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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 03/11/2026:
Claims 1-25 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 9, 11, 12, and 18-25 have been amended.
The previous prior art-based rejection have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Page 9, filed 03/11/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claim 9 have been fully considered. The rejection has been withdrawn in light of the amendments to claim 9. However, upon further review of the amendments to the claims, a 112(b) rejection for claims 1, 9, and 25 has been set forth below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot due to the amendment to the claims. However, due to the amendment to the claims a new rejection of Egashira et al (JP2018073560A, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) in view of Zbiral et al (US 20200388807 A1) and Lemke (DE102013204087A1, as given in the 01/10/2023 IDS, using the provided English machine translation from Espacenet) in view of Zbiral et al (US 20200388807 A1) has been set forth below.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “battery module”.
Applicant specification states “A "battery module" is understood to mean a component of a traction battery, the battery module having at least one electrochemical battery cell or a plurality of electrochemical battery cells.” (Page 23).
Therefore, this interpretation is being used for “battery module”.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the deflection vane is profiled”.
Applicant specification states “A "profiled" element of the guide means is understood to mean that the element, in particular the plate and/or the deflection element and/or the deflection vane, has a varying thickness distribution in the direction of the designated fluid volume flow from the safety valve to the ventilation element” (Page 23).
Therefore, this interpretation is being used for “profiled”.
Claim 10 recites “guide means unit”.
Applicant specification states “An embodiment in which the guide means is designed as a "guide means unit" is understood to mean that the guide means is formed as a separate component or as a separate assembly. In other words, the guide unit is not formed in one method step together with the battery shell or the battery cover. However, in a subsequent process step, the guide means unit can preferably be connected to the battery shell or the battery cover in an integral or form-fitting or force-fitting manner” (Page 23).
Therefore, this interpretation is being used for “guides mean unit”.
Claim 13 recites “venting unit”.
Applicant specification states “A "venting unit" is understood to mean a separate component or a separate assembly that accommodates the guide means and the venting channel. This separate component or assembly can be connected to the battery housing, in particular to the battery cover or battery shell” (Page 25).
Therefore, this interpretation is being used for “venting unit”.
Claim Objections
Claims 23-24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 23 states “wherein the at least one heat accumulator has a latent heat accumulator” when it appears it should state “wherein the at least one heat accumulator is a latent heat accumulator”.
Claim 24 states “wherein the at least one heat accumulator has a thermochemical heat accumulator” when it appears it should state “wherein the at least one heat accumulator is a thermochemical heat accumulator”.
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.
Claims 1, 9, and 25 are 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 25, the claims recite “…a ventilation channel extending from a first end of the battery cover to a second end of the battery cover, a ventilation element at the second end of the battery cover…”, “…a guide means which is regularly permeable at least in part to a designated fluid volume flow, the guide means being configured for deflecting a designated fluid volume flow emerging from the at least one safety valve in a direction toward the ventilation element…”, and “a venting channel which extends from the guide means to the ventilation element”.
It is unclear if the ventilation channel and the venting channel are two separate pieces of the battery cover or if they are the same piece of the battery cover.
If the battery cover includes a ventilation channel that extends from a first end of the battery cover to a second end of the battery cover, and the ventilation element lies at the second end of the battery cover, then the venting channel which extends from the guide means to the ventilation element would necessarily be in the same area designated as the “ventilation channel”. Since both structures are ‘channels’, which would be open space for gas to flow through, the ‘channels’/empty spaces would overlap.
Applicant’s specification does not mention a “ventilation channel”, but does describe “venting channel 40”. As seen in Applicant’s Fig. 3, it appears venting channel 40 extends from a first end of battery cover 14 to a second end of battery cover 14. Therefore, it is believed that the “ventilation channel” now recited in amended claim 1 is the same structure as the “venting channel” already described in claim 1 and shown by reference numeral 40 in Fig. 3.
In order to advance prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the “ventilation channel” and the “venting channel” to mean the same channel/empty space that allows gas to flow from battery modules (22 in Applicant’s Fig. 3) to the ventilation element (42 in Applicant’s Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Applicant has amended the claim to recite “wherein the guide means includes at least one of a plate, a deflection element, or a deflection vane, and wherein the guide means deforms when heat is applied, with a designated deformation such that a cross section between two adjacent elements of the guide means, through which a designated fluid volume flow can flow freely, is reduced and/or closed by the designated deformation”.
As the claim is written, it is unclear what the “two adjacent elements of the guide means” are.
The guide means of claim 9 can include a plate, a deflection element, or a deflection vane, but none of these are referred to as “elements of the guide means”. Are the two adjacent elements of the guide means two plates, two deflection elements, two deflection vanes, or two of another part of the guide means?
Claim 9 has been rejected in the best manner possible under broadest reasonable interpretation below, given the issues above and the desire for advancement of prosecution.
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.
Claims 1, 6-8, 10-12, 14-16, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egashira et al (JP2018073560A, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) in view of Zbiral et al (US 20200388807 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 25, Egashira discloses a motor vehicle (see entire disclosure and especially P32) comprising:
a traction battery (power supply device 200 in Fig. 12 which is an embodiment of power supply device 100 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P16, 26) including:
a battery shell (two battery block cases 12 in Figs. 1 and 12; see entire disclosure and especially P16, 19, 26);
a plurality of battery modules arranged in the battery shell, each battery module having at least one safety valve (plurality of battery blocks 10 including one or more secondary battery cells 1 each having safety valve 2 in Figs. 1 and 12; see entire disclosure and especially P16-18, 26); and
a battery cover configured to engage with the battery shell (exhaust duct 20 in Figs. 1 and 12; see entire disclosure and especially P16, 26),
the battery cover including:
a ventilation channel extending from a first end of the battery cover to a second end of the battery cover (see empty space of exhaust duct 20 at which arrows are drawn to show movement of discharged gas from battery cells to the outside in Figs. 1 and 12; in Fig. 1, the first end is drawn to the end that does not have the white arrow extending out; see entire disclosure and especially P20; also see the rejection under 112(b) above for interpretation),
a ventilation element at the second end of the battery cover (in Fig. 1, the second end is drawn to the end that includes the white arrow extending out; Egashara discloses the gas is guided from the battery cells to outside of the power supply unit, therefore, there must be an opening at the end where the white arrow in Fig. 1 is shown to guide gas out; this opening would be the ventilation element; see entire disclosure and especially P6, 20),
a guide means which is regularly permeable at least in part to a designated fluid volume flow, the guide means being configured for deflecting a designated fluid volume flow emerging from the at least one safety valve in a direction toward the ventilation element (foreign object movement prevention pieces 30K which aids in letting the gas that escapes the battery cell enter the exhaust duct 20 and flow towards the outside in Fig. 12; as seen in Fig. 12, gas is deflected from the safety valve 2 of the battery cells 1 to go through the windows 24 and then over the foreign object movement prevention pieces 30K that guide the gas in a direction of the opening of the exhaust duct 20 seen in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P26), and
a venting channel which extends from the guide means to the ventilation element (see empty space of exhaust duct 20 at which arrows are drawn to show movement of discharged gas from battery cells over foreign object movement prevention pieces 30K to the outside in Fig. 12; in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P20; also see the rejection under 112(b) above for interpretation).
However, Egashira does not disclose wherein the ventilation element including a semi-permeable membrane configured for continuously aerating and/or venting the traction battery.
In a similar field of endeavor, Zbiral teaches housings for receiving electronic components such as, for example, battery cells and the like cannot be closed off completely to the environment so as to be gas-tight because, on the one hand, due to temperature fluctuations (for example, due to heat introduction by charging or discharging battery cells) and, on the other hand, due to naturally occurring air pressure fluctuations, in particular in mobile systems, a gas exchange between the interior space and the exterior space must be enabled in order to prevent impermissible mechanical loads of the housing, in particular bursting or bulging of the housing (P3). Zbiral further teaches it is important that the ingress of foreign matter, dirt, and moisture is prevented effectively as well (P3).
Zbiral teaches pressure compensation devices are used in view of these issues and provides a degassing unit for a housing of a traction battery of a motor vehicle (P4, 16).
Zbiral teaches their degassing unit comprises a base body which is connectable fluid-tightly with a rim of a pressure compensation opening of the housing and comprises at least one gas passage opening that is covered by a semipermeable membrane (P16). Zbiral teaches the semipermeable membrane enables a passage of gaseous media from an environment into the electronics housing and vice versa, but prevents the passage of liquid media and solids (P16). Zbiral teaches the semipermeable membrane is made from a material that has gas permeability for venting in normal operation (P24).
Zbiral also teaches their degassing unit comprises a technically simple and cost-efficient fire protection function (P9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Zbiral and chosen to provide the ventilation element (opening to outside of the exhaust duct 20) of Egashira with the degassing unit taught by Zbiral, given Zbiral teaches their degassing unit is a pressure compensation device used to allow gas exchange between an interior space and an exterior space of a battery housing in order to prevent impermissible mechanical loads of the housing and ingress of foreign matter, dirt, and moisture, while also having a fire prevention function.
The degassing element of Zbiral is configured to continuously aerate and/or vent gas via the semipermeable membrane. Therefore, modified Egashira meets the limitation wherein the ventilation element including a semi-permeable membrane configured for continuously aerating and/or venting the traction battery through the incorporation of the degassing unit of Zbiral.
Regarding claim 6, Egashira discloses wherein the guide means has a cascade of plates and/or deflection elements and/or deflection vanes (cascade of plates, see the annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image1.png
395
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Egashira Fig. 12
Regarding claim 7, Egashira discloses wherein the venting channel extends above the guide means (see Figs. 1 and 12).
Regarding claim 8, Egashira discloses wherein the venting channel extends to a side of the guide means (to a top side of the guide means and also to a left side of the guide means; see Figs. 1 and 12).
Regarding claim 10, Egashira discloses wherein the guide means is a guide means unit (the foreign object movement prevention pieces 30 (30K) is said to be a tab that is fixed to the exhaust duct 20, therefore, it would be a separate piece that is connected to the exhaust duct 20,P22; see Figs. 1 and 12).
Regarding claim 11, Egashira discloses wherein the venting channel is integrally formed in the battery cover (see Figs. 1 and 12).
Regarding claim 12, Egashira discloses wherein the venting channel is integrally formed in the battery cover (see Figs. 1 and 12).
Egashira discloses the guide means (foreign object movement prevention pieces 30/30K) is a tab that is fixed to the battery cover (exhaust duct 20), therefore, it would be a separate piece from the battery cover. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the guide means (foreign object movement prevention pieces 30/30K) and the battery cover (exhaust duct 20) of Egashira in order to, for example, allow the two pieces to be manufactured in a single piece which would lead to faster manufacturing time and lower production costs in comparison to forming two pieces and combine them later down the assembly line, because the use of a one-piece, integrated construction instead of the structure disclosed or taught in the prior art would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 14, Egashira discloses wherein the battery shell and/or the battery cover has at least one partition for separating at least two adjacent regions, at least one battery module being arranged in each of the at least two adjacent regions (the two battery block cases 12 in Figs. 1 and 12 are partitioned by the walls between the two; see the annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image2.png
549
528
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Egashira Fig. 12
Regarding claim 15, Egashira discloses wherein the battery shell is divided into at least two regions, at least one battery module being arranged in each of the at least two regions, the at least one battery module of each region being in fluid communication with a separate guide means and/or a separate venting channel (each battery block case 12 of the two battery block cases 12 is “one region” of the battery shell; as seen in Fig. 12, the foreign object movement prevention pieces 30K are over a single battery block case 12, therefore, both battery block cases would have their own/separate foreign object movement prevention pieces 30K in their respective region).
Regarding claim 16, while modified Egashira does not meet the limitation wherein the at least one battery module of each region is in fluid communication with a separate venting channel and each respective separate venting channel is in fluid communication with a respective separate ventilation element, this is merely separating venting channel (empty space of exhaust duct 20) of Egashira into two venting channels respective to each region and then duplicating the ventilation element (opening at the end where the white arrow in Fig. 1 is shown of exhaust duct 20) of Egashira into two ventilation elements that would each go to their own respective venting channel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have separated the venting channel (empty space of exhaust duct 20) of Egashira into two separate channels, one for each region, in order to, for example, provide multiple pathways for gas to be removed from the battery shell to the outside so that the likelihood of gas building up in the shell, for any reason (such as debris from inside the battery cell venting out and blocking one of the venting channels), causing an overpressure incident is decreased, because the Courts have held that making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1961) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated the ventilation element of Egashira such that each venting channel would have its own ventilation element in order to, for example, provide each venting channel its own way to remove gas from the battery shell to the outside so that the likelihood of gas building up in the shell, for any reason (such as debris from inside the battery cell venting out and blocking one of the venting channels), causing an overpressure incident is decreased, because the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egashira et al (JP2018073560A, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) in view of Zbiral et al (US 20200388807 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Payne et al (US 6492046 B1).
Regarding claims 4-5, the guide means of Egashira are the foreign object movement prevention pieces 30K (see Fig. 12). However, modified Egashira does not meet the limitation wherein the guide means has a deflection vane that is profiled.
In a similar field of endeavor, Payne teaches a louver is an open or openings, having a leaf or tab, through which air can flow (C2 / L26-27). Payne teaches when the louver is open on one side, the leaf is slanted, and when the louver is open on both sides, the tab is substantially parallel to the outer surface of the container it is upon (C2 / L27-31).
Payne teaches a louver formed in a sheet that is open on one side and has a curved profile (see Fig. 2(a)). Payne teaches the louvers are formed to provide air distribution and that air flow can be restricted to a portion of a structure that is in direct contact with a piece of the louver (C3 / L53-57). Payne further teaches louver’s open on only one side provide greater structural integrity (C3 / L59-60).
While the structure Payne teaches the louvers direct air to a cathode tube and are placed on a battery container (see C3) rather than being pieces for a duct to direct gas from a battery cell to the outside of a battery case, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the foreign object movement prevention pieces of Egashira and the louvers are functionally equivalent structures in relation to gas/air guidance. If a technique has been used to improve one device (utilizing a structure to provide air distribution to a battery while keeping structural integrity of the structure), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way (utilizing a structure to provide gas distribution away from a battery and to an exhaust while keeping structural integrity of the structure), using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. SEE MPEP § 2141 (III) Rationale C, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007). Further, known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, F.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and utilized the teaching of Payne and modified the guide means (the foreign object movement prevention pieces 30K) of Egashira to have/be a deflection vane, such as the louver of Payne, given Payne teaches their louver allows distribution of gas while providing great structural integrity.
In regards to the deflection vane being “profiled”, as seen in the Examiner’s interpretation below, the thickness in the direction of fluid volume flow of the deflection vane changes.
PNG
media_image3.png
511
785
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s interpretation of Modified Egashira Fig. 1
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Egashira et al (JP2018073560A, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) in view of Zbiral et al (US 20200388807 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Eftekhari et al (US 20210184195 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the guide means of Egashira includes at least one plate/deflection element (foreign object movement prevention pieces 30K in Fig. 12).
However, modified Egashira does not meet the limitation wherein the guide means deforms when heat is applied, with a designated deformation such that a cross section between two adjacent elements of the guide means, through which a designated fluid volume flow can flow freely, is reduced and/or closed by the designated deformation.
In a similar field of endeavor, Eftekhari teaches a thermal suppression sheet comprising an upper polymer film, a lower polymer film and a suppression material therebetween (P66-68). Eftekhari teaches the polymer films melt in response to a battery thermal event having a high heat source, such as a damage battery cell (P71). Eftekhari teaches this allows the suppression material to be released to the battery cells and block non-damaged battery cells from the high heat source and preventing/delaying the onset of thermal runaway (P71).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Eftekhari and modified modified Egashira such that the plate/deflection element of the guide means is made of the thermal suppression sheet or includes a thermal suppression sheet, given Eftekhari teaches this can allow a system suppression material to be released when a thermal event occurs to block other battery cells from the high heat source and preventing/delaying the onset of thermal runaway.
An Examiner’s interpretation is found on the following page.
PNG
media_image4.png
623
1336
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Interpretation
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egashira et al (JP2018073560A, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) in view of Zbiral et al (US 20200388807 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Waid (US 20180131054 A1).
Regarding claim 17, modified Egashira does not meet the limitation wherein the battery shell has a heat shield.
In a similar field of endeavor, Waid discloses heat shields can prevent a battery pack housing and other components of a battery pack from heat produced by battery cells therein (P203).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Waid and provided to modified Egashira a heat shield to the battery shell, given Waid teaches this can prevent a battery pack housing, such as the battery shell, and other components of a battery pack from heat produced by the battery.
Claims 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egashira et al (JP2018073560A, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) in view of Zbiral et al (US 20200388807 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Shimura et al (US 20130216888 A1), evidenced by Engineering Edge (Specific Heat Capacity of Metals Table Chart) and Hyper Physics (Thermal Conductivity).
Regarding claims 18-23, modified Egashira does not meet the limitations wherein the traction battery has at least one heat accumulator, the at least one heat accumulator having a thermal conductivity and a thermal capacity (claim 18), wherein the at least one heat accumulator is arranged in the venting channel of the traction battery (claim 21), wherein the thermal capacity of the at least one heat accumulator is in a range of greater than or equal to 0.2 kJ/kgK and less than or equal to 1.2 kJ/kgK (claim 19), and wherein the thermal conductivity of the heat accumulator is greater than or equal to 0.3 W/mK (claim 20), wherein the at least one heat accumulator has metal fibers and/or a metal grid made of at least one of aluminum or copper (claim 22) or wherein the at least one heat accumulator has a latent heat accumulator (claim 23).
In a similar field of endeavor, Shimura teaches a heat pipe placed between neighboring battery elements (P51). Shimura teaches the heat pipe is formed of a sealed container of aluminum or copper, metals of good thermal conductivity, and include a wick formed inside the contained of metal wire mesh (P51). Shimura teaches a working fluid is then provided within the heat that moves via phase-changed to transport heat from the battery cell to a fin for dissipating the heat (P51, 53).
While Shimura teaches the heat pipe being used to move absorb and remove heat from a battery, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefits of using a heat pipe to remove heat from a battery exhaust as well, such as to prevent hot hair from leaving the traction battery in totality. If a technique has been used to improve one device (utilize a heat pipe to absorb heat from a battery), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way (utilize a heat pipe to absorb heat from an exhaust stream), using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. SEE MPEP § 2141 (III) Rationale C, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Shimura and provided a heat pipe made of aluminum or copper including a wick of metal wire mesh (grid) and working fluid into the venting channel (empty space of exhaust duct 20) of modified Egashira, given Shimura teaches this heat pipe is able to remove/transfer heat from a heated source.
Therefore, modified Egashira meets the limitation wherein the traction battery has at least one heat accumulator, the heat accumulator having a thermal conductivity and a thermal capacity (claim 18), wherein the heat accumulator is arranged in the venting channel of the traction battery (claim 21). Additionally, heat pipes are known latent heat accumulators, therefore the heat accumulator of modified Egashira has a latent heat accumulator (claim 23).
Further, Shimura is silent on the material of the metal wire mesh (grid). However, given the heat pipe of Shimura desires heat absorption and transfer, and Shimura teaches copper/aluminum are known materials with good thermal conductivity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the metal mesh wires of modified Egashira to be copper or aluminum metal mesh wires because this would provide good heat transfer capabilities on the inside and outside of the heat pipe. It would further be obvious to select these materials because the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07) (claim 22).
According to Engineering Edge, aluminum has a specific heat capacity of 921.096 J/kg*K, which converts to approximately 0.921 kJ/kg*K. Further, Engineering Edge states that copper has a specific heat capacity of 376.812 J/kg*K, which converts to approximately 0.377 kJ/kg*K.
Given the majority of the heat pipe/heat accumulator is formed of aluminum or copper, one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily believe that, even with the working fluid, the specific heat capacity of the heat accumulator would lie within the claimed range of 0.2 kJ/kg*K to 1.2 kJ/kg*K, or at least lie within the claimed range during some point in its operation (claim 19).
Further, Hyper Physics teaches aluminum has a thermal conductivity of 205 W/mK and copper has a thermal conductivity of 385 W/mK. Therefore, the heat pipe would at least have a thermal conductivity of 205 W/mK or 385 W/mK during some point in its operation and therefore, modified Egashira meets the limitation wherein the thermal conductivity of the heat accumulator is greater than or equal to 0.3 W/mK (claim 20).
Claims 18, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egashira et al (JP2018073560A, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) in view of Zbiral et al (US 20200388807 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Andres et al (US 20120297753 A1).
Regarding claims 18 and 21, modified Egashira does not meet the limitation wherein the traction battery has at least one heat accumulator, the heat accumulator having a thermal conductivity and a thermal capacity (claim 18), wherein the heat accumulator is arranged in the venting channel of the traction battery (claim 21).
In a similar field of endeavor, Andres teaches an exhaust system (1 in Fig. 1) includes an internal exhaust pipe (2 in Fig. 1) and a heat accumulator housing (3 in Fig. 1) in surrounding relationship to the exhaust pipe (P30). Andres teaches exhaust gas (A in Fig. 1) can flow in the exhaust pipe and can carry off heat energy contained in the exhaust pipe by way of heat transfer (W in Fig. 1) into the heat storage medium (4 in Fig. 1) of the heat accumulator (P30). Andres teaches the heat storage medium used is zeolite (P30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Andres and form the walls of the venting channel (walls surrounding the empty space of exhaust duct 20) of modified Egashira to include the zeolite heat storage medium of Andres, given Andres teaches this allows the heat energy from an exhaust channel (which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize would be the heat from the gas discharged by the batteries of Egashira) to be transferred away and into the heat storage medium. This would provide the exhaust exiting the traction battery of modified Egashira to be cooled before expelling out.
Regarding claim 24, modified Egashira meets the limitation wherein the heat accumulator has a thermochemical heat accumulator, given the walls of the venting channel are formed to include zeolite and Applicant’s specification states “A "thermochemical heat accumulator" is understood to mean a heat accumulator that stores thermal energy by means of endothermic and exothermic reactions. A thermochemical heat accumulator preferably has a silica gel or a zeolite” (Page 30).
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 13, 15-16, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemke (DE102013204087A1, as given in the 01/10/2023 IDS, using the provided English machine translation from Espacenet) in view of Zbiral et al (US 20200388807 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 25, Lemke discloses a motor vehicle (see entire disclosure and especially P25) including a traction battery including: a battery shell (second housing half 18 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P20);
a plurality of battery modules arranged in the battery shell, each battery module having at least one safety valve (battery cells 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34 and 36 in Fig. 1 with degassing openings; a battery module could be drawn to two of the battery cells, for example one module can be drawn to include battery cells 24 and 26; see entire disclosure and especially P20, 24), and
a battery cover configured to engage with the battery shell (first housing half 16 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P20),
the battery cover including:
a ventilation channel (collector 38 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P23; also see the rejection under 112(b) above for interpretation),
a ventilation element at a second end of the battery cover (discharge line 46 in Fig. 1; the second end of the battery cover being drawn to the end of the battery cover wherein discharge line 46 extends through; see entire disclosure and especially P23);
a guide means which is regularly permeable at least in part to a designated fluid volume flow, the guide means being configured for deflecting a designated fluid volume flow emerging from the at least one safety valve in a direction toward the ventilation element (opening 42 in Fig. 1 with what appears to be a plate/door that aids in making the opening and it would appear gas that leaves the battery is deflected towards the ventilation element; see entire disclosure and especially P24); and
a venting channel which extends from the guide means to the ventilation element (collector 38 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P23; also see the rejection under 112(b) above for interpretation).
Lemke discloses the ventilation channel (collector 38) extends to a second end of the battery cover (see Fig. 1). While the ventilation channel (collector 38) of Lemke does not appear to extend from the second end of the battery cover all the way to a first end of the battery cover (the first end being drawn to the end of the battery cover in Lemke located on a side of the battery cover opposite the second end), this is merely a change in the form/shape of the ventilation channel (collector 38) of Lemke, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have changed the form/shape of the ventilation channel (collector 38) as claimed in order to, for example, provide a larger/longer ventilation channel that allows the traction battery to utilize a greater number of battery cells for more power/capacity while still allowing each battery cell to vent their gases to outside of the traction battery, because the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Further, Lemke discloses a bursting device provided to the ventilation element (discharge line 46) in order to be activated when there is a pressure difference from an inside of the traction battery to an outside of the traction battery (see entire disclosure and especially P24, 32).
However, Lemke does not disclose wherein the ventilation element includes a semi-permeable membrane configured for continuously aerating and/or venting the traction battery.
In a similar field of endeavor, Zbiral teaches housings for receiving electronic components such as, for example, battery cells and the like cannot be closed off completely to the environment so as to be gas-tight because, on the one hand, due to temperature fluctuations (for example, due to heat introduction by charging or discharging battery cells) and, on the other hand, due to naturally occurring air pressure fluctuations, in particular in mobile systems, a gas exchange between the interior space and the exterior space must be enabled in order to prevent impermissible mechanical loads of the housing, in particular bursting or bulging of the housing (P3). Zbiral further teaches it is important that the ingress of foreign matter, dirt, and moisture is prevented effectively as well (P3).
Zbiral teaches pressure compensation devices are used in view of these issues and provides a degassing unit for a housing of a traction battery of a motor vehicle (P4, 16).
Zbiral teaches their degassing unit comprises a base body which is connectable fluid-tightly with a rim of a pressure compensation opening of the housing and comprises at least one gas passage opening that is covered by a semipermeable membrane (P16). Zbiral teaches the semipermeable membrane enables a passage of gaseous media from an environment into the electronics housing and vice versa, but prevents the passage of liquid media and solids (P16). Zbiral teaches the semipermeable membrane is made from a material that has gas permeability for venting in normal operation (P24).
Zbiral also teaches their degassing unit comprises a technically simple and cost-efficient fire protection function (P9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Zbiral and chosen to substitute the bursting device inside the ventilation element (discharge line 46) of Lemke with the degassing unit taught by Zbiral, given Zbiral teaches their degassing unit can allow gas exchange between an interior space and an exterior space of a battery housing in order to prevent impermissible mechanical loads of the housing and ingress of foreign matter, dirt, and moisture, while also having a fire prevention function. Further, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
The degassing element of Zbiral is configured to continuously aerate and/or vent gas via the semipermeable membrane. Therefore, modified Egashira meets the limitation wherein the ventilation element including a semi-permeable membrane configured for continuously aerating and/or venting the traction battery through the incorporation of the degassing unit of Zbiral.
Regarding claim 2, the guide means of Lemke are described in the disclosure as ‘openings 42’ that allow flammable gas to move to a venting channel. However, in Fig. 1, 42 appears to point to a plate/door that aid in making the opening and it would appear gas that leaves the battery is deflected towards the ventilation element. Therefore, it can be said Lemke includes wherein the guide means has a plate at least in regions, with at least one component of a normal vector of the plate being aligned in the direction of the ventilation element
PNG
media_image5.png
615
426
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Lemke Fig. 1
Regarding claim 3, the guide means of Lemke are described in the disclosure as ‘openings 42’ that allow flammable gas to move to a venting channel. However, in Fig. 1, 42 appears to point to a plate/door that aid in making the opening and it would appear gas that leaves the battery is deflected towards the ventilation element. Therefore, it can be said Lemke includes wherein the guide means has a deflection element which is formed by means of a plurality of connected plates.
Regarding claim 6, the guide means of Lemke are described in the disclosure as ‘openings 42’ that allow flammable gas to move to a venting channel. However, in Fig. 1, 42 appears to point to a plate/door that aid in making the opening and it would appear gas that leaves the battery is deflected towards the ventilation element. Therefore, it can be said Lemke includes wherein the guide means has a cascade of plates and/or deflection elements (one for each battery cell, see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Lemke discloses wherein the venting channel extends above the guide means (collector 38 sits above openings 42 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, the guide means of Lemke are described in the disclosure as ‘openings 42’ that allow flammable gas to move to a venting channel. However, in Fig. 1, 42 appears to point to a plate/door that aid in making the opening and it would appear gas that leaves the battery is deflected towards the ventilation element. Therefore, it can be said Lemke includes wherein the venting channel extends to a side of the guide means (since the plate/door of openings 42 comes up, a side of the venting channel also faces/extends a side of plate/door of openings 42).
Regarding claim 10, Lemke discloses wherein the guide means is a guide means unit (as seen in Fig. 1, the openings 42 are a separate component from the battery shell and battery cover).
Regarding claim 13, Lemke discloses wherein the venting channel and the guide means are formed in a venting unit (see in Fig. 1 how collector 38 and openings 42 are shown to be a separate component that is formed in and through the battery cover).
Regarding claim 15, Lemke discloses wherein the battery shell is divided into at least two regions, at least one battery module being arranged in each of the at least two regions, the at least one battery module of each region being in fluid communication with a separate guide means and/or a separate venting channel (see the annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image6.png
660
904
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Lemke Fig. 1
Regarding claim 16, while modified Lemke does not meet the limitation wherein the at least one battery module of each region is in fluid communication with a separate venting channel and each respective separate venting channel is in fluid communication with a respective separate ventilation element, this is merely separating the venting channel (collector 38) of Lemke into two separate venting channels respective to each region and then duplicating the ventilation element (discharge line 46) of Lemke into two ventilation elements that would each go to their own respective venting channel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have separated the venting channel (collector 38) of Lemke into two separate channels, one for each region, in order to, for example, provide multiple pathways for gas to be removed from the battery shell to the outside so that the likelihood of gas building up in the shell, for any reason (such as debris from inside the battery cell venting out and blocking one of the venting channels), causing an overpressure incident is decreased, because the Courts have held that making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1961) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated the ventilation element of Lemke such that each venting channel would have its own ventilation element in order to, for example, provide each venting channel its own way to remove gas from the battery shell to the outside so that the likelihood of gas building up in the shell, for any reason (such as debris from inside the battery cell venting out and blocking one of the venting channels), causing an overpressure incident is decreased, because the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
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 Mary Harris whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights