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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 10-11, 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12034177 in view of Kim et al (PGPUB 2020/0303701).
Claim 1 is met by Kim teaching a battery module [Fig 1] comprising a battery cell (B), busbar assembly having a busbar frame with electrical connection of cell terminals to busbars (15) [0054-0059], and guide blades (MV: module vents) that face at least one battery cell, coupled to the busbar assembly, and rotate by an angel due to a gas pressure of a gas when gas is generated in the cell [0108-0120].
Claim 10-11, 13 are rejected by Kim in view of USPAT 12,034,177. Kim teaches the battery module of claim 1 but is silent to teach the battery rack having a fire extinguishing elements plumed to the system.
USPAT 12,034,177 [Claims 1-14] teach a fire extinguisher, tank, plumbing, valves, and active and passive valves and sensors to operate a fire extinguishing element. The recitation of “calculating part” meets the instant claim controller limitation and recitation of “signal from a linear temperature sensor” meets the instant claim sensor limitation [Claim 6].
Kim teaches an improved vent structure to rapidly discharge gas generated in an abnormal battery to the outside of the cell [0004] and USPAT 12,034,177 teaches a system that has reduction in the risk of secondary ignition [Technical Problem]. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine these references, Kim modified by USPAT 12,034,177 OR USPAT 12,034,177 modified by Kim, to arrive at the claimed scope.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al (PGPUB 2023/0275315 with date to KR 2022-0105027 of Jan 19, 2021).
The applied reference has a common APPLICANT: LG ENERGY SOLUTION, LTD, Seoul (KR) with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Claim 1: Kim teaches a battery module [Fig 2] having a cell assembly with battery cells arranged to face each other in an arrangement direction (Y) [Fig 3]. The busbar assembly (130) is coupled to a side surface of the cell assembly on which electrode leads (111) are located [Fig 3; 0049-0056]. A guide blade (220: duct and 210: discharge hole) has a plate surface facing at least one battery cell from among the battery cells [Fig 5] and is connected to the busbar assembly [Fig 2]. The guide blade comprises a portion (300) that rotates by a certain angle due to gas pressure – exemplified to be thermal propagation inside the battery pack - that is generated from the battery module [Fig 7; 0064-0069].
Claim 3: Kim teaches the cells to be pouch-type [0050]. A channel of the duct (200) acts as a gas venting guide located on a side of the pouch-type battery cell and guide blades are provide such that a face is towards the gas venting guide portion of each battery [Fig 2].
Claim 4: Kim teaches the guide blade to have a guide plate portion (300) that is a plate-like body that is capable of shielding a front portion of the gas venting guide portion [Fig 2, 7]. The feature is taught to be a hinge-rotatable form [0076; Fig 9]. This feature protrudes outward [Fig 9] from the assembly of the upper end and lower end of the guide plate portion. The mechanism for attachment requiring insertion holes is taught to be a leaf spring (320) [0103-0111] whereby this mechanism is attached to the bus bar via a hole and insertion of bolt [Fig 11]; the inserted portion is connected to the hinge shaft portion through the plate feature of element 200 [Fig 11].
Claim 9: Kim teaches the busbar assembly to comprise a bus bar frame (131) having an upper plate portion and lower plate portion whereby the plurality of bus bars (132) are mounted on the body portion and connected in a predetermined pattern to the electrode leads (111) [Fig 4]. The guide blade comprises a features which are connected to the bus bar assembly and comprise a hinge – therefore the upper end and lower end of the guide blade portions is connected via a hinge to the upper plate and lower plate portions [Fig 2; Fig 13].
Claim(s) 1-2, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al (PGPUB 2020/0303701).
Claim 1: Kim teaches a battery module [Fig 1] comprising a battery cell (B), busbar assembly having a busbar frame with electrical connection of cell terminals to busbars (15) [0054-0059], and guide blades (MV: module vents) that face at least one battery cell, coupled to the busbar assembly, and rotate by an angel due to a gas pressure of a gas when gas is generated in the cell [0108-0120; Fig 5-6]. Kim teaches an improved vent structure to rapidly discharge gas generated in an abnormal battery to the outside of the cell [0004]. Rotation angle of the guide blade is determined by the force and the maximum distance is the physical sidewall of the structure plate [Fig 6-7].
Instant claim includes an optional feature, ‘a gas’ as this feature is not always present and not necessarily a scope element of the battery module. The claims are interpreted in this light.
Claim 2: Kim teaches a number of guide blades (MV) to correspond to each vent (V) of each battery (B) [Fig 1].
Claim 9: Kim teaches a bus bar assembly to comprise a body portion (F: Frame) and an upper portion of the body portion and lower body portion where the plurality of bus bars (15) are mounted to the body portion and connected in a pre-determined pattern to the electrode leads (10) [Fig 1; 0057-0073]. The guide blade is taught to be connected to hinge portion (H) [Fig 7; 0113-0118].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (PGPUB 2020/0303701) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishikawa et al (WO 2021/024673).
Claim 3: Kim teaches the battery cells to comprise a gas venting guide portion on a side and each guide blade to be provided at a position facing the gas venting guide portion of each battery cell [Fig 1, 5].
Kim exemplifies the batteries to be prismatic cells, but is silent to teach the cells to be pouch-type.
Ishikawa teaches a power storage device (100) having bus bars (400) on a bus bar frame (300) with individual cells (200) within a container (110) [Fig 2]. The prior art teaches the cells (200) can be flat rectangular parallelepiped shaped or equivalently pouch-type power storage elements [1. General Description of power storage device 10: paragraph 3-6]. Ishikawa establishes pouch-type batteries to be art recognized equivalents usable for the same purpose as rectangular batteries and therefore one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would recognize that is obvious to replace the battery type of Kim to a pouch-type. Pouch type batteries are known to offer effective energy density, lightweight construction, and high-design flexibility while requiring additional structural support for the battery type in certain utilization such as vehicles that have high vibrations.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (PGPUB 2020/0303701) and Ishikawa et al (WO 2021/024673) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Gu (KR 2021-0077278).
Claim 4: Kim teaches the battery to comprise a guide blade having a guide plate portion as a platelike body capable of shielding the front portion of the gas venting guide portion and a hinge portion protruding from the upper end and lower end of the guide plate [Fig 5-6]. The bus bar assembly is interpreted to be the terminals of the cell, the bus bars (15), the support frame (FS), and the top cover (TC) as well as protruding wall (PW) whereby the hinge location and plate portion therefrom are formed ‘in the bus bar assembly’.
Kim teaches a hinge portion (H) to release internal pressure from the cells, but is silent to teach a hinge shaft and corresponding insertion hole.
Gu teaches a battery module having a plurality of battery cells [Abstract]. The cells each have a door member that opens by a hinge structure to discharge gas from inside the cell accommodating member to the outside [Abstract]. The hinge has a rotation angle “S” and swings open when internal pressure rises [Fig 4-5; Description of Embodiments: Paragraph 15-23]. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to replace the hinge feature of Kim with the shaft and locking hinge feature of Gu in order to improve the safety of batteries by providing a wider opening when internal gas needs to be discharged in order to reduce explosions [Description of Embodiments: Paragraph 3]. The hinge shaft of Gu would modify the hinge feature of Kim such the shaft would be inserted in the protruding wall feature of the bus bar assembly of Kim, the hole would be the insertion hole.
Claim 5: Kim teaches the guide blade to be coupled to the bus bar assembly and have a parallel configuration with respect to the sidewall of the cell assembly when gas is not generated [Fig 6].
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (PGPUB 2020/0303701) and Ishikawa et al (WO 2021/024673) and Gu (KR 2021-0077278) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Sadataka et al (WO 202/0194985).
Claim 6-7: Kim as modified by Ishikawa and Gu obviate a battery structure having a shaft hinge in a bus bar assembly. The shaft of Gu obviates a vertical shaft passing through insertion holes and rotating an object along Gu’s feature “S” Gu teaches the system to have a latch. The modified prior art is silent to teach a stopper provided along the radius of rotation of the latch.
Sadataka teaches a hinge (51) and hinged element (50) that operate as a locked member and pivotally supported such that the a convex and concave portion of the casing and hinged element engage to limit the rotation of the device [Fig 10-11; Description of Embodiments regarding Fig 10 and 11]. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the hinged portion of modified Kim to include a concave and convex engagement portion as taught by Sadataka in order to allow a free-moving object to rest and engage in its maximum rotation location in order to increase structural stability during activation which may have high vibrations.
Claim(s) 11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (PGPUB 2020/0303701) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Prilutsky et al (USPAT 9093726) and evidence provided by Frazier (USPAT 6308728).
Claim 11, 13: Instant claim “rack housing” does not have fluid pluming or electrical connection positively recited to the battery cell – there is no nexus of feature connecting the rack housing to the plurality of cells other than physical connection in an arrangement of layers. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims are met by a plurality of battery modules with corresponding fire extinguishing systems attached packaged on a warehouse storage shelf ready for shipment or utilization; shelves have multiple layers to increase packing density of units and utilize vertical space. Additionally, racks of batteries in single housing are well known and examiner takes official notice that one having ordinary skill in the art would have known to apply the battery module of the prior art in a battery rack system. Frazier provides evidence that an energy battery storage system comprises at least one battery rack and holds batteries [Claim 17-18].
Kim teaches a battery module having a means for detecting and venting an increased internal pressure of a battery [Fig 6; 0108-0120], but is silent to teach a fire extinguishing system to engage each MV in a situation where a fire occurs for an individual cell.
Prilutsky teaches an active thermal runaway mitigation system that mitigates the effects of a single cell undergoing thermal runaway [Abstract]. The thermal management system is configurable to individually effect each region (101) corresponding with an electrochemical cell capable of having thermal runaway [Fig 4] – based on this disclosure, one having ordinary skill in the art would correspond the MV portion of Kim with the cell position (101) of Prilutsky. The prior art teaches a fire extinguishing agent tank (203: fluid reservoir) to be filled with a fire extinguishing agent [Fig 4; Col 5 Ln 5-23]. A pipe connects the tank to each battery module at a battery location (101) [Fig 4]. The assembly includes at least one sensor (401, 403) in the assembly that is configured to detect a gas generated in the at least one battery module [Col 6 Ln12-39] formed from a variety of different abusive operating/charging conditions and/or manufacturing defects [Fig 4; Col 4 Ln 24-43]. A controller (301) is configured to monitor and generate a control signal capable of guiding a fire extinguishing agent to at least one battery module through the pipe upon a sensor detecting a gas is generated in at least one battery [Fig 4; Col 6 Ln 40]; an example of the control signal is to operate a pump (201) as well as a visual signal for a system operator to attend to the issue. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the battery system of Kim to include the thermal management system of Prilutsky in order to prevent the propagation of thermal runaway events to neighboring cells within a battery pack [Col 2 Ln 15-20].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (PGPUB 2020/0303701) and Prilutsky et al (USPAT 9093726), as evidence provided by Frazier (USPAT 6308728), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Shiho (JP 2019/057470).
Claim 12: Kim is silent to teach the fire extinguishing agent, but is modified by Prilutsky to teach such features. Prilutsky is silent to teach the utilization of a halogen compound as a fire extinguishing agent.
Shiho teaches a battery pack system (10) having a battery pack (11) within a battery housing space (21) that has a first-supply mechanism (13) for supplying an oxidant suppressant into the gas-exhaust region formed between the battery housing space and the gas exhaust port whereby the first supply mechanism supplies the oxidation suppressant into the gas-exhaust region when a temperature in the gas-exhaust region becomes a first temperature or above and a second oxidation suppressant into the battery housing space when a second temperature higher than the first temperature or above is reached [Abstract]. The individual batteries (11) comprise a discharge port (12) [Fig 2]. The first supply mechanism is exemplified to use an aerosol composition containing a non-flammable volatile liquid such as water, a halogenated hydrocarbon containing halogen, and organic carboxylate, potassium acetate, potassium chlorate, etc. [Description of Embodiments: Paragraph 12-16]. Shiho teaches an art recognized equivalent usable for the same purpose and therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize the halogen agent in the system of Kim and Prilutsky. One having ordinary skill in the art would have looked to modify the fire extinguishing agent of Kim and Prilutsky with the halogen compound of Shiho in order to adequately suppress the oxidation reaction of the gas exhausted from inside the battery case to an outside of the battery case [Abstract].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Higashino et al (PGPUB 2011/0027632) teaches a battery pack having a hinged portion over a coolant channel [Fig 11A]. This internal coolant channel and gas evacuation engaged in the same plumbing for a battery system may be considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J YANCHUK whose telephone number is (571)270-7343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-8p.
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, Nick Smith can be reached at 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.
/STEPHEN J YANCHUK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752