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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/22/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-4, 6-7, 9-11 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Froemling et al. (DE Pat. No. 102013213776 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
238
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figs. 9-10 (Froemling et al.))]
PNG
media_image1.png
238
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Froemling et al. teaches a battery module arrangement for a high-voltage battery of a motor vehicle ([0010],[0023]) comprising:
a battery module having at least one battery cell ([0043]), which comprises a cell housing (2) and an at least releasable degassing opening (8) arranged in an area of the cell housing ([0036]-[0037], Figs. 9-10),
wherein the battery module arrangement includes a degassing channel (degassing device (6), [0037]), which has a channel opening assigned to the degassing opening (see annotated Figs. 9-10), wherein the degassing channel is connected to the degassing opening of the at least one battery cell, so that a gas escaping from the battery cell through the degassing opening is introducible through the assigned channel opening into the degassing channel ([0037] teaches that the degassing device (6) is open above the connection piece (4) and tubular extension (7), [0014] teaches that the released gas is passed through the connection piece (forming a degassing opening and corresponding channel opening) into the degassing device (channel), see annotated Figs. 9-10),
wherein the battery cell includes a connecting element (4) for connecting the battery cell to the degassing channel ([0013] teaches connection between the connecting piece and the degassing device, [0037], Figs. 9-10), wherein the connecting element has a portion analogous to a tube in which is arranged on the cell housing and encloses the degassing opening, and which has a tube end facing away from the cell housing, which protrudes through the assigned channel opening into the degassing channel (6) ([0041], [0046], see annotated Fig. 9). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 6 (Froemling et al.))]
PNG
media_image2.png
612
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Froemling et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Froemling et al. teaches wherein the connecting element has a portion analogous to a peripheral flange (free end (5’)) arranged at the tube end (see annotated Figs. 9-10), which has a contact surface that abuts a portion analogous to a wall area of an inner wall of the degassing channel ([0039] teaches connection between the sealing element (12) and the free end (5’) to seal the connection element to the degassing channel, [0041] teaches that the deformed free end (5’) of the connecting element almost directly contacts the inner edge (wall) of the degassing channel), wherein the wall area surrounds the assigned channel opening and adjoins the assigned channel opening ([0046]-[0047] teaches edge (9) being enclosed by the connecting piece (4), Fig. 6 shows contact between the edge (9) (wall area) and channel opening (annotated), see also annotated Figs. 9-10).
Regarding Claims 3 and 11, Froemling et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied above to Claims 1 and 2 respectively. As required by Claims 3 and 11:
Froemling et al. teaches that the tube has a smaller external diameter in at least one first direction than the associated channel opening ([0024] teaches that the tube of the connection piece is advantageously moveably connected to the at least one battery cell in relation to the degassing channel; [0037] teaches that the opening (8) holds the connecting piece (4) and tube portion thereof, the tube fits inside the channel opening in which a gap exists between the connection piece and the bordering edges (inner walls) of the degassing channel, see Figs. 9-10; [0013] teaches that during degassing, the openings of the bordering edges (walls) of the degassing channel are connected by the deformation of the connection piece, see Fig. 6). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 4, Froemling teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Froemling et al. teaches the degassing channel including an at least partially cylindrical collar (thermally stable rubber sealing ring, [0046]) which protrudes into an interior of the degassing channel and radially delimits the channel opening, which the collar is arranged concentrically to the tube, wherein the collar includes a portion analogous to a collar end area, wherein the connecting element includes an analogous terminating element (as shown in annotated Fig. 10, the collar (12) includes a collar end area corresponding to the area of the terminating element) which is arranged at the tube end and is connected to the collar end area by a folded (bent) joint, [0037] teaches an edge (9) bent toward the inside of the tubular extension (7)). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Claim 6 and 15-17 are dependent on Claims 1-4 respectively.
Regarding Claims 6 and 15-17, Froemling teaches all claim limitations as applied above to Claims 1-4 respectively. As required by Claims 6 and 15-17:
Froemling et al. teaches that the degassing channel includes a lower channel shell (first part 6’) in which the associated channel opening is arranged, and an upper channel shell (second part 6’’) which is arranged on the lower channel shell and faces away from the battery module ([0045], Figs. 9-10). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 7, Froemling teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Froemling et al. teaches wherein the battery module includes multiple battery cells arranged in a row, which include the respective cell housings (2), degassing openings (8), and connecting elements (4) for connecting the respective battery cells to the degassing channel (6), wherein the degassing channel includes multiple channel openings assigned to a respective degassing opening ([0046], Figs. 9-10). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 9, Froemling teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Froemling et al. teaches a motor vehicle having the battery module arrangement ([0010], [0023]). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 10, Froemling et al. teaches a method for producing (providing) a battery module arrangement for a high-voltage battery of a motor vehicle ([0001], [0010],[0023]) wherein:
a battery module having at least one battery cell ([0043]), which comprises a cell housing (2) and an at least releasable degassing opening (8) arranged in an area of the cell housing ([0036]-[0037], Figs. 9-10),
wherein the battery module arrangement includes a degassing channel (degassing device (6), [0037]), which has a channel opening assigned to the degassing opening (see annotated Figs. 9-10), wherein the degassing channel is connected to the degassing opening of the at least one battery cell, so that a gas escaping from the battery cell through the degassing opening is at least partially introducible through the assigned channel opening into the degassing channel ([0037] teaches that the degassing device (6) is open above the connection piece (4) and tubular extension (7), Figs. 9-10),
wherein the battery cell includes a connecting element (connecting piece (4)) for connecting the battery cell to the degassing channel ([0037]), wherein the connecting element has a portion analogous to a tube in which is arranged on the cell housing and encloses the degassing opening, and which has a tube end facing away from the cell housing, which protrudes through the assigned channel opening into the degassing channel (6) ([0041], [0046], see annotated Fig. 9). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 5 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Froemling et al. (DE Pat. No. 102013213776 A1).
Claims 5 and 12-14 are dependent on Claims 1-4 respectively.
Regarding Claims 5 and 12-14, Froemling et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied above to Claims 1-4 respectively. As required by Claims 5 and 12-14:
Froemling teaches that the connection piece is designed with walls forming the tubular structure and is advantageously moveable relative to the degassing channel (Figs. 9-10, [0024], [0037]). While Froemling et al. does not explicitly disclose the specific thickness of the walls of the connecting element, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to change the thickness of the wall, since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) (MPEP 2144.04(IV)). It is within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the thickness of the walls of the connection element to allow movability of the connecting piece; ([0024] of Froemling et al. teaches that the connection piece is advantageously moveably connected to the at least one battery cell in relation to the degassing channel wherein upon movement of the degassing channel away from the battery cells, the sealing element is compressed by the connecting piece and the tightness is improved).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Froemling et al. (DE Pat. No. 102013213776 A1) in view of Zacher et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200006730 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Froemling teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Froemling et al. teaches a battery module including multiple battery cells arranged in a row, which include the respective cell housings (2), degassing openings (8), and connecting elements (4) for connecting the respective battery cells to the degassing channel (6), wherein the degassing channel includes multiple channel openings assigned to a respective degassing opening ([0043], [0046], Figs. 9-10).
Froemling et al. does not teach multiple modules arrange in a row.
Zacher et al. teaches arranging multiple battery modules in a row for use in a motor vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery module arrangement of Froemling et al. to include multiple modules arranged in a row as taught by Zacher et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to include obvious advantages such as providing increased capacity and scalability for use in larger vehicles. "Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.)."
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ULA RUDDOCK can be reached at (571) 272-1481. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729