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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 05/04/2026:
Claims 1-13, 16-17, and 19-20 are pending in the current application. Claims 1 and 16 have been amended. Claim 20 has been newly added.
The previous prior art-based rejection have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges “Kim '605 relies on a porous metallic member 300 positioned adjacent the vent 110. The metallic member is primarily intended for thermal diffusion and mitigation of heat/oxygen mixing during venting. The present invention is different. It employs a non-metallic felt filter (flame-arrestor) disposed directly at the valve or vent opening, with a thickness and porosity specifically selected to dissipate spark energy and prevent flame propagation. Applicant submits that this flame arresting and spark energy dissipation functionality is not disclosed by Kim '605, which again focuses on thermal diffusion rather than ignition prevention at the source” (Remarks Page 6).
The Office respectfully disagrees.
Firstly, Applicant alleges Kim ‘605 is different than the claimed invention because Kim uses a porous metallic member, rather than a non-metallic felt filter.
The felt filter being non-metallic is not a requirement of claim 1. In response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the felt filter being non-metallic) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further, Kim ‘605 also states in P42 “the material of the safety member 300 is not limited”. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could choose to use a non-metallic material for the porous safety member of Kim ‘605.
Secondly, Applicant alleges Kim ‘605 does not have a thickness and porosity specifically selected to dissipate spark energy and prevent flame propagation.
Kim ‘605 states in P44 “the pores of the porous safety member 300 are formed to be in a range from about 10 to about 100 ppi (pores per inch). When the pores of the safety member 300 are formed to be less than about 10 ppi, the vent portion 110 is completely sealed (e.g., hermetically sealed), and therefore, the internal gas may not be exhausted when the vent portion 110 opens. When the pores of the safety member 300 are formed to exceed about 100 ppi, the flame is not prevented from being radiated to the outside of the case 100 (e.g., the flame is not diffused as it is emitted from the case 100), and therefore, it is insignificant that the safety member 300 is formed at the top of the vent portion 110”.
Therefore, it can be seen that the porosity of Kim ‘605 is specifically selected to meet the intended-use of preventing sparks/flames from passing through the porous safety member while allowing gas to pass through.
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would likely presume that since Kim uses a filter that is specifically designed to prevent flame/spark passage while allowing gas passage, all common physical properties of the filter, including thickness, are selected to carry out the intended purpose.
However, if it is believed that it is not inherent that thickness is selected to prevent spark passage while allowing gas passage, prior art Williamson (US 9235970 B2) (which is used in the new rejection set forth below due to the amendments to claim 1) teaches membranes used as flame arrestors can have a thickness to prevent flame propagation. Therefore, it is known, and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to select a thickness of the porous safety member of Kim to meet the intended-use of preventing sparks/flames from passing through the porous safety member while allowing gas to pass through.
Applicant alleges Stude does not disclose or suggest a safety valve with the specifically claimed opening pressure, or the felt filter having the specifically claimed pass through pressure, those pressures being the same (Remarks Page 7).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the safety valve is a one way valve arranged to open at 0.9MPa +0.2MPa pressure within the metal ion battery cell”:
The Examiner notes claim 16 requires a “safety valve or vent”.
Stude discloses a vent (outlet 23 in Fig. 3). No safety valve is required by modified Stude given the recitation of a “safety valve or vent”. Therefore, the limitation “wherein the safety valve is a one way valve arranged to open at 0.9MPa +0.2MPa pressure within the metal ion battery cell” is not required to be met by modified Stude, as modified Stude includes the vent over the safety valve.
Further, regarding the limitation “wherein the material of the felt filter allows gas to pass through the felt filter when the pressure within the metal ion battery cell is 0.9MPa +0.2MPa”, this limitation is an intended-use limitation.
The felt filter of modified Stude allows gas to pass through while containing sparks/flame. Therefore, the material of the felt filter is necessarily capable of performing the intended-use of allowing “gas to pass through the felt filter when the pressure within the metal ion battery cell is 0.9MPa +0.2MPa”. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Due to the amendments of the claims filed 05/04/2026, new rejections have been set forth below in order to meet the amendments to the claims.
The Examiner wishes to note that in the rejection of claim 16 from the Non-Final Rejection dated 02/04/2026 prior art Hilligoss was used to meet the limitation “wherein the adhesive film or tape is covered by a removable backing prior to installation on the lithium ion battery cell” (see Non-Final Rejection dated 02/04/2026 Page 15). The Examiner notes the same Hilligoss was also used to meet dependent claim 8 (see Non-Final Rejection dated 02/04/2026 Pages 9-10). The notation of Hilligoss in the title of the rejection of claim 16 was omitted erroneously, but has been added in to the rejection below. No change to the rejection body itself regarding Hilligoss has been made.
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, 17, and 20 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 Williamson (US 9235970 B2) 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 and in direct contact with the safety valve or vent (porous safety member 300 in Figs. 1-2; see entire disclosure and especially P37, 41, 44).
Kim ‘605 discloses the filter having a porosity selected such that gas may pass through the filter, but sparks are contained by the filter (see entire disclosure and especially P41, 44).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would likely presume that since Kim uses a filter that is specifically designed to prevent flame/spark passage while allowing gas passage, all common physical properties of the filter, including thickness, are selected to carry out the intended purpose.
However, if it is not inherent that thickness is selected to prevent spark passage while allowing gas passage, Williamson teaches membranes used as flame arrestors can have a thickness to prevent flame propagation (C15 / L5-10).
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 Williamson to further tailor/select the thickness of the filter of Kim ‘605 such that gas may pass through the filter, but sparks are contained by the filter, given Williamson teaches membranes used as flame arrestors can have a thickness to prevent flame propagation and the filter of Kim ‘605 is designed to allow gas to pass through while preventing spark/flame propagation.
Further, 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 20, regarding the limitation “wherein the safety valve is a one way valve arranged to open at 0.9MPa +0.2MPa pressure within the metal ion battery cell”:
Claim 20 depends from claim 1 which requires a “safety valve or vent”.
Kim ‘605 discloses a vent (vent portion 110 in Fig. 2). No safety valve is required by modified Kim ‘605 given the recitation of a “safety valve or vent”. Therefore, the limitation “wherein the safety valve is a one way valve arranged to open at 0.9MPa +0.2MPa pressure within the metal ion battery cell” is not required to be met by modified Kim ‘605, as modified Kim ‘605 includes the vent over the safety valve.
Further, regarding the limitation “wherein the material of the felt filter allows gas to pass through the felt filter when the pressure within the metal ion battery cell is 0.9MPa +0.2MPa”, this limitation is an intended-use limitation. The felt filter of modified Kim ‘605 allows gas to pass through while containing sparks/flame. Therefore, the material of the felt filter is necessarily capable of performing the intended-use of allowing “gas to pass through the felt filter when the pressure within the metal ion battery cell is 0.9MPa +0.2MPa”. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
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 Williamson (US 9235970 B2) 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 Williamson (US 9235970 B2) 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 Williamson (US 9235970 B2) 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 Williamson (US 9235970 B2) 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 Williamson (US 9235970 B2) 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”.
Claims 1-5, 11, 17, and 20 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 Williamson (US 9235970 B2) in view of Kang (US 20200259144 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 11, 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 and in direct contact with the safety valve or vent (porous safety member 300 in Figs. 1-2; see entire disclosure and especially P37, 41, 44).
Kim ‘605 discloses the filter having a porosity selected such that gas may pass through the filter, but sparks are contained by the filter (see entire disclosure and especially P41, 44).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would likely presume that since Kim uses a filter that is specifically designed to prevent flame/spark passage while allowing gas passage, all common physical properties of the filter, including thickness, are selected to carry out the intended purpose.
However, if it is not inherent that thickness is selected to prevent spark passage while allowing gas passage, Williamson teaches membranes used as flame arrestors can have a thickness to prevent flame propagation (C15 / L5-10).
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 Williamson to further tailor/select the thickness of the filter of Kim ‘605 such that gas may pass through the filter, but sparks are contained by the filter, given Williamson teaches membranes used as flame arrestors can have a thickness to prevent flame propagation and the filter of Kim ‘605 is designed to allow gas to pass through while preventing spark/flame propagation.
Further, 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, however, also discloses the material of the filter is not limited (P42). Kim ‘605 discloses the filter 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.
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 of modified Kim ‘605 to be a felt such as alkaline-earth silicate wool and alumino-silicate wool, given Kim ‘605 teaches the material of the filter is not limited, 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).
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 20, regarding the limitation “wherein the safety valve is a one way valve arranged to open at 0.9MPa +0.2MPa pressure within the metal ion battery cell”:
Claim 20 depends from claim 1 which requires a “safety valve or vent”.
Kim ‘605 discloses a vent (vent portion 110 in Fig. 2). No safety valve is required by modified Kim ‘605 given the recitation of a “safety valve or vent”. Therefore, the limitation “wherein the safety valve is a one way valve arranged to open at 0.9MPa +0.2MPa pressure within the metal ion battery cell” is not required to be met by modified Kim ‘605, as modified Kim ‘605 includes the vent over the safety valve.
Further, regarding the limitation “wherein the material of the felt filter allows gas to pass through the felt filter when the pressure within the metal ion battery cell is 0.9MPa +0.2MPa”, this limitation is an intended-use limitation. The felt filter of modified Kim ‘605 allows gas to pass through while containing sparks/flame. Therefore, the material of the felt filter is necessarily capable of performing the intended-use of allowing “gas to pass through the felt filter when the pressure within the metal ion battery cell is 0.9MPa +0.2MPa”. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
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 Williamson (US 9235970 B2) in view of Kang (US 20200259144 A1) 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 Williamson (US 9235970 B2) in view of Kang (US 20200259144 A1) 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 Williamson (US 9235970 B2) in view of Kang (US 20200259144 A1) 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 Williamson (US 9235970 B2) in view of Kang (US 20200259144 A1) 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.
Claim 12 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 Williamson (US 9235970 B2) 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. Therefore, modified Kim ‘605 does not meet the limitation wherein the felt filter comprises organic 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 of Kim ‘605 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.
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 Williamson (US 9235970 B2) in view of Kang (US 20200259144 A1) 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) in view of Hilligoss et al (US 20200335737 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.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the safety valve is a one way valve arranged to open at 0.9MPa +0.2MPa pressure within the metal ion battery cell”:
Claim 16 requires a “safety valve or vent”.
Stude discloses a vent (outlet 23 in Fig. 3). No safety valve is required by modified Stude given the recitation of a “safety valve or vent”. Therefore, the limitation “wherein the safety valve is a one way valve arranged to open at 0.9MPa +0.2MPa pressure within the metal ion battery cell” is not required to be met by modified Stude, as modified Stude includes the vent over the safety valve.
Further, regarding the limitation “wherein the material of the felt filter allows gas to pass through the felt filter when the pressure within the metal ion battery cell is 0.9MPa +0.2MPa”, this limitation is an intended-use limitation. The felt filter of modified Stude allows gas to pass through while containing sparks/flame. Therefore, the material of the felt filter is necessarily capable of performing the intended-use of allowing “gas to pass through the felt filter when the pressure within the metal ion battery cell is 0.9MPa +0.2MPa”. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Mary Harris 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.
/M.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights