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 .
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 6 and 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.
Regarding claim 6, claim 5 establishes a longitudinal direction and a width direction for the side beams to be oriented. Claim 6 is dependent upon claim 5 and goes on and establishes two inner beams that are in a longitudinal direction of the width direction. It is unclear whether or not the inner beams should be in the longitudinal direction or the width direction as described in claim 5 due to the mixing of terms. For the purposes of examination the inner beams are being interpreted to be oriented in the width direction of the lower pack frame.
Regarding claim 15, applicant recites the limitation "the second side partition" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination the “second side partition” is the second side surface partition.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 20220209332 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jung teaches a battery pack case with a lower frame on which batteries sit, and an upper frame that covers the lower frame (0064 0073, Fig. 1). Further, the lower frame has side frames on top along the edge as well as separated inner beams each with gas venting paths and respective venting holes (0010, 0071, 0088, fig. 4). The beams further are in contact with the side frame via a connection point.
PNG
media_image1.png
367
479
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2-4, Jung teaches the battery pack of claim 1 as described above and further teaches and there are battery modules separated from each other by the inner beams (fig. 1). The center beam has the same channels as present in the left and right frames and therefore it would be obvious to have the same communication holes (venting holes) as present on the left and right frames on the center beam so that any harmful material generated can be discharged to outside to prevent affecting other modules (0070 0082 fig. 4a). The venting holes would be between a pair of battery modules that are between a side wall and an inner beam.
PNG
media_image2.png
388
486
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Jung teaches the battery pack of claim 1 as described above and further teaches that the side frame has two pairs of walls in a longitudinal direction and width direction respectively (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
367
491
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Jung teaches the battery pack of claim 5 as described above and further teaches that the inner beams are in the width direction and are connected to the side walls via a connection portion (fig. 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
367
491
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Jung teaches the battery pack of claim 5 as described above and further teaches that the longitudinal side beams and width side beams connect to each other at the corners, forming a second connection portion (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Jung teaches the battery pack of claim 1 as described above and further teaches that The battery pack can be used in a vehicle or portable device (0003).
Claim(s) 8-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Ren et al. (US 12506219 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Jung teaches the battery pack of claim 7 as described above but is silent to a venting outlet specifically on a side beam in the width direction. Ren teaches a battery tray with inner beams that separate individual battery modules from each other and vent flame, smoke, and other harmful material out of the battery pack (Ren, abstract fig. 1). Jung is silent to the inclusion of flow channels in the side beams in the width direction but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the side beams in the width direction of Jung could contain additional flow channels connected to the other channels for better transfer of harmful material as well as benefit from an increased distance (Jung 0086) as shown in Ren (Ren, Fig. 1, flow channels in all side beams) and that the venting holes could be simply moved anywhere along the edge of the battery case, including the side beam in the width direction, as a simple matter of rearrangement of parts with expected results, See MPEP 2144.04.VI.
Regarding claim 9, Jung in view of Ren teaches the battery pack of claim 8 as described above and Jung further teaches that the end portions of the longitudinal beams have an end cap that can block the movement of harmful material as necessary (Jung 0076). Further, Jung figure 3 shown that the channels in the first side beams can block the channels present in the second side beams for the purpose of increasing distance to the outlet by effectively blocking potential shortcuts (Jung 0086).
Regarding claim 10, Jung in view of Ren teaches the battery pack of claim 9 as described above and Jung further teaches that the inner beams have 4 layers with some layers on top of others and venting holes on each layer including the bottom layer which would be below another layer that could be called a first partition (Jung fig. 3 and fig. 4).
PNG
media_image4.png
171
499
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Jung in view of Ren teaches the battery pack of claim 10 as described above and Jung further teaches that the channels at the end portions of the inner beams have portions spaced apart from a side of the inner beam, such as a center portion. The end portions also have side walls in contact with the side of the inner beam and the second inner partition has a bottom open part blocked by the top of the first inner partition (Jung fig. 3 channels, C, are the partitions present inside in the inner beams, 0088).
PNG
media_image5.png
295
371
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Jung in view of Ren teaches the battery pack of claim 10 as described above and Jung further teaches end parts of all of the partitions in all beams can be both connected to and spaced apart from any side of the respective beam (Jung fig. 3). Further, the inner beam is connected to the side frame forming a first connection portion on both side surfaces of the inner beam which is closed on the side (Jung figs. 1 and 4a).
PNG
media_image5.png
295
371
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
171
499
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Jung in view of Ren teaches the battery pack of claim 12 as described above and Jung further teaches the inner beam is connected to both side beams and is therefore adjacent to them (Jung fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Jung in view of Ren teaches the battery pack of claim 9 as described above and Jung further teaches that the side beams have layers with some layers on top of others and venting holes on each layer. Jung fig. 4a shows that a second partition can be above a first partition and fig. 3 shows that the bottom portion of the second partition is covered by the top portion of the first partition. Further, the first connection part is along all partitions in a height direction including between the first and second partitions (Jung fig. 3 and fig. 4a).
PNG
media_image4.png
171
499
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Jung in view of Ren teaches the battery pack of claim 14 as described above and Jung further teaches end parts of all of the partitions in all beams can be both connected to and spaced apart from any side of the respective beam (Jung fig. 3). Jung fig. 4a shows that a second partition can be above a first partition and fig. 3 shows that the bottom portion of the second partition is covered by the top portion of the first partition.. The second connection portion is present on an upper side surface as described regarding claim 7 and shown in Jung fig. 1.
PNG
media_image5.png
295
371
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
171
499
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Jung in view of Ren teaches the battery pack of claim 14 as described above and Jung further teaches end parts of all of the partitions in all beams can be both connected to and spaced apart from any side of the respective beam (Jung fig. 3).. The second connection portion is present on an upper side surface as described regarding claim 7 and is blocked as discussed regarding claim 9. Ren teaches that the outside corners of the frame are curved (Ren fig. 1) and, while ren does not explicitly teach the reason for this, it is known in the art that fluids flow better when given a curve to travel in rather than a sharp 90 degree turn. It would have been obvious for Jung to round their corners as shown in ren so that the debris from a compromised battery can flow better through the channels before exiting outside the battery. This modification makes it so that a second connection portion is clearly present on both sides of a first side frame and it would still be obvious to block the channels to prevent ”shortcuts” as discussed regarding claim 9 (Jung 0086).
PNG
media_image5.png
295
371
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Jung in view of Ren teaches the battery pack of claim 16 as described above and Jung further teaches end parts of all of the partitions in all beams can be both connected to and spaced apart from any side of the respective beam (Jung fig. 3).
PNG
media_image5.png
295
371
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Jung teaches the battery pack of claim 1 as described above but is silent to venting valves in the venting holes. Jung does teach that a singular venting valve for the whole battery pack at once is not optimal (Jung 0007). Ren teaches a battery tray with inner beams that separate individual battery modules from each other and vent flame smoke and other harmful material out of the battery pack (Ren, abstract fig. 1). Ren further teaches that each of the vents for individual monomers have an individual explosion proof valve that would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use for each individual battery module present as doing so can prevent unwanted material and air from entering other battery modules while still allowing unwanted material to exit in the case of an emergency (Ren, column 4 second paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the Battery of Jung and add in an explosion proof valve as discussed in Ren to each of the individual venting holes to prevent unwanted material and air from entering other battery modules while still allowing unwanted material to exit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN ROBERT BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-0640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 ET.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/SEAN R. BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights