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 .
Remarks
The Applicant has argued that “Thus, Prilutsky does not disclose an energy storage system in which a foam-forming substance is provided, which is configured to form a foam when coming into contact with the coolant fluid released into the casing when thermal runaway is detected”.
The argument above is not persuasive because Prilutsky is relevant for all that it teaches. Although the Applicant has argued about preferred embodiments of Prilutsky
all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered. As a result, the teachings of Prilutsky reads on the independent claims of Applicant.
Prilutsky teaches the limitation when thermal runaway is detected (Typically multiple temperature sensors 403 are required, scattered throughout the battery pack, in order to allow the occurrence of a thermal runaway event to be quickly assessed [0037]), and Prilutsky also teaches configured to form a foam when coming into contact with the coolant fluid released into the casing (The fluid within the conduit may be comprised of…an expanding fire retardant foam [0008]; fire retardant gas is replaced with a fire retardant aerosol that, upon discharge and exposure to air (as coolant fluid), forms an expanding fire retardant foam [0040]).
The Applicant has argued that “Prilutsky in fig. 8 discloses a battery pack in which a separate cooling system, different from the thermal runaway mitigation system, is provided (see par. 0043). In that embodiment, the cooling conduit does not comprise any breach points and hence it must be assumed that the fluid from the thermal runaway mitigation system never comes into contact with the cooling fluid circulated in the cooling conduit”.
The argument above is not persuasive because the Applicant is making assumptions about the teachings of Prilutsky rather than arguing that the cited text portions of Prilutsky and the annotated figures in the Office Action do not meet the claims. Furthermore, the Applicant is arguing about “breach points” when these are not claim limitations.
The Applicant has also argued that “Prilutsky teaches away from the system defined in claim 1 in view of the wording of par. 0042 of Prilutsky, stating that the embodiment with a fire-retardant foam are clearly inappropriate for use in a dual capacity role”.
The argument above is not persuasive because disclosed examples and preferred embodiments of Prilutsky do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. Paragraph [0042] of Prilutsky are examples of preferred embodiments of the prior art because other teachings of Prilutsky meets the instant claim limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
1. Claims 1, 9-16, 18, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prilutsky et al. (US20100136391).
2. Regarding claim 1, 9-16, 18, 21, Prilutsky teaches an electric energy storage system (see Fig. below) for a vehicle [0030], comprising: at least one battery unit, a casing enclosing the at least one battery unit, a cooling system comprising at least one coolant conduit arranged for cooling of the at least one battery unit during normal operation of the energy storage system by circulating coolant fluid through the at least one coolant conduit, a means for detecting a thermal runaway within the electric energy storage system (Typically multiple temperature sensors 403 are required, scattered throughout the battery pack, in order to allow the occurrence of a thermal runaway event to be quickly assessed [0037]), a valve arrangement being configured to respond to the detection of a thermal runaway by releasing coolant fluid from the cooling system into the casing, wherein, the electric energy storage system further comprises a foam-forming substance being configured to produce a foam when corning into contact with the coolant fluid when the coolant fluid is released into the casing (The fluid within the conduit may be comprised of…an expanding fire retardant foam [0008]; fire retardant gas is replaced with a fire retardant aerosol that, upon discharge and exposure to air (as coolant fluid), forms an expanding fire retardant foam [0040]).
PNG
media_image1.png
726
854
media_image1.png
Greyscale
3. Dennis teaches wherein the means for detecting a thermal runaway comprises at least one gas sensor (If system 400 uses pressure sensors, typically multiple pressure sensors 401 are located throughout conduit 107 [0037]).
4. Dennis teaches comprising an electronic control unit configured for controlling at least the valve arrangement (For example, in system 700 illustrated in FIG. 7, system controller 301 is coupled to a warning indicator 701 that provides a visual or audible indicator, or both, of a detected battery thermal event… Indicator 701 may be activated upon initial event detection, and/or upon operation of pump 201, and/or upon opening of valve 601 [0041]).
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 of this title, 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.
5. Claims 2-7, 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prilutsky et al. (US20100136391) as applied to claims 1 and 13 in view of Noda (US 20200127346 filed 12/17/2019).
6. Regarding claims 2-7, 17, 20, the complete discussion of Prilutsky as applied to claims 1 and 13 is incorporated herein.
7. Prilutsky teaches wherein the foam-forming substance is disposed as a coating inside the casing (at least partially coating conduit 107 with a material 1305 [0048]), wherein the foam-forming substance is disposed within a vessel being arranged inside or outside of the casing (conduit 107 is coupled to a source 501 of a suitable gas, e.g., a fire retardant that preferably has a relatively high heat capacity, thus allowing it to absorb some of the thermal energy generated by the cell undergoing thermal runaway [0038]), wherein the foam-forming substance is a pressurized foam-forming substance (Preferably in this embodiment source 501 is a pressurized canister of the selected gas [0038]), wherein the foam-forming substance is a pressurized foam-forming substance disposed within a pressure vessel of the energy storage system (Preferably in this embodiment source 501 is a pressurized canister of the selected gas [0038]), further comprising a baffle (conduit wall region [0008]).
8. They are silent about the limitations of 2-4, 7, 17, 19, 20,
9. Noda teaches wherein each valve of the valve arrangement (control valve 34 [0022], expansion valve 42 [0023]), wherein the valve arrangement comprises at least one inlet and at least one outlet valve (The control valve 34 is a motor-operated two-way valve configured such that the valve is opened and closed by moving a plunger by means of a solenoid [0021]),a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon a computer program comprising instructions to cause a control unit to execute the method (The blocks depicted in the block diagram of this specification are implemented in hardware such as devices like a CPU of a computer or mechanical components, and in software such as a computer program etc. FIG. 5 [0024]) for the benefit of a battery pack wherein the entirety of the battery pack is cooled so that the unit battery in which thermal runaway occurs is cooled properly regardless of its position [0031].
10. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Prilutsky with Noda’s teachings for the benefit of a battery pack wherein the entirety of the battery pack is cooled so that the unit battery in which thermal runaway occurs is cooled properly regardless of its position.
11. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prilutsky et al. (US20100136391) as applied to claim 1 in view of Lian et al. (US 20190168038)
12 Regarding claim 8, the complete discussion of Prilutsky as applied to claim 1 incorporated herein. However, they are silent about claim 8.
13. Lian teaches understanding the fire-fighting foams are generally aqueous foams made up of a surfactant, and various additives to help stabilize the foam in the presence of combustion products, combustion reactants, and various environmental factors [0046].
14. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Prilutsky with Lian’s teachings for the benefit of fire-fighting foams that are made up of a surfactant, and various additives to help stabilize the foam in the presence of combustion products, combustion reactants, and various environmental factors.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 OLATUNJI GODO whose telephone number is (571)272-3104. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached on 571-272-8760. 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.
/OLATUNJI A GODO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752