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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/20/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to claim 12 has overcome the 112(b) rejection set forth in the previous Office Action.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The new rejection does not rely on Mathias to teach the structure of the degassing chamber.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claim 12 depends on claim 15, which is not a preceding claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herten (DE-102019203606-A1, a machine translation is attached and referenced below) in view of Shimizu (US 2023/0411768 A1; priority to JP2020-160757, filed 09/25/2020) and as evidenced by Mathias (DE102014213916A1; the rejections below refer to the machine translation mailed 09/06/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Herten discloses a traction battery (1, FIG. 1, [0026]) for a motor vehicle, the traction battery (1) comprising:
a plurality of battery cells (10, FIG. 1, [0026]),
a battery housing comprising a plurality of housing walls (6/16, FIG. 3, [0026]) which surround a receiving space (cell chamber 8, FIGS. 2 and 3, [0026]) for receiving the battery cells (10), wherein at least one housing wall (16) of the plurality of housing walls (6/16) comprises a degassing unit (pressure outlet opening 34, FIG. 3, [0029]) for discharging a hot gas from at least one battery cell (10) of the plurality of battery cells out of the receiving space (8), and
a degassing collector arranged outside the receiving space and comprising a degassing chamber (support chamber 14, FIGS. 2 and 3, [0026]) for receiving the hot gas discharged out of the receiving space (8) ([0030]), and
wherein the degassing chamber (14) is defined by a plate-like, at least partially thermally conductive heat shield (longitudinal wall 12, FIGS. 2 and 3, [0026]; longitudinal wall is formed by aluminum and therefore at least partially thermally conductive) and the at least one housing wall (16) comprising the degassing unit (34).
Herten does not disclose wherein the degassing chamber is expandable by the hot gas or wherein the heat shield is mounted in a linearly displaceable manner in relation to the at least one housing wall, is pushable away from the at least one housing wall by the hot gas for expanding the degassing chamber such that the entire heat shield moves away from the at least one housing wall as a unit, and is configured to cool down the hot gas by distributing heat transported by the hot gas in the degassing chamber.
Shimizu teaches a battery (10, FIGS. 2 and 4, [0015]) comprising a degassing chamber (area enclosed by lid 30 and holder 51, FIGS. 2 and 4, [0019]) which is expandable by hot gas (FIG. 4, [0019]), wherein the degassing chamber is defined by a heat shield (30, FIG. 2, [0019]) and at least one housing wall (51), wherein the heat shield (30) is mounted in a linearly displaceable manner in relation to the at least one housing wall (51) and is pushable away from the at least one housing wall (51) by the hot gas for expanding the degassing chamber (FIG. 4, [0019]). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have modified the battery of Herten such that the degassing chamber (support chamber) is expandable by the hot gas and the heat shield (longitudinal wall) is mounted in a linearly displaceable manner in relation to the at least one housing wall and is pushable away from the at least one housing wall by the hot gas for expanding the degassing chamber such that the entire heat shield moves away from the at least one housing wall as a unit because Shimizu teaches that doing so allows for adequate degassing while maintaining the coupled state between the heat shield and the housing wall ([0006]).
The degassing chamber of Herten in view of Shimizu “is configured to cool down the hot gas by distributing heat transported by the hot gas in the degassing chamber” because increasing the volume of the degassing chamber decreases the temperature of the gas (as evidenced by Mathias, [0020]).
Regarding claim 2, Herten in view of Shimizu teaches (see Herten) wherein the at least one housing wall (16) comprising the degassing unit (34) is a housing base which, in an intended installation position of the traction battery (1) in the motor vehicle, faces downward toward a roadway for the motor vehicle (see FIG. 10), and wherein the heat shield (12) is pushable away downward toward the roadway by the hot gas (gas flows downwards from cells, see FIG. 3, and therefore the wall 12 would move downward in the battery of Herten in view of Shimizu).
It should be noted that claim 1 is drawn to the product of “a traction battery”, not a vehicle comprising the traction battery or a roadway. As described in MPEP 2114 II, “A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Here, the particular orientation of the traction battery in the vehicle or in relation to a roadway is not a structural element of the battery and is therefore non-limiting of the claimed product.
Regarding claim 3, Herten in view of Shimizu teaches (see Herten) wherein the heat shield (12) is at least partially formed from aluminum ([0026]).
Regarding claim 13, Herten in view of Shimizu teaches a motor vehicle comprising the traction battery according to claim 1 (Herten: FIG. 10).
Regarding claim 14, Herten in view of Shimizu teaches (see Herten) wherein at least one boundary of the degassing chamber (14) has an outlet (38, FIG. 3, [0032]) for reducing pressure by discharging hot gas out of the degassing chamber (14) into an area surrounding the traction battery.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herten (DE-102019203606-A1) in view of Shimizu (US 2023/0411768 A1) and as evidenced by Mathias (DE-102014213916-A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pechan (US 2023/0187774 A1; priority to DE 102020113086.4, filed 05/14/2020).
Regarding claim 4, Herten in view of Shimizu does not disclose wherein a heat-resistant thermal insulation is arranged in the degassing chamber.
Pechan teaches a traction battery (1, Fig. 5, [0258]) for a vehicle comprising a degassing chamber (venting channel 40, Fig. 5, [0259]), wherein a heat-resistant thermal insulation (guide means 30, Fig. 5, [0259]; guide means is a heat shield, [0198]; heat shield material is mica, [0195], which is thermally insulating) is arranged in the degassing chamber (40). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have modified the degassing chamber of Herten in view of Shimizu by adding a heat-resistant thermal insulation in the form of a guide means because Pechan teaches that the guide means can direct the hot gas to the surroundings of the battery back ([0252]) and protects battery cells from the hot gas ([0261]).
Regarding claim 5, Herten in view of Shimizu and Pechan teaches wherein the heat-resistant thermal insulation comprises mica ([0195]).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herten (DE-102019203606-A1) in view of Shimizu (US 2023/0411768 A1) and as evidenced by Mathias (DE-102014213916-A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mathias.
Regarding claim 6, Herten in view of Shimizu does not disclose wherein a material expanded by the heat of the hot gas is arranged in the degassing chamber.
Mathias teaches a traction battery for a vehicle (10, Fig. 5, [0088]) comprising a degassing chamber (20, Fig. 5, [0088]), wherein a material (32, Fig. 5, [0088]) expanded by the heat of hot gas is arranged in the degassing chamber (20). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have modified the degassing chamber of Herten in view of Shimizu by adding a material expanded by the heat of the hot gas because Mathias teaches that including such a protective element protects battery components from hot gas ([0083]).
Regarding claim 7, Herten in view of Shimizu and Mathias teaches wherein the material is a heat protection coating (Mathias: film, [0088], has a protective effect during degassing, which occurs due to increased heating, [0004]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herten (DE-102019203606-A1) in view of Shimizu (US 2023/0411768 A1) and as evidenced by Mathias (DE-102014213916-A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pechan (US 2023/0187774 A1) as evidenced by Cogebi (What is mica, 2021).
Regarding claim 8, Herten in view of Shimizu does not disclose wherein a flame retardant is arranged in the degassing chamber.
Pechan teaches a traction battery (1, Fig. 5, [0258]) for a vehicle comprising a degassing chamber (venting channel 40, Fig. 5, [0259]), wherein a flame retardant (guide means 30, Fig. 5, [0259]; guide means is a heat shield, [0198]; heat shield material is mica, [0195]; Cogebi evidences that mica is a flame retardant, see bottom of p. 1) is arranged in the degassing chamber (40). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have modified the degassing chamber of Herten in view of Shimizu by adding a flame retardant in the form of a guide means because Pechan teaches that the guide means can direct the hot gas to the surroundings of the battery back ([0252]) and protects battery cells from the hot gas ([0261]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herten (DE-102019203606-A1) in view of Shimizu (US 2023/0411768 A1) and Pechan (US 2023/0187774 A1) as evidenced by Mathias (DE-102014213916-A1) and Cogebi (What is mica, 2021), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Nakanishi (KR20160022771A; the rejections below refer to the machine translation mailed 01/13/2025).
Regarding claim 9, Herten in view of Shimizu and Pechan and does not disclose wherein the flame retardant is at least one of magnesium hydroxide or aluminum hydroxide.
Nakanishi teaches magnesium hydroxide or aluminum hydroxide (p. 9) as flame retardant components in a heat plate for a battery (p. 19). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have included magnesium hydroxide or aluminum hydroxide in the degassing chamber of Herten in view of Shimizu and Pechan because Nakanishi teaches that these materials have excellent fire retardant characteristics and are easy to handle (p. 9).
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herten (DE-102019203606-A1) in view of Shimizu (US 2023/0411768 A1) and as evidenced by Mathias (DE-102014213916-A1), as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2021/0050573 A1, cited 01/13/2025).
Regarding claim 15, Herten in view of Shimizu does not disclose wherein a material expanded by the heat of the hot gas is arranged in the degassing chamber and is configured to at least temporarily close the outlet in an expanded state for preventing heat from exiting to the surrounding area.
Lee teaches a battery (FIG. 1, [0037]) comprising a degassing chamber (400, FIGS. 6-11, [0046]) for receiving hot gas discharged by a battery cell (110, FIG. 3, 0038]), wherein at least one boundary of the degassing chamber (400) has an outlet (H, FIG. 6, [0046]), wherein a material (450/460, FIGS. 6-8, [0053]) expanded by the heat of the hot gas is arranged in the degassing chamber (400) and is configured to at least temporarily close the outlet (H) in an expanded state (FIGS. 9-11, [0050]) for preventing heat from exiting to the surrounding area ([0051]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have modified the degassing chamber of Herten in view of Shimizu by adding a material expanded by the heat of the hot gas and configured to at least temporarily close the outlet in an expanded state for preventing heat from exiting to the surrounding area because Lee teaches that doing so prevents fire from spreading by blocking external air from reaching the battery module ([0052]).
Regarding claim 12, Herten in view of Shimizu and Lee teaches wherein the outlet is opened for a predetermined time period during expansion of the degassing chamber and is closable by the expanding material after the time period (Lee: outlet H is open for the time period until the battery reaches a reference temperature, then closed by expanding material 450/460 at or above the reference temperature, [0051]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE C. DISNEY whose telephone number is (703)756-1076. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 MT.
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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/C.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723