/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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on October 17, 2024 have been entered.
Claim Status
Claim 14 has been amended; the amendment to claim 14 fix typographical errors.
Claim 13 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-12 and 14-15 remain pending and have been examined on their merits in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed October 17, 2024 have been fully considered. Applicant argues (a) Yu fails to disclose battery box comprising an outer housing (e.g., casing) and an inner casing, which are independent from each other. The boxy body of Yu forms a single structure and (b) the dependent claims taught by Yu in view Cai, Fernando, and Page are also not anticipated.
Regarding argument A, Yu teaches the fireproof heat insulating unit comprises a fireproof unit and a heat insulation unit comprising the insulating layers 2, 3, and 5, and the fireproof layer 4, wherein said fireproof unit is set in the box body (see e.g., Abstract and see e.g., paragraph [0009]). Yu teaches the insulating layer is a solid insulating layer (see e.g., paragraph [0012]). Therefore, the fireproof heat insulating unit is independent from the box body as it comprises insulating layers that could be removed from the box body. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding argument B, in view of the argument above. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of record is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s cancellation of claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu et al. (CN 204144345 U), hereinafter referred to as Yu.
Regarding claim 1, Yu teaches a battery case (see e.g., Abstract, a power battery box), comprising:
an outer housing for mechanical protection (see e.g., paragraph [0020] and Figure 1, a box body 1) and
an inner casing for thermal confinement (see e.g., paragraph [0020] and Figure 1, insulating layers 2, 3, and 5, and a fireproof layer 4),
said inner casing including at least one thermal insulation component and at least one flame protection component (see e.g., paragraph [0020] and Figure 1, insulating layers 2, 3, and 5, and a fireproof layer 4), and
the outer housing being independent of the inner case (see e.g., Figure 1, the box body 1 is independent of the insulating layers 2, 3, and 5, and the fireproof layer 4).
Regarding claim 2, Yu teaches a battery case wherein said inner casing is a multilayer structure (see e.g., paragraph [0020] and Figure 1, the insulating layers 2, 3, and 5, and the fireproof layer 4).
Regarding claim 3, Yu teaches a battery case wherein said inner casing comprises at least one layer including thermal insulation component and a flame protection component (see e.g., paragraph [0012], the insulating layer is made of one or several kinds of foaming material or rubber material; see e.g., paragraph [0014], the heat insulating layer is made of insulating flame retardant material, such as silica aerogel felt, one or several kinds of ceramic fiber felt or silicate fiber product).
Regarding claim 7, Yu teaches a battery case wherein all of the layers of said inner casing comprise a thermal insulation component (see e.g., paragraph [0012], the insulating layers 2, 3, and 5 are made of one or several kinds of foaming material or rubber material; see e.g., paragraph [0014], the heat insulating layer 4 is made of insulating flame retardant material, such as silica aerogel felt, one or several kinds of ceramic fiber felt or silicate fiber product).
Regarding claim 8, Yu teaches a battery case wherein the thermal insulation component includes a material chosen from glass fibers, silica fibers, or a mixture thereof (see e.g., paragraph [0014], the heat insulating layer is made of insulating flame retardant material, such as silica aerogel felt, one or several kinds of ceramic fiber felt or silicate fiber product).
Regarding claim 10, Yu teaches a battery case wherein said inner casing is a structure at least partly woven (see e.g., paragraph [0014], the heat insulating layer is made of insulating flame retardant material, such as silica aerogel felt, one or several kinds of ceramic fiber felt or silicate fiber product). The claim limitation of the inner casing is a structure at least partly woven is met because Yu teaches the material for the insulating layers, such as ceramic fiber felt or silicate fiber product, as described in the Instant Specification.
Regarding claim 11, Yu teaches a battery case wherein the outer housing comprises aluminum (see e.g., paragraph [0032], the box body structure is made of aluminum material).
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.
Claims 4-6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (CN 204144345 U) as applied to claims above in view of Cai et al. (CN 107914428), hereinafter referred to as Cai.
Regarding claim 4, Yu teaches all the claim limitations as described above. Yu teaches a battery case wherein said inner casing comprises an outer layer disposed facing the outer housing (see e.g., paragraph [0020] and Figure 1, the insulating layers 2; see e.g., paragraph [0012], the insulating layer is made of one or several kinds of foaming material or rubber material). However, Yu is silent to a battery case wherein said inner casing comprises an outer layer that includes a component impermeable to water.
Cai teaches a battery heat insulation fireproof material with good heat-insulating property, fire resistance, hydrophobicity, reliability and low density (see e.g., Abstract). With regard to claim 4, Cai a battery case wherein an outer layer that includes a component impermeable to water (see e.g., paragraph [0019], a fiber cloth on the lower layer coated aerogel felt with strong hydrophobicity).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the insulating material that includes a component impermeable to water as taught by Cai to the insulating layer 2 as disclosed by Yu to have excellent heat insulation fireproof performance and strong hydrophobicity in order to have a long service life (see e.g., paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 5, Yu teaches all the claim limitations as described above. Yu teaches a battery case wherein said inner casing comprises an inner layer disposed facing a battery (see e.g., paragraph [0020] and Figure 1, the insulating layers 2; see e.g., paragraph [0012], the insulating layer is made of one or several kinds of foaming material or rubber material). However, Yu is silent to a battery case wherein said inner casing comprises an inner layer that includes a component impermeable to water.
With regard to claim 5, Cai teaches a battery case wherein an inner layer that includes a component impermeable to water (see e.g., paragraph [0019], a fiber cloth on the lower layer coated aerogel felt with strong hydrophobicity).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the insulating material that includes a component impermeable to water as taught by Cai to the insulating layer 4 as disclosed by Yu to have excellent heat insulation fireproof performance and strong hydrophobicity in order to have a long service life (see e.g., paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 6, Yu teaches all the limitations as described above. Yu teaches a battery case wherein a thermal insulation component in the form of foam is disposed between said inner layer and an outer layer of the inner casing for thermal confinement (see e.g., Figure 1, insulating layer 3 is disposed between the inner layer (insulating layer 4) and outer layer (insulating layer 2); see e.g., paragraph [0012], the insulating layer 3 is made of one or several kinds of foaming material or rubber material).
Regarding claim 15, Yu teaches all the limitations as described above. Yu teaches a battery case wherein a thermal insulation component in the form of foam is disposed between said outer layer an inner layer of inner casing for thermal confinement (see e.g., Figure 1, insulating layer 3 is disposed between the inner layer (insulating layer 4) and outer layer (insulating layer 2); see e.g., paragraph [0012], the insulating layer 3 is made of one or several kinds of foaming material or rubber material).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (CN 204144345 U) as applied to claims above in view of Fernando et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2013/0092321 A1), hereinafter referred to as Fernando.
Regarding claim 9, Yu teaches all the claim limitations as described above. However, Yu is silent to a battery case wherein the flame protection component comprises vermiculite.
Fernando teaches a fire barrier laminate used for protecting thermal and acoustical insulation structures, solves problems previously associated with the use of lightweight ceramic or inorganic papers, which tend to be fragile to handling or in use where harsh mechanical environments are encountered (see e.g., paragraph [0010]). With regard to claim 9, Fernando teaches a battery case wherein the flame protection component comprises vermiculite (see e.g., paragraph [0015], the inorganic platelet material of the fire barrier layer may comprise at least one of vermiculite, mica, clay or talc).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the flame protection component to comprise vermiculite as taught by Fernando to the insulating layers taught by Yu in order to solve problems previously associated with the use of lightweight ceramic or inorganic papers, which tend to be fragile to handling or in use where harsh mechanical environments are encountered (see e.g., paragraph [0010]).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (CN 204144345 U) as applied to claims above in view of Page et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2015/0221914 A1), hereinafter to referred to as Page.
Regarding claim 12, Yu teaches all the claim limitations as described above. However, Yu is silent to a battery case wherein the outer housing and/or the inner casing comprises a vent. Page discloses a battery housing with a body and lid to provide a chamber dimensioned to hold at least on battery and a venting passageway from the chamber. Page teaches at least a portion of at least one of the body and the lid comprises an intumescent flame retardant material with an expansion ratio sufficient to drive gas from the chamber through the venting passageway and to seal the chamber when the material intumesces in the event of thermal runaway of a battery housed in the chamber (see e.g., Abstract). With regard to claim 12, Page teaches a battery case wherein the outer housing and/or the inner casing comprises a vent (see e.g., paragraph [0026], bottom 110, cylindrical sidewall 112, and lid 101 are fabricated of an intumescent flame retardant material; see e.g., paragraph [0028], Figure 1 depicts the lid 101 includes three through-holes 103 for venting gas, heat, and pressure in the event of the thermal runaway of the battery).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a vent as disclosed in Page to the teachings of Yu in order to vent gas, heat, and pressure in the event of a thermal runaway (see e.g., paragraph [0028]) to entomb battery 104 within chamber 108 and prevent heat/fire from spreading (see e.g., paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 13, Yu teaches all the claim limitations as described above. However, Yu is silent to a battery case further comprising means for cooling a battery.
With regard to claim 13, Page teaches a battery case further comprising means for cooling a battery (see e.g., paragraph [0028], each through-hole 103 provides a venting passageway that extends between chamber 108 and the exterior of housing 100; see e.g., paragraph [0039], the venting mechanism of battery 104 discharges gas, heat, and pressure into chamber 108. Driving gas from chamber 108 quickly quenches any developing fire. Further, the endothermic intumescent reaction of the IFR polymer composite material of lid 101/body 105 will also absorb a large amount of heat while expanding).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the venting passageway to cool the battery as disclosed by Page to the teachings of Yu in order to discharge pressurized gas generated by a thermal runaway and regulates the internal gas pressure of battery (see e.g., paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 14, Yu teaches all the claim limitations as described above. However, Yu is silent to a battery case wherein the inner casing includes a network for cooling the battery comprising one or more channels for guiding the air and a plurality of orifices for output of air from the channels towards the battery.
With regard to claim 14, Page teaches a battery case wherein the inner casing includes a network for cooling the battery comprising one or more channels for guiding the air and a plurality of orifices for output of air from the channels towards the battery (see e.g., paragraph [0028], Figure 1 depicts the lid 101 includes three through-holes 103 for venting gas, heat, and pressure in the event of the thermal runaway of the battery; each through-hole 103 provides a venting passageway that extends between chamber 108 and the exterior of housing 100).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a network for cooling the battery comprising one or more channels for guiding the air and a plurality of orifices for output of air from the channels as disclosed in Page to the teachings of Yu in order to vent gas, heat, and pressure in the event of a thermal runaway (see e.g., paragraph [0028]) to entomb battery 104 within chamber 108 and prevent heat/fire from spreading (see e.g., paragraph [0038]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine N Higgins whose telephone number is (703)756-1196. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays - Thursdays 7:30-4:30 EST, Fridays 7:30 - 11:30 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached on (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KATHERINE N HIGGINS/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728