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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 08/30/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of "the battery cells" in line 2 introduces a potential inconsistency. Earlier in claim 1, the term “a plurality of battery cells” is introduced in line 1, the subsequent use of “the battery cells” in line 2 does not consistently refer back to the originally introduced term, although it appears intended to do so. For consistency and clarity, it is suggested that “the battery cells” be edited to “the plurality of battery cells”.
Dependent claims 2-12 are similarly objected to for encompassing the limitations of claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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, 3-4, 6-8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Churchill (US 20210288362 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Churchill teaches an assembled battery in which a plurality of battery cells is connected serially or in parallel ([0003]; multiple electrochemical cells connected in series and parallel arrays). Churchill further teaches that a variety of electrochemical cell types can be used, including prismatic and cylindrical cells ([0022]). Churchill also teaches that each cell includes an electrode assembly [0050]. In the embodiment employing prismatic cells, side outer surfaces of the cells (i.e., left and right surfaces of exemplary cells 103, 104 in Fig. 6) constitute a peripheral surface that is orthogonal to the electrode surface (i.e., surface of 52 shown in Fig. 7). Churchill further teaches arranging adjacent cells with a thermal management multilayer sheet 403 disposed therebetween (multilayer management sheet 403; [0047], Figs. 4 and 6). In the prismatic or cylindrical embodiment, adjacent cells arranged side by side inherently have peripheral surfaces facing one another (see also Churchill [0019, 0051] regarding arrangement of adjacent cells and thermal management multilayer sheet). Accordingly, Churchill teaches the claim limitations that the battery cells each having an electrode surface having an electrode and a peripheral surface orthogonal to the electrode surface and being disposed such that the peripheral surfaces face each other. Churchill further teaches limitations wherein the assembled battery comprising the battery cells (battery cells 103 and 104 in Fig. 6), and a flameproof material ([0043]) covering the peripheral surface of the battery cells ([0040, 0046]: multilayer sheet, including a flameproof material layer, may extend past an edge of an electrochemical cell in order to cover at least a portion or all of a surface of the cell). Specifically, Churchill discloses a layer comprising an intumescent composition configured to reduce the spread of flames ([0043]). This layer provides flame-resistant protection by forming a char and limiting flame propagation ([0043]). Churchill further teaches a heat dissipation member (heat-spreading layers 61, 63 within multilayer sheet of Figs. 1-3 [0028, 0040]) covering the peripheral surface of the battery cells ([0046]: multilayer sheet may extend past an edge of an electrochemical cell in order to cover at least a portion or all of a surface of the cell). Churchill does not explicitly teach a limitation wherein the heat dissipation member covers the peripheral surface of the battery cells which is covered with the flameproof material. However, Churchill discloses that various combinations and subcombinations of layers can be used depending on the desired properties ([0040]). Thus, Churchill expressly contemplates flexibility in layer selection and ordering. Accordingly, in view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to arrange the heat dissipation member such that the heat dissipation member covering the peripheral surface of the battery cells which is covered with the flameproof material, as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Churchill teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Churchill further teaches a limitation wherein the heat dissipation member ([0028], heat-spreading layers 61, 63) is a sheet-shaped heat dissipation material ([0028]: the heat-spreading layer can be a tape or sheet) wrapped around the peripheral surface of the battery cells ([0022, 0027, 0040, 0046, 0051]). Specifically, paragraph [0046] discloses that the multilayer sheet may extend past an edge of an electrochemical cell in order to cover at least a portion or all of a surface of the cell. Churchill further teaches that the thermal management multilayer sheet may be applied to a cylindrical battery cell ([0022, 0027]). A cylindrical cell necessarily includes a curved side wall extending around the cell and wrapping the cell. Moreover, paragraph [0051] teaches that the thermal management multilayer sheet may be disposed directly on a cell or cell array in any configuration, including the sides of the cells. When placed on the sides of the cells, the sheet conforms to the peripheral surface of the battery cell in a manner consistent with wrapping around the cell body. Churchill does not explicitly teach a limitation wherein the heat dissipation material is wrapped around the peripheral surface of the battery cells which is covered with the flameproof material. However, Churchill discloses that various combinations and subcombinations of layers can be used depending on the desired properties ([0040]). Thus, Churchill expressly contemplates flexibility in layer selection and ordering. Accordingly, in view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to arrange the heat dissipation member such that the sheet-shaped heat dissipation material wrapped around the peripheral surface of the battery cells which is covered with the flameproof material, as claimed.
Regarding claim 4, Churchill, teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Churchill further teaches a limitation wherein the heat dissipation member is made of at least one material selected from among metals, carbon, and ceramics ([0028]).
Regarding claim 6, Churchill, teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Churchill further teaches a limitation wherein the assembled battery of claim 1 includes an elastic member (integrity layers 84, 86 within multilayer sheet of Figs. 1-3, made of elastic materials as listed in [0033-0035]). The instant application (at Specification [0021]) describes that the elastic member is made of rubber or an elastomer. Churchill likewise teaches that integrity layers 84 and 86 can independently include continuous rubber or elastomer fibers ([0033]–[0035]). Thus, Churchill discloses the elastic member as claimed. Churchill further teaches a limitation wherein the elastic member covering at least a part of the peripheral surface of the battery cells (Fig. 1, [0040, 0046]: multilayer sheet, including an elastic member layer, may extend past an edge of an electrochemical cell in order to cover at least a portion or all of a surface of the cell) and pressing the battery cells ([0051]). Specifically, Churchill discloses that assembly pressure of the battery can hold stacked components into place ([0051]). This disclosure suggests that multilayer structure, including insulating material as one of the layers, are configured to press against and secure the battery cell. Churchill does not explicitly teach a limitation wherein the elastic member disposed between the flameproof material and the heat dissipation member, the elastic member covering at least a part of the peripheral surface of the battery cells which is covered with the flameproof material. However, Churchill discloses that various combinations and subcombinations of layers can be used depending on the desired properties ([0040]). Thus, Churchill expressly contemplates flexibility in layer selection and ordering. Accordingly, in view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to arrange the elastic member disposed between the flameproof material and the heat dissipation member, the elastic member covering at least a part of the peripheral surface of the battery cells which is covered with the flameproof material (based on [0040] for flexibility in layer selection and ordering ).
Regarding claim 7, Churchill, teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Churchill further teaches a limitation wherein the assembled battery of claim 1 includes an elastic member (integrity layers 84, 86 within multilayer sheet of Figs. 1-3, made of elastic materials as listed in [0033-0035]) provided to at least a part of the peripheral surface of the battery cells (Fig. 1, [0040, 0046]: multilayer sheet, including an elastic member layer, may extend past an edge of an electrochemical cell in order to cover at least a portion or all of a surface of the cell), the elastic member covering the peripheral surface along a peripheral direction and pressing the battery cells ([0051]). For providing more details, the instant application (at Specification [0021]) describes that the elastic member is made of rubber or an elastomer. Churchill likewise teaches that integrity layers 84 and 86 can independently include continuous rubber or elastomer fibers ([0033]–[0035]). Thus, Churchill discloses the elastic member as claimed. Churchill also discloses that assembly pressure of the battery can hold stacked components into place ([0051]). This disclosure suggests that multilayer structure, including insulating material as one of the layers, are configured to press against and secure the battery cell. Churchill does not explicitly teach a limitation wherein the elastic member provided to at least a part of the peripheral surface of the battery cells which is covered with both the flameproof material and the heat dissipation member. However, Churchill discloses that various combinations and subcombinations of layers can be used depending on the desired properties ([0040]). Thus, Churchill expressly contemplates flexibility in layer selection and ordering. Accordingly, in view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to arrange the elastic member wherein elastic member provided to at least a part of the peripheral surface of the battery cells which is covered with both the flameproof material and the heat dissipation member.
Regarding claim 8, Churchill, teaches all claim limitations of claim 6 as stated above. Churchill further teaches a limitation wherein the elastic member is made of a rubber or an elastomer ([0033]–[0035]).
Regarding claim 12, Churchill teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Churchill further teaches a limitation wherein a battery pack in which the assembled battery according to a claim 1 is encased in a battery case (Fig. 8, [0052], housing 800).
Claims 2, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Churchill as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Nishikawa et al. (WO 2020066565 A1, citations from enclosed machine translation).
Regarding claim 2, Churchill teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Churchill does not explicitly teach a limitation wherein the heat dissipation member is a tubular body which is open at both ends. However, Churchill teaches that the thermal management multilayer sheet may be applied to cylindrical battery cell ([0027]). A cylindrical cell necessarily includes a curved side wall extending between two open ends. When a sheet-shaped heat dissipation member is wrapped around the peripheral surface of such a cylindrical cell, as taught by Churchill, the resulting structure forms a tubular body surrounding the side wall of the cell. Additionally, paragraph [0046] discloses that the multilayer sheet may extend past an edge of an electrochemical cell in order to cover at least a portion or all of a surface of the cell. Thus, Churchill contemplates configurations in which the heat dissipation member surrounds the cylindrical side wall while remaining open at the top and bottom ends of the cell, as claimed. Further, Nishikawa explicitly teaches this limitation wherein the heat dissipation member (a coating sheet 10 includes inorganic filler that can be satisfactorily used for heat dissipation [page 6, lines 20-21]) is a tubular body which is open at both ends (a coating sheet 10, that covers the outer peripheral surface of the cylindrical lithium-ion battery 20A, except for both end surfaces [page 3, lines 55-59, FIG. 1A. Middle figure]). Such a configuration corresponds to a heat dissipation member with tubular body open at both ends. Nishikawa additionally teaches that the battery cover sheet is used to facilitate efficient arrangement of a plurality of batteries (page 1, lines 12-13). Further, Churchill, and Nishikawa are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of battery pack.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the heat dissipation member of Churchill to have a tubular body open at both ends as taught by Nishikawa in order to facilitate efficient arrangement of a plurality of batteries (page 1, lines 12-13).
Regarding claim 5, Churchill, teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Churchill does not explicitly teach a limitation wherein the flameproof material contains organic fibers and/or inorganic fibers. While Churchill teaches that the flameproof material comprising organic materials ([0043]), it is silent as to whether the material is fibrous. However, Nishikawa explicitly teaches this limitation wherein a flameproof material (page 8, line 22, battery cover sheet 10 with flame retardancy) contains organic fibers and/or inorganic fibers (page 8, lines 23-31). The fibers mentioned in Nishikawa page 8, lines 23-31, include both inorganic fibers (glass fiber) and organic fiber (polyimide fiber). Nishikawa further teaches that inclusion of such fibers provides improved flame retardancy heat dissipation, and stability (page 17, lines 50-52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the heat dissipation member of Churchill to include organic fibers and/or inorganic fibers as taught by Nishikawa in order to improve flame retardancy heat dissipation, and stability (page 17, lines 50-52).
Regarding claim 9, Churchill teaches all claim limitations of claim 6 as stated above. Churchill does not explicitly teach a limitation wherein the elastic member is a tubular body which is open at both ends. However, Churchill teaches that the thermal management multilayer sheet may be applied to cylindrical battery cell ([0027]). A cylindrical cell necessarily includes a curved side wall extending between two open ends. When a sheet-shaped elastic member is wrapped around the peripheral surface of such a cylindrical cell, as taught by Churchill, the resulting structure forms a tubular body surrounding the side wall of the cell. Additionally, paragraph [0046] discloses that the multilayer sheet may extend past an edge of an electrochemical cell in order to cover at least a portion or all of a surface of the cell. Thus, Churchill contemplates configurations in which the elastic member surrounds the cylindrical side wall while remaining open at the top and bottom ends of the cell, as claimed. Further, Nishikawa explicitly teaches this limitation wherein an elastic member (coating sheet 10, which includes fiber base material, for example rubber [page 8, lines 7-10, and 51], which is similar to elastic rubber member disclosed in Churchill) is a tubular body which is open at both ends (a coating sheet 10, that covers the outer peripheral surface of the cylindrical lithium-ion battery 20A, except for both end surfaces [page 3, lines 55-59, FIG. 1A. Middle figure]). Such a configuration corresponds to an elastic member with tubular body open at both ends. Nishikawa additionally teaches that the battery cover sheet is used to facilitate efficient arrangement of a plurality of batteries (page 1, lines 12-13). Further, Churchill, and Nishikawa are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of battery pack.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the elastic member of Churchill to have a tubular body open at both ends as taught by Nishikawa in order to facilitate efficient arrangement of a plurality of batteries (page 1, lines 12-13).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Churchill, as modified by Nishikawa, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Nakano et al. (JP 2019053816 A, citations from enclosed machine translation)
Regarding claim 10, Churchill, as modified by Nishikawa, teaches all claim limitations of claim 9 as stated above. Churchill does not teach a limitation wherein the elastic member has a plurality of grooves extending in an inner surface of the tubular body from one end to the other end of the tubular body. However, Nakano teaches this limitation (longitudinal grooves 6 in Fig. 1, [0031]). In particular, Nakano discloses a battery holder 2 including a tubular insertion portion 4 having longitudinal grooves 6 formed on the inner surface of the insertion portion and extending in the longitudinal direction of the cylindrical battery (four longitudinal grooves 6 in Figs 1-3, [0031]). These grooves extend along the inner surface in the longitudinal direction of the cylindrical battery and can suppress heat conduction throughout the cylindrical battery ([0038]) . Further, modified Churchill, and Nakano are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of battery pack.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the elastic member structure of modified Churchill, to include a plurality of longitudinal grooves on the inner surface of the tubular body as taught by Nakano in order to suppress heat conduction throughout the cylindrical battery ([0038]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Churchill, as modified by Nishikawa, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20170125755 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Churchill, as modified by Nishikawa, teaches all claim limitations of claim 9 as stated above. Churchill does not teach a limitation wherein the elastic member has a plurality of through holes piercing the tubular body from one end to the other end of the tubular body. However, Kim discloses this limitation. Specifically Kim teaches battery packaging module that includes a heat dissipation member 310a having a plurality of insertion cylinders arranged in a lattice type and through-holes 312 formed between the insertion cylinders in a direction that is parallel to the longitudinal direction of the insertion cylinders (Fig 10-11, [0093-0094]). Kim further teaches that the through-holes extend along the longitudinal direction of the insertion cylinders and allow air to circulate through the heat dissipation member to perform a cooling and temperature control function ([0101]). Further, modified Churchill, and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of thermal management of battery pack.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the elastic member of modified Churchill to include a plurality of longitudinal through-holes, as taught by Kim, in order to improve cooling and temperature regulation of the battery cells ([0101]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/275,101 (reference application, which has common inventors). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
Reference claims 6 (encompassing limitations of reference claims 1 and 4) reads on instant claim 8 (and instant claims 1 and 6, from which instant claim 8 depends) because reference claims 6 and instant claim 8 necessitate the following features:
An assembled battery in which a plurality of battery cells is connected serially or in parallel, the battery cells each having an electrode surface having an electrode and a peripheral surface orthogonal to the electrode surface and being disposed such that the peripheral surfaces face each other;
a flameproof material;
a heat dissipation member;
an elastic member (the insulating material of the reference application which is formed of an elastic material);
elastic member made of a rubber or an elastomer (the insulating material of the reference application which is formed of an elastic material made of a rubber or an elastomer)
Reference claim 6 explicitly teaches the order of layers of instant claim 8, wherein an elastic member disposed between the flameproof material and the heat dissipation member, the elastic member covering at least a part of the peripheral surface of the battery cells which is covered with the flameproof material and pressing the battery cells.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lili Rassouli whose telephone number is (571)272-9760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM-4:00 PM.
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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/LILI RASSOULI/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/JESSIE WALLS-MURRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728