DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. Applicant’s response filed 2/2/2026 was received. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Specification
2. The objection to the title is withdrawn; the substitute title filed 2/2/2026 is accepted.
The objection to the abstract is withdrawn; the replacement abstract filed 2/2/2026 is accepted.
The amendments filed to the specification at P16 and P25 on 2/2/2026 are accepted by the Examiner.
Drawings
3. The objection to the drawings is withdrawn; the replacement sheets filed on 2/2/2026 are accepted by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
4. The objections to claims 3 and 8 are withdrawn in view of the corrections filed.
5. Claim 4 is objected to given the comma left after “comprising” is improper.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The rejections of claim 4, and thus dependent claim 5; claim 5; and claim 6; under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement are withdrawn in view of the explanation and/or corrections filed.
7. The rejections of claim 1, and thus dependent claims 2-7; and claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement are maintained. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
It is noted that the amendments filed further necessitate a new grounds of rejection against claim 1, and thus dependent claims 2-8; and claim 5, on the basis of the amendments as filed under this heading.
A) Claim 1 recites in part (with emphasis added):
“A gas detection method of a battery pack, the gas detection method comprising:
transmitting laser light through a surplus space in a rack housing from a first point in the rack housing;
receiving the laser light at a second point in the rack housing…”
While P16 of the PGPUB has been amended in the instant response filed 2/2/2026 to utilize the terminology of a first point and a second point given the language previously had no antecedent basis in the specification; however, the issue with respect to support is still present- namely, by omitting that the first point is at a first surface and the second point is at a second surface, the claim now includes options not contemplated or described within the written description by the inventors at the effective filing date such as: the first point and the second point in the rack housing are at the same surface, and/or the first and/or second points are not on a surface of the rack housing at all (i.e., the first point and/or second point are formed at some other constituent within the rack housing). The disclosure supports that the laser light is transmitted from a laser irradiator 200 formed (at a first point) at a first surface of the rack housing, and the laser receiver part 300 is formed at (a second point) at a second surface of the rack housing opposite the laser radiator 200/first surface (P14) (note that claim 8 defines these features further and is thus not rejected within this section).
In the comments provided on 2/2/2026, Applicant relies on Fig. 3 for the support of the sole recitation of “a first point” and “a second point” and omission of the respective locations (i.e., at the first surface and at the second surface, respectively) of these points. If the sole basis of the support is the drawing, then the amendment has to be fully commensurate in scope with the drawing. As shown in the drawing, the first point cannot be at any location in the rack housing (the full scope of the claim filed)- instead, it is specifically at a first point at a first surface of the rack housing as described in the written description. As shown in the drawing, the second point cannot be at any location in the rack housing (the full scope of the claim filed)- instead, it is specifically at a second point at a second surface of the rack housing as described in the written description. Accordingly, Fig. 3 does not provide support for a first point and/or a second point to be located anywhere in the rack housing including on the same surface of the rack housing, or in locations that do not include rack housing surfaces at all (i.e., on other components). Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
B) Claim 1 as amended is not supported. The sounding of the alarm step is never described in the instant application as being in response to “the signal transmitted” (even with the assumption that this is meant to reference the signal generated from the prior step; note the amendment also creates an issue of 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph as detailed below with respect to “the singal transmitted” given there is no recitation of any such transmission of a signal). It is noted that there were prior issues outlined under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph with respect to the claimed “signal(s)” within the claim (see pages 7-8 of the prior Office Action) and the Examiner noted that Applicant should provide an analysis as to how future amendments are supported with corresponding paragraphs cited for corresponding amendments (see MPEP 2163, section 3(b); MPEP § 714.02; and MPEP § 2163.06: "Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure”) given the signal(s) recited within the claim were not clear on the basis of the disclosure. No such analysis or support citation was provided with respect to the amendments provided with respect to the signal(s) claimed.
The written description never recites that there is a sounding of an alarm in response to “the signal transmitted” or “the signal [generated?].” Claim 1 recites that there a step of generating a signal when the scattering ratio of the received laser light is equal to or great than the predetermined scattering ratio. The sounding of an alarm is never taught as being in response to this signal (i.e., “sounding an alarm in response to the signal transmitted”); instead, the disclosure teaches the following (P68-72 of the PGPUB; Fig. 7):
PNG
media_image1.png
344
453
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
329
458
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
387
444
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, claim 1 as amended violates the written description requirement. The only signal transmitted is an entirely separate signal from the claimed signal generated when the scattering ratio of the received laser light is equal to or greater than the predetermined scattering ratio.
The issue of support with the amendments filed now also extends to amended claim 5. which now recites, “…generating the signal when the obtained value is equal or greater than the predetermined time…” Based on the disclosure quoted above, this is not the same signal as the signal of claim 1 such that referring to it as “the signal” is not proper or supported and violates the written description.
C) The Examiner maintains that claim 7 does not appear supported by the written description. Applicant points to P17 which recites the feature of claim 7. The issue is that the feature already would appear to be captured within claim 1 by the “comparing” step (see P14, 29 of the PGPUB, reproduced below):
PNG
media_image4.png
329
892
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 7 states that there is a further step of “comparing an intensity of the received laser light with a reference value to determine generation of a gas.” Claim 1 already has this comparing feature relative to the “predetermined scattering ratio.” There is not a [second] reference value or a [second] comparing step as presented in claim 7. If the Examiner has misunderstood the feature of claim 7, Applicant is invited to telephone the Examiner after receipt of this Office Action with a further explanation; however, it does not appear that claim 7 is supported in the context of claim 1 + claim 7 features.
Appropriate correction is required.
8. The rejections of claim 1, and thus dependent claims 2-8; claim 3; and claim 5 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 are maintained and updated to reflect the amendments filed.
A) Claim 1 defines in part:
“…generating a signal when the scattering ratio of the received laser light is equal to or greater than the predetermined scattering ratio; and
sounding an alarm in response to the signal transmitted.”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the signal transmitted.” There is no method step of transmission of the signal generated in the generating step, nor is it clear to how/via what component the signal is being transmitted from within the claim given the deletion made. The claim is highly indefinite for these reasons.
B) The rejection of claim 3 is not addressed by Applicant via amendments or explanation and is maintained. The claim is not clear in terms of what is required to meet the claim. It is not clear how the predetermined scattering ratio can be an optical loss value based on gases detected in the battery pack. The method does not previously recite any step where gases are detected in the battery pack. The meaning and intent of the claim are entirely unclear.
C) Claim 1 defines that a signal is generated under the conditions recited and an alarm is sounded in response to the signal transmitted. Claim 5 recites a second clause pertaining to when a the signal is generated; however, it is not clear how this is possible or definitive. It appears the signal is generated on the basis of claim 1 under the conditions recited. It is not clear how there can be additional requirements to generating the signal. The claim is highly indefinite, and the issue largely results from the features are not supported as these are not the same signals.
Appropriate correction and clarification is required. The claims are examined as best as possible below given the issues outlined above. Claims 3 and 5 remain indefinite to the point of precluding prior art examination given the considerable speculation required to come up with a possible interpretation of what the claims (might) be attempting to claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. The rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (CN 105280974) (machine translation provided in parent application) in view of Hideaki et al. (JP 2019-159742) (machine translation provided in parent application) is maintained.
Regarding claim 1, Yu teaches a lithium battery leakage alarm and extinguishment device (“a battery pack”) and gas detection method utilizing same, the gas detection method comprising:
transmitting laser light through a surplus space in a rack housing (P5/P3- the detecting module 1 that includes the smoke sensor 12 is mounted on the top cover plate or side wall in the power lithium battery box – also illustrated in Fig. 4) from a first point in the rack housing (Fig. 4; P4/P4; P5/P3);
receiving the laser light at a second point in the rack housing [when smoke is present – (P4/P4; Fig. 4);
generating an electrical signal when the laser light is received on the basis of Mie scattering of the light (P4/P4); and
sounding an alarm in response to the signal transmitted (P4/P4; abstract; entire disclosure relied upon).
Yu does not explicitly teach the light transmitted and received is laser light; however, the selection of a specific type of light-emitting device such as a laser is considered an obvious expedient given laser units used as the light-emitting device of a smoke sensor are known in the art, such that the selection and implementation thereof is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.07). Specifically, looking to known light-emitting devices using Mie scattering to detect smoke particles, Hideaki teaches analogous art of a smoke detector capable of detecting smoke particles, wherein the light-emitting device is specifically a laser (abstract; P8, 10, 14, 28; entire disclosure relied upon).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to determine an appropriate “light-emitting device” for the construct of Yu and to look to known constructs achieving the same, and to select a laser as the specific type of “light-emitting device.” Pertinent case law is cited below (MPEP § 2144.07):
Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment.).
Additionally, the selection of a laser as the specific type of “light-emitting device” is considered “Obvious to Try – Choosing from a Finite Number of Identified, Predictable Solutions, with a Reasonable Expectation of Success” (MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale E). At the effective filing date of the invention, there is a recognized need in the art to select an appropriate “light-emitting device” for the construct of Yu; there a finite number of predictable potential solutions to the recognized need including a laser, a lamp, or solid-state lighting such as LED; wherein one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursed these known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, the finding of obviousness for the selection of a laser as the specific type of “light-emitting device” is considered “Obvious to Try – Choosing from a Finite Number of Identified, Predictable Solutions, with a Reasonable Expectation of Success” (MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale E) as outlined above with the rationale to support said conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Furthermore regarding claim 1, Yu does not teach the gas detection method comprises:
“…comparing a scattering ratio of the received laser light with a predetermined scattering ratio; and
generating a signal when the scattering ratio of the received laser light is equal to or greater than the predetermined scattering ratio.”
This alternative technique to utilize comparison of a scattering ratio of received laser light with a predetermined scattering ratio reference value, and generating a signal (“outputting a notification”) by the determination unit 32 when the received laser light is equal to or greater than the predetermined scattering ratio is taught by Hideaki (abstract; P8, 34-37), and provides the taught benefit of distinguishing that the gas/smoke particles detected are from a fire versus other sources (P1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to utilize this alternative method of using Mie scattering to determine gas/smoke generation as taught by Hideaki within the gas detection method of Yu given the use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is a rationale to support a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143), the application thereof providing the taught, advantageous features of accurately detecting smoke from a fire and distinguishing the source of the gas/smoke particles as a fire versus other sources (P1-7).
Regarding claim 4, Yu as modified by Hideaki teaches the method further comprising, adding a measured time value to a previous time value when the signal is generated (P48).
Regarding claim 6, Yu as modified by Hideaki teaches wherein the laser light is generated with a wavelength of 1.4 µm or more, and specifically 1.4 to 2.6 µm (P31), thereby rending the claimed range of 0.1 µm to 10 µm as prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 8, Yu fails to explicitly teach wherein the first point is at a first surface of the rack housing and the second point at a second surface of the rack housing opposite the first surface; however, the determination of where to provide the light-emitting device and the light-receiving device of Yu (P4/P4), and thus the location from which the light is transmitted (i.e. the first point) and received (the second point), respectively, is well within the ambit of one having ordinary skill in the art to determine based on the design requirements of the battery pack.
Accordingly, in the absence of objective evidence in the record for new or unexpected results relative to the positioning of the first and second points on first and second surfaces as defined, the feature is considered an obvious matter of design choice. The following case law is pertinent to this conclusion (MPEP 2144.04):
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); and
In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
10. The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (CN 105280974) (machine translation provided in parent application) in view of Hideaki et al. (JP 2019-159742) (machine translation provided in parent application) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Raghavan et al. (US 2015/0303723) and Sakota et al. (US 2015/0025341) is maintained.
Regarding claim 2, Yu as modified by Hideaki teaches wherein the scattering ratio of the laser light is a value obtained in the manner described at P13-14 and does not explicitly teach dividing an intensity of the received laser light by an intensity of initial laser light set as a reference value. In the same field of endeavor, Raghavan teaches battery management based on optical sensing on the basis of light scattering can be used to detect presence of a gas, and the detector 708 is configured to sense the altered input light and to generate at least one signal about the special distribution of the altered input light, and directly measures a shift of the altered input light (P69). Accordingly, it is a known technique to determine the presence of a gas within a battery construct by way of comparing the input light from that received at the detector 708 (i.e., “altered input light”) (P69-79). Raghavan does not explicitly teach the comparing of the input light versus that detected is by dividing one value by the other; however, there are only two options for “comparing” that could be utilized: subtracting one value from the other to know the difference or providing a ratio by dividing one value by the other which would be well-known and understood by one having ordinary skill in the art. For the avoidance of doubt, Sakota is further cited to teach that this is a known technique to determine a comparison between transmitted and received light by obtaining a ratio between the scattered/received signal and the transmitted signal (P5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to select as the mathematical option for determining the scattering ratio that of the specific option of comparing the input light from the light received at the detector to obtain a scattering ratio, the general technique taught by Raghavan (P69-79), and the specific option of dividing one value by the other being taught by Sakota (P5).
11. The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (CN 105280974) (machine translation provided in parent application) in view of Hideaki et al. (JP 2019-159742) (machine translation provided in parent application) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Raghavan et al. (US 2015/0303723) is maintained.
Regarding claim 7, Yu as modified by Hideaki fails to teaches the method further comprising comparing an intensity of the received laser light with a reference value to determine generation of a gas; however, the technique and method is taught by Raghavan (P69-79).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to employ this known technique as taught by Raghavan to the method of Yu ad modified by Hideaki in order to achieve the taught, beneficial result of detecting generation of a gas, as well as its concentration and other attributes of the gas as taught by Raghavan (P69-79).
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the prior art rejection, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image5.png
221
646
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In response: Yu teaches transmitting laser light through a surplus space in a rack housing (P5/P3- the detecting module 1 that includes the smoke sensor 12 is mounted on the top cover plate or side wall in the power lithium battery box – also illustrated in Fig. 4) from a first point in the rack housing (Fig. 4; P4/P4; P5/P3) and received at a second point in the rack housing. The entire detection module 1 including the smoke sensor 12 of Yu is illustrated (Fig. 4) and taught as being located in the power lithium battery box (“rack housing”) such that the light is transmitted through a surplus space in a rack housing (i.e., the space where the entire detection module 1 exists and where batteries are not located – see Fig. 4). Accordingly the feature is met and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
13. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J BARROW whose telephone number is (571)270-7867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am - 6pm CST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/AMANDA J BARROW/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights