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 . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of claims 1, 2, and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Coulter (US 2017/0187411 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US 2014/0268518 A1), hereinafter “Huang,” and Campbell et al. (US 2019/0020077 A1), hereinafter “Campbell,” is maintained as set forth below. The rejection of claims 5-8 is withdrawn because Applicant canceled those claims.
Regarding claim 1, Coulter discloses an electronic device comprising:
a case (¶ [0022]; Figs. 1-3, ref. no. 10); and
an electronic system arranged within the case (¶ [0022]; Figs. 1 & 3, ref. no. 100);
wherein said electronic device comprises a standalone endothermic protection module configured to be automatically triggered in the event of thermal runaway of the battery in order to absorb heat, in this case the cartridge that produces an endothermic reaction (¶ [0022] & [0027]; Figs. 1-5, ref. no. 14);
wherein the protection module comprises two products that are separate before triggering and which mix together after the automatic triggering, in this case the two products are arranged within an enclosure disposed in the case (see Fig. 3, reference nos. 14, 24, & 26); and
wherein the two products are arranged within an enclosure disposed in the case, in this case the cartridge comprises first compartments and second compartments that each respectively contain first and second substances that react before triggering (¶ [0027]-[0030]; Fig. 3, reference nos. 24, 26, 30, & 32).
Coulter does not disclose that the case includes a housing for a battery for supplying the electronic system with energy. However, Huang discloses a case that includes a back-up battery built into the case (¶ [0051]; Fig. 3, reference nos. 2 & 6). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that including such a housing and battery would have provided additional power to the electronic system (see ¶ [0057]), thereby facilitating extended system operation time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have arranged a housing with a battery in the case in order to have facilitated extended system operation time.
Coulter and Huang do not specify that the two products are arranged between the battery and a bottom of the case. However, Coulter teaches that the endothermic reaction creates a thermal gradient between the case and battery powered electronic device in order to transfer heat from the device to the case (see ¶ [0033]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to locate the two substances relative to the battery and case in such a way so as to promote efficient heat transfer as taught by Coulter (see ¶ [0033]) and facilitate improved device safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have located the two products between the battery and the case bottom in order to have facilitated improved device safety.
Neither Coulter nor Huang teaches that the endothermic protection module is positioned against the battery. However, Campbell teaches positioning an endothermic device, in this case the endothermic device within the bracket (¶ [0030]; Fig. 1, ref. no. 155), against a battery, in this case the charge holding portion that may be lithium ion battery cells (¶ [0030] & [0033]; Fig. 1, ref. no. 140). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that so positioning the endothermic device or protection module would have ensured that the device would have activated in the event of unsafe battery temperatures (see ¶[0033]-[0036]) and render the possibility of thermal runaway and/or fire unlikely (see ¶ [0057]), thereby facilitating improved device safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have positioned the endothermic protection module against the battery in order to have facilitated improved device safety.
Coulter further discloses that the two products are separated by a wall, in this case the divider (¶ [0031]; Fig. 3, ref. no. 34), but does not disclose that the wall is degradable beyond the threshold temperature. However, Campbell teaches an endothermic cooling system comprising the endothermic reactants housed in separate compartments divided by a low melting temperature material layer barrier that melts or degrades at the threshold temperature (¶ [0027] & [0034]-[0035]; Figs. 1, 4, & 5, ref. no. 120). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such a divider would ensure that the materials mixed and provided cooling due to their endothermic reaction at a temperature below the thermal runaway threshold (see ¶ [0027]), thereby facilitating improved device safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the wall degradable at the threshold temperature in order to have facilitated improved device safety.
Coulter further discloses that the compartments alternatively comprise each product (see Figs. 3 & 4, reference nos. 24 & 30, 26 & 32) and that the compartments are closed by a wall that is degradable beyond the threshold temperature, in this case the divider closes off the adjacent compartments from each other (see Figs. 3 & 4, reference nos. 24, 26, & 34). Coulter does not specify a plurality of compartments for the first product and a plurality of compartments for the second product or that the compartments are alternatively arranged in the length and width directions. However, merely duplicating parts has no patentable significance absent a new and unexpected result. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 VI. B. Likewise, rearranging parts will not confer patentability absent a modification of the device’s operation. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 VI. C. Here, dividing the first and second substances into a plurality of alternating compartments would not alter the operation of the device to provide endothermic protection in the event of overheating. Specifically, one having ordinary skill in the art would have expected the low melting material layers to melt or degrade and allow the two reactants to mix, react, and provide endothermic cooling when exposed to high temperatures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have divided the first and second products into a plurality of alternately arranged compartments in order to yield the predictable result of endothermic cooling in the event of high temperatures.
Regarding claim 2, Coulter further discloses that the module is automatically triggered starting from a threshold temperature (¶ [0046]).
Regarding claim 11, Coulter does not disclose the temperature degradable wall. However, Campbell teaches the degradable wall as discussed in the rejection of claim 5, above, and further teaches that the wall comprises a polymer material, in this case polycaprolactone (¶ [0034]).
Regarding claim 12, Coulter further discloses that the first and second products are selected from ammonium nitrate and water (¶ [0032]).
Regarding claim 13, Coulter further discloses that the endothermic protection module is arranged within the case, in this case the cartridge may be embedded or enclosed within the housing (¶ [0027]).
Regarding claim 14, Coulter further discloses that the endothermic protection module is arranged outside the case, in this case the cartridge may be mounted externally on the housing (¶ [0027]).
The rejection of claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Coulter, Huang, and Campbell as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Tang et al. (CN 110137411 A1), hereinafter “Tang,” is maintained as set forth below.
Regarding claim 9, Coulter does not disclose that the wall comprises a metal alloy with a low melting point. However, Tang discloses a battery safety component comprising a low melting point alloy (p. 4/10). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that making the wall of such a material would cause it to degrade at a desired temperature and thus facilitate improved battery safety (see p. 4/10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the wall of a low melting point alloy in order to have facilitated improved battery safety.
Regarding claim 10, Coulter does not disclose the low melting point alloy. However, Tang discloses the low melting point alloy as discussed in the rejection of claim 9, above, and further discloses that the alloy may be a lead-bismuth alloy (p. 4/10). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that making the wall of such a material would cause it to degrade at a desired temperature and thus facilitate improved battery safety (see p. 4/10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the wall of a low melting point alloy in order to have facilitated improved battery safety.
The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Coulter, Huang, and Campbell as applied to claim 11, above, and further in view of Taurino et al. (US 2021/0386118 A1), hereinafter “Taurino,” is maintained as set forth below.
Regarding claim 15, Coulter does not disclose the temperature degradable wall. Campbell teaches the temperature degradable wall comprising a polymer such as polycaprolactone (PCL) as discussed in the rejection of claim 11, above, but does not teach that the polymer is selected from acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), or polyvinyl chloride (PVC). However, Taurino teaches a polymeric barrier layer whose material is selected based on the material’s melting point in order to achieve a desired threshold temperature (¶ [0042]). Taurino further teaches that LDPE may be used in lieu of PCL (¶ [0042]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that substituting the LDPE for the PCL would have yielded the predictable result of providing a wall that would degrade at the desired temperature threshold, in this case about 120° C for LDPE (¶ [0042]). See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted the LDPE for the PCL in order to yield the predictable result of providing a temperature degradable wall that would degrade at the desired temperature threshold.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 1, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claimed device is not taught by the combination of cited references.
In response to Applicant’s argument regarding the claimed plurality and arrangement of the first and second compartments, the Office notes that Applicant has merely rearranged and duplicated known parts that provide expectable functions or results as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above. Furthermore, Applicant has not provided any unexpected result from the currently claimed arrangement. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, specifically Coulter, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that one having ordinary skill in the art would not modify Coulter due to its teaching of a replaceable cartridge, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the benefits of providing endothermic reactants in compartments separated by thermally degradable partitions upon reading the cited references. Specifically, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an unsafe rise in battery temperature would have been automatically mitigated by such an arrangement. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
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 SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 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, 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights