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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 27, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of claims 1, 2, and 12-14 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 (US 2014/0268518 A1), hereinafter “Huang,” is withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 1.
The rejection of claims 5-8 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Coulter in view of Huang and Campbell et al. (US 2019/0020077 A1), hereinafter “Campbell,” is maintained as set forth below.
The rejection of claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Coulter in view of Huang and Tang et al. (CN 110137411 A1), hereinafter “Tang,” is withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 1.
The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Coulter in view of Huang, Campbell, and Taurino et al. (US 2021/0386118 A1), hereinafter “Taurino,” is maintained as set forth below.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Coulter in view of Huang and Campbell.
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.
Regarding claim 2, Coulter further discloses that the module is automatically triggered starting from a threshold temperature (¶ [0046]).
Regarding claim 5, 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.
Regarding claim 6, Coulter further discloses that the enclosure includes a plurality of compartments that each include one of the two products ([0030]-[0031]; Figs. 3 & 4, reference nos. 14, 24, & 26).
Regarding claim 7, Coulter further discloses that the compartments alternatively comprise each product (see Figs. 3 & 4, reference nos. 24 & 30, 26 & 32).
Regarding claim 8, Coulter further discloses 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).
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 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.
Claim 15 is rejected 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.
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 November 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claimed apparatus is not taught by the cited prior art.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the position of the endothermic protection unit relative to the battery is not taught by the cited prior art references, Campbell explicitly teaches an endothermic protection device positioned next to a battery as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the benefit to so positioning the endothermic protection device as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
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