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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 9, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21, and 23 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 3, 9, 14, 19, 20, and 21 recite the term “preferably.” This renders the claims indefinite because it is not clear if the limitations following “preferably” are positively recited or not.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the battery enclosure" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that the claim should depend from claim 16.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the second fire suppressant" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that the claim should depend from claim 22.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 12, 13, 16-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2021/138947. Regarding claims 1, 12, and 13, 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 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 4, in the alternative interpretation noted above, the “first” thermal regulation system (nitrogen gas replacement) is configured based on sensor data indicating the presence of an offgas ([0081]). 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 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
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6, 8, 10, 20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO’947.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO’947 in view of WO 202245868.
WO ‘947 is applied to claims 1-5, 7, 9, 12, 13, 16-19, and 21 for the reasons stated above. However, the reference 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 in view of CN 108886182.
WO ‘947 is applied to claims 1-5, 7, 9, 12, 13, 16-19, and 21 for the reasons stated above. However, the reference 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 in view of CN 113794005.
WO ‘947 is applied to claims 1-5, 7, 9, 12, 13, 16-19, and 21 for the reasons stated above. It is noted that the reference 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 claims 1-5, 7, 9, 12, 13, 16-19, and 21 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.
Conclusion
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
January 16, 2026