DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office action addresses claims 1-24. Claims 9, 14, 19, 20, and 21, although they were amended, remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claims 1-11 and 13-18 are newly rejected under 35 USC 103 as necessitated by amendment, and claims 12 and 19-24 remain rejected under 35 USC 102 and 103 for reasons already of record (independent claim 12 was not amended). Accordingly, this action is made final.
Remarks
This amendments to independent claims 1 and 13 are considered to find support at page 25, lines 8-28 of the originally filed specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 9, 14, 19, 20, and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 9, 14, 19, 20, and 21 previously recited the term “preferably,” and have been amended to recite “or” clauses. The “or” clauses in the claims contain limitations that lack proper antecedent basis, because the first time the limitations are recited in each claim is now optional, because of the subsequently added “or” clauses. The limitations that lack antecedent basis are as follows: “the corresponding operation values” (claim 9, line 11), “adjacent battery racks” (claim 14, line 4), “the cooling circuit” (claim 19, line 5), “the one or more current interrupting devices” (claim 20, line 4), and “the first fire suppressant material” (claim 21 line 3).
Further regarding claim 9, the claim contains inconsistencies with claim 1 as amended. For example, it is unclear if “a safe operation range of the battery” (line 10) is the same as “a safe operating area for the one or more battery modules” of claim 1. The last limitation, “or wherein one or more of the [second] parameters exceeding the corresponding threshold value is indicative of a thermal runaway event” fails to meaningfully limit claim 1 (all limitations are recited therein) and also does not recite “second” as now recited in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 12, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2021/138947. Regarding claims 12, the reference is directed to a battery system and a method of operating. The system comprises a battery module, a plurality of sensors (2-2, 2-3, 2-4) including a gas sensor (2-3), a battery management system for comparing one or more parameters associated with sensor data to a corresponding threshold value ([0072] of translation), a “first” thermal regulation system (i.e., cooling circuit) and a “second” thermal regulation system (i.e., nitrogen gas replacement) ([0080], [0081]). The first thermal regulation system is configured (step 4-2) in response to the comparison (i.e., temperature measurement exceeding threshold temperature) ([0080]), and the second thermal regulation system is configured (step 4-1) if any of the one or more parameters exceeds the corresponding threshold value (i.e. gas concentration) ([0081]). (Note: alternatively, for purposes of the independent claims and some dependent claims noted below, the “first” and “second” labels could apply to either thermal regulation system since both can be configured using threshold value comparisons). Regarding claim 19, the first or second thermal regulation system comprises a cooling circuit configured to remove thermal energy from the battery module. Regarding claim 21, the second thermal regulation system comprises a fire suppression module (4-1, 4-2, 4-3) configured containing a first fire suppressant material (nitrogen). Thus, the instant claims are anticipated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 13, 16-18, 20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO’947.
The reference is applied for the reasons stated above. Regarding independent claims 1 and 13, the reference further teaches the steps of comparing the one or more parameters to a first set of parameter threshold values, and a second set of parameter threshold values (“first set of parameter threshold values” corresponds to a threshold temperature and “second set of parameter threshold values” corresponds to a threshold gas concentration; “set” can be interpreted as encompassing a single threshold value because the measured parameter(s) can also be singular). The “first” thermal regulation system (i.e., cooling circuit) is configured (activated) if the parameter (temperature) exceeds the threshold value and the “second” thermal regulation system (i.e., nitrogen gas replacement) is configured when the parameter (gas concentration) exceeds the threshold value.
The reference does not expressly teach that the first set of parameter threshold values define a safe operating area for the one or more battery modules and the second set of parameter threshold values are indicative of a thermal runaway event (claims 1 and 13).
However, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the artisan would understand that the generation of combustible gas, necessitating the gas replacement, would be “indicative of a thermal runaway event” as claimed. This is because the VOC, CO, and H2 gases present are produced by the decomposition of lithium batteries ([0024]). In the alternate interpretation, an excessively high temperature can also be “indicative of a thermal runaway event.” Yet further, either one of these parameter thresholds can also be characterized as “defining a safe operating area for the one or more battery modules.” As used herein, there is no discernible difference between a threshold “indicative of a thermal runaway event” and a threshold “defining a safe operating area.” There is nothing in the claim language to differentiate these concepts, and “indicative of a thermal runaway event” could mean anticipating a future thermal runway event, or addressing an ongoing thermal runaway event.
Regarding claim 2, the first and second thermal regulation systems decrease the temperature of the battery cells in the battery module. Regarding claim 3, the first system comprises a cooling circuit (3-1, 3-2, 3-3) that provides coolant ([0067], [0080]). Regarding claim 5, the nitrogen gas is a fire suppressant material. Regarding claim 7, configuring the first thermal regulation system (cooling circuit) reduces the likelihood of the one or more parameters exceeding the corresponding threshold value. Regarding claim 9, the parameters comprise temperature parameters associated with the battery module ([0080]). Regarding claim 16, a battery enclosure (box 10) contains the sensors and the battery module (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 17, the enclosure provides protection against the ingress/egress of fluid or particles. Regarding claim 18, the module comprises Li-ion battery cells ([0001]).
Regarding claim 24, the battery box comprises a valve (5) to enable release of off-gas.
However, the reference does not expressly teach that the valve is in communication with an off-gas ventilation manifold (claim 24). The subject matter of claims 6, 8, 10, and 20 is also not expressly taught by the reference.
However, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the use of an off-gas ventilation manifold is known in the art to direct off-gases to specific areas of a battery system or vehicle where it may be more desirable to release gases, or for the purpose of diluting gases. Accordingly, claim 24 would be rendered obvious.
Claim 6 recites that a component of the first or second thermal regulation systems can be manually controlled by a user, and claim 10 recites the step of electrically isolating one or more modules with a manual service disconnect. The limitations are rendered obvious because in the case of claim 6, the manual practice of an automated activity is not considered to distinguish over a reference. Further, the claim recites that the component “can be” controlled manually, indicating a mere capability. It would be obvious to provide such a capability to any thermal regulation component of the reference.
Regarding claim 10, it would be obvious to provide a manual disconnect in order for the user to be able to rapidly disconnect a battery module should it be necessary in the event of thermal runaway etc. Such a manual disconnect could simply be a detachable connector or plug structure.
Similarly, claim 20 recites that the first thermal regulation system comprises a circuit breaker or current interrupting device. Such devices (PTCs, bimetals, fuses, etc) are well-known in the art and are commonly used in battery systems to prevent overcurrent or overheating situations. Accordingly, this limitation would be rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 8, which recites that the one or more parameters are calculated based on the sensor data, it would also be obvious to provide a battery management system with this capability. For example, it is well-known in the art to provide state of charge or state of heath indications based on data measured from a battery system. Such parameters (SOC or SOH) could be readily calculated in the system of WO ‘947, thereby meeting the claim limitations.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO’947 as applied to claims 1-3, 5-10, 13, 16-18, 20, and 24 above, and further in view of WO 2018179855.
WO ‘947 does not expressly teach that the first thermal regulation system controls the electric current provided to and/or from the at least one battery module as recited in claim 4.
WO ‘855 is directed to a battery control device. As disclosed in the abstract, a control unit controls the battery charging/discharging current on the basis of battery temperature and the charging/discharging current amount, to thereby control the temperature of the battery so as to not exceed the upper limit temperature of the battery.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the artisan would be motivated to use the charging/discharging control of WO ‘855 in the control scheme of WO ‘947 to thereby provide a first thermal regulation system that controls the current to/from the battery module. As disclosed in the abstract, the method controls the temperature to not exceed the upper temperature of the battery module, and is also an improvement over the conventional technique. Accordingly, the artisan would be motivated to use the charge/discharge control of WO ‘855 in the control scheme of WO ‘947.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO’947 as applied to claims 1-3, 5-10, 13, 16-18, 20, and 24 above, and further in view of WO 202245868.
WO ‘947 does not expressly teach that the module comprises one or more internal barriers between cells to reduce the propagation of thermal energy as recited in claim 11.
WO ‘868 is directed to a battery module. The module comprises flame retardant pads (400) (internal barriers) between groups of cells (page 7 of translation, Fig. 2a).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the artisan would be motivated to use the barriers of WO ‘868 in the battery module of WO ‘947. On page 7, the barriers are disclosed as increasing thermal impedance and blocking heat transfer when thermal runaway occurs. Accordingly, the artisan would be motivated to use the barriers of WO ‘868 in the battery module of WO ‘947.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO’947 as applied to claims 1-3, 5-10, 13, 16-18, 20, and 24 above, and further in view of CN 108886182.
WO ‘947 does not expressly teach that the system comprises a battery rack support structure and optionally a plurality of battery racks with a flexible connector connecting battery racks as recited in claim 14.
CN ‘182 is directed to a battery system. On page 4 of the translation and in Figures 2 and 3, the reference teaches multiple battery racks (1a, 1b, 1c), the racks being connected to a power cable (top of page 5) connecting to power conversion device 21.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use battery racks to store the module(s) of WO ‘947 and to interconnect such racks using cables (flexible connectors).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO’947 as applied to claims 1-3, 5-10, 13, 16-18, 20, and 24 above, and further in view of CN 113794005.
It is noted that WO ‘947 further teaches a battery cooling plate (3-2). However, the reference does not expressly teach a liquid absorption pad as recited in claim 15.
CN ‘005 is directed to a water cooling plate for an automobile battery box body. The plate comprises a water pipe groove (10) and a water absorbing pad (26) (top of page 7 of the machine translation).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use the cooling plate structure with water absorbing pad in the system of WO ‘947. Further, CN ‘005 teaches that the pipe/pad has “good waterproof effect, preventing cooling condensation leakage.” As such, there would be further motivation to make the combination.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO’947 in view of Buckhout et al (US 20170288286).
WO ‘947 is applied to claim 12 for the reasons stated above. Further, the second thermal regulation system (in second interpretation, coolant circuit, see rejection above), can contain a refrigerant liquid coolant which can be considered a “second fire suppressant.” However, the reference does not expressly teach that the second thermal regulation system comprises one or more dry break couplings configured to provide the second fire suppressant material to the battery module as recited in claim 22.
Buckhout et al. disclose a liquid temperature regulated battery pack for a vehicle. In [0083], it is disclosed that coolant inlet/outlet fittings can comprise dry break couplers, among other types.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use dry break fittings in the system of WO ‘947.
Regarding claim 23, this claim is treated as depending on claim 22 for purposes of compact prosecution. The claim recites that the second suppressant is fresh water or a foam. It would be obvious to use water (“fresh water”) as the coolant as this is a well-known material for the intended purpose. Accordingly, claim 23 would be rendered obvious.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments filed May 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants state that the purpose of the gas replacement in Zhang (WO ‘947) is to prevent fires and explosions that may result from a thermal runaway event, rather than cooling the battery packs. Thus, it is asserted that the gas replacement module therefore does not function as a ‘thermal regulation system.’
This argument is not persuasive. Given its broadest reasonable interpretation, “thermal regulation system” is a system that regulates temperature in some way. The gas replacement system, because it prevents explosion of combustible gases that would raise the temperature, therefore functions to regulate temperature. Accordingly, the argument is not persuasive.
It is noted that claim 12 was not amended, and the below remarks apply to independent claims 1 and 13.
The statements in the rejection above concerning the interpretation of “indicative of a thermal runaway event” and “defining a safe operating area” are noted. There is no discernible difference in these terms as they are presently used in the claims, as “indicative of a thermal runaway event” could apply to a future or anticipated thermal runaway event.
Should applicant wish to amend any of these claim terms, care should be taken to not add new matter to the application, and it is also noted that entry of such amendments after final rejection is not a matter or right.
Conclusion
12. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan Crepeau whose telephone number is (571) 272-1299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher, can be reached at (571) 270-3879. The phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272-1700. Documents may be faxed to the central fax server at (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Jonathan Crepeau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
August 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights