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 filed June 23, 2023 & September 30, 2024 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and an initialed copied is attached herewith.
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.
Claim(s) 1,3-6, 8-9 & 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al. US Pub. 2021/0074975 in view of Kim et al. KR 20110076361.
With respect to claim 1, Kwak teaches a battery module (100; Fig, 2), comprising: a cell assembly having a plurality of battery cells (battery cells; [0007]; Fig. 3 below); a module case provided to accommodate the cell assembly and having an opening on at least one side (bottom plate 111, an end plate (or a plurality of end plates) 112, and a side plate (or a plurality of side plates) 113 which provide a space in which the battery cells; [0067]; Fig. 3); and an oxygen inflow blocking cover covering the opening (cover member 110; [0067]; Fig. 2), wherein the oxygen inflow blocking cover comprises: two or more partition walls each having a vent hole (partition walls 150 & 160; [0071]; Fig. 3), overlapping each other (partition walls 150 & 160 overlap; [0071]; Fig. 3), provided to cover the opening (Fig. 3), and configured such that gas is discharged to outside of the module case through the vent holes when the gas is generated in the cell assembly (gas discharged through the vent of the battery cell may move upwardly along (or through) the duct 141 of the top plate [0069]; top cover 160 includes discharge openings (e.g., discharge holes) 161; [0072]; discharge openings 161 may be positioned to correspond to the ducts 141 of the top plate 140; [0072]; movement of the gas through the ducts 141 may not be influenced by the extinguisher sheet 150 (e.g., the extinguisher sheet 150 may not impede the movement of the gas from the battery cells); [0081]).
PNG
media_image1.png
673
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, the two or more partition walls comprise a first partition wall and a second partition wall overlapping each other (partition walls 150 & 160 overlap; [0071]; Fig. 3). With respect to claim 8, the two or more partition walls comprise a first partition wall (160; Fig. 3), a second partition wall (150; Fig. 3), and a third partition wall disposed to face each other in three layers (extinguisher sheet 150 may be one or more members (or sheets) extending in one direction; [0070]; Duplication of essential working [parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). With respect to claim 9,
the vent hole of the first partition wall and the vent hole of the second partition wall are misaligned with each other, and the vent hole of the second partition wall and the vent hole of the third partition wall are misaligned with each other vent hole of the (first partition wall 160; Fig. 3; vent hole of second partition wall 150; Fig. 3; Third wall: extinguisher sheet 150 may be one or more members (or sheets) extending in one direction; [0070]; Duplication of essential working [parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); Examiners Note: all walls have multiple vent holes and the adjacent vent hole of the adjacent wall are misaligned). With respect to claim 12, battery pack comprising a battery module (energy storage module generally includes (or is) an apparatus including a relatively large quantity of battery cells; [0003]). With respect to claim 13, energy storage system comprising a battery module (energy storage module may be configured to be linked to a renewal energy and/or power system; [0003]).
Kwak does not teach or suggest: a hole blocking member positioned between the two or more partition walls and configured to block the vent holes by deforming when heat is applied (claim 1); the hole blocking member interposed therebetween(claim 3); the hole blocking member is a plate-shaped body and has a gas passage hole through which gas may pass in a thickness direction, and wherein the vent hole of the first partition wall, the gas passage hole, and the vent hole of the second partition wall are aligned in a first direction (claim 4); a width of the gas passage hole is less than a width of the vent hole of the first partition wall and a width of the vent hole of the second partition wall (claim 5); the width of the gas passage hole-of decreases from the second partition wall to the first partition wall (claim 6); the hole blocking member comprises a first hole blocking member disposed between the first partition wall and the second partition wall, and a second hole blocking member disposed between the second partition wall and the third partition wall (claim 8); the first hole blocking member and the second hole blocking member have a porous structure (claim 9).
Kim teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: a hole blocking member positioned and configured to block the vent holes by deforming when heat is applied ( low melting point material 500 should be formed in a ring shape along the inlet edge of the vent hole (H) of the upper surface of the terminal portion 300, so that the upper side of the vent hole (H) is completely sealed; DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS, paragraph 14; claim 1); the hole blocking member is a plate-shaped body and has a gas passage hole through which gas may pass in a thickness direction, and wherein the vent hole of the first partition wall, the gas passage hole, and the vent hole of the second partition wall are aligned in a first direction (low melting point material 500 should be formed in a ring shape along the inlet edge of the vent hole (H) of the upper surface of the terminal portion 300, so that the upper side of the vent hole (H) is completely sealed; DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS, paragraph 14; ); Examiners Note: the melting ring 500 allows gas to vent and thus would be aligned with the aligned vent holes of adjacent walls; claim 4); a width of the gas passage hole is less than a width of the vent hole of the first partition wall and a width of the vent hole of the second partition wall (melting ring 500 fits along the inlet edge of the vent hole DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS, paragraph 14, therefore must be narrower than the vents; claim 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the hole blocking member positioned and configured to block the vent holes by deforming when heat is applied of Kim, in the battery module of Kwak, in order to prevent over heating of the cell. With respect to the hole blocking member being between the two or more partition walls (claims 1 & 3); it would have been obvious to place the hole blocking member in any of the vent holes including in the partition walls of Kwak in view of Kim, in order to prevent over heating of the cell. Kwak teaches extinguisher sheet 150 may be one or more members (or sheets) extending in one direction; [0070]. Examiners Note: multiple layers with multiple hole blocking members yield hole blocking members in between partition walls. Duplication of essential working [parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). It has also been held that rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
With respect to the hole blocking member comprising a first hole blocking member disposed between the first partition wall and the second partition wall, and a second hole blocking member disposed between the second partition wall and the third partition wall (claim 8); it would have been obvious to place the ring shaped hole blocking member (ring shaped 500; DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS, paragraph 14) of Kim in any of the vent holes including in the partition walls of Kwak, in order to prevent over heating of the cell. Duplication of essential working [parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). It has also been held that rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
With respect to the width of the gas passage hole-of decreases from the second partition wall to the first partition wall (claim 6); it would have been obvious in the vent ring of Kwak in view of Kim, in order to increase discharge speed of gas out of the cell. The skilled artisan recognizes that vent shape directly effects gas flow rate. It has also been held that changing shape of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
With respect to the first hole blocking member and the second hole blocking member have a porous structure (claim 9), it would have been obvious to place the hole blocking member in any of the vent holes including in the partition walls of Kwak in view of Kim, in order to prevent over heating of the cell. Duplication of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). It has also been held that rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al. US Pub. 2021/0074975 in view of Kim et al. KR 20110076361, in view of Cheng et al CN 201779237.
Kwak in view of Kim teaches a battery module as described herein above.
Kwak does not teach or suggest: the hole blocking member is a plastic injection molded plate-shaped body (claim 2).
Cheng teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: the hole blocking member being a plastic injection molded plate-shaped body (vent plug 1 is preferably a plastic material; [0023]; Examiners Note: it would be reasonable to expect the plastic to melt a the melting temperature when the cell is overheating; claim 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the hole blocking member being a plastic injection molded plate-shaped body of Cheng, in the vent of Kwak in view of Kim, in order to prevent over heating of the cell. Examiners Note: it would be reasonable to expect the plastic to melt a the melting temperature when the cell is overheating.
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al. US Pub. 2021/0074975 in view of Kim et al. KR 20110076361, in view of FUJIKAWA et al JP 2009212081A.
Kwak in view of Kim teaches a battery module as described herein above.
Kwak does not teach or suggest: the hole blocking member is being a mesh net capable of melting at a predetermined temperature (claim 7).
FUJIKAWA teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: the hole blocking member is being a mesh net capable of melting at a predetermined temperature (the metal mesh member provided in the vent hole immediately absorbs heat such as high-temperature contents including the flame to lower the temperature; BEST-MODE, paragraph 12; claim 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the hole blocking member is being a mesh net capable of melting at a predetermined temperature of FUJIKAWA, in the vent of Kwak in view of Kim, in order to absorb heat such as high-temperature contents including the flame to lower the temperature. It would be reasonable to expect the mesh net to be capable of melting at a predetermined temperature.
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.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al. US Pub. 2021/0074975 in view of Kim et al. KR 20110076361, in view of LIU et al CN 111933852A.
Kwak in view of Kim teaches a battery module as described herein above.
Kwak does not teach or suggest: the cell assembly is a plurality of pouch-type battery cells claim 10); the plurality of pouch-type battery cells have electrode leads positioned in front and rear direction of the module case, and wherein the module case has the opening on at least one of a front and rear (claim 11).
LIU teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: the cell assembly is a plurality of pouch-type battery cells are stacked on each other (the two sides of the buffer pad 50 are respectively adhered with double faced adhesive tape, the electric core 30 is fixedly connected with the buffer pad 50 by double-sided adhesive tape; Fig. 1; Specific implementation examples, paragraph 9; 50-30-50 forms a partial pouch; claim 10); the plurality of pouch-type battery cells have electrode leads positioned in front and rear direction of the module case, and wherein the module case has the opening on at least one of a front and rear (lateral orientation in Fig. 1; claim 11).
PNG
media_image2.png
475
874
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the cell assembly is a plurality of pouch-type battery cells being stacked on each other of LIU, in the vent of Kwak in view of Kim, as it has also been held that changing shape of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE M WILLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1309. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Tiffany Legette, may be reached at 571-270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Monique M Wills/
Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723