DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This is the first action on merits for the application filed on 8/23/2022.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Joint Inventors
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-16, in the reply filed on 4/9/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/9/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the channel each extending" in line 2. Given the tense and grouping of “a plurality of separate channels” in line 1, the format of limitation needs to be in a format similar to the following: ‘each channel within the plurality of separate channels extends’. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitations "a closed position" and “an open position”. It is unclear if these are the same positions as those in claim 12 from which claim 14 depends.
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 1-8, 12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KIM (US 20240356148 A1).
Regarding claim 1, KIM discloses a battery pack venting system, comprising: a traction battery pack (“power storage device and vehicle including the battery pack” [0003]) having at least one array of battery cells (“battery cells or battery modules” [0001]); and a structural member having an interior (pack housing 110), the at least one array configured to vent into the interior (“a battery pack capable of efficiently discharging a venting gas generated in the battery pack to the outside of the battery pack and preventing a venting gas from flowing back into the battery pack” [0002] as well as figures such as Figs. 1, 6, and 14).
Regarding claim 2, KIM discloses the structural member is a sidewall of the traction battery pack (side frame 112 as well as Claim 1 which states “a pack housing including a side frame in which a gas venting channel is formed and having an inner wall provided with at least one venting inlet”).
Regarding claim 3, KIM discloses the sidewall is an extruded sidewall (“the side frame 112 may be manufactured by extruding aluminum” [0085]) .
Regarding claim 4, KIM discloses the structural member includes a plurality of separate channels within the interior, the channel each extending longitudinally from a first end of the structural member to an opposite, second end of the structural member (Fig. 10 as well as Claim 14 which states “the gas venting channel is formed as a plurality of gas venting channels at predetermined intervals in a height direction of the side frame”).
Regarding claim 5, KIM discloses some of the plurality of separate channels open to an interior of the traction battery pack to provide a vent path from the interior of the traction battery pack (Fig. 10 as well as Claim 14 which states “the at least one venting inlet is a plurality of venting inlets corresponding to the plurality of gas venting channels”).
Regarding claim 6, KIM discloses some of the plurality of separate channels do not open to the interior of the traction battery pack (Fig. 1 wherein rear frame 112b does not open to the interior).
Regarding claim 7, KIM discloses the plurality of separate channels are vertically misaligned from each other (Fig. 10 as well as Claim 14 which states “the gas venting channel is formed as a plurality of gas venting channels at predetermined intervals in a height direction of the side frame”).
Regarding claim 8, KIM discloses a venting of the at least one array is venting to a channel within the plurality of separate channels other than a vertically uppermost channel and a vertically lowermost channel (Figs 10 and 15 which show a middle channel in the height direction which is neither uppermost or lowermost).
Regarding claim 12, KIM discloses a vent cover (vent plate 120 with plate cutout portion 121) configured to transition from a closed position to an open position to provide a path to vent the at least one array into the interior (Figs. 8 and 9 as well as “due to the pressure of the venting gas, the plate cutout portion 121 may perform a cantilever movement by moving toward the venting inlet” [0094]).
Regarding claim 15, KIM discloses the at least one array includes a first array (battery module M3) and a second array (battery module M2), the first array configured to vent into the interior through a first opening (Fig. 15 element 122’’ as well as “the lowermost gas venting channel H3 communicates with the battery module M3” [0152]), the second array configured to vent into the interior through a second opening (Fig. 15 element 122’ as well as “the middle gas venting channel H2 communicates with the battery module M2” [0152]).
Regarding claim 16, KIM discloses the second opening is aft the first opening along a longitudinal axis of a vehicle having the traction battery pack (Fig. 14 wherein 212a is the front side frame thereby establishing the fore direction and battery module M2 with second opening is aft of battery module M3 with first opening).
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by BALKE (US 20230140500 A1).
Regarding claim 1, BALKE discloses a battery pack venting system, comprising: a traction battery pack (“traction battery” [0007]) having at least one array of battery cells (“cells or cell modules” [0007]); and a structural member having an interior (side sill 26), the at least one array configured to vent into the interior (“at least one venting channel formed by a plurality of interconnected structural parts delimiting respective hollow chambers, in particular in the form of longitudinal and transverse beams and side sills” [0007] as well as figures such as Fig. 3a).
Regarding claim 9, BALKE discloses the structural member is a rocker of a vehicle (Fig. 3a with side sill 26 reading on rocker).
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 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BALKE in view of MACK (US 20150030893 A1).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, BALKE discloses an enclosure structure (Fig. 2) and the structure including an opening to vent the at least one array (bursting element 68). BALKE does not expressly teach the use of sheet metal, although such a material is well known in the art.
MACK is directed to venting a battery module of an electric vehicle, similar to BALKE.
MACK discloses “the battery housing 44 may be partially or totally formed from any appropriate housing material, such as sheet metal” [0033]. MACK further discloses the “battery housing 44 and the base 46 may be integrally formed (e.g., molded, welded, fabricated) into a single piece into which the electrochemical cells 42 are placed” [0031], reading on tray.
MACK teaches the sheet metal is beneficial due to “relatively higher strength and lower gas permeability” [0033] and that “battery housing 44, in general, protects the electrochemical cells 42 from the external environment” [0031].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize sheet metal in the form of a tray as taught by MACK for the enclosure of BALKE because of high strength, low permeability, and the ability to protect the cells.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM in view of SOMMER (US 20240014486 A1).
Regarding claim 13, KIM discloses “gas sealing member 115 may be installed in the venting outlet O … gas sealing member 115 may be a rupture sheet configured to be ruptured when the pressure of the venting gas is a predetermined pressure or higher” [0118]. KIM does not expressly teach the vent cover is tape having at least a polymer-based layer and an adhesive layer.
SOMMER is directed to pressure management for battery casings, similar to KIM.
SOMMER discloses Fig. 5 as well as Claim 1 which states “a bonding element comprising: i) an adhesive layer comprising an adhesive, ii) a carrier layer disposed on the adhesive layer and comprising a first carrier ply” as well as “the first carrier ply comprises a foil selected from the group consisting of polymeric foils” [0045].
SOMMER teaches the element “enables reliable and fluid-tight sealing of the continuous clearances and yet enables reliable release of pressure by venting in the event of an overpressure” [0011]; “require as small a footprint as possible and have a low inherent weight” [0012]; “easy capacity for automation” [0013]; “time- and cost-efficient” [0014]; and “reliable and long-lasting” [0016].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the vent plate of KIM with the bonding element of SOMMER in order to enable reliable and fluid-tight sealing with the ability to vent in the even of overpressure while having a small footprint and efficient design.
Following the substitution, modified KIM discloses the vent cover is tape having at least a polymer-based layer and an adhesive layer (as taught by SOMMER)
Regarding claim 14, modified KIM discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and SOMMER further discloses the tape is configured to rupture to transition the tape from a closed position to an open position (Claim 1 of SOMMER states “the bonding element is configured such that the action of a predetermined opening pressure on the pressure opening region at least partly irreversibly destroys the bonding element in the weakening region and forms a through hole in the bonding element”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
JUNG (US 20220209332 A1) directed to a battery pack with a plurality of channels inside the outer frame in communication with internal module spaces, reading on at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS L MARTIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached on (303)297-4684. 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.
/T.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights