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 Arguments
The following is in response to the applicant’s remarks filed 06/25/25.
The applicant submits that the amendments overcome the previous rejection. Specifically, the applicant submits that Kuramitsu does not teach a heat conducting member disposed between the cells, and that Kuramitsu teaches away from the amended limitations.
The examiner agrees, and the previous rejection is withdrawn. A new basis for rejection citing new art is made below as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennrich, US20180301771A1 and He, US20210175572A1, and Konomi, JP2010123850A.
Regarding claim 1, Jennrich teaches a battery module [0001],
comprising: a case (housing (30)); a plurality of cells (1)) being arranged in the case [fig. 1]; and a heat absorbing member (potting compound (40)) provided between the case and the plurality of cells and between the plurality of cells [fig. 1], wherein the heat absorbing member comprises a resin and a filler (resin and filler)[[0122][0116], wherein the resin comprises rubber or elastomer (rubber or elastomer resin)[0112], wherein the filler comprises aluminum hydroxide (aluminum hydroxide)[0115][0116],
wherein the aluminum hydroxide comprises: particle diameter aluminum hydroxide having an average particle diameter of more than 2 μm (size between 2 μm to 1 mm)[0117],
wherein the heat absorbing member comprises 300 parts by mass or more of the aluminum hydroxide with respect to 100 parts by mass of the resin (0 – 85% of the system comprising conductive filler and 0.1 – 35% resin)[0121]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists [MPEP2144.05 I].
wherein the heat absorbing member has an endothermic quantity Q from 150°C to 350°C of 500 J/cm3 or more (inherent property of the materials of Jennrich)[MPEP 2112 III] and
a thermal conductivity k of 0.8 W/mK or more (0. 8 – 1.8 W/mK)[0121]
Jennrich does not teach a plurality of cells being arranged in the case and having an energy density of 200 Wh/L or more wherein the aluminum hydroxide comprises: a small-particle diameter aluminum hydroxide having an average particle diameter of 2 μm or less, and a large-particle diameter aluminum hydroxide having an average particle diameter of more that 2 μm, wherein the amount of the small-particle diameter aluminum hydroxide relative to the large-particle diameter aluminum hydroxide (small-particle diameter aluminum hydroxide/large- particle diameter aluminum hydroxide) is 0.1 to 2.
He teaches a lithium battery module for use in a vehicle [0002] wherein the plurality of cells making up the module have an energy density of 200 Wh/L or more (252 Wh/L)[0188][0197] wherein a high energy density allows for a greater vehicle performance. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the energy density of He with the battery module of Jennrich to improve energy density and vehicle performance.
Konomi teaches a heat absorbing member (heat conductive sheet)[pg. 1 para. 1] wherein the sheet comprises a filler (aluminum hydroxide)[pg. 8 para. 5] and resin (silicone)[pg. 7 para. 10] wherein the aluminum hydroxide comprises a small-particle diameter aluminum hydroxide having an average particle diameter of 2 μm or less [pg. 8 para. 7 – 8] wherein the amount of the small-particle diameter aluminum hydroxide relative to the large-particle diameter aluminum hydroxide (small-particle diameter aluminum hydroxide/large- particle diameter aluminum hydroxide) is 0.1 to 2 (0.01 – 0.83)[pg. 8 para. 8]. Further, Konomi teaches that having filler of different particle sizes improves thermal conductivity and flame retardancy [pg. 8 para. 8]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the particle diameters of Konomi with the filler of Jennrich to further improve the thermal properties.
Regarding claim 2, combined Jennrich teaches the battery module according to claim 1.
Combined Jennrich does not teach wherein the heat absorbing member is provided so that an endothermic quantity Qs per unit area of the cell surface is 50 J/cm2 or more.
However, the claimed property in considered to be inherent in the materials comprising the heat absorbing member of combined Jennrich [MPEP 2112 III].
Regarding claim 3, combined Jennrich teaches the battery module according to claim 1.
Combined Jennrich does not teach wherein a product (k x Q) of the thermal conductivity k and the endothermic quantity Q is 1,000 W-J/mK-cm3 or more.
However, the claimed property in considered to be inherent in the materials comprising the heat absorbing member of combined Jennrich [MPEP 2112 III].
Regarding claim 5, combined Jennrich teaches the battery module according to claim 1.
Further, Jennrich teaches wherein the resin is a silicone rubber (silicone rubber)[0115].
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-1340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/PATRICK MARSHALL GREENE/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724