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 .
Summary
This is the second Office Action based on Application 17/922,901 and is in response to Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed 07/30/2025.
Claims 5-8 are previously pending, of those claims, claim 5 has been amended, and new claims 9-15 have been added. Claims 8-15 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. New claim 14 recites “the plastic frame is fully enveloped by the first fire-suppressing layer” and new claim 15 recites “the housings of the battery cells are fully enveloped by the second fire-suppressing layer”. Applicant has not pointed out where in the specification support is found. The Examiner notes that the specification as originally filed does not recite that the either the plastic frame or the housing of the battery cells are fully enveloped by a fire suppressing layer. At best the Application notes that these elements are enveloped, but does not describe “fully enveloped” as claimed. Therefore this is new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BODENSOHN (DE 102009025802 A1) in view of MILLER (US 2019/0207188 A1).
With respect to claim 5. BODENSOHN teaches a battery housing in the form of honeycomb structure made of up a plurality of cells (paragraph 0016). The housing may be made of thermally stable plastic (paragraph 0016). The housing contains partitions to divide it into individual cells (paragraph 0017). Electrode coils 5 then are inserted into the cells (paragraph 0019). Further these batteries are used for electric vehicles (paragraph 0007 and 0046). As seen in Figure 2 the cells are separated laterally from each other by the partitions that divide the cells. This housing is taken to be capable of preventing thermal propagation via heat conduction and radiation.
BODENSOHN does not explicitly teach the housing includes the fire-suppressing layer.
MILLER teaches a battery pack which includes a plurality of electrochemical cells and a fire protective barrier (paragraph 0018). The electrical insulation and fire protection coating may include at least one of the regions of the battery pack, (i) the composition may be applied to the exterior surface of the battery cells contained within the larger bank of the cells, and (ii) the composition may be applied to a portion of the interior surface of the battery housing of the battery pack (paragraph 0019).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated combine the fire protective barrier of MILLER for the battery pack of BODENSOHN, as this is a combination of known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results. Specifically BODENSOHN teaches the battery pack and housing, and then BODENSOHN teaches that the interior surfaces of the housing may be coated with the fire protective barrier layers.
With respect to claim 6. MILLER teaches the fire protective coating may be included in at least one of the interior surface of the housing, and the exterior surface of the electrochemical battery cells (paragraph 0019). Therefore at the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the fire protective coating of MILLER be on both the interior surface of the housing of BODENSOHN, but also on the exterior surface of the battery cells, as MILLER teaches such a combination, and would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed.
With respect to claim 7. MILLER further teaches the fire protective layers may be used in the electrochemical battery module which includes the plurality of individual cells (paragraph 0078). When the cells are positioned adjacent to each other there may be formed open air spaces created between the cells resulting from the geometry 0of the housing of the cells (paragraph 0078). These gaps or open air spaces are referred to as interstitial spaces (paragraph 0078). In the present case, BODENSOHN teaches hexagonal sleeves (paragraph 0009). Further MILLER teaches cylindrical cells (paragraph 0078). Therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would have expected the air spaces to form between the geometry of the cylindrical cells and the hexagonal housing.
With respect to claim 8. BODENSOHN teaches these batteries are used for electric vehicles (paragraph 0007 and 0046).
With respect to claim 9. MILLER teaches the fire protective coating on the interior surface of the housing and an exterior surface of the battery cells as argued above. These are taken to be different first and second fire suppressing layers. MILLER does not explicitly teach where the second fire suppressing layer is thinner than the first fire suppressing layer.
MILLER teaches an inorganic platelet composition to minimize or prevent thermal runaway events (abstract). The inorganic platelet composition may be a coating applied to the portion of the cells (paragraph 0096). Further the composition may comprise a sheet applied to the cells (paragraph 0097). The composition may include a sheet, that is a support layer and the inorganic platelet composition (paragraph 0098).
Therefore at the time the invention as filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form the protective coatings on the interior surface of the housing and an exterior surface of the battery cells using the different methods, such as the coating of the composition being the second fire suppressing layer, and the composition which includes a sheet and support layer being the first fires suppressing layer, as this would be obvious to try, as MILLER teaches both of these embodiments as options for the coating layer, and therefore choosing different ones, which are taken to have different thicknesses, would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed.
With respect to claim 10. The rejection of claim 9 from above is repeated here. As noted above, with respect to claim 9, the first fire suppressing layer may be the layer with the support layer and inorganic platelet composition, which is taken to be heavier due to the greater amount of elements, and the second fire suppressing layer may be the layer with inorganic platelet coating without the support layer, and therefore is taken be lighter.
With respect to claim 14. MILLER teaches the electrical insulation and fire protection coating composition that is applied to the interior surface of the housing of the battery pack, and may be applied to the exterior surface of the battery pack (paragraph 0019). Therefore it would have been obvious to form the coating on both the interior and exterior surface of the housing of the battery pack, as this would be obvious to try, as MILLER teaches that the composition may be applied to both.
With respect to claim 15. MILLER teaches the fire protection coating may be applied to the exterior portion of the individual electrochemical cells (paragraph 0019). Miller teaches “at least a portion” of the exterior surface. Therefore it would have been obvious to try to fully envelope the housing of the cells, as this would be an extension of the teachings of MILLER and would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BODENSOHN (DE 102009025802 A1) in view of MILLER (US 2019/0207188 A1) in view of LI (CN 107383576 A).
Claim 11 is dependent upon claim 5 which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of BODENSOHN and MILLER. MILLER teaches a fire protection coating (paragraph 0019). However, MILLER does not explicitly teach the firs suppressing layer comprises ceramizing elastomer.
LI teaches a flame retardant which can be a ceramic thermoplastic elastomer composite material (page 3 lines 31-32). The thermoplastic polyolefin elastomer composite material has a good flame retardant effect (page 3 lines 32-33). Specifically it is a flame retardant ceramizing thermoplastic polyolefin material (abstract).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the fire protecting agent of MILLER with the flame retardant ceramizing thermoplastic polyolefin material of LI as this is a simple substitution of one known prior art element for another in order to achieve predictable results.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BODENSOHN (DE 102009025802 A1) in view of MILLER (US 2019/0207188 A1) and KRUSE (US 2007/0051271 A1).
Claim 12 is dependent upon claim 5, which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of BODENSOHN and MILLER. However, neither BODENSOHN nor MILLER explicitly teaches the fire suppressing layer comprises a material which forms a thermally insulating foam by heating.
KRUSE teaches a composition for fire protection agents for materials (abstract). The fire protection coating can be achieved through the formation of a carbon foam (paragraph 0023). Specifically there may be carbon foam formers in the composition (paragraph 0026).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the foam forming materials in the fire protection compound of MILLER, as this is a combination of known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results.
Claim 13 is dependent upon claim 5 which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of BODENSOHN and MILLER. Neither BODENSOHN nor MILLER explicitly teaches where the fire suppressing layer comprises a material which undergoes an endothermic chemical or physical process.
The discussion of KRUSE from above is repeated here. KRUSE further teaches reducing heat by the addition of substances which decompose in an endothermic process, generate incombustible gas, which may stem the flames (paragraphs 0009-0010).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the endothermic compound as taught by KRUSE for the fire suppressing compound of MILLER, as this is a combination of known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claim 5 recites “a first fire-suppressing layer that envelops a plastic flame”. Applicant argues that MILLER teaches a coating that may be applied to different surface regions of the battery pack. This argument is not persuasive.
Specifically MILLER teaches “… at least one of the following regions of the battery pack … (ii) the composition may be applied to at least a portion of the interior surface of the housing of the electrochemical battery pack; (iii) the composition may be applied to at least a portion of the exterior surface of the housing of the battery pack”. Therefore, MILLER would at least teach the frame which is envelops with the fire suppressing layer.
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 JONATHAN G JELSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-5127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/JONATHAN G JELSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722