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 .
Status of Application
In view of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision dated March 24, 2026, the rejections in the Final Office Action dated January 17, 2025 are withdrawn and the case is reopened under 37 CFR 1.198. Claims 1-12 and 20-27 are pending and examined. After additional search and consideration, new grounds of rejection are provided below.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 10-12, and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sweney et al. [US20160028059A1], hereinafter Sweney.
Regarding Claim 1, Sweney discloses a battery pack assembly [Sweney Figs. 1 and 5, pack 100 and 500], comprising:
a plurality of battery cells[Sweney 0022, 0030-0042, Figs. 4-7, cells 125] and
a thermal barrier adjacent the plurality of battery cells [Sweney 0022, 0030-0042, Figs. 4-7, thermal shield 115 adjacent to cells 125]; and
at least one scored region of the thermal barrier [Sweney 0030-0037, Fig. 4B, 420 A-J shows various perforated and/or score patterns in thermal shield 115] the at least one scored region configured to rupture [Sweney 0031, the purpose of the perforated and scored patterns 420A-J around the positive cap access hole 405 is to allow the thermal shield 115 to deform or tear in the direction away from the positive cap 316 of the cell 125 when the cell 125 vents hot gas] to provide a vent flap [Sweney 0031, 0041-0042, Fig. 7, vent flaps are bent back vent 420 in thermal barrier 115]
that opens to establish a vent path for gas expelled [Sweney 0042 Fig. 7, path of hot gas 705 indicated by arrows] from at least one of the plurality of battery cells [Sweney Fig. 7, cell 125B].
Regarding Claim 2, Sweney discloses the battery pack assembly of claim 1, wherein the at least one scored region comprises a plurality of perforations in the thermal barrier [Sweney 0031, Fig. 4B, 420 A-J shows various perforated and/or score patterns in thermal shield 115], the plurality of perforations configured to rupture to provide the vent flap [Sweney 0031, Fig. 4B, 420A-J, the purpose of the perforated and scored patterns 420A-J around the positive cap access hole 405 is to allow the thermal shield 115 to deform or tear in the direction away from the positive cap 316 of the cell 125 when the cell 125 vents hot gas].
Regarding Claim 5, Sweney discloses the battery pack assembly of claim 1, wherein the vent flap is attached to other areas of the thermal barrier when the vent flap is open [Sweney 0031, 0042, Fig. 7, vent 420 of thermal barrier remains sealed around surrounding cells]. That is the claim does not specify which part of the vent flap is attached to what areas; so long as the flap is not entirely separated from the thermal barrier the claim limitation is met.
Regarding Claim 10, Sweney discloses the battery pack assembly of claim 1, wherein each battery cell within the plurality of battery cells includes a battery cell vent that ruptures to expel the gas from an interior of the battery cell [Sweney 0021, 0042, Fig. 7], the at least one scored region of the thermal barrier [Sweney 0031, Fig. 4B, 420 A-J shows various perforated and/or score patterns in thermal shield 115] configured to rupture [Sweney 0031, 0041-0042, Fig. 7 the purpose of the perforated and scored patterns 420A-J around the positive cap access hole 405 is to allow the thermal shield 115 to deform or tear in the direction away from the positive cap 316 of the cell 125 when the cell 125 vents hot gas] to provide the vent flap in response to the gas expelled from the interior of the battery cell [Sweney 0021].
Regarding Claim 11, Sweney discloses the battery pack assembly of claim 1, wherein the thermal barrier includes a plurality of scored regions [Sweney 0030-0037, Fig. 4B], each of the scored regions is associated with a group of one or more battery cells [Sweney 0030-0037, Fig. 4A/4B, 5].
Regarding Claim 12, Sweney disclose the battery pack assembly of claim 11, wherein the group includes four battery cells [Sweney Fig. 5 more than four battery cells are shown; thus the limitation is met].
Regarding Claim 22, Sweney discloses the battery pack assembly of claim 1, wherein rupturing the at least one scored region tears the at least one scored region of the thermal barrier [Sweney 0031, 0041-0042, Fig. 7, the purpose of the perforated and scored patterns 420A-J around the positive cap access hole 405 is to allow the thermal shield 115 to deform or tear in the direction away from the positive cap 316 of the cell 125 when the cell 125 vents hot gas].
Regarding Claim 23, Sweney discloses the battery pack assembly of claim 2, wherein the at least one scored region tears at the plurality of perforations when the at least one scored region ruptures to provide the vent flap [Sweney 0031, 0041-0042, Fig. 7 the purpose of the perforated and scored patterns 420A-J around the positive cap access hole 405 is to allow the thermal shield 115 to deform or tear in the direction away from the positive cap 316 of the cell 125 when the cell 125 vents hot gas], which forms vent flaps (bent back 420) as shown in Fig. 7].
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sweney et al. [US20160028059A1], hereinafter Sweney.
Regarding Claim 24, Sweney discloses a battery pack assembly [Sweney abstract, Figs. 4-7], comprising:
a plurality of battery cells[Sweney 0030-0042, Figs. 4-7, cells 125] and
a thermal barrier adjacent the plurality of battery cells [Sweney 0030-0042, Figs. 4-7, thermal shield 115], the thermal barrier including a plurality of perforations [Sweney 0031-0036, Fig. 4D various perforations of thermal shield 115 discussed and shown in Fig. 4B], the thermal barrier configured to tear at the plurality of perforations [Sweney 0031, Fig. 4B, 420A-J, deform or tear] to provide a vent flap [Sweney 0031, 0041-0042, Fig. 7, vent flaps are bent back vent 420 in thermal barrier 115] that opens to establish a vent path for gas expelled [Sweney 0042 Fig. 7, path of hot gas 705 indicated by arrows] from at least one of the plurality of battery cells [Sweney Fig. 7, cell 125B].
Regarding Claim 25, Sweney discloses the battery pack assembly of claim 24, wherein the thermal barrier is configured to tear in response to the gas pressing against the thermal barrier [Sweney 0031 and throughout].
Claim(s) 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miler et al. [US20190157636A1], hereinafter Miler.
Regarding Claim 26, Miler discloses a battery pack assembly [Miler abstract, Fig. 1], comprising:
a plurality of battery cells [Miler 0040-0070 and throughout, Fig. 1 cell blocks 102 in module 104]; and
a thermal barrier adjacent the plurality of battery cells [Miler 0040-0070 and throughout, Fig. 1B-1G, thermal barrier is material 184 of cell vents 112, 162, 164 where material 184 is for the purpose of preventing thermal runaway as discussed throughout], the thermal barrier including a plurality of vent flaps [Miler 0053-0061 and throughout, Figs. 1C-1D, open flap on vent 162 in Fig. 1C, and flap 182 shown in 1D both of material 184 ] held in a closed position by an adhesive [Miler 0047, 0058-0061, Fig. 1F-1G, sealing compound 193 on seal 192 [0058, 1F] and pressure-sensitive adhesive [0061, Fig. 1G] read on the claim limitation], the adhesive configured to rupture [Miler 0046-0047, 0061, break or fail] to permit one or more vent flaps in the plurality of vent flaps to move to an open position [Miler 0061, seal fails at pressure allowing flap 182 to open] to establish a vent path for gas expelled from at least one of the plurality of battery cells [Miler 0006-0008, 0045-0053, discussed throughout].
Regarding Claim 27, Miler discloses battery pack assembly of claim 26, wherein the adhesive is configured to rupture in response to the gas pressing against the thermal barrier [Miler 0047, 0045-0061].
Claim(s) 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scharner [US20190296293A1].
Regarding Claim 26, Scharner discloses a battery pack assembly [Scharner Fig. 1 and throughout], comprising:
a plurality of battery cells [Scharner 0034-0038 and throughout, Figs. 1-2, both embodiments with cells 3 of battery unit 2 or cells 3 of battery unit 18]; and
a thermal barrier adjacent the plurality of battery cells [Scharner 0037-0041, embodiment of Fig. 1 with shields 9/10 and 0042-0048, embodiment of Fig. 2 with shield 20 ], the thermal barrier including a plurality of vent flaps [Scharner 0040, Fig. 1 embodiment shows opened flap with venting cell in middle of bottom row of cells 3; 0048, Fig. 2 embodiment can be a vent flap] held in a closed position by an adhesive [Scharner 0040, vent 13 is held closed by adhesive to shield 10 wall 11; 0048, vent 23 is held closed by adhesive to shield 20 wall 21], the adhesive configured to rupture [Scharner 0040, vent 13 is adhesively bonded to shield wall 11; thus, the opening would require rupture of the adhesive bond; 0048, vent 23 is adhesively bonded to shield wall 21; thus, the opening would require rupture of the adhesive bond] to permit one or more vent flaps in the plurality of vent flaps to move to an open position [Scharner 0040; 0048] to establish a vent path for gas expelled from at least one of the plurality of battery cells [Scharner 0010-0016, 0041, discussed throughout].
Regarding Claim 27, Scharner discloses battery pack assembly of claim 26, wherein the adhesive is configured to rupture in response to the gas pressing against the thermal barrier [Scharner 0040-0041].
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.
Claim(s) 3, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweney as provided for claim 1 above in view Kullberg et al. [WO2022008080A1], hereafter Kullberg.
Regarding Claim 3, Sweney discloses the battery pack assembly of claim 1 but is silent to wherein the at least one scored region comprises adhesive that holds the vent flap in a closed position. Kullberg teaches a battery pack [Kullberg abstract and throughout] with a thermal barrier [Kullberg pg. 13 and throughout, Figs. 2-6, thermal barrier 120/106] formed with a plurality of weakened portions 124 or pre-cuts 124 shaped in a flap 132 in layer 120 [Kullberg pg. 13 and throughout, Figs. 2-6], where adhesive 138 adheres thermal barrier layer 120 to insulating material 106 [Kullberg pg. 13 and throughout, Figs. 2-6]. The flap 132 as part of layer 120 is held closed by the adhesive layer 138 until the pressure of gases 114 cause the weakened portion or the precut portion 124 to rupture [Kullberg pg. 13 and throughout, Fig. 3, open flap 132a]. It would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to apply Kullberg’s teaching to Sweney’s battery pack by applying adhesive to Sweney’s scores, which would be considered similar to Kullberg’s weakened or cut-through portions 124. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Kullberg’s teachings with Sweney’s battery pack for the predictable result of a vent flap for a venting mechanism that is held closed until the pressure of gases from a venting battery result in rupture of the thermal barrier [Sweney 0099 and throughout].
Regarding Claim 20, modified Sweney discloses the battery pack assembly of claim 3, wherein the vent flap is a first vent flap, wherein the adhesive is between the first vent flap and a second vent flap in the thermal barrier [Sweney Fig. 3 shows this configuration where vent flaps are provided for each cell 118 and are held closed by an adhesive between the first vent flap (i.e. leftmost flap) and the second vent flap (i.e. middle flap).]. It would be obvious to combine this teaching for the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 21, modified Sweney discloses the battery pack assembly of claim 20, wherein the adhesive bonds the first vent flap to the second vent flap [[Sweney Fig. 3 shows this configuration where vent flaps are provided for each cell 118 and are held closed by an adhesive between the first vent flap (i.e. leftmost flap) and the second vent flap (i.e. middle flap). The adhesive layer 138 bonds the first vent flap 132 to the second vent flap 132.]. It would be obvious to combine this teaching for the same reasons as claim 3.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweney in view Kullberg, as provided for claim 3 above, and in further view of Yonemochi et al. [US20080220321A1], hereinafter Yonemochi.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Sweney discloses the battery pack assembly of claim 3 but is silent wherein the adhesive melts to rupture the at least one scored region and provide the vent flap that can open. Yonemochi teaches gas discharge through cuts 35a adhered by a cap 29a [0038, 0045-0046 and throughout], which melts at 100 ° C [Yonemochi 0038, 0045] when the inside temperature of the battery pack is increased by the discharge of gas. It would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to apply Yonemochi’s teaching to Sweney’s scored vent flaps modified by Kullberg for the predictable result of venting Sweney’s battery pack by adhesive melting [Yonemochi 0038, 0045-0046] resulting in Sweney’s scored regions tearing or deforming [Sweney 0031 and throughout] to rupture.
Claims 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweney as provided for claim 1 above in view of Wu et al. US20150064514A1, hereafter Wu.
Regarding Claim 6, Sweney discloses the battery pack assembly of claim 1, wherein the thermal barrier comprises aramid fiber [Sweney 0030] but is silent to whether the thermal barrier comprises woven or non-woven fibers. The skilled artisan would understand that Sweney’s aramid fibers would be woven or nonwoven. With there only being two possible choices, it would be obvious to try woven or nonwoven per MPEP 2143 (E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
For purpose of compact prosecution, Wu teaches fire-resistant material such a compressible fiber sheet made from a weave of silica and calcium oxide fibers [Wu 0081] and further teaches Kevlar and Nomex [Wu 0081], which are aramid fibers. It would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to apply Wu’s teaching to Sweney’s thermal barrier by substituting Wu’s weave of silica and calcium oxide fibers for Sweney’s aramid fibers or by weaving Sweney’s aramid fibers. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effect filing date to substitute Wu’s weave of silica and calcium oxide fibers for Sweney’s aramid fibers [Sweney 0030] since Wu’s woven silica and calcium oxide fibers are considered an art recognized equivalent to aramid fibers known for the same purpose per MPEP 2144.06, or alternatively to weave Sweney’s aramid fibers per MPEP 2144.06 as an art recognized process type of fibers. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Wu’s teaching with Sweney’s battery pack as described above for the predictable result of a heat-resistant thermal barrier for a battery pack [Wu 0081 and throughout; Sweney 0022 and throughout].
Regarding Claim 7, Sweney discloses the battery pack assembly of claim 1, wherein the thermal barrier comprises aramid fiber [Sweney 0030] but is silent to whether the thermal barrier comprises woven or non-woven fibers. The skilled artisan would understand that Sweney’s aramid fibers would be woven or nonwoven. With there only being two possible choices, it would be obvious to try woven or nonwoven per MPEP 2143 (E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
For purpose of compact prosecution, Wu teaches fire-resistant material such a compressible fiber sheet made from fiberglass [Wu 0081], which reads on nonwoven fibers. Wu further teaches Nomex and Kevlar [Wu 0081], which are known aramid fibers. It would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to apply Wu’s teaching to Sweney’s thermal barrier by substituting Wu’s fiberglass fibers for Sweney’s aramid fibers o since Wu’s fiberglass fibers are considered an art recognized equivalent to aramid fibers known for the same purpose per MPEP 2144.06. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Wu’s teaching with Sweney’s battery pack as described above for the predictable result of a heat-resistant thermal barrier for a battery pack [Wu 0081 and throughout; Sweney 0022 and throughout].
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweney as provided for claim 1 above in view of Chan et al. US20180138478A1, hereafter Chan.
Regarding Claim 8, Sweney discloses the battery pack assembly of claim 1, wherein the vent flap can additionally open to provide a vent path for hot gas expelled from the at least one of the battery cells [Sweney 0021, 0041-0042, Fig. 7, vent path for hot gas 705 expelled from 125B indicated by arrows] but Sweney is silent to effluents expelled from the at least one of the battery cells as required by the claim. Chan teaches a vent flap 411 for hot gases and effluents 520 (gaseous fumes and burning debris) expelled from at least one of the battery cells 201 [Chan 0027-0031 Fig. 5, open flap 411 allows effluent 520 to escape battery cell 201 where the vent path is shown as arrows]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Chan’s teaching about vent flaps providing a vent path for effluents expelled from the at least one of the battery cells with Sweney’s battery pack for the predictable result of safely expelling the effluents of a battery cell to prevent explosion effluents from contacting and igniting neighboring cells [Chan 0030 and throughout].
Regarding Claim 9, Sweney discloses the battery pack assembly of claim 1, but is silent to further comprising an enclosure housing the battery cells, the vent path opening to an interior of the enclosure. Chan teaches an enclosure housing battery cells 201 [Chan 0020-0023 Figs. 1-5, top cover 114, bottom cover 116, sidewall 120], the vent path opening to an interior of the enclosure [Chan 0030, Fig. 5, vent path indicated by arrows]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Chan’s teaching as described in Sweney’s battery pack for the predictable result of preventing explosion effluents from contacting and igniting neighboring cells [Chan 0030 and throughout].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejected claims 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. T. LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1681. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, Thursday 9:00-5:00 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, 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.
/M. T. LEONARD/ Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights