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 . 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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined below.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities, for which correction is required:
The recitation “the battery condition sensor” lacks antecedent basis.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12351041 in view of US20230109910 (“Bruder”), the correspondence between the documents shown in the table below.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent 12351041
US20230109910 ("Bruder")
claim 1
claim 1
paragraph 0053
claim 2
claims 2 and 3
n/a
claim 3
claim 4
n/a
claim 4
claim 5
n/a
claim 5
claim 1
n/a
claim 6
claim 7
n/a
claim 7
claim 8
n/a
claim 8
claim 9
n/a
claim 9
claim 9
n/a
claim 11
claim 10
n/a
claim 12
claim 11
n/a
claim 13
claim 12
n/a
claim 14
claim 13
n/a
claim 15
n/a
paragraph 0053
claim 16
claim 1
n/a
claim 17
claim 17
n/a
claim 18
claim 18
paragraph 0053
claim 19
n/a
paragraph 0053
claim 20
claim 9
paragraph 0053
This modification of US Patent 12351041 in light of the secondary reference(s) is proper because the applied reference(s) is/are so related that the appearance of features shown in one would suggest the application of those features to the other. See In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388, 213 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1982); In re Carter, 673 F.2d 1378, 213 USPQ 625 (CCPA 1982), and In re Glavas, 230 F.2d 447, 109 USPQ 50 (CCPA 1956). Further, it is noted that case law has held that a designer skilled in the art is charged with knowledge of the related art; therefore, the combination of old elements, herein, would have been well within the level of ordinary skill. See In re Antle, 444 F.2d 1168,170 USPQ 285 (CCPA 1971) and In re Nalbandian, 661 F.2d 1214, 211 USPQ 782 (CCPA 1981).
US Patent 12351041 and Bruder both disclose systems of classifying impact or damage related to a vehicle battery. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant's invention to modify the system in US Patent 12351041 to include the teaching of Bruder with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the accuracy and pattern recognition of the system’s classification, such advantages being well-known in the art for machine-learned classifiers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC 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)(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 5, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by US20230073416 (“Kellner”).
Claim 5
Kellner discloses a method comprising:
receiving a plurality of impact sensor outputs from an impact sensor arrangement associated with an underside of a battery enclosure of a battery of a vehicle, the impact sensor arrangement being configured to generate the plurality of impact sensor outputs in response to a deformation of the underside of the battery enclosure (0065 Such an apparatus 20 can preferably be used in a vehicle, wherein the protective arrangement 40 forms an underbody protection of the vehicle, for example, which protects the battery arrangement 30 in the event of an accident or damage caused by a bollard., Fig. 3, 0067, 0069, 0071 The evaluation device 90 is configured to receive and evaluate the sensor signals SIG1, SIG2 of the acceleration sensors 61, 62 in order to determine the degree of damage to the protective arrangement 40 and indirectly also to the battery arrangement 30 as a function of the first sensor signals SIG1 and the second sensor signals SIG2.);
classifying an impact with the underside of the battery enclosure into a first class of a plurality of classes, each class of the plurality of classes associated with a respective level of severity of impact (0102-0107 The evaluation device 90 is preferably configured to carry out a categorization as a function of the at least one first sensor signal (SIG1) and the at least one second sensor signal (SIG2), wherein the categorization comprises at least two categories from the category group consisting of: no action required, in particular if everything is in order, replacement of the protective arrangement 40 required at the next service, e.g., in the event of minor damage to the protective arrangement of 5% or 10%, visit to a workshop required, e.g., in the event of slight damage to the protective arrangement 40 of 10% or 15% and/or suspicion of damage to the battery arrangement 30, parking the vehicle 10 required, e.g., in the event of more severe damage to the protective arrangement 40 of at least 20% or 30% and parking and immediately exiting the vehicle 10 required, e.g., in the event of severe damage to the protective arrangement of at least 35% of the surface area and suspected critical damage to the battery arrangement 30.); and
causing the vehicle to perform an action based on a level of severity of impact associated with the first class (0102-0107 The evaluation device 90 is preferably configured to carry out a categorization as a function of the at least one first sensor signal (SIG1) and the at least one second sensor signal (SIG2), wherein the categorization comprises at least two categories from the category group consisting of: no action required, in particular if everything is in order, replacement of the protective arrangement 40 required at the next service, e.g., in the event of minor damage to the protective arrangement of 5% or 10%, visit to a workshop required, e.g., in the event of slight damage to the protective arrangement 40 of 10% or 15% and/or suspicion of damage to the battery arrangement 30, parking the vehicle 10 required, e.g., in the event of more severe damage to the protective arrangement 40 of at least 20% or 30% and parking and immediately exiting the vehicle 10 required, e.g., in the event of severe damage to the protective arrangement of at least 35% of the surface area and suspected critical damage to the battery arrangement 30., 0109 The evaluation device 90 is preferably configured to enable at least one output via the communication device 12 from the output group consisting of: output of information from the evaluation device 90 to an output apparatus 14 in the vehicle, for example to a display or a speech generation apparatus, output of information from the evaluation device 90 to a server of a workshop, for example provided by the vehicle manufacturer or a service provider, output of information from the evaluation device 90 to a server of a fire department, output of information from the evaluation device 90 to a server of a police station, and output of information from the evaluation device 90 to other road users. Examiner notes that based on the context, one of ordinary skill in the art would have acknowledged that Kellner suggests the actions cited in 0109 are based on the classification of the impact, e.g. an alert to the drive would made in the case of lower damage to the battery, and alert to the fire department or police station in the case of higher damage.).
Claim 14
Kellner discloses:
wherein the battery comprises a battery module within the battery enclosure, the battery module having a battery module enclosure enclosing a plurality of battery cells, wherein the impact sensor arrangement comprises accelerometers associated with the underside of the battery enclosure, wherein a further plurality of accelerometers is associated with battery module, and wherein generating battery impact classification data is based at least on processing the respective outputs of the accelerometers associated with the underside of the battery enclosure and outputs of the further plurality of accelerometers associated with battery module, to determine a relative degree of acceleration of the battery module in comparison with a degree of acceleration of the underside of the battery enclosure (0090 FIG. 3 shows another embodiment of the apparatus 20, in which the battery arrangement 30 comprises two battery module housings 81, 82. In this case, the battery module housings 81, 82 can preferably be screwed directly into the body of a vehicle. The battery module housings 81, 82 are then preferably load-bearing. The battery cells of the battery arrangement 30 and the electronics are not shown., 0068 The acceleration sensors 61 are connected to an evaluation device 90, for instance via a signal lead 51, and are configured to generate a first sensor signal SIG1 as a function of the acceleration at the respective acceleration sensor 61 and to output said signal via the signal lead 51., 0071, 0085 By evaluating the sensor signals SIG1, SIG2, the evaluation device 90 can use the measurement result to characterize at which location and how severe the damage to the protective arrangement 40 is., 0097, 0098).
Claim 17
Kellner discloses:
causing the vehicle to stop and instructing occupants of the vehicle to leave the vehicle based on the first class being associated with a first level of severity of impact (0102 no action required, in particular if everything is in order, replacement of the protective arrangement 40 required at the next service, e.g., in the event of minor damage to the protective arrangement of 5% or 10%, visit to a workshop required, e.g., in the event of slight damage to the protective arrangement 40 of 10% or 15% and/or suspicion of damage to the battery arrangement 30, parking the vehicle 10 required, e.g., in the event of more severe damage to the protective arrangement 40 of at least 20% or 30% and parking and immediately exiting the vehicle 10 required, e.g., in the event of severe damage to the protective arrangement of at least 35% of the surface area and suspected critical damage to the battery arrangement 30.); and
causing the vehicle to continue a journey based on the first class being associated with a second level of severity of impact (0102 no action required, in particular if everything is in order, replacement of the protective arrangement 40 required at the next service, e.g., in the event of minor damage to the protective arrangement of 5% or 10%, visit to a workshop required, e.g., in the event of slight damage to the protective arrangement 40 of 10% or 15% and/or suspicion of damage to the battery arrangement 30, parking the vehicle 10 required, e.g., in the event of more severe damage to the protective arrangement 40 of at least 20% or 30% and parking and immediately exiting the vehicle 10 required, e.g., in the event of severe damage to the protective arrangement of at least 35% of the surface area and suspected critical damage to the battery arrangement 30.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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 1, 2, 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kellner in view of US20230109910 (“Bruder”).
Claim 1
Kellner discloses a vehicle (abstract) comprising:
a battery having a battery enclosure (0065 Such an apparatus 20 can preferably be used in a vehicle, wherein the protective arrangement 40 forms an underbody protection of the vehicle, for example, which protects the battery arrangement 30 in the event of an accident or damage caused by a bollard., Fig. 3);
an impact sensor arrangement associated with an underside of the battery enclosure configured to generate a plurality of impact sensor outputs in response to an impact with the underside of the battery enclosure (0067, 0069, 0071 The evaluation device 90 is configured to receive and evaluate the sensor signals SIG1, SIG2 of the acceleration sensors 61, 62 in order to determine the degree of damage to the protective arrangement 40 and indirectly also to the battery arrangement 30 as a function of the first sensor signals SIG1 and the second sensor signals SIG2.); and
one or more processors (0071 Evaluation device 90 may be a computer having a processor, controller, memory and executable software, for example.) configured to:
receive the plurality of impact sensor outputs (0067, 0069, 0071 The evaluation device 90 is configured to receive and evaluate the sensor signals SIG1, SIG2 of the acceleration sensors 61, 62 in order to determine the degree of damage to the protective arrangement 40 and indirectly also to the battery arrangement 30 as a function of the first sensor signals SIG1 and the second sensor signals SIG2.);
classify, based on the plurality of impact sensor outputs, an impact with the underside of the battery enclosure into a first class of a plurality of classes, each class of the plurality of classes associated with a respective level of severity of impact (0102-0107 The evaluation device 90 is preferably configured to carry out a categorization as a function of the at least one first sensor signal (SIG1) and the at least one second sensor signal (SIG2), wherein the categorization comprises at least two categories from the category group consisting of: no action required, in particular if everything is in order, replacement of the protective arrangement 40 required at the next service, e.g., in the event of minor damage to the protective arrangement of 5% or 10%, visit to a workshop required, e.g., in the event of slight damage to the protective arrangement 40 of 10% or 15% and/or suspicion of damage to the battery arrangement 30, parking the vehicle 10 required, e.g., in the event of more severe damage to the protective arrangement 40 of at least 20% or 30% and parking and immediately exiting the vehicle 10 required, e.g., in the event of severe damage to the protective arrangement of at least 35% of the surface area and suspected critical damage to the battery arrangement 30.); and
cause the vehicle to perform an action based on classifying the impact into the first class (0102-0107 The evaluation device 90 is preferably configured to carry out a categorization as a function of the at least one first sensor signal (SIG1) and the at least one second sensor signal (SIG2), wherein the categorization comprises at least two categories from the category group consisting of: no action required, in particular if everything is in order, replacement of the protective arrangement 40 required at the next service, e.g., in the event of minor damage to the protective arrangement of 5% or 10%, visit to a workshop required, e.g., in the event of slight damage to the protective arrangement 40 of 10% or 15% and/or suspicion of damage to the battery arrangement 30, parking the vehicle 10 required, e.g., in the event of more severe damage to the protective arrangement 40 of at least 20% or 30% and parking and immediately exiting the vehicle 10 required, e.g., in the event of severe damage to the protective arrangement of at least 35% of the surface area and suspected critical damage to the battery arrangement 30., 0109 The evaluation device 90 is preferably configured to enable at least one output via the communication device 12 from the output group consisting of: output of information from the evaluation device 90 to an output apparatus 14 in the vehicle, for example to a display or a speech generation apparatus, output of information from the evaluation device 90 to a server of a workshop, for example provided by the vehicle manufacturer or a service provider, output of information from the evaluation device 90 to a server of a fire department, output of information from the evaluation device 90 to a server of a police station, and output of information from the evaluation device 90 to other road users. Examiner notes that based on the context, one of ordinary skill in the art would have acknowledged that Kellner suggests the actions cited in 0109 are based on the classification of the impact, e.g. an alert to the drive would made in the case of lower damage to the battery, and alert to the fire department or police station in the case of higher damage.).
Kellner fails to disclose wherein the classifying is performed by a machine-learned classifier. However, Kellner does disclose the step of classifying an impact (0102-0107). Furthermore, Bruder teaches a system of monitoring a battery of a vehicle (0002, 0072), including:
wherein the classifying is performed by a machine-learned classifier (0053 Subsequent to acquisition and/or image post-processing, images are analyzed to detect any suspected discontinuities, such as tears, folds, separation or other damage. This analysis may be automated. In an embodiment, image analysis is performed using one or more machine learning, artificial intelligence and/or machine vision methods. Examples of methods that can be used for discontinuity detection include object tracking, digital image correlation, neural networks, classifiers, supervised and unsupervised machine learning, image cross correlation, histogram of gradients and others. Any combination of the above techniques and methods may be employed.). Examiner notes that Bruder discloses several known machine learning techniques, including classification, in assessing damage to a battery, and such a technique would have been known by one of ordinary skill in the art to apply to the system in Kellner, resulting in the step to classify, by a machine-learned classifier and based on the plurality of impact sensor outputs, an impact with the underside of the battery enclosure into a first class of a plurality of classes, each class of the plurality of classes associated with a respective level of severity of impact as claimed.
Kellner and Bruder both disclose systems of classifying impact or damage related to a vehicle battery. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant's invention to modify the system in Kellner to include the teaching of Bruder with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the accuracy and pattern recognition of the system’s classification, such advantages being well-known in the art for machine-learned classifiers.
Claim 2
Kellner discloses:
wherein the first class is associated with one or more of: an indication of a risk that the battery enclosure is pierced by the impact; or an indication of a degree of risk that the impact has caused damage to the battery having potential to affect safe operation of the battery (0102-0107 The evaluation device 90 is preferably configured to carry out a categorization as a function of the at least one first sensor signal (SIG1) and the at least one second sensor signal (SIG2), wherein the categorization comprises at least two categories from the category group consisting of: no action required, in particular if everything is in order, replacement of the protective arrangement 40 required at the next service, e.g., in the event of minor damage to the protective arrangement of 5% or 10%, visit to a workshop required, e.g., in the event of slight damage to the protective arrangement 40 of 10% or 15% and/or suspicion of damage to the battery arrangement 30, parking the vehicle 10 required, e.g., in the event of more severe damage to the protective arrangement 40 of at least 20% or 30% and parking and immediately exiting the vehicle 10 required, e.g., in the event of severe damage to the protective arrangement of at least 35% of the surface area and suspected critical damage to the battery arrangement 30.).
Claims 15, 18 and 19
Claim(s) 15, 18 and 19 recite(s) subject matter similar to that/those of claim(s) 1 and is/are rejected under the same grounds.
Claim 20
Kellner discloses:
trial or simulated data associated with one or more of: (i) damage to components of a battery; or (ii) a level of severity of an impact (0097 The evaluation device 90 is preferably configured to calculate the difference between a first acceleration value of the at least one first sensor signal SIG1 and a second acceleration value of the at least one second sensor signal in order to determine the degree of damage zo to the protective arrangement 40. The difference can be used as an absolute value or with a sign. For example, the difference provides information as to whether damping of the vibration or impact on the underside of the protective arrangement 40 by the third layer was possible or not. General vibrations of the vehicle 10 moreover result in small differences, whereas a large difference can occur if there is localized damage in the region of the protective arrangement 40. Limit values for determining the degree of damage as a function of the difference and also as a fundamental function of the sensor signals can be determined for the respective vehicle type by means of tests or simulations., 0085 By evaluating the sensor signals SIG1, SIG2, the evaluation device 90 can use the measurement result to characterize at which location and how severe the damage to the protective arrangement 40 is., 0098, 0102-0107).
Kellner fails to disclose wherein the machine-learned model is trained based on training data comprising the trial or simulated data. However, Kellner does disclose the trial or simulated data (0097, 0085). Furthermore, Bruder teaches a system of monitoring a battery of a vehicle (0002, 0072), including:
the machine-learned model (0053 Subsequent to acquisition and/or image post-processing, images are analyzed to detect any suspected discontinuities, such as tears, folds, separation or other damage. This analysis may be automated. In an embodiment, image analysis is performed using one or more machine learning, artificial intelligence and/or machine vision methods. Examples of methods that can be used for discontinuity detection include object tracking, digital image correlation, neural networks, classifiers, supervised and unsupervised machine learning, image cross correlation, histogram of gradients and others. Any combination of the above techniques and methods may be employed.). Examiner notes that Bruder discloses several known machine learning techniques, including classification, in assessing damage to a battery, and such a technique would have been known by one of ordinary skill in the art to apply to the system in Kellner, resulting in the step of wherein the machine-learned model is trained based on training data comprising the trial or simulated data as claimed.
See prior art rejection of claim 1 for obviousness and reasons to combine.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kellner in view of Bruder, in further view of DE102021116864 (“Stoll”).
Claim 3
Kellner fails to explicitly disclose wherein the action comprises stopping the vehicle. However, Kellner does disclose several actions based on the classification of the impact (0102-0107, 0109). Furthermore, Stoll teaches a system of monitoring a battery on the underside of a vehicle (0017), including:
wherein the action comprises stopping the vehicle (0017 The underride protection device can therefore detect the impact of the object on the underride protection device, providing a measured value describing this impact in the form of the pressure measurement. This pressure measurement can then be provided, for example, to a device in the motor vehicle that issues a warning message or information to a driver of the motor vehicle, who is alerted by the warning message or information that, due to the impact of the object, a deformation of the underride protection device has been observed, which could, for example, result in damage to a vehicle battery located above the underride protection device. Alternatively, the provided pressure reading can be used to initiate an emergency stop of the vehicle, which is carried out, for example, semi-autonomously or fully autonomously by the vehicle, since damage to the vehicle battery due to the impact of the object is at least suspected because of the detected increase in hose pressure.).
Kellner and Stoll both disclose systems of monitoring the battery on an underside of a vehicle after impact to the battery, followed up with an action. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant's invention to modify the system in Kellner to include the teaching of Stoll with a reasonable expectation of success in order to signal to passengers to exit the vehicle and thus improve their safety in the case that the battery catches fire.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kellner in view of Bruder, in further view of US20210188093 (“Gyani”).
Claim 4
Kellner fails to disclose wherein processing the plurality of impact sensor outputs comprises, at least in part, establishing a degree of correlation between data representing the plurality of impact sensor outputs as a function of position and impact characterizing data representing impact sensor outputs as a function of position associated with pre-determined classes of impact. However, Kellner does disclose impact sensor outputs and classes of impact (0102-0109). Furthermore, Gyani teaches a system of classifying impact to a battery of a vehicle (0028), including:
wherein processing the plurality of impact sensor outputs comprises, at least in part, establishing a degree of correlation between data representing the plurality of impact sensor outputs as a function of position and impact characterizing data representing impact sensor outputs as a function of position associated with pre-determined classes of impact (0088 each individual battery module may have a separate mesh of resistive wires (e.g., sensor) to detect damage. The location of the detected damage may be pinpointed by determining which mesh of resistive wires, and thereby which battery module is damaged., 0096 For example, the damage detection sensor(s) 1520 f may provide data indicative of a resistance of a mesh of resistive wires located between the battery module 108 and the bottom cover 1401 b of the battery pack enclosure. If damage occurs to the battery pack enclosure, and also the mesh of resistive wires 1410, the value of the resistance of the mesh of wires (e.g., the sensor 1410) will change due to the change in length and/or cross-sectional area of the mesh wire. The resistance of the mesh of wires can be measured and monitored for a change by the BMS 232 to diagnose damage to the battery pack enclosure 104 and prevent thermal propagation before it occurs., 0110, 0125 wherein the electronic control unit identifies a location of the damage to the respective battery module by identifying the sensor detecting a change in overall resistance of the corresponding mesh of resistance wires.).
Kellner and Gyani both disclose systems of assessing and classifying damage to a vehicle battery and/or battery enclosure. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant's invention to modify the system in Kellner to include the teaching of Gyani with a reasonable expectation of success improve safety of the vehicle and passengers by more quickly determining the location of an extent of specific damage to the battery.
Claims 6, 7, 9-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kellner in view of Gyani.
Claim 6
Kellner fails to disclose wherein classifying the impact comprises: determining a degree of similarity between a spatial distribution of magnitudes of the plurality of impact sensor outputs and impact characterizing data comprising a plurality of spatial distributions of magnitudes of impact sensor outputs. However, Kellner does disclose impact sensor outputs and classes of impact (0102-0109). Furthermore, Gyani teaches a system of classifying impact to a battery of a vehicle (0028), including:
wherein classifying the impact comprises: determining a degree of similarity between a spatial distribution of magnitudes of the plurality of impact sensor outputs and impact characterizing data comprising a plurality of spatial distributions of magnitudes of impact sensor outputs (0030 Damage to the enclosure may also cause damage to the mesh of resistive wires, if the mesh of resistive wires is damaged (e.g., strands breaking, disconnecting, elongating, etc.) its overall resistance will change. Therefore, by monitoring the overall resistance of the mesh of resistive wires, damage to the battery pack enclosure may also be detected. In some embodiments, damage is detected when there is a change in the overall resistance that exceeds a predetermined threshold for a predetermined period of time. In some embodiments, the sensor may measure other parameters such as temperature, range, time, etc., 0088 each individual battery module may have a separate mesh of resistive wires (e.g., sensor) to detect damage. The location of the detected damage may be pinpointed by determining which mesh of resistive wires, and thereby which battery module is damaged., 0096 For example, the damage detection sensor(s) 1520 f may provide data indicative of a resistance of a mesh of resistive wires located between the battery module 108 and the bottom cover 1401 b of the battery pack enclosure. If damage occurs to the battery pack enclosure, and also the mesh of resistive wires 1410, the value of the resistance of the mesh of wires (e.g., the sensor 1410) will change due to the change in length and/or cross-sectional area of the mesh wire. The resistance of the mesh of wires can be measured and monitored for a change by the BMS 232 to diagnose damage to the battery pack enclosure 104 and prevent thermal propagation before it occurs., 0110, 0125 wherein the electronic control unit identifies a location of the damage to the respective battery module by identifying the sensor detecting a change in overall resistance of the corresponding mesh of resistance wires.).
See prior art rejection of claim 4 for obviousness and reasons to combine.
Claim 7
Kellner fails to disclose wherein classifying the impact comprises: determining a location of an impact according to the determined degree of similarity between a spatial distribution of magnitudes of the plurality of impact sensor outputs and impact characterizing data comprising a plurality of spatial distributions of magnitudes of impact sensor outputs. However, Kellner does disclose impact sensor outputs and classes of impact (0102-0109). Furthermore, Gyani teaches a system of classifying impact to a battery of a vehicle (0028), including:
wherein classifying the impact comprises: determining a location of an impact according to the determined degree of similarity between a spatial distribution of magnitudes of the plurality of impact sensor outputs and impact characterizing data comprising a plurality of spatial distributions of magnitudes of impact sensor outputs (0097 The damage detection sensor(s) 1520 f may be used as a source of information about a current state of a battery pack enclosure. As such, information received from the damage detection sensor(s) 1520 f may be used by the SOH manager 1512 to detect damage to battery module(s) 108. Alternatively or additionally, the SOH manager 1512 may take the information received from the damage detection sensor(s) 1520 f and convert that information into reportable information that describes the location of detected damage (e.g., identify the damaged battery module 108 using a unique identifier), disable the damaged battery module(s) 108, etc.).
See prior art rejection of claim 4 for obviousness and reasons to combine.
Claim 9
Kellner discloses:
wherein the impact characterizing data comprises pre-determined distributions of magnitudes of impact sensor outputs associated with one or more of:(i) a plurality of types of impact; (ii) a plurality of positions of impact; or (iii) a plurality of levels of severity of impact (0097 The evaluation device 90 is preferably configured to calculate the difference between a first acceleration value of the at least one first sensor signal SIG1 and a second acceleration value of the at least one second sensor signal in order to determine the degree of damage zo to the protective arrangement 40. The difference can be used as an absolute value or with a sign. For example, the difference provides information as to whether damping of the vibration or impact on the underside of the protective arrangement 40 by the third layer was possible or not. General vibrations of the vehicle 10 moreover result in small differences, whereas a large difference can occur if there is localized damage in the region of the protective arrangement 40. Limit values for determining the degree of damage as a function of the difference and also as a fundamental function of the sensor signals can be determined for the respective vehicle type by means of tests or simulations., 0085 By evaluating the sensor signals SIG1, SIG2, the evaluation device 90 can use the measurement result to characterize at which location and how severe the damage to the protective arrangement 40 is., 0098, 0102-0107).
Claim 10
Kellner discloses:
wherein the impact characterizing data is based at least in part on one or more of: a simulation of an impact; test data associated with a trial impact; or data associated with an impact during operation of a vehicle (0097 The evaluation device 90 is preferably configured to calculate the difference between a first acceleration value of the at least one first sensor signal SIG1 and a second acceleration value of the at least one second sensor signal in order to determine the degree of damage zo to the protective arrangement 40. The difference can be used as an absolute value or with a sign. For example, the difference provides information as to whether damping of the vibration or impact on the underside of the protective arrangement 40 by the third layer was possible or not. General vibrations of the vehicle 10 moreover result in small differences, whereas a large difference can occur if there is localized damage in the region of the protective arrangement 40. Limit values for determining the degree of damage as a function of the difference and also as a fundamental function of the sensor signals can be determined for the respective vehicle type by means of tests or simulations., 0085 By evaluating the sensor signals SIG1, SIG2, the evaluation device 90 can use the measurement result to characterize at which location and how severe the damage to the protective arrangement 40 is., 0098, 0102-0107).
Claim 11
Kellner fails to disclose wherein the battery condition sensor comprises a sensor selected from: a gas pressure sensor, wherein a criterion for a given level of severity comprises a change in the output of the pressure sensor indicative of a fall in pressure within the battery enclosure associated with a piercing of the battery enclosure; a gas composition sensor, wherein a criterion for a given level of severity comprises a change in the output of the gas composition sensor indicative of an increase of a concentration of a gas within the battery enclosure indicative of a fault in one or more battery cells; a voltage sensor and a criterion for a given level of severity comprises a change in the output of the voltage sensor indicative of a fault in one or more battery cells; and a coolant pressure sensor configured to detect a pressure of a coolant of the battery and a criterion for a given level of severity comprises a change in the pressure of the coolant indicative of damage to a coolant channel. However, Kellner does disclose a pressure sensor to measure pressure in a battery housing (0004). Furthermore, Gyani teaches a system of classifying impact to a battery of a vehicle (0028), including:
wherein the battery condition sensor comprises a sensor selected from: a gas pressure sensor, wherein a criterion for a given level of severity comprises a change in the output of the pressure sensor indicative of a fall in pressure within the battery enclosure associated with a piercing of the battery enclosure; a gas composition sensor, wherein a criterion for a given level of severity comprises a change in the output of the gas composition sensor indicative of an increase of a concentration of a gas within the battery enclosure indicative of a fault in one or more battery cells; a voltage sensor and a criterion for a given level of severity comprises a change in the output of the voltage sensor indicative of a fault in one or more battery cells; and a coolant pressure sensor configured to detect a pressure of a coolant of the battery and a criterion for a given level of severity comprises a change in the pressure of the coolant indicative of damage to a coolant channel (0047 pairs of electrical interconnections may provide voltages from the battery module 108 to the MCU 304 of the BMS 232 and these voltages may be used to determine a state (e.g., voltage, current, state of charge, etc.) associated with a particular battery cell 208A-N in the battery module 108., 0090, 0097).
See prior art rejection of claim 4 for obviousness and reasons to combine.
Claim 12
Kellner discloses wherein:
the impact sensor arrangement comprises strain gauges associated with the protective panel (0041 As a result of the severing of at least one of the conductors 60, 62, the electric conductivity of the conductors 60, 62 changes, and damage of the protective plate 30 is detected. If only the conductor 60 is severed, there is a slight deformation of the protective plate 30. If the two conductors 60, 62 are severed, there is a pronounced deformation of the protective plate 30., 0038 In FIG. 2a, the damage indicator means 42 has a plurality of strain gages 52 which are arranged fixedly on the protective plate 30. The strain gages 52 have at least one conductor track which changes its electric resistance in the case of very low mechanical stresses. The change of the electric resistance is detected and evaluated by way of the evaluation unit 50., 0015).
Kellner fails to disclose wherein the underside of the battery enclosure comprises a protective panel having a stiffness that is greater than a stiffness of part of the battery enclosure distal from the protective panel. However, Kellner does disclose a protective panel (0072, Fig. 1). Furthermore, Gyani teaches:
wherein the underside of the battery enclosure comprises a protective panel having a stiffness that is greater than a stiffness of part of the battery enclosure distal from the protective panel (0043 FIG. 2C, the housing 212 is shown having a lower housing 212A and an upper housing, or cover, 212B. In some embodiments, the lower housing 212A and cover 212B may be interconnected with one another to form the complete housing 212. As shown in FIG. 2C, the lower housing 212A and/or the cover 212B may be configured to at least partially contain a number of battery cells 208, 0087 battery pack enclosure 1400 includes a top cover 1401 a and a bottom cover 1401 b. The battery pack enclosure 1400 includes at least one battery module 1402. On the inside of the battery pack bottom 1401 b is an insulation mat. In some embodiments, the insulation mat comprises a Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic (FRP) Insulation mat, 0026 all of the fasteners and attachments are moved to an outer periphery of the housing, and the cover and base are generally made from thick plastic or metal to provide structural rigidity and integrity., Fig. 2c, 0040 cooling plate).
See prior art rejection of claim 4 for obviousness and reasons to combine.
Claim 13
Kellner discloses:
wherein the battery comprises a battery module within the battery enclosure, the battery module having a battery module enclosure enclosing a plurality of battery cells (0090 FIG. 3 shows another embodiment of the apparatus 20, in which the battery arrangement 30 comprises two battery module housings 81, 82. In this case, the battery module housings 81, 82 can preferably be screwed directly into the body of a vehicle. The battery module housings 81, 82 are then preferably load-bearing. The battery cells of the battery arrangement 30 and the electronics are not shown.).
Kellner fails to disclose wherein the impact sensor arrangement comprises contact sensors configured to detect contact between the battery enclosure and the battery module enclosure. However, Kellner does disclose the battery module enclosure (0090). Furthermore, Gyani teaches:
wherein the impact sensor arrangement comprises contact sensors configured to detect contact between the battery enclosure and the battery module enclosure (0096 For example, the damage detection sensor(s) 1520 f may provide data indicative of a resistance of a mesh of resistive wires located between the battery module 108 and the bottom cover 1401 b of the battery pack enclosure. If damage occurs to the battery pack enclosure, and also the mesh of resistive wires 1410, the value of the resistance of the mesh of wires (e.g., the sensor 1410) will change due to the change in length and/or cross-sectional area of the mesh wire. The resistance of the mesh of wires can be measured and monitored for a change by the BMS 232 to diagnose damage to the battery pack enclosure 104 and prevent thermal propagation before it occurs. If each battery module 108 in the battery pack enclosure 104 has an individual sensor 1410, the detected damage can be pinpointed to a specific battery module).
See prior art rejection of claim 4 for obviousness and reasons to combine.
Claim 16
Kellner fails to disclose receiving an output from at least one battery condition sensor, the battery condition sensor being configured to generate a battery condition sensor output in response to a condition of the battery indicative of a battery fault, and classifying the impact into the first class based at least in part on the plurality of impact sensor outputs and the at least one battery condition sensor. However, Kellner does disclose sensing battery condition (0107). Furthermore, Gyani teaches:
receiving an output from at least one battery condition sensor, the battery condition sensor being configured to generate a battery condition sensor output in response to a condition of the battery indicative of a battery fault (0089 The energy management system 1516 is shown to include one or more sensor interfaces 1504, a state of charge (SOC) manager 1508, a state of health (SOH) manager 1512, and one or more reporting interfaces 1516, 0101 As compared to SOH, the SOC of a battery represents the short-term capability of the battery. During the lifetime of a battery, its performance or health will deteriorate gradually due to irreversible physical and chemical changes which take place with usage (normal or abnormal) and with age until eventually the battery is no longer usable or dead), and
classifying the impact into the first class based at least in part on the plurality of impact sensor outputs and the at least one battery condition sensor (0028 sensor may be used to detect and/or measure deformation to the bottom of a battery pack enclosure. An electronic control unit may be electronically connected to the senor and configured to monitor the sensor to detect damage., 0030 Therefore, by monitoring the overall resistance of the mesh of resistive wires, damage to the battery pack enclosure may also be detected. In some embodiments, damage is detected when there is a change in the overall resistance that exceeds a predetermined threshold for a predetermined period of time. In some embodiments, the sensor may measure other parameters such as temperature, range, time, etc., 0097 The damage detection sensor(s) 1520 f may be used as a source of information about a current state of a battery pack enclosure. As such, information received from the damage detection sensor(s) 1520 f may be used by the SOH manager 1512 to detect damage to battery module(s)).
See prior art rejection of claim 4 for obviousness and reasons to combine.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kellner in view of Gyani, in further view of US20200335833 (“Schmidt”).
Claim 8
Kellner fails to disclose wherein classifying the impact comprises: determining an impact type of an impact according to the determined degree of similarity between a spatial distribution of magnitudes of the plurality of impact sensor outputs and impact characterizing data comprising a plurality of spatial distributions of magnitudes of impact sensor outputs. However, Kellner does disclose detecting unique impacts (0102-0107). Furthermore, Schmidt discloses a vehicle with a battery in an enclosure on the underside of a vehicle, including:
wherein classifying the impact comprises: determining an impact type of an impact according to the determined degree of similarity between a spatial distribution of magnitudes of the plurality of impact sensor outputs and impact characterizing data comprising a plurality of spatial distributions of magnitudes of impact sensor outputs (0013 If the evaluation device has identified that a change in the pressure inside the battery housing exceeds the predetermined change threshold value, the deformation of the battery housing causing the pressure change is identified. If, alternatively or additionally, the evaluation device has identified that the discrepancy reaches the predetermined discrepancy threshold value, the leakage is identified. For example, the leakage is identified if the discrepancy or the differential pressure is approximately zero. If it is therefore identified that the internal pressure in the interior of the battery housing corresponds approximately to the external pressure outside the battery housing, it is identified that the battery housing has a leakage, via which a pressure equalization between the interior and the exterior has taken place. Different forms of damage to the battery housing can therefore be identified by means of a gas-tight battery housing in which the pressure sensor is integrated. For example, it is then possible to output a specific warning signal which advises the driver both of the damage and of the type or form of damage., 0028).
Kellner and Schmidt both disclose vehicles with battery enclosures on the bottom of the vehicle and classifying impacts to the battery enclosure. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant's invention to modify the system in Kellner to include the teaching of Schmidt with a reasonable expectation of success in order to better form a remediation plan for the battery enclosure impact due to having more accurate and specific data regarding the impact type.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner KRISHNAN RAMESH whose telephone number is (571)272-6407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Abby Flynn, can be reached at (571)272-9855. 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.
/KRISHNAN RAMESH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights