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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract as filed is not a single paragraph on separate sheet, and instead is filed as the cover sheet of international publication WO-2022133780-A1.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 11, 13, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neil et al. US-20180223070-A1 (hereinafter “O’Neil”).
Regarding Claim 1, O’Neil discloses a battery module (battery pack) 102 in Figs. 1-4 (see abstract and paragraphs [0025] and [0042]) comprising:
a plurality of battery cells 103 electrically connected to one another in Figs. 1-4 (see paragraphs [0025]-[0028]);
a silicone rubber foam 105 at least partially covering the plurality of battery cells 103 (see paragraphs [0025]-[0028] and [0185]) in Figs. 1-4; and
a flame barrier sheet (heat exchange member mounted to one side of battery module casing 102) at least partially covering the plurality of battery cells 103 (see paragraphs [0045]-[0048]). A skilled artisan would find it obvious that the heat exchange member would function as a flame barrier sheet, as the heat exchange member works to aid in battery cooling (thereby preventing fires/flames).
Regarding Claim 3, O’Neil discloses the battery module of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). O’Neil further discloses wherein the silicone rubber foam comprises hollow glass microspheres (see paragraphs [0050]-[0052], [0055], and [0057). The instant application discloses the term “ceramic” includes glasses (see paragraph [0034] of published instant application), so the hollow glass microspheres of O’Neil would meet the limitation of the silicone rubber foam comprising hollow ceramic microspheres.
Regarding Claim 4, O’Neil discloses the battery module of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). O’Neil further discloses wherein the silicone rubber foam is a condensation-cured silicone rubber foam or an addition-cured silicone rubber foam (see paragraph [0065]).
Regarding Claim 5, O’Neil discloses the battery module of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). O’Neil further discloses wherein the silicone rubber foam comprises a flame retardant (see paragraphs [0118]-[0120]).
Regarding Claim 11, O’Neil discloses the battery module of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). O’Neil further discloses a process for making the aforementioned battery module of claim 1, the process comprising:
dispensing a silicone rubber foam composition on at least one of the plurality of battery cells or the flame barrier sheet (see paragraphs [0058]-[0061], [0138], and [0185]-[0186]); and
placing the flame barrier sheet on the plurality of battery cells (see paragraphs [0045]-[0048]).
Regarding Claim 13, O’Neil discloses the process of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above). O’Neil further discloses dispensing the silicone rubber foam composition comprises dispensing a continuous layer of the silicone rubber foam composition on the plurality of battery cells (see paragraph [0186]).
Regarding Claim 17, O’Neil discloses the battery module of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above). O’Neil further discloses the flame retardant may be wollastonite, aluminum trihydrate (ATH), or a huntite/hydromagnesite blend (see paragraphs [0118]-[0120]).
Regarding Claims 19 and 20, O’Neil discloses the battery module of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). O’Neil further discloses filling the battery module completely with silicone rubber foam (completely encasing the plurality of battery cells, meeting Claim 20) or partially with silicone rubber foam (not completely encasing the plurality of battery cells, meeting Claim 19) (see paragraphs [0138]-[0143]).
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neil as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Anderson et al. US-4822659-A (hereinafter “Anderson”).
Regarding Claim 2, O’Neil discloses the battery module of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
O’Neil is silent on wherein the silicone rubber foam comprises open porosity, closed porosity, or a combination thereof.
However, the silicone rubber foam would necessarily have a porosity, as it is a property of the silicone rubber foam, and the porosity would fall into one of the categories of open porosity, closed porosity, or a combination thereof.
However, if O’Neil is found to be insufficient, in the same field of endeavor of flame barrier sheets (fire block sheets) (see abstract), Anderson discloses using a partially closed cell silicone foam with a flame barrier sheet to achieve a soft, flexible foam and a flame barrier sheet with desirable flame resistant properties (see abstract and Page 5, Column 5, Lines 15-54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery module of Claim 1 wherein the silicone rubber foam comprises a combination of closed and open porosity, as disclosed by O’Neil, in order to achieve a soft, flexible foam and desirable flame resistant properties.
Regarding Claim 6, O’Neil discloses the battery module of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). O’Neil further discloses wherein the silicone rubber foam comprises hollow glass microspheres (see paragraphs [0050]-[0052], [0055], and [0057). The instant application discloses the term “ceramic” includes glasses (see paragraph [0034] of published instant application).
O’Neil is silent on wherein the flame barrier sheet comprises ceramic fibers.
However, Anderson discloses using ceramic fibers to stitch together the silicone rubber foam layer with the support layer to create a flame barrier sheet with desirable flame resistant properties (see Page 4, Column 2, Lines 23-31 and Page 5, Column 5, Lines 21-54).
A skilled artisan would recognize the ceramic fibers are an appropriate material to hold together the layers of the flame barrier sheet and that ceramic is an appropriate material to use in thermal insulation of batteries (as taught by O’Neil).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery module of O’Neil wherein the flame barrier sheet comprises ceramic fibers, as disclosed by Anderson, as it is an appropriate material to hold together the layers of the flame barrier sheet.
Claims 7-8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neil, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Stude et al. WO-2019121641-A1 (US-20210074960-A1 used as translation and cited in PTO-892) (hereinafter “Stude”).
Regarding Claim 7, O’Neil discloses the battery module of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
O’Neil is silent on wherein the flame barrier sheet has a dielectric breakdown voltage of at least three kilovolts and a thermal conductivity of not more than 0.5 watts per meter Kelvin.
However, in the same field of endeavor of flame barrier sheets (heat insulation element) (see abstract), Stude discloses a flame barrier sheet preferably has a dielectric strength of more than more than 20 kV/mm and a thickness between 2 and 3 mm (see paragraphs [0032]-[0033] and [0036]). As such, the dielectric breakdown voltage would be more than 40 kV, which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of the flame barrier sheet having a dielectric breakdown voltage of at least three kilovolts.
Stude also discloses the thermal conductivity is preferably less than 0.04 W/mK (see paragraph [0038]). This falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of a thermal conductivity of not more than 0.5 watts per meter Kelvin.
Stude additionally discloses the appropriate dielectric strength (and consequently the appropriate dielectric breakdown voltage) avoids and/or delays the formation of electric arcs or sparks and the disclosed flame barrier sheet offers appropriate protection from uncontrolled heat development in the battery (see paragraphs [0032] and [0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery module of O’Neil wherein the flame barrier sheet has a dielectric breakdown voltage of at least three kilovolts and a thermal conductivity of not more than 0.5 watts per meter Kelvin, as disclosed by Stude, in order to avoid and/or delay the formation of electric arcs or sparks and achieve appropriate protection from uncontrolled heat development in the battery.
Regarding Claim 8, O’Neil discloses the battery module of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
O’Neil is silent on wherein together the silicone rubber foam and the flame barrier sheet have a dielectric breakdown voltage of at least five kilovolts.
However, Stude discloses a flame barrier sheet preferably has a dielectric strength of more than more than 20 kV/mm and a thickness between 2 and 3 mm (see paragraphs [0032]-[0033] and [0036]). As such, the dielectric breakdown voltage would be more than 40 kV, which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of the flame barrier sheet having a dielectric breakdown voltage of at least five kilovolts.
Stude further discloses the appropriate dielectric strength avoids and/or delays the formation of electric arcs or sparks. As such, the dielectric strength is viewed as a result effective variable and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Optimizing the dielectric strength would necessarily lead to optimizing the dielectric breakdown voltage. In the combination of O’Neil and Stude, a skilled artisan would be motivated to ensure the combined dielectric breakdown of the silicone rubber foam and the flame barrier sheet is also optimized.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery module of O’Neil wherein the silicone rubber foam and the flame barrier sheet have a dielectric breakdown voltage of at least five kilovolts, as disclosed by Stude, in order to avoid and/or delay the formation of electric arcs or sparks.
Regarding Claim 18, O’Neil discloses the battery module of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
O’Neil is silent on wherein the flame barrier sheet comprises an inorganic paper.
However, Stude discloses a flame barrier sheet 1A comprising a mica paper layer 3 that is placed on a plurality of battery cells to allow high heat resistance and at the same time flexibility and/or pliability in Figs. 1B and 3 (see paragraphs [0027]-[0028], [0040], [0083]-[0085], and [0115]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery module of O’Neil wherein the flame barrier sheet comprises an inorganic paper, as disclosed by Stude, in order to allow high heat resistance and at the same time flexibility and/or pliability.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neil, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Stude and You et al. US-20200212398-A1 (hereinafter “You”).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, O’Neil discloses the battery module of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
O’Neil is silent on wherein the silicone rubber foam covers a vent area of each of the battery cells, and wherein the flame barrier sheet covers the silicone rubber foam.
However, Stude discloses the flame barrier sheet 1A is placed on the plurality of battery cells to offers appropriate protection from uncontrolled heat development in the battery in Fig. 3 (see paragraphs [0040] and [0112]). Since the silicone rubber foam of O’Neil fills the space of battery casing (see paragraphs [0041]-[0042]), the flame barrier sheet placed on top of the plurality of battery cells would cover the silicone rubber foam.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the process of O’Neil wherein the flame barrier sheet covers the silicone rubber foam, as disclosed by Stude, in order to achieve appropriate protection from uncontrolled heat development in the battery.
Stude is silent on wherein the silicone rubber foam covers a vent area of each of the battery cells.
However, in the same field of endeavor of flame barrier sheets (fireproof member) (see abstract), You discloses battery cells provided with vents and thermally insulating each vent (see abstract and paragraphs [0003]-[0010]).
You additionally discloses ensuring appropriate insulation between battery cell vents separates the battery cells of the first battery module from the battery cells of the second battery module, thereby preventing any of the battery cells that has undergone thermal runaway from inducing thermal runaway of adjacent battery cells opposite to their vents (see paragraph [0024]). Since the silicone rubber foam of O’Neil may fill the space of battery casing (see paragraphs [0041]-[0042]), a skilled artisan is capable of ensuring the vents of the battery cells are covered by the silicone rubber foam and that the silicone rubber foam forms a layer that covers the vent area of each of the battery cells (meeting Claim 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery module of O’Neil wherein the silicone rubber foam covers a vent area of each of the battery cells, and wherein the flame barrier sheet covers the silicone rubber foam and the silicone rubber foam is in the form of a layer that covers the vent area of each of the battery cells, as disclosed by You, in order to separate the battery cells of the first battery module from the battery cells of the second battery module, thereby preventing any of the battery cells that has undergone thermal runaway from inducing thermal runaway of adjacent battery cells opposite to their vents.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neil, as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of You.
Regarding Claim 12, O’Neil discloses the process of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above).
O’Neil is silent on wherein dispensing the silicone rubber foam composition comprises dispensing discrete portions of the silicone rubber foam composition on at least one of a vent area of each of the battery cells or on the flame barrier sheet.
However, You discloses battery cells provided with vents and thermally insulating each vent (see abstract and paragraphs [0003]-[0010]).
You additionally discloses ensuring appropriate insulation between battery cell vents separates the battery cells of the first battery module from the battery cells of the second battery module, thereby preventing any of the battery cells that has undergone thermal runaway from inducing thermal runaway of adjacent battery cells opposite to their vents (see paragraph [0024]). Since the silicone rubber foam of O’Neil may partially cover the battery cells (see paragraphs [0025]-[0028]), a skilled artisan is capable of discretely covering the battery vents with the silicone rubber foam to prevent thermal runaway as suggested by You.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the process of O’Neil dispensing the silicone rubber foam composition comprises dispensing discrete portions of the silicone rubber foam composition on at least one of a vent area of each of the battery cells, as disclosed by You, in order to separate the battery cells of the first battery module from the battery cells of the second battery module, thereby preventing any of the battery cells that has undergone thermal runaway from inducing thermal runaway of adjacent battery cells opposite to their vents.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neil, as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Stude and Anderson.
Regarding Claims 14-16, O’Neil discloses the process of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above). O’Neil further discloses the silicone rubber foam covers the battery cells totally or partially (see paragraph [0042]).
O’Neil is silent on wherein dispensing the silicone rubber foam comprises dispensing the silicone rubber foam composition on the flame barrier sheet, and wherein placing the flame barrier sheet on the plurality of battery cells comprises placing the silicone rubber foam composition on the plurality of battery cells using the flame barrier sheet, shaping the silicone rubber foam composition with the flame barrier sheet, and wherein the silicone rubber foam is adhered to the flame barrier sheet.
However, Stude discloses the flame barrier sheet 1A is placed on the plurality of battery cells to offers appropriate protection from uncontrolled heat development in the battery in Fig. 3 (see paragraphs [0040] and [0112]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the process of O’Neil wherein the flame barrier sheet is placed on the plurality of battery cells, as disclosed by Stude, in order to achieve appropriate protection from uncontrolled heat development in the battery.
Stude is silent on wherein dispensing the silicone rubber foam comprises dispensing the silicone rubber foam composition on the flame barrier sheet, shaping the silicone rubber foam composition with the flame barrier sheet, and wherein the silicone rubber foam is adhered to the flame barrier sheet.
However, Anderson discloses a flame barrier sheet comprising a silicone rubber foam attached to a support layer by pouring the silicone foam mixture onto the support layer, rolling it so that it fits support layer (thereby shaping the silicone rubber foam composition with the flame barrier sheet (meeting Claim 15)), and laminating the silicone foam to the support layer (thereby adhering the silicone rubber foam to the flame barrier sheet (meeting Claim 16)) (see Page 4, Column 3, Lines 61-65 and Page 4, Column 4, Lines 67-68 to Page 5 Column 5, Lines 1-14).
Anderson additionally discloses the silicone foam layer adds flexibility to the flame barrier sheet and the flame barrier sheet comprises desirable flame resistant properties (see abstract and Page 5, Column 5, Lines 21-54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the process of O’Neil and Stude wherein dispensing the silicone rubber foam comprises dispensing the silicone rubber foam composition on the flame barrier sheet, and wherein placing the flame barrier sheet on the plurality of battery cells comprises placing the silicone rubber foam composition on the plurality of battery cells using the flame barrier sheet, as disclosed by Anderson, in order to achieve flexibility and desirable flame resistant properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY L KLINE whose telephone number is (703)756-1729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/S.L.K./
Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729