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 18/027,018 and is in response to Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed 12/25/2025.
Claims 1, 4, 7-17, 20, 22-26, and 29 are previously pending, of those claims, claims 1, 4, 13, 20, 25-26 and 29 have been amended. All amendments have been entered. Claims 1, 4, 7-17, 20, 22-26, and 29 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7-10, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by TARTAGLIA (US 2012/0225331 A1).
With respect to claims 1, and 9. TARTAGLIA teaches a battery pack 50 with a protective layer 30 and a vibration dampening layer 32 (paragraph 0047). One or more battery cells 22 may be connected with conductive paths 18 (paragraph 0047). The battery cells 22 are enclosed in a protective layer 30 made from a woven, thermally protective material (paragraph 0048). The protective layer 30 substantially or entirely surrounds the battery cells 22 (paragraph 0048). The battery cells and protective layer may then be encapsulated by a rigid enclosure 20 (paragraph 0048). The protective layer 30 may be a fabric substrate with a polymer coating, the coating may be silicone (paragraph 0049). The protective layer 30 then is taken to comprise the battery housing made of a material containing silicone.
With respect to claim 4. TARTAGLIA teaches the battery cells are placed in an enclosure 52 (paragraph 0051 and Figure 5). The enclosure 52 may be made of a sturdy material such as ABS (paragraph 0027) and is taken to be the claimed formed plastic.
With respect to claims 7-8. TARTAGLIA teaches connecting wires 14/16 (paragraph 0053). The battery pack includes terminals 23 connected to power connection terminal 12 by wires 14/16 for delivery of power to a device for the charging of the battery cells (paragraph 0028). These wires then expend beyond the protective layer 30 for connecting to the connector 12 (paragraph 0036). These wires connecting to the connector 12 are taken to be the claimed plus and minus poles extending through the battery housing to the exterior and the terminal 12 is taken to be the claimed electrical interface.
With respect to claim 10. TARTAGLIA teaches that the battery cells are enclosed in a shrink-wrap film 62 (paragraph 0054) and is taken to be the claimed belt.
With respect to claim 12. TARTAGLIA teaches the battery pack 10 includes the plurality of battery cells 22 connected in series or parallel by the interconnecting conductive paths 18, which may be flat metal sheets connected to the battery terminals (paragraph 0022).
With respect to claim 13. The battery pack of TARTAGLIA is taken to be capable of being secured by a temporary fixing device.
With respect to claim 20. TARTAGLIA teaches the protective layer 30 surrounding the battery cells (paragraph 0027). Similarly there may be a dampening material 32 which surrounds the protective layer (paragraph 0032 and Figure 5). The dampening material 32 is taken to be the claimed safety shell.
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) 4, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TARTAGLIA (US 2012/0225331 A1) in view of NUBBE (US 2016/0072161 A1).
Claim 4 is dependent upon claim 1, which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of TARTAGLIA. TARTAGILA teaches battery packs include other devices such as electronic circuits that prevent over current, over voltage, under voltage, control charging, prevent over-temperature situations during charging, etc. (paragraph 0051). TARTAGLIA does not teach that such elements are made of an expanded plastic, or the claimed material.
NUBBE teaches a battery pack system including a plurality of battery cells electrically connected to each other and mechanically bound together (abstract). Included in the system is at least one temperature sensor 130 using a thermistor embedded within the battery pack 100 (paragraph 0020). The thermistor may include a silicon bandgap temperature sensor (paragraph 0020).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the silicon bandgap temperature sensor of NUBBE in the battery pack of TARTABLIA, as this is a combination of known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results. Specifically, TARTAGLIA teaches devices for detecting temperature may be included, and then NUBBE teaches an example of such sensors.
Claim 10 is dependent upon claim 9 which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of TARTAGLIA. TARTAGLIA teaches the battery cells 22 are enclosed in a shrink wrap film 62 (paragraph 0054). In the case that the Applicant does not agree that the shrink wrap film is analogous to the claimed belt, the alternative rejection in view of NUBBE is made.
The teachings of NUBBE from above is repeated here. NUBBE then includes the battery pack 100 including individual battery cell 105 bound together via a binder 110 (paragraph 0011). The binder may be implemented using shrink wrap, a strap, a band or other binding material, and provides mechanical support to rigidly hold the battery cells (paragraph 0015).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form the shrink wrap film of TARTAGLIA to be in the form of the binder of NUBBE for mechanically supporting and holding the battery cells. As seen in Figure 2A of NUBBE the binder 110 is in the shape of a belt.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TARTAGLIA (US 2012/0225331 A1), or TARTAGLIA (US 2012/0225331 A1) in view of NUBBE (US 2016/0072161 A1), and further in view of GUAN (CN 103682205 A).
Claim 11 is dependent upon claim 10, which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of TARTAGLIA, or under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of TARTAGLIA and NUBBE. TARTAGLIA teaches the shrink wrap film 62 which encloses the battery cells (paragraph 0054). Similarly NUBBE teaches a binder which secures the battery cells (paragraph 0015). However, neither TARTAGLIA nor NUBBE explicitly teaches the belt is an adhesive tape or mesh.
GUAN teaches a battery pack packaged with a packaging film (abstract). The batteries are then connected with a fixing adhesive tape 3 (paragraph 0010 and Figure 3).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the adhesive tape of GUAN for the shrink wrap of TARTAGLIA or NUBBE, as this is a simple substitution of one known prior art element for another
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TARTAGLIA (US 2012/0225331 A1) in view of KIM (US 9,065,111 B2).
Claim 14 is dependent upon claim 1, which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of TARTAGLIA. TARTAGLIA teaches the presence of an air gap to minimize to reduce vibration and rattle form the battery cells (paragraph 0046). However, TARTAGLIA does not explicitly teach that the passages are formed as cooling, stiffening, or reinforcing passages.
KIM teaches a battery pack having a strength reinforced housing to accommodate the plurality of battery cells (abstract). The housing of the battery pack 110 includes a bottom portion and sidewalls (column 4 lines 61-64). For the purpose of increasing strength of the housing 110 a plurality of latticed ribs are formed on the sidewalls (column 4 lines 65-67).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the stiffening ribs in the housing as taught by KIM for the battery pack of TARTAGLIA, as this is a combination of known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results, as KIM teaches such ribs are beneficial for increasing the strength of the housing.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TARTAGLIA (US 2012/0225331 A1) in view of DAI (WO 2021/052006 A1).
Claims 15 and 16 are dependent upon claim 1, which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of TARTAGLIA. However, TARTAGLIA does not explicitly teach the battery housing has shapes on its outer side that connect together a plurality of the batteries housings into a stack.
DAI teaches a battery pack (abstract). The pack includes an end plate 11 including a convex and concave portions (page 7 lines 31-32). The first convex portion 112 and second convex portion 122 of each module are arranged staggered to each other (page 7 lines 37-41).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the concave and convex portions on the battery module as taught by DAI for the battery modules of TARTAGLIA, as these elements are beneficial in order to assembly multiple battery modules in a pack with increased density (page 7 lines 42-44 and page 8 lines 1-2). The interlocking portions are taken to be the claimed latch to secure the adjacent housings together.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TARTAGLIA (US 2012/0225331 A1) in view of SHAFER (WO 2016/038207 A1).
Claim 17 is dependent upon claim 1, which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of TARTAGLIA. TARTAGLIA teaches the use of a protective layer reduces external harm from heat, out-gassing and/or explosion of the cells (abstract). However, TARTAGLIA does not explicitly teach a material that contains a flame-retardant, energy absorbing, and a smoke/gas/pollutant-binding material.
SHAFER teaches a device for controlling a fire or release of substances in lithium batteries (abstract). SHAFER teaches the lining of different elements with pyrobubbles (page 13 lines 24-25).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to line the protective layer of TARTAGLIA with Pyrobubbles as taught by SHAFER as this is a combination of known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results. Specifically both TARTAGLIA and SHAFER both deal with lithium on batteries and ways of protecting the batteries from the out-gassing or explosion of the cells, and then SHAFER teaches the use of the pyrobubbles as a coating. Page 9 lines 21 of the Application as originally filed teaches that PyroBubbles is the material that is flame-retardant or self-extinguishing, energy absorbing and smoke/gas/pollutant binding material.
Claim(s) 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TARTAGLIA (US 2012/0225331 A1) in view of SONG (CN 110564361 A).
Claims 22-24 are dependent upon claim 1, which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of TARTAGLIA. TARTAGLIA teaches the protective material 30 may include a fabric substrate with various coatings, such as silicone (paragraph 0030). Alternatively the protective layer may be silica fibers (paragraph 0031). However, TARTAGILA does not explicitly teach the silicon is a two-component silicon.
SONG teaches the use of a two-component silicon rubber foam composing a first and second component, and includes at least silicon rubber, and a catalyst (abstract). SONG teaches a battery pack should have a shell protection level (page 2 lines 13-14). The sealing material may be a foam material (page 2 lines 17-18). Specific use may then be a two component silicon rubber foam (page 2 lines 37-38). The two component silicon rubber form contains at least a silicon element and a catalyst (page 2 liens 40-41 and page 3 lines 2-3).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the coating of the protective material of TARTAGLIA with the silicon rubber foam of SONG, as this is a simple substitution of one known prior art element for another in order to achieve predictable results.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TARTAGLIA (US 2012/0225331 A1) in view of YAMAMOTO (CN 102844379 A).
TARTAGLIA teaches a battery pack 50 with a protective layer 30 and a vibration dampening layer 32 (paragraph 0047). One or more battery cells 22 may be connected with conductive paths 18 (paragraph 0047). The battery cells 22 are enclosed in a protective layer 30 made from a woven, thermally protective material (paragraph 0048). The protective layer 30 substantially or entirely surrounds the battery cells 22 (paragraph 0048). The battery cells and protective layer may then be encapsulated by a rigid enclosure 20 (paragraph 0048). The protective layer 30 may be a fabric substrate with a polymer coating, the coating may be silicone (paragraph 0049). The protective layer 30 then is taken to comprise the battery housing made of a material containing silicone.
YAMAMOTO teaches a liquid-coated woven fabric of a curable silicone rubber composition (paragraph 0011). The invention may be having the silicone rubber composition be produced by curing the liquid silicone rubber coated woven fabric to produce the woven fabric bag (paragraph 0011).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form the silicone layer of TARTAGLIA with the curing method of YAMAMOTO as this is an application of one known piror art element for another in order to achieve predictable results. Presently TARTAGLIA teaches the use of a silicone fabric with a polymer coating, and then YAMAMOTO teaches a known method of coating a fabric with a silicone compound. Therefore this combination would have been predictable and obvious at the time the invention was filed.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TARTAGLIA (US 2012/0225331 A1), in view of YAMAMOTO (CN 102844379 A) as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of GUAN (CN 103682205 A).
Claim 26 is dependent upon claim 25 which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of TARTAGLIA, and YAMAMOTO. TARTAGLIA teaches the shrink wrap film 62 which encloses the battery cells (paragraph 0054). However, TARTAGLIA does not explicitly teaches the belt is an adhesive tape or mesh.
GUAN teaches a battery pack packaged with a packaging film (abstract). The batteries are then connected with a fixing adhesive tape 3 (paragraph 0010 and Figure 3).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the adhesive tape of GUAN for the shrink wrap of TARTAGLIA as this is a simple substitution of one known prior art element for another
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TARTAGLIA (US 2012/0225331 A1) in view of YAMAMOTO (CN 102844379 A) as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of NUBBE (US 2016/0072161 A1).
Claim 29 is dependent upon claim 25 which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of TARTAGLIA and YAMAMOTO. However, TARTAGLIA does not explicitly teach the battery pack is used in a motor vehicle. The discussion of NUBBE from above is repeated here. NUBBE then further teaches the battery pack and housing is used in vehicles (paragraph 0018).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to install the battery pack of TARTAGLIA in the motor vehicle as taught by NUBBE as this is a combination of known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 12/25/2025, with respect to the 35 112 rejection of claims 4, 13, 20, and 25 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection of claims 4, 13, 20, and 25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the protective layer 30 of TARTAGLIA cannot be considered the claimed housing.
Claim 1 recites “the battery comprising: a battery housing … the battery housing being made of a material containing silicone and/or … silicone”. There is nothing in the claim that prohibits the housing of TARTAGLIA to include the element including the protective layer of TARTAGLIA. Therefore either the protective layer 30 itself may be considered the battery housing, or in the alternative the combination of the protective layer and the rigid enclosure 20 is taken to be the claimed housing. Either interpretation is taken to meet the claim limitations which allow for additional elements to be present. See MPEP 2111. The broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation. Rather, the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The cited portion of the specification does not forbid an external enclosure as taught by TARTAGLIA. Further one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the protective layer enclosures the battery cells, and would recognize this as being a housing for the battery cells (see TARTAGLIA paragraph 0029). Therefore the term housing is not taken to have been given a special definition in the specification, and the use of the protective layer that encloses the cells is taken to be consistent with the teachings of the specification. Therefore Applicant’s Arguments that the protective layer 30 is not a housing in the same sense of the present application is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 of Application Arguments/Remarks, filed 12/25/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 25 under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of TARTAGLIA have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of TARTAGLIA in view of YAMAMOTO (CN 102844379 A).
Applicant argues that TARTAGLIA is silent about forming the battery housing is hardened on the battery cell structure after being applied. The Examiner notes that this is not actually the claim limitation. Claim 25 recites “wherein the battery housing is made of a material containing silicon … or silicone … that covers and entirely surrounds the electric battery and that is cured there.”. Regardless the Examiner agrees that TARTAGLIA does not teach a curing step.
YAMAMOTO teaches a liquid-coated woven fabric of a curable silicone rubber composition (paragraph 0011). The invention may be having the silicone rubber composition be produced by curing the liquid silicone rubber coated woven fabric to produce the woven fabric bag (paragraph 0011).
Therefore the combination of TARTAGLIA with the curing of the silicone of YAMAMOTO is taken to meet the limitation.
Conclusion
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