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 statements (IDS) submitted on Aug. 2, 2023 have been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings/Specification
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 100.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “B1, B2” have been used to designate both “busbars” and “foils” (See, for example, page 16).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “B1”, “two output terminals 4, 5” in Fig. 8 (See, e.g., page 16) and “5” in “output terminals for the current 4, 5” in Fig. 4.
Additionally, it is unclear what those long lines shown in Fig. 8 are used for.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4, 13, 16 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The “the film” recited in claims 2-3 and 16 does appear to refer to the aforementioned “a multilayer film” in claim 1. Thus, “the film” should be revised as “the multilayer film”.
Similarly, “the gel layer” recited in claims 4 and 13 should be revised as “the aqueous gel layer”.
Similarly, “the accumulators” recited in claim 18 should be revised as the “plurality of accumulators” aforementioned in claim 15 from which claim 18 depends.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-10, 13-15 and 17-19 are 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 5-7, 13 and 19 recite the limitation "the busbar". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 6 recites “its” in “on its external face”. The “it” is unclear/ambiguous, since it may refer to either the busbar or the encapsulation layer. For purposes of examination, the “it” is interpreted as referring to the encapsulation layer since it appears to be Applicant’s intent.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the polymer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites “each encapsulation layer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since claim 1 from which claim 9 depends recites “an encapsulation layer”.
The term “high degree” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high degree” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitations in claim 10 have been rendered indefinite due to the use of the term “high degree”.
The limitation “the encapsulation layer comprises rupture initiators precut into the encapsulation layer or cutouts leaving the gel layer exposed from outside of the multilayer film”, recited in claim 13, is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite. What’s the definition of “rupture initiators”? The specification does not sufficiently disclose the subject matter. For purposes of examination, see below for how this limitation is addressed.
Claims 14 and 15 recite “the one or more hot gases”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
The term “suitable” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “suitable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitations in claim 15 have been rendered indefinite due to the use of the term “suitable”. For purposes of examination, any “zone” for hot gas passage(s) will be considered to be “suitable”.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: “a busbar” and a/the “battery module”.
Claim 18 recites Li4TiO5O12. However, it appears that there is no such a substance while a similar Li4TiO5O12 is a commonly used as a negative electrode material. Clarification or correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claims 1-7, 13-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Al-Hallaj et al. (US 20200403201 A1, hereafter Al-Hallaj).
Regarding claims 1-3, Al-Hallaj teaches a multilayer film comprising:
an encapsulation layer (56, Fig. 4) comprising plastic (Kevlar in [0026] is a type of synthetic plastic); and
an aqueous gel layer (52, Fig. 4; “hydrogel or superabsorbent polymer”, “electrolyte diluter material”, [0026]; “water-absorbing”, [0019]; “loaded with water”, [0020]; etc.) encapsulated at least partially by the encapsulation layer (See Fig. 4). The aqueous gel layer is a continuous layer over the length of the film (See Fig. 4).
The “[A multilayer film] configured to be applied in a battery module” and “[an aqueous gel layer] configured to be placed on the path of one or more hot gases released by an accumulator of the module during a thermal runaway” represent an intended-use of “a multilayer film” and “an aqueous gel layer”, respectively. Note that while intended-use recitations and other types of functional language cannot be entirely disregarded, however, in apparatus, article, and composition claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967). In the instant case, the intended-use does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art Al-Hallaj, and the multilayer film or “an aqueous gel layer” of Al-Hallaj is capable of performing the intended-use as claimed, respectively, and thus meets the claim. In addition, as a matter of fact, Al-Hallaj does also teach the claimed intended uses.
Al-Hallaj further teaches that a pouch with a line or area of weakness can be used as an alternative to the multilayer film addressed above ([0027]-[0028]). As such, the pouch reads on the multilayer film as claimed. The term “a line or area of weakness” implies that the aqueous gel layer comprises a region of increased thickness over the length of the multiple film.
Regarding claim 4, Al-Hallaj teaches the multilayer of claim 1, and teaches the claimed structure that the gel layer is directly on the encapsulation layer (Fig. 4). The instantly claimed limitation involves a printing process. However, the patentability of a product (the claimed structure) does not depend on its method of production (See MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claims 5-6, Al-Hallaj teaches the multilayer of claim 1, and further teaches the multilayer film can further comprise another encapsulation layer (“a meltable or otherwise rupturable film”, [0027]). The recitation “one of which is configured to be applied directly against the busbar” represents an intended-use of the one of the two encapsulation layers. However, the recitation of the intended-use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In the instant case, Al-Hallaj does teach the same structure of the multilayer film comprising two encapsulation layers, and then meets the claim.
Since the limitation “the encapsulation layer configured to be applied directly against the busbar is adhesive on its external face” includes an intended-use of an encapsulation layer, the limitation does not carry patentable weight.
Regarding claim 7, Al-Hallaj teaches the multilayer of claim 1 comprising a single encapsulation layer (See 56 in Fig. 4). The recitation “the aqueous gel layer is configured to be applied directly against the busbar” represents an intended-use of the aqueous gel layer. However, the recitation of the intended-use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In the instant case, the intended-use of the aqueous gel layer does not result in a structure difference of the aqueous gel layer. Note that the instant invention is a product (i.e., a multilayer film), and it is the structure of the multilayer film that carries patentable weight.
Regarding claim 13, Al-Hallaj teaches the multilayer of claim 1, wherein the encapsulation layer is made of plastic (See the rejection of claim 1), and the recitation “is configured to face at least a portion of the busbar” represents an intended-use of the encapsulation layer. The intended-use does not result in a structure difference of the encapsulation layer and the recitation does not carry patentable weight.
Al-Hallaj further teaches the encapsulation layer comprises rupture initiators precut into the encapsulation layer (See “rupture area” and “a line or area of weakness” in [0028]).
Regarding claim 14, Al-Hallaj teaches the multilayer of claim 1, and the instantly claimed limitation represents an intended-use or function of the multilayer film. Note that while intended-use recitations and other types of functional language cannot be entirely disregarded, however, in apparatus, article, and composition claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967). In the instant case, the intended-use or function as claimed does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art Al-Hallaj, and the multilayer film is capable of performing the intended-use or function as claimed, and thus meets the claim. In addition, as a matter of fact, Al-Hallaj does also teach the claimed intended uses.
Regarding claim 15, Al-Hallaj teaches a battery module (e.g., Fig. 4, [0015]) comprising:
a plurality of accumulators (e.g., 42 in Fig. 4) of cylindrical geometry (See Fig. 1), each accumulator comprising an electrochemical cell (each 42 is a battery, which is an electrochemical cell), and each electrochemical cell comprising a cathode, an anode and an electrolyte interposed between the cathode and the anode (this is general knowledge for one of ordinary skill in the battery field), a casing designed to contain in a sealtight manner the electrochemical cell (See Fig. 4), and a first and second output terminals projecting from the cover and/or from the base of the casing (See 42 in Fig. 4), and
the multilayer film of claim 1 (See the rejection of claim 1), wherein the aqueous gel layer is placed in at least one zone suitable for passage of the one or more hot gases by one of the accumulators during a thermal runaway (See at least [0025]-[0026], and a zone where “50” is located in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 16, Al-Hallaj teaches the multilayer film of claim 15, and further teaches that a pouch with a line or area of weakness can be used as an alternative to the multilayer film addressed in the rejection of claim 15 ([0027]-[0028]). As such, the pouch reads on the multilayer film as claimed. The term “a line or area of weakness” implies that the aqueous gel layer comprises a region of increased thickness over the length of the multiple film.
Regarding claim 19, Al-Hallaj teaches the multilayer of claim 1, wherein the claimed “the encapsulation layer is configured to be placed facing at least a portion of the busbar” represents an intended-use of the multilayer film. Note that while intended-use recitations and other types of functional language cannot be entirely disregarded, however, in apparatus, article, and composition claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967). In the instant case, the intended-use does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art Al-Hallaj, and the multilayer film is capable of performing the intended-use as claimed, and thus meets the claim. In addition, as a matter of fact, Al-Hallaj does also teach the claimed intended use.
Regarding claim 20, Al-Hallaj teaches the battery module of claim 15, and further teaches the battery module comprises a busbar (“46”, Fig. 4) fastened to one of the output terminals of at least some of the accumulators in order to electrically connect the at least some of the accumulators to one another (See Fig. 4 and [0025]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Hallaj, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fernando et al. (US 20170106623 A1, hereafter Fernando).
Regarding claim 8, Al-Hallaj teaches the multilayer of claim 1, wherein the encapsulation layer (56) may be in a form of mesh made of fiberglass ([0026]) and used as a component of the thermal propagation arrestor (50). Fernando discloses that a fire barrier laminate comprises a mesh that can be made of fiberglass or polyethylene (at least [0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have employed polyethylene as the polymer of the encapsulation layer as an alternative to the fiberglass of Al-Hallaj since they are equivalents as a mesh material, as disclosed by Fernando.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Hallaj, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Andrasi et al. (US 20140224465 A1, hereafter Andrasi).
Regarding claims 9 and 12, Al-Hallaj teaches the multilayer of claim 1, but is silent as to the thicknesses as claimed.
Al-Hallaj further teaches that a pouch can be used as an alternative to the multilayer film addressed in the rejection of claim 1 ([0027]-[0028]). Furthermore, Andrasi discloses a laminate (405, Fig. 4; [0068]) of a thermal barrier system for preventing thermal runaway propagation from a faulted cell to an un-faulted cell in a battery pack (Abstract). The laminate is functional equivalent to a pouch (e.g., 402, Fig. 4; [0065]; [0064]). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that a thermal barrier system in the form of laminate (405) taught by Andrasi can be used as an alternative to the multilayer film of Al-Hallaji since the substitution of known equivalents for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2144.06.
Andrasi further suggests that the thickness of the laminate is adjustable ([0068]). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that the thickness of a sheet of hydrophobic material (416, Fig. 4; equivalent to the claimed encapsulation layer) or/and the thickness of the high viscosity hydrophilic material (417, Fig. 4; equivalent to the claimed gel layer) can be adjusted. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the thicknesses as claimed through routine experimentations. In the absence of unexpected results or evidence that the claimed thicknesses are significant, the selection of a thickness would appear to require no more than routine investigation by those ordinary skilled in the art.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Hallaj, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zeng et al. (CN 206422120 U, whose English translation is being employed for citation purposes, hereafter referred to as Zeng).
Regarding claims 10-11, Al-Hallaj teaches the multilayer of claim 1, and further teaches the aqueous gel layer comprises an aqueous gel ([0018]-[0021])comprising super absorbent polymer (SAP) such as carboxymethylcellulose ([0019]).
Al-Hallaj appears silent as to the amount of water in the aqueous gel. However, Zeng discloses that “SAP can absorb hundreds or even thousands of times its own weight in water to form a hydrogel with a unique three-dimensional network structure, the three-dimensional network structure of the hydrogel can firmly bind the water, thus giving the hydrogel a super water retention capacity” ([0028]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily that the aqueous gel of Al-Hallaj can have at least 90% deionized water absorbed in an SAP material such as carboxymethylcellulose ([0029], Zeng). The carboxymethylcellulose is known to be a gelation polymer as recited in claims 10-11.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Hallaj, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of An et al. (US 20220077519 A1, hereafter An).
Regarding claim 17, Al-Hallaj teaches the multilayer of claim 15, and teaches the claimed structure that the aqueous gel layer is on a busbar (Fig. 4), but does not teach “directly on a busbar”. An discloses that a heat transfer member (90, Fig. 2) similar to the claimed multilayer film can be disposed directly in contact with battery cells without an intermediate layer in between ([0052]-[0054]; at least Figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified Al-Hallaj such that, as taught by An, the aqueous gel layer is directly on a busbar of battery cells without the encapsulation layer in between. It is prima facie obvious to use known technique to improve similar device (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP § 2143).
The instantly claimed limitation involves a process of printing. However, the patentability of a product (the claimed structure) does not depend on its process/method of production (See MPEP § 2113).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Hallaj, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Kishii et al. (US 20120189885 A1, hereafter Kishii).
Regarding claim 18, Al-Hallaj teaches the multilayer of claim 15, and teaches each of the accumulators is an Li-ion accumulator (e.g., “lithium-ion cells”, [0018]).
Al-Hallaj is silent on the specific negative and positive electrode materials as instantly claimed. However, the listed materials in the claim are commonly used in the battery field. For example, Kishii discloses that LiCoO2 and graphite can be used as positive and negative electrode active materials, respectively, in a lithium secondary battery ([0025], [0027]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used LiCoO2 and graphite as the positive and negative electrode active materials of an accumulator of Al-Hallaj, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. MPEP § 2144.07.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727