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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 08/14/2023 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 § 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 1, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeKeuster et al. (US 2016/0197324 A1) in view of Hehne et al. (US 2023/0017567 A1).
Regarding claim 1, DeKeuster discloses a battery system comprising:
A battery pack comprising a housing, a batter cell accommodated within the housing, a housing cover sealing the battery pack with the housing (Figures 8-11; battery cell in a housing having a housing cover 122; [0049] housing 60), and a reflection plate arranged at a backside of the housing cover (Figure 11; [0054] vent shield 100 is arranged between the backside of the housing cover and is read as the reflection plate),
Wherein the battery cell has a venting exit in a venting side (Figure 11; Cell vent 58),
Wherein the housing cover forms a venting channel (Figure 11; housing cover forms a vent path 108 that extends from the cell vent through the opening of the vent shield and through the vent 120), and;
Wherein an air gap is formed (Figure 11 gaps are shown that read as the air gap).
PNG
media_image1.png
728
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
DeKeuster is silent with respect to a guide projection on a frontside thereof, projecting towards the venting exit into the venting channel and being configured to guide a venting gas exhausted through the venting exit into the venting channel.
Hehne discloses a housing cover for a battery housing and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of batteries. Hehne discloses battery cells 6 having a degassing element 8 and a protective layer 13 that protrudes from a cover 4 and having an air gap 16 such that the thermal transfer resistance between the protective layer 13 and the cover layer 9 is increased due to the protrusion and resulting air gap that prevents heat of the hot gas from fully being transmitted and destroying the cover layer (Figure 1; [0021-0022]). Thus the protrusion and air gap are formed in order to increase the thermal transfer resistance and provided added safety to the battery module.
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the protective layer 13 that includes a projection and air gap taught by Hehne between the shield and cell vent of DeKeuster in order to increase the thermal transfer resistance and provide added safety to the battery module and prevent the cover plate/housing from being destroyed due to the release of the hot gases as taught by DeKeuster. The resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, modified DeKeuster discloses all the claim limitation of claim 1. DeKeuster further discloses wherein the reflection plate is clinched or brazed to the housing cover (Figure 11; vent shield 100 is physically connected and secured to the housing; simple clinched definition is to secure and thus would read on the broad limitation of clinched). Hehne further discloses wherein the protective layer is connected to the cover layer by clinching ([0013]).
Regarding claim 11, modified DeKeuster discloses all the claim limitation of claim 1. DeKeuster further discloses a vehicle comprising the battery system ([0004]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeKeuster et al. (US 2016/0197324 A1) and Hehne et al. (US 2023/0017567 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Zhang (US 2024/0055718 A1).
Regarding claims 2-3, modified DeKeuster discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified DeKeuster discloses a guide projection is formed, however, is silent with respect to the guide projection having a gas splitting projection that splits the venting gas towards opposite side of the venting channel and having a tapered shape with a tip facing the venting exit.
Zhang discloses a traction battery pack venting assembly and is analogous with the instant invention as being related to venting assembly for a battery. Zhang discloses wherein the battery pack vent has a shield assembly 104 having a tapered shape that vents gas in two directions due to the shape having a tapered shape with a tip to release gas from the battery pack (Figure 4-5; [0043-0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the shape of the protective layer of Hehne that is provided in the battery of DeKeuster to have a tapered shape that allows the venting gas to be split into opposite directions of the venting channel as taught by Zhang as a simple change in shape of the protruding protective layer. The resulting modification would have a gas splitting projection having a tapered shape with a tip that faces the venting exit and splits the gas stream towards opposite sides of the venting channel of DeKeuster and thus would read on all the claim limitations of claims 2-3.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeKeuster et al. (US 2016/0197324 A1) and Hehne et al. (US 2023/0017567 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haug (US 2015/0024239 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified DeKeuster is silent with respect to a cell cover element between the venting side and the housing cover wherein the cell cover element covers electrically connectors of the battery cell and has an opening aligned with the venting exit of the battery cell.
Haug discloses a cover for batteries and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Haug discloses a terminal cover 30 that can be detachable mounted in a module cover 26 by latching means 54 and wherein the terminal cover has spring contacts 46 having elasticity that are able to absorb tolerances of the battery module to protect against mechanical damage (Figure 4; [0031-0033], [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the terminal covers 30 having a spring system as taught by Haug between the venting side of the battery and the housing cover in order to protect the battery cell from mechanical damage during use as taught by Haug. This modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 4 as the terminal covers would not cover a portion of the vents to allow for venting of hot gases to occur.
Regarding claim 5, modified DeKeuster discloses all the claim limitations of claim 4. Modified DeKeuster further discloses wherein the housing cover and cell cover element are connected to one another in a form locking manner (Haug Figure 4; [0031-0033] the terminal cover and battery can be connected in a latching manner and thus reads as the form locking manner, see modification of claim 4).
Regarding claim 6, modified DeKeuster discloses all the claim limitations of claim 4. Modified DeKeuster is silent with respect to wherein the housing cover is elastically clamped between the reflection plate and the cell cover element, however, Haug discloses wherein the terminal cover element is elastic. Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to slightly rearrange the configuration of modified DeKeuster to have the housing cover at least partially between the reflection plate and the cell cover element as a simple rearrangement of parts. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 7, modified DeKeuster discloses all the claim limitations of claim 4. Modified DeKeuster further discloses wherein the housing cover acts as a clamping spring and clamps the cell cover to the venting side of the battery cell (Haug Figure 4; [0031-0033], see modification of claim 4 as the housing cover and cell cover can be latched together and having a spring contact configuration and thus is elastically connected).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeKeuster et al. (US 2016/0197324 A1) and Hehne et al. (US 2023/0017567 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2010/0104939 A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified DeKeuster discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified DeKeuster is silent with respect to wherein the reflection plate is connected to the housing cover via sealed rivets.
Wang discloses a battery pack configuration and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Wang discloses wherein a sealing member is provide between the cover plate and the electrode terminal and insulating elastic component having a rivet that is clamped together to seal the battery ([0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to substitute the connection taught by DeKeuster of welding the shield plate and the cover together for sealed rivets that connect the shield plate and the cover as an alternative way of physically connecting the reflection plate to the housing cover while creating a seal. The modification discloses both ways of physically connecting elements together and both are known in the art and thus it would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to substitute one connecting technique for another. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeKeuster et al. (US 2016/0197324 A1) and Hehne et al. (US 2023/0017567 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhamu et al. (US 2022/0013788 A1).
Regarding claim 10, modified DeKeuster discloses all the claim limitation of claim 1. DeKeuster further discloses wherein the reflecting plate can absorb energy ([0010] vent shield is configured to absorb kinetic energy and thermal energy from the battery cell effluent and direct to an opening), however, is silent with respect to wherein the housing cover has a higher heat resistance than the reflection plate.
Zhamu discloses a secondary battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of batteries. Zhamu discloses wherein a protective layer can be formed of aluminum and a housing structure can be formed of a steel casing ([0084]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify and select the material for the reflection plate to be made of an aluminum material and the housing cover to be made of a steel casing that provides structural stability to the battery cell/module as both materials are known in battery cells. The resulting modification of known materials would read on the claimed invention as the steel housing cover has a higher heat resistance than the aluminum reflection plate. A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try the aluminum material and steel material for the reflection plate and housing cover as both materials are known in the art to be used for a housing and conductive components within battery cells. 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). A patent claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was obvious to try. When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR v. Teleflex.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728