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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Support for the amendments to claim 16 and newly added claim 19 can be found in original claims 7-8 and Applicant’s filed specification at Page 3 lines 30-32.
The amendments to the claims have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Pages 6-8, filed 01/26/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-15 and 17-18 have been fully considered. The rejections have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s arguments and the amendments to the claims.
The rejection of claim 16 has been withdrawn in light of the amendment to claim 16. However, Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Page 8, filed 01/26/2026, with respect to the rejection and amendment to claim 16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant amends claim 16 to recite “wherein the felt filter comprises an adhesive film or tape, and wherein the adhesive film or tape is covered by a removable backing prior to installation on the battery pack”. Stude teaches a heat insulation element can include an adhesive layer to allow the heat insulation element to be easily arranged and/or attached/fixed to a battery or other heat insulation element, and that the adhesive layer can be designed as a double-sided tape. Hilligoss teaches a removable protective liner adhered to a tape strip to prevent the tape strip from adhering to a surface until after the liner is removed. Applicant alleges that because Stude and Hilligoss do not teach their adhesive layer/tape strip from being associated with or covering a safety valve/vent, that the cited art would not meet claim 16 as amended (Remarks Pages 8-9).
The Office respectfully disagrees.
As seen in Stude Fig. 3, Stude shows the filter 24 covers the safety vent (outlet 23) of the housing 9. While the filter 24 is shown to cover the outlet 23 and be attached to the sides of the housing 9, the disclosure of Stude is silent to how the filter 24 attaches itself to the housing 9.
Stude also teaches a heat insulation element 1 (P34, 92). Stude teaches the heat insulation element can include an adhesive layer to allow it to be easily arranged and/or attached/fixed to a battery or other heat insulation element (P34).
While Stude does not state the adhesive layer is used to attach the filter 24 to the housing 9, given Stude teaches the adhesive layer can allow a structure to be easily arranged and/or attached/fixed to another structure, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefit of using the adhesive layer as the manner at which the filter 24 is attached to the housing 9.
If a technique has been used to improve one device (utilize an adhesive on a heat insulation element to easily arrange/attach/fix it to another battery or heat insulation element), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way (utilize an adhesive on a filter to easily arrange/attach/fix it to a housing), using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. SEE MPEP § 2141 (III) Rationale C, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Furthermore, Hilligoss is only used to teach a removable protective liner adhered to a tape strip to prevent the tape strip from adhering to a surface until after the liner is removed. Given Stude teaches the adhesive layer can be a double-sided tape, using a removable protective liner to prevent the tape strip from adhering to a surface until after the liner is removed would be obvious.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20150147605 A1, hereinafter referred to as Kim ‘605) in view of Saifilter (Sintered Metal Fiber Felt).
Regarding claims 1-2, Kim ‘605 discloses a battery cell (secondary battery; see entire disclosure and especially P37) comprising:
a plurality of electrodes (electrode assembly 10 in Fig. 2) and an electrolyte encased within a housing (case 100 in Figs. 1-2; see entire disclosure and especially P37, 50),
the housing comprising a safety valve or vent (vent portion 110 in Fig. 2) on a top cover of the housing (cap plate 200 in Figs. 1-2) and configured to allow gas build up within the housing to vent outside the housing (see entire disclosure and especially P37-40), and
a filter on the top cover of the housing and covering the safety valve or vent, such that gas may pass through the filter, but sparks are contained by the filter (porous safety member 300 in Figs. 1-2; see entire disclosure and especially P37, 41, 44).
Kim ‘605 does not expressly state the battery cell is a metal ion battery cell. However, Kim ‘605’s description of related art teaches lithium secondary batteries are widely used due to their relatively high operating voltage and energy density per unit weight (P6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Kim ‘605 and selected the battery cell to be a lithium ion battery cell, thereby making it a metal ion battery cell, given Kim ‘605 teaches lithium secondary batteries are widely used due to their relatively high operating voltage and energy density per unit weight. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Kim ‘605 discloses the filter is formed of a metallic material and may be formed in the shape of foam, mesh, wire scrap, or the like (P42-43). However, Kim ‘605 does not disclose the filter is a felt filter.
Saifilter teaches Sintered Metal Fiber Felt is made from a randomly laid metal fiber medium (Page 1). Saifilter teaches non-woven stainless-steel metal fiber medium is pressed together, then sintered at a certain temperature and gas through a vacuum sintering process and forms a uniform filtration medium with high porosity through sintering and bonding (Page 1). Sailfilter teaches the high-temperature resistant metal fiber felt is vacuumed sintered from Fe-Cr-Al allow and has excellent high-temperature resistance and oxidation resistance (Page 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Saifilter and selected the material of the metal filter of Kim ‘605 to be Sintered Metal Fiber Felt, given Saifilter teaches the material is a uniform filtration medium with high porosity and is material having excellent high-temperature resistance and oxidation resistance. Further, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 3, Kim ‘605 discloses wherein the metal ion battery cell is a prismatic lithium ion battery cell (see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claims 4-5, Kim ‘605’s lithium ion battery cell is a prismatic battery cell, not a cylindrical or pouch battery cell.
However, Kim ‘605’s description of related art teaches lithium secondary batteries are manufactured in various shapes, and representative shapes thereof may include a cylindrical shape, a can shape, a pouch shape, and the like. (P6).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Kim ‘605 and selected the lithium ion battery cell to be in the cylindrical or pouch shape, given Kim ‘605 teaches these are known shapes for a cylindrical battery to be manufactured in, and the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 17, Kim ‘605 discloses a method of manufacturing a metal ion battery cell according claim 1, the method comprising the steps of: applying a felt filter to a metal ion battery cell, such that a safety valve or vent on the metal ion battery cell is covered by the felt filter (“…the secondary battery according to this embodiment includes a case 100 configured to have an opened top, the case 100 accommodating an electrode assembly 10 therein, and a cap plate 200 configured to seal the opened top of the case 100. A vent portion 110 is formed at one area of the cap plate 200, and a porous safety member 300 is positioned at an area adjacent to the vent portion 110 (e.g., at a top of or over the vent portion 110)”, P37; “Accordingly, the porous safety member 300 is installed at the area adjacent to the vent portion 110 so that a flame is not exposed to or generated at the outside of the secondary battery by diffusing and/or cooling the heat and the internal contacts at the contact area between the heat and the internal contents and the external oxygen”, P41; emphasis added in bold by Examiner).
Regarding claim 18, Kim ‘605 discloses wherein the felt filter is in direct contact with the safety valve or vent (see Fig. 2).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20150147605 A1, hereinafter referred to as Kim ‘605) in view of Saifilter (Sintered Metal Fiber Felt) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Stude et al (US 20210074960 A1, as given in the 12/16/2022 IDS).
Regarding claims 6-7, modified Kim ‘605 does not meet the limitation wherein the felt filter is secured to the housing by an adhesive (claim 6) or wherein the felt filter comprises an adhesive film or tape (claim 7).
In a similar field of endeavor, Stude teaches a heat insulation element can include an adhesive layer on at least one flat side to allow the heat insulation element to be easily arranged and/or attached/fixed to a battery or another heat insulation element (P34, 102). Stude teaches the adhesive layer can be designed as a double-sided tape (P104).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Stude and provided a double-sided tape adhesive layer to the felt filter of modified Kim ‘605 in order to secure the felt filter to the housing, given, as taught by Stude, the felt filter would be able to be easily attached/fixed to the housing via the double-sided tape adhesive layer.
If a technique has been used to improve one device (utilize an adhesive on a heat insulation element to easily arrange/attach/fix it to another battery or heat insulation element), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way (utilize an adhesive on a filter to easily arrange/attach/fix it to a top cover of a battery housing), using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. SEE MPEP § 2141 (III) Rationale C, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20150147605 A1, hereinafter referred to as Kim ‘605) in view of Saifilter (Sintered Metal Fiber Felt) in view of Stude et al (US 20210074960 A1) as applied to claim 7, further in view of Hilligoss et al (US 20200335737 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kim ‘605 does not meet the limitation wherein the adhesive film or tape is covered by a removable backing prior to installation on the lithium ion battery cell.
In a similar field of endeavor, Hilligoss teaches a removable protective liner is adhered to a tape strip to prevent the tape strip from adhering to a surface until after the liner is removed (P57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Hilligoss and provided wherein the adhesive tape of modified Kim ‘605 is covered by a removable backing prior to installation on the lithium ion battery cell, given Hilligoss teaches this will prevent the tape from adhering to a surface until after the liner is chosen to be removed.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20150147605 A1, hereinafter referred to as Kim ‘605) in view of Saifilter (Sintered Metal Fiber Felt) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Park et al (US 20140302384 A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kim ‘605 does not meet the limitation wherein the housing comprises an adhesive film or tape.
In a similar field of endeavor, Park teaches a battery including a can having an internal space in which an electrode assembly is stored, a cap plate for covering the can, and an adhesive tape adhered on outer surfaces of the can (P37). Park teaches the adhesive tape effectively insulates the outer surfaces of the secondary battery (P20-21, 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Park and provided to modified Kim ‘605 wherein the housing comprises an insulative adhesive tape adhered to the outer surfaces of the housing, given Park teaches this provides a battery housing/can with effective insulation.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20150147605 A1, hereinafter referred to as Kim ‘605) in view of Saifilter (Sintered Metal Fiber Felt) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Pratt et al (US 20040023096 A1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kim ‘605 does not meet the limitation wherein the felt filter is secured to the housing by a mechanical fastener.
In a similar field of endeavor, Pratt teaches a filter element can be mechanically attached to a fuel cell housing by a snap fit or other conventional latch mechanisms, or it may be screwed on (P11).
While Pratt teaches mechanical attachments being used to attach a filter to a fuel cell, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize mechanical attachments could also be utilized to fix a filter to other structures, such as a battery. If a technique has been used to improve one device (such as utilizing mechanical attachments like snap-fit or screws to fix a filter on a fuel cell housing), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way (such as utilizing mechanical attachments like snap-fit or screws to fix a filter on a battery housing), using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. SEE MPEP § 2141 (III) Rationale C, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Pratt and provided wherein the felt filter of modified Kim ‘605 is secured to the housing by a mechanical fastener, such as by a snap-fit or screw connection, given Pratt teaches this allows a filter to be attached to a housing.
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20150147605 A1, hereinafter referred to as Kim ‘605) in view of Saifilter (Sintered Metal Fiber Felt) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Nam et al (US 20130224541 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Kim ‘605 does not meet the limitation a fabric band surrounding the housing, the fabric band securing the felt filter in place.
In a similar field of endeavor, Nam teaches a fixing band made of fabric (P9) used to fix a front cover, side cover, lower support base, and rear cover of a battery pack housing together (P34).
While the fixing band of Nam is utilized to fix pieces of a housing together, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the fixing band could be used to fix other structures together as well, such as fixing a housing alongside a filter disposed on the housing. If a technique has been used to improve one device (such as utilizing a fabric fixing band to fix pieces of a housing together), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way (such as utilizing a fabric fixing band to fix a housing alongside a filter disposed on the housing), using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. SEE MPEP § 2141 (III) Rationale C, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Nam and provided to modified Kim’605 a fabric band surrounding the housing, the fabric band securing the felt filter in place, given Nam teaches a fabric band can be utilized to fix structures together.
Regarding claim 19, Nam further teaches the fabric has elasticity (P81). Therefore, since the combination of modified Kim ‘605 and Nam added a fabric band with elasticity to surround the housing and secure the felt filter in place (see the rejection of claim 13 above), modified Kim ‘605 would meet the limitation “wherein the fabric band is elastically deformable and stretched into position on the metal ion battery cell such that the felt filter is biased against the safety valve or vent”.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stude et al (US 20210074960 A1, as given in the 12/16/2022 IDS) in view of Jin et al (US 20210260850 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Stude discloses a battery pack (battery 8 in Fig. 3, P69, 108), the battery pack comprising one or more power modules (as seen in Fig. 1 there are seven power modules),
each power module comprising a plurality of metal ion battery cells (there are at least two battery cells 12 in each of the seven power modules in Fig. 3, P118),
the one or more power modules encased within a housing (housing 9 in Fig. 3, P109),
the housing comprising a safety valve or vent configured to allow gas build up within the housing to vent outside the housing (outlet 23 in Fig. 3, P129), and
a filter covering the safety valve or vent such that gas may pass through the filter (filter 24 in Fig. 3, P130).
However, Stude does not disclose the filter is a felt filter that contains sparks while allowing gases to escape.
In a similar field of endeavor, Jin teaches fire barrier materials can be made by combining both organic and inorganic fibers to form a fire-resistant fibrous felt (P74).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching Jin and selected the material of Stude to be a fire-resistant fibrous felt, given Jin teaches it as a known fire barrier material and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Given the fire-resistant fibrous felt is fire-resistant and felt is known to be porous, it would allow gas to pass through the vent while stopping sparks/fire from passing through.
Further, while modified Stude does not meet the limitation wherein the felt filter comprises an adhesive film or tape, Stude teaches a heat insulation element can include an adhesive layer on at least one flat side to allow the heat insulation element to be easily arranged and/or attached/fixed to a battery or another heat insulation element (P34, 102). Stude teaches the adhesive layer can be designed as a double-sided tape (P104).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Stude and provided a double-sided tape adhesive layer to the felt filter of modified Stude, given, the felt filter would be able to be easily attached/fixed to the housing via the double-sided tape adhesive layer.
If a technique has been used to improve one device (utilize an adhesive on a heat insulation element to easily arrange/attach/fix it to another battery or heat insulation element), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way (utilize an adhesive on a filter to easily arrange/attach/fix it to a housing), using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. SEE MPEP § 2141 (III) Rationale C, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Further, the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
However, modified Stude does not meet the limitation wherein the adhesive film or tape is covered by a removable backing prior to installation on the lithium ion battery cell.
In a similar field of endeavor, Hilligoss teaches a removable protective liner is adhered to a tape strip to prevent the tape strip from adhering to a surface until after the liner is removed (P57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Hilligoss and provided wherein the adhesive tape of modified Stude is covered by a removable backing prior to installation on the lithium ion battery cell, given Hilligoss teaches this will prevent the tape from adhering to a surface until after the liner is chosen to be removed.
Claims 1-5, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando et al (US 20210384585 A1) in view of Kim et al (US 20150147605 A1, hereinafter referred to as Kim ‘605) in view of Kang (US 20200259144 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, Ando discloses a battery cell (secondary battery 11 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P20) comprising:
a plurality of electrodes (electrode assembly) and an electrolyte encased within a housing (battery case 11a in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P20),
the housing comprising a safety valve or vent (gas vent valve 11a1 in Fig. 1) on a top cover of the housing and configured to allow gas build up within the housing to vent outside the housing (see entire disclosure and especially P21), and
a filter on the top cover of the housing and covering the safety valve or vent, such that gas may pass through the filter, but sparks are contained by the filter (second trap 13 in Figs. 1 and 3; the second trap 13 is disposed on the first trap 12 which is disposed on terminals 21 and 22; the terminals are disposed on the top cover as seen in Figs. 1 and 3; therefore, the second trap 13 is disposed on the top cover and is covering the gas vent valve 11a1 by being disposed on the first trap 12 and terminals 21 and 22 (for example, a stack of four books are laid on a table in order from bottom-up as book A, book B, book C, book D; book D is disposed on book A even though book B and book C are in-between); see entire disclosure and especially P22, 31-37).
Ando does not disclose the type of battery cell.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kim ‘605’s description of related art teaches lithium secondary batteries are widely used due to their relatively high operating voltage and energy density per unit weight (P6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Kim ‘605 and selected the battery cell of Ando to be a lithium ion battery cell, thereby making it a metal ion battery cell, given Kim ‘605 teaches lithium secondary batteries are widely used due to their relatively high operating voltage and energy density per unit weight. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Furthermore, Ando discloses the filter (second trap 13) can be made of a non-flammable material such as a mineral wool material (P38).
In a similar field of endeavor, Kang teaches a laminate used in fire-retardant cell-to-cell insulation for batteries (see entire disclosure and especially P1, 14). Kang teaches the laminate can include an insulating area that provides the bulk insulation for the laminate (see entire disclosure and especially P15). Kang teaches the insulating area can include a felt such as alkaline-earth silicate wool and alumino-silicate wool (see entire disclosure and especially P16, 28). Kang further discloses the felt can include an organic binder (P26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Kang and selected the material of the filter (second trap 13) of Ando to be a felt such as alkaline-earth silicate wool and alumino-silicate wool, given Ando teaches the filter can be made of a non-flammable material such as a mineral wool material, Kang teaches these felts to be a known wool material used in fire-retardant applications, and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
The Examiner notes that alkaline earth silicate wool and alumino-silicate wool are described as a material used for the Applicant’s felt filter (Applicant’s specification Page 3) therefore, the felt of alkaline earth silicate wool and alumino-silicate wool of modified Ashida would meet the limitation “a felt filter that allows gas to pass while containing sparks”.
Regarding claim 3, Kim ‘605 discloses wherein the metal ion battery cell is a prismatic lithium ion battery cell (see Figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claims 4-5, Kim ‘605’s lithium ion battery cell is a prismatic battery cell, not a cylindrical or pouch battery cell.
However, Kim ‘605’s description of related art teaches lithium secondary batteries are manufactured in various shapes, and representative shapes thereof may include a cylindrical shape, a can shape, a pouch shape, and the like. (P6).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Kim ‘605 and selected the lithium ion battery cell to be in the cylindrical or pouch shape, given Kim ‘605 teaches these are known shapes for a cylindrical battery to be manufactured in, and the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 11, modified Ando meets the limitation wherein the felt filter comprises a mineral wool (alkaline earth silicate wool and alumino-silicate wool; see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 17, Ando discloses a method of manufacturing a metal ion battery cell according claim 1, the method comprising the steps of: applying a felt filter to a metal ion battery cell, such that a safety valve or vent on the metal ion battery cell is covered by the felt filter (see entire disclosure and especially P31, 38).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando et al (US 20210384585 A1) in view of Kim et al (US 20150147605 A1, hereinafter referred to as Kim ‘605) in view of Kang (US 20200259144 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of PTI Thermal Solutions (Ceramic Fiber Paper and Felts).
Regarding claim 12, Kang teaches wherein the felt filter can comprise an organic binder, however, does not disclose multiple binders.
PTI Thermal Solutions teaches Unifrax® Ceramic Fiber Felt products (see Page 3 of provided document). PTI Thermal Solutions teaches a Fiberfrax® Lo-Con™ Felt (see Page 3 of provided document) including aluminosilicate, starch, and phenolic resin (see Page 2 of Safety Data Sheet inside the provided document after Page 3 of the provided document).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of PTI Thermal Solutions and selected the felt filter to be Fiberfrax® Lo-Con™ Felt, given it is a known alumino-silicate felt, Kang teaches alumino-silicate felts to be a known wool material used in fire-retardant applications, and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Given Fiberfrax® Lo-Con™ Felt includes starch and phenolic resin, the felt filter includes organic binders.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Byram whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 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, 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.
/MARY GRACE BYRAM/Examiner, Art Unit 1729