with the rest of the limitations found in the claims.
Regarding claims 13-17, they are dependent on claim 12.
Regarding claims 19-27, they are dependent on claim 18.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID Z HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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 Z HUANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights