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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15, as filed 29 June 2023, are examined herein. No new matter is included.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 3 includes the limitation “wherein the vent formed in a multilayer structure.” This appears to be missing the word “is”.
Claim 9 is objected to because the v in “vent” is struck through. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The specification recites (page 10 first line) that the gas is movable in the inner space but is clearly meant to have recited movable in the venting channel (see page 9 close to the bottom of the page: “The venting unit 300 may be provided … so that the venting gas is movable.” Examiner suggest amending the specification so that each mention of “the inner space” refers to the inner space of the battery cell, the inner space of the module, or the inner space of the venting unit. 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.
Claims 1-15 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.
Claim 1 contains the limitation (emphasis added) “a module case configured to accommodate the cell assembly in an inner space thereof …. a venting unit … so that the venting gas discharged from the venting hole is introduced into the venting channel and is movable in the inner space.” The recitation of “inner space” in line 12 implies that the venting gas, which has been discharged from the venting hole of the module case and introduced into the venting channel of the vent, is allowed to be moved back into the inner space of the module case after being introduced into the venting channel. However, referring to FIG. 4, the gas generated in the module case 200 is shown moving through the venting channel. The recitation, “movable in the inner space” should therefore be interpreted as recited “movable in the venting channel”. Claims 2-14 stand rejected due to dependency.
Claim 3 contains the limitation “wherein the vent formed in a multilayer structure.” The meaning of “multilayer” is not clear in this limitation. For example, “multilayer” could refer to (1) a laminated material, e.g. aluminum with an anodized coating on both surfaces. “Multilayer” could also refer to (2) the venting unit having two layers, e.g. and upper layer and a lower layer of the enclosure. “Multilayer” could further refer to (3) the venting channel having multiple layers, as shown in FIG. 8 of the instant specification and disclosed on page 12 of the specification “the venting unit 300 may be configured so that the venting channel V has two or more layers”. Said differently, if a cross section of the vent is made, is made, it can intersect the venting channel at least twice. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant claim limitation is determined to include wherein a venting channel shaped such that a cross section of the vent can be made such that it intersects the venting channel more than once. Examiner notes that if the third interpretation is intended, it will be necessary to amend the claim language to improve clarity.
Claim 8 includes the limitation “wherein the fire extinguishing member is located on an upper surface of the venting channel.” Because the orientation of “up” has not been established, the meaning of “upper” is unclear. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant claim limitation is determined to include any surface.
Claim 9 includes the limitation “wherein the vent has an inclined surface formed on the venting channel.” Because the orientation of “up” has not been established, the meaning of “inclined” is unclear. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant claim limitation is determined to include any angle of the venting channel.
Claim 12 includes the limitation “a first barrier between an upper wall and a bottom wall of the vent to form a first channel and a second channel; and a connection hole between the first channel and the second channel.” Because the orientation of “up” has not been established, the meaning of “upper wall” and “bottom wall” is unclear. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant claim limitation is determined to include any barrier with a hole in it, located in the channel. Claims 13-14 each contain the same “upper wall” and “bottom wall” and are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 15 includes the limitation “wherein a height of the barrier varies from a first end of the barrier to a second end of the barrier.” It is not clear if the height is of the same barrier or of a different barrier. Because the orientation of “up” has not been established, the meaning of “height” is unclear. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant claim limitation is determined to include “wherein a dimension of the barrier or a distance to a hole on the barrier varies.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seo (US 20180358593 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 11, Seo teaches a battery module (abstract), comprising: a cell assembly having at least one battery cell (FIG. 2 modules 100a, 100b, 100c ); a module case configured to accommodate the cell assembly in an inner space thereof (FIG. 2 and [0032] pack structure 120 … receiving the cell modules 100a, 100b, 100c ) and having a venting hole (FIG. 4 venting hole 101 ) formed to discharge a venting gas generated from the cell assembly; and a vent provided to an outer side of the module case and configured to have a venting channel formed (FIG. 4 pack tray 121, passage 115 ) in at least one layer (FIG. 4 first/second plates 121a 121b) so that the venting gas discharged from the venting hole is introduced into the venting channel and is movable in the inner space. (FIG. 4 and [0038] pack tray 121) This also teaches the limitation of claim 10, a battery pack (abstract and FIG. 2), and claim 11 a vehicle ([0003] vehicle), comprising the battery module.
Regarding claim 2, Seo teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and further teaches wherein the vent has an inlet formed in an inner surface (FIG. 4 venting hole 122) to communicate with the venting hole of the module case and has an outlet ([0041] and FIG. 5 passage 115 … extends to the outside) formed in a portion spaced from the inner surface.
Regarding claim 3, Seo teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Seo further teaches wherein the venting unit is formed in a multilayer structure. (FIG. 4 plates 121a, 121b)
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4 -8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US 20180358593 A1) in view of Nishino (US 20100104928 A1), with evidentiary support from Sui (US 20190127644 A1.)
Regarding claim 4 – claim 8, Seo teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and further teaches [0043] that thermal runaway of a cell may cause the cell vent gas and flame. Examiner notes that the instant specification teaches at [0065-0067] of the publication (US 2024008851 A1) that sodium hydrogen carbonate as a fire extinguishing material pyrolyzes into CO2 and water. However, Seo does not explicitly teach or suggest a fire extinguishing member configured to generate carbon dioxide through a pyrolysis reaction.
Nishino, in the field of (abstract) improved safety for batteries, discloses FIG. 1 exhaust duct 1c having a gas cooling portion 1L. At [0092] sodium hydrogen carbonate … pellets are bonded to the inside of the gas cooling portion 1L, and [0103] carbon dioxide is generated. As shown at Table 1, the use of sodium hydrogen carbonate (refers to a fire extinguishing member configured to generate carbon dioxide) prevents sparks and flame to the outside. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify Seo’s battery tray by bonding the sodium hydrogen carbonate into passage 115 of Seo, with a reasonable expectation of successfully suppressing sparks and flame.
Sui, in the field of pyrolyzing a resin matrix, discloses [0024] that sodium bicarbonate, when heated, decomposes into water and carbon dioxide, thus providing evidence that the sodium hydrogen carbonate pellets of modified Seo are configured to generate carbon dioxide through a pyrolysis reaction. This also renders obvious claim 5, wherein the fire extinguishing member is configured to generate water and the carbon dioxide through a pyrolysis reaction, claim 6, wherein the fire extinguishing member is located inside the module case, and claim 7 wherein the fire extinguishing member is located inside the vent. (Examiner notes that passage 115 of Seo is part of the vent assembly.) This also renders obvious the limitation of claim 8, wherein the fire extinguishing member is located on an upper surface of the venting channel.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US 20180358593 A1) in view of Chung (US 20110008657 A1), with evidentiary support from Sui (US 20190127644 A1.)
Regarding claim 9, Seo with evidentiary support from Sui teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Seo does not explicitly teach wherein the vent has an inclined surface formed on the venting channel.
Chung, in the field of (abstract) cooling for battery cells, discloses at [0032-0033], [0043] and FIG. 7 a cooling channel 152 and guide plate 174 which may be sloped to ensure uniformity of the flux of the cooling gas.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to replace the double plate structure of modified Seo with the cooling channels, orifices, and guide plate of Chung, with a reasonable expectation of successfully ensuring uniform flux of the cooling gas.
Claim(s) 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US 20180358593 A1) in view of Chung (US 20110008657 A1).
Regarding claims 12 and 15, Seo teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Seo does not disclose a first barrier between an upper wall and a bottom wall of the vent to form a first channel and a second channel; and a connection hole between the first channel and the second channel.
Chung, in the field of (abstract) cooling for battery cells, discloses at [0032-0033], [0043] and FIG. 7 a cooling channel 152 and guide plate 174 which may be sloped to ensure uniformity of the flux of the cooling gas. Examiner notes that the connection hole between first and second channel is to the right of guide plate 174.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to replace the double plate structure of modified Seo with the cooling channels, orifices, and guide plate of Chung, with a reasonable expectation of successfully ensuring uniform flux of the cooling gas. This also renders obvious the limitation of claim 15, wherein a height of the barrier varies from a first end of the barrier to a second end of the barrier.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US 20180358593 A1) as set forth in claim 1, above, in further view of Kim (US 20180108892 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Seo in view of Chung teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Seo does not disclose a further teaches a second barrier (projection) between an upper wall and a bottom wall of the vent to form a third channel.
Kim, in the field of (abstract) a battery pack with safety features, discloses (FIG. 6, FIG. 11, and [0054], [0062-0064]) and side wall part 220 (an exhaust path) having two internal barriers forming second and third channels, and multiple holes connecting the channels. These barriers and holes act to lengthen the gas discharge path, so flame is not emitted directly to the outside of the battery pack.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify the battery tray of modified with the two internal barriers of Kim, with a reasonable expectation of successfully lengthening the gas discharge path to prevent flame emission.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US 20180358593 A1) in view of Chung (US 20110008657 A1), as set forth in claim 12, above, and in further view of Yoda (US 20090081531 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Seo in view of Chung teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Seo and Kim are both silent on grooves on an upper surface of the bottom wall of the vent.
Yoda, in the field of (abstract) a gas discharge hose for a hybrid vehicle battery, discloses (FIG. 3, FIG. 5, FIG. 7, FIG. 8, a gas discharge hose with grooves on all sides. (therefore meeting the limitation grooves on an upper surface of the bottom wall of the vent) At [0044], the presence of grooves in the gas discharge hose improves the workability in attachment of the hose and reduces the risk of blockage when an external force is applied.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that during a vehicular accident, external forces could be applied to the discharge hose and at the same time thermal runaway could be triggered. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to add grooves as taught by Yoda to the battery vent of modified Seo, with a reasonable expectation of successfully reducing the risk of blockage and improving safety.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.
CLAIRE A. RUTISER
Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/C.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751