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.
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.
Claim 14 is 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 14 recites the limitation "the directional guider" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al.
(US 2019/0097192 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. discloses a battery module (paragraph 0032 and Fig. 2, battery module 10), comprising: a battery cell assembly including a plurality of battery cells (paragraph 0034 and Fig. 2, plurality of battery cells 100); a module housing configured to accommodate the battery cell assembly (paragraph 0035 and Fig. 2, case frame 200 may accommodate plurality of battery cells 100); and an end cover coupled to the module housing (paragraph 0037 and Fig. 2, case cover 300 mounted to case frame 200), wherein when a flame or gas is generated inside the module housing, the end cover is configured to disperse the flame or gas and guide the flame or gas in a predetermined direction (paragraphs 0057-0058 and Figs. 2 and 5, cover outlet 350 for discharging gas).
Regarding claim 12, Kim et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kim et al. further discloses a battery pack, comprising: at least one battery module as defined in claim 1 (paragraph 0079 and Fig. 6, battery pack 1 may include at least one battery module 10); and a pack case configured to package the at least one battery module (paragraph 0079 and Fig. 6, pack case 50 for packaging the at least one battery module 10).
Regarding claim 13, Kim et al. discloses the limitations of claim 12. Kim et al. further discloses a vehicle, comprising at least one battery pack as defined in claim 12 (paragraph 0080, battery pack 1 may be provided to a vehicle).
Claims 1-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (US 2019/0088914 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Choi et al. discloses a battery module (paragraph 0035 and Fig. 2, battery case), comprising: a battery cell assembly including a plurality of battery cells (paragraph 0036 and Fig. 2, cell assembly 11 including a plurality of stacked battery cells 11); a module housing configured to accommodate the battery cell assembly; and an end cover coupled to the module housing (paragraphs 0035 and 0041 and Figs. 1 and 2, frame cover 200 welded to side surface of frame unit 100), wherein when a flame or gas is generated inside the module housing, the end cover is configured to disperse the flame or gas and guide the flame or gas in a predetermined direction (paragraph 0057 and Fig. 6, gas G discharged through discharge unit 230 of frame cover 200).
Regarding claim 2, Choi et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1. Choi et al. further discloses wherein the end cover is provided at ends of the module housing and guides the flame or gas in the module housing to an upper side of the ends of the module housing (paragraph 0059 and Figs. 2 and 3, two frame covers 200 on each end of frame unit 100 with outlet hole B).
Regarding claim 3, Choi et al. discloses the limitations of claim 2. Choi et al. further discloses wherein the end cover includes a cover body mounted at the ends of the module housing (paragraph 0042 and Fig. 3, plates 221-225), and wherein the cover body has a discharge hole that is opened toward an upper side of the cover body to discharge the flame or gas (paragraph 0059 and Fig. 3, outlet hole B).
Regarding claim 4, Choi et al. discloses the limitations of claim 3. Choi et al. further discloses wherein the end cover includes: a first dispersion guider provided to the cover body and configured to primarily disperse the flame or gas (paragraphs 0049-0052 and Fig. 3, barrier plate 210 with inlet hole A); and at least one second dispersion guider disposed to face the first dispersion guider and configured to secondarily disperse the flame or gas (paragraph 0073 and Fig. 8, guide rail 231 facing barrier plate 210).
Regarding claim 5, Choi et al. discloses the limitations of claim 4. Choi et al. further discloses wherein the first dispersion guider is disposed to face the battery cell assembly (paragraph 0044 and Figs. 2 and 3, barrier plate 210 facing cell assembly 10).
Regarding claim 8, Choi et al. discloses the limitations of claim 4. Choi et al. further discloses wherein the at least one second dispersion guider has a rib structure of a whirlwind shape (paragraph 0073 and Fig. 8, guide rail 231 with spiral shape).
Regarding claim 9, Choi et al. discloses the limitations of claim 4. Choi et al. further discloses wherein the end cover includes a directional guider disposed to face the second dispersion guider (paragraph 0059 and Fig. 8, discharge unit 230 facing guide rail 231) and configured to guide a discharge direction of the flame or gas (paragraph 0059 and Fig. 6, gas G flows into discharge unit 230).
Regarding claim 10, Choi et al. discloses the limitations of claim 9. Choi et al. further discloses wherein the directional guider is configured to communicate with the discharge hole and guide the flame or gas toward the discharge hole (paragraph 0059 and Fig. 6, discharge unit 230 may communicate with the outside through outlet hole B).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2019/0088914 A1) in view of Iwatsuki et al. (WO 2020059298 A1, see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 6, Choi et al. teaches the limitations of claim 4. Choi et al. does not teach wherein the first dispersion guider is a mesh member made of a metal material.
Iwatsuki et al. teaches wherein the first dispersion guider is a mesh member made of a metal material (paragraph 0044, metal filter 34 is made of a metal mesh).
Choi et al. and Iwatsuki et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the barrier plate of Choi et al. with the teachings of Iwatsuki et al. to yield the predictable result of dispersing the flame or gas, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B). In addition, doing so would allow for the capture of fine particles contained in the gas (Iwatsuki et al. paragraph 0055).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2019/0088914 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0097192 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Choi et al. teaches the limitations of claim 4. Choi et al. does not teach wherein the at least one second dispersion guider is configured to communicate with the discharge hole.
Kim et al. teaches wherein the at least one second dispersion guider is configured to communicate with the discharge hole (paragraph 0062 and Fig. 5, mesh member 370 is in communication with cover outlet 350).
Choi et al. and Kim et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery module of Choi et al. with the teachings of Kim et al. to yield the predictable result of dispersing the flame or gas, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A). In addition, doing so would allow for the filtration of flame, dust, and fragments (Kim et al. paragraph 0076).
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2019/0088914 A1) in view of Kusunoki et al. (US 2015/0072184 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Choi et al. teaches the limitations of claim 9. Choi et al does not teach wherein the directional guider includes at least one offset fin.
Kusunoki et al. teaches wherein the directional guider includes at least one offset fin (paragraph 0146 and Fig. 11C, shield plates 131I-134I).
Choi et al. and Kusunoki et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery module of Choi et al. with the teachings of Kusunoki et al., and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Doing so would reduce the possibility of foreign matter entering the battery (Kusunoki et al. paragraph 150).
Regarding claim 14, Choi et al. teaches the limitations of claim 4. Choi et al does not teach wherein the directional guider is formed by a plurality of first rows alternately stacked with a plurality of second rows in a vertical direction, each of the plurality of first rows and the plurality of second rows formed in the shape of a square wave, with the second row offset in a horizontal direction relative to the first row.
Kusunoki et al. teaches wherein the directional guider is formed by a plurality of first rows alternately stacked with a plurality of second rows in a vertical direction (paragraph 0146 and Fig. 11C, first row consisting of 132I and 134I and second row consisting of 131I and 133I), with the second row offset in a horizontal direction relative to the first row (Fig. 11C, first and second rows are horizontally offset). In addition, Kusunoki et al. teaches that the shield plates are semicircle plates (paragraph 0147-0148 and Fig. 11C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery module of Choi et al. with the teachings of Kusunoki et al., and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Doing so would reduce the possibility of foreign matter entering the battery (Kusunoki et al. paragraph 0150).
Modified Choi does not teach that each of the plurality of first rows and the plurality of second rows formed in the shape of a square wave. However, changing the first and second rows from a semicircular shape to a square wave shape would not modify the operation of the battery module, and such a change in shape would have been a matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jackie Liang whose telephone number is (571)-272-0880. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 4:30PM.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571)-272-1307. 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.
/J.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/TAMIR AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726